" ! COMMITTEE PRINT 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

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 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2005 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGcongress.#13
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO U.S. TRADE LAWS AND MISCELLANEOUS 

DUTY SUSPENSION BILLS 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

1 

23–732 

" ! COMMITTEE PRINT 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

WMCP: 

2006

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 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2005 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGcongress.#13
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman 

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida 

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut 

WALLY HERGER, California 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

MARK FOLEY, Florida 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

ALLISON H. GILES, Chief of Staff 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman 

WALLY HERGER, California 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

MARK FOLEY, Florida 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
iii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

iv 

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 

Lund ́n, 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


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

v 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

vi 

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 ReinfurtJaeger, 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 Communaut ́e Europ ́enne, 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

vii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

viii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

ix 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

x 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xi 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xii 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xiii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xiv 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xv 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xvi 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xvii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xviii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xix 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xx 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xxi 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xxii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xxiii 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
Page

xxiv 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
(1) 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–0649 

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 deVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
2 

liveries 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
3 

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 (pDichlorobenzene). 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
4 

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-Triazine2,4,6-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,Nbis(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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
5 

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-dimethylhydantoin. 

H.R. 1923—A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on booster and master cyl asybrake. 

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 asypower 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
6 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
7 

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-iodo2-[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-1H1,2,4-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-dimethyl2[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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
8 

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 TrinexapacEthyl. 

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 heVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
9 

lium. 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 highperformance 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
10 

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 PPhenylphenol. 

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 FT248. 

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 semimanufactured 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
11 

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 cathoderay 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-NVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
12 

[(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-dihydro4-[[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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
13 

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-dihydro2,6-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 ]difuran2,6-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-chloro1,3,5-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-dihydro2,6-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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
14 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
15 

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 BisBenzotriazolyl 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-chloro6-[(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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
16 

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+-bromo748+-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 diiodomethylp-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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
17 

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-Dimethyl2-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-chlorophenoxyacetic 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
18 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
19 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–6649 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
20 

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-Dimethoxy2-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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
21 

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 

f 

Vice President-Legal, General Counsel 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
22 

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. 

f 

[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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
23 

1 Reference is GAO–01–326, page 9. 

2 Conditions of competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S. market, Investigation No 

332.–453, USITC Publication 3692, May 2004. 

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. 

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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
24 

3To 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. 4Page 8–4, section 123 of ‘The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984. 

• 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

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

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
25 

5The 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 

Continued 

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 nondairy 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


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
26 

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 

f 

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: 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
27 

• 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). 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
28 

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. 

f 

Edward J. Farrell 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
29 

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 

f 

Washington Representative 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
30 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
31 

• ‘‘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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
32 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
33 

521 in the MTB and to reject any efforts to impede U.S. trade in these milk proteins. 

Stan McCarthy 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
34 

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 tenyear 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 tariffrate 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
35 

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 domesticallyproduced 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
36 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
37 

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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
38 

sponse 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 intermediateterm 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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
39 

[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 

f 

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 opposiVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
40 

tion 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
41 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
42 

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 

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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
43 

3 Ibid, 9–4 

4 Ibid, 9–23 

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 allmilk 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

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
44 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
45 

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, 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
46 

1One 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. 

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 

f 

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

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
47 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
48 

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. 

f 

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 

————— 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
49 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
50 

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 run- ner 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, capVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
51 

italism, 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). 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
52 

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 oldtime 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
53 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
54 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
55 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
56 

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 

f 

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 exVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
57 

change.’’ ‘‘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) mo ̈glicherweise versucht, die Anschla ̈ge vom 11. September 2001 durch illegalen Kunsthandel zu finanzieren. Der Kopf der Gruppe, der 

A ̈ gypter Mohammed Atta, sprach 2000 oder 2001 die Go ̈ttinger 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 Begru ̈ndung 

mo ̈glicherweise auch gea ̈ussert, er brauche das Geld, um den Ankauf eines 

Flugzeugs zu finanzieren. Der Kontakt nach Go ̈ttingen war u ̈ ber die Technische 

Universita ̈t Harburg [sic] vermittelt wordern, an der Atta damals studierte. Weil die 

Professorin ihn auf das Auktionshaus Sotheby’s verwies, kam kein Gesch ̈ft 

zustande. Atta war Anfang 2000 aus den Qaida-Ausbildungslagern in Afghanistan 

zuru ̈ ck nach Deutschland gekommen, um die Anschla

f 

 ̈ge 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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
58 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Executive Director 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
59 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
60 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth Simpson 

f 

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, 

f 

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 AfghaniVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
61 

stan. 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 

f 

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? 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
62 

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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
63 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
64 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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: 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
65 

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. 

f 

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. 

f 

Tara Eagle 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
66 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
67 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
68 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
69 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
70 

the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding of the world’s and our own 

cultural heritage. 

f 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
71 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
72 

the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding of the world’s and our own 

cultural heritage. 

Sincerely, 

f 

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. 

f 

Archaeologist 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
73 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
74 

1See 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. 2What 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. §§ 2601–2613. 

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, 

f 

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’’), 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


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
75 

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.’’). 5See 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.). 

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. 

• 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
76 

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 IndoScythian rulers. (Leo Mildenberg and Silvia Hurter, The Arthur S. Dewing Collection Nos. 

2716–2731 (ANS 1985).) 

(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. 

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 seiVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
77 

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.). 

zure, 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 GrecoBactrian 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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
78 

8For 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. 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). 

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. 

• 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: 

• 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, 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
79 

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. 

f 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
80 

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 

f 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
81 

1The 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. 2For 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). 

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 

f 

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. 

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


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
82 

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. §§ 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 

f 

Professor and President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
83 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
84 

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. 

f 

Staffan Lunde ́n 

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, 

f 

Sydne B. Marshall, Ph.D., RPA 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
85 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
86 

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. 

f 

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, 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
87 

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. 

f 

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. 

f 

Angela Redman 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
88 

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. §§ 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, 

f 

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, 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
89 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
90 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
91 

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 

f 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
92 

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 naı ́ve 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
93 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
94 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
95 

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 A ́ n 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
96 

(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 IndoScythian 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 IndoScythian 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 IndoScythians, 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
97 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
98 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
99 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
100 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
101 

1On 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. 2The 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. 

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

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 realtime 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
102 

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 ‘‘allothers’’ 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 legislaVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
103 

1See, 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). 2Steel at 1, n.1, 14, 26. 

tion. 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 

f 

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. § 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
104 

3Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002; To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From 

Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 Fed. Reg. 10553 (March 7, 2002). 4Memorandum 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). 5Steel 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. 6Proclamation 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). 8http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031204-5.html (last accessed March 18, 

2005). 9Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70 Fed. Reg. 12133 (March 11, 2005) (Interim 

Final Rule). 10 Interim Final Rule at 12133–34. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
105 

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. 

f 

Counsel to Trinity Industries, Inc. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
106 

1See, 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.). 2See, e.g., Customs Headquarters Ruling 965157 of May 14, 2002; New York Customs Ruling 

G87681 of May 14, 2002 (issued to Ergodyne, Inc.). 

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

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 deVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
107 

3See 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.) 

signed 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. 

§ 1625). 

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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
108 

quired 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 

f 

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 antidumping 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
109 

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 near- ly $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 

f 

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 comVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
110 

panies 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 antidumping 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
111 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
112 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
113 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
114 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
115 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
116 

1 Available on the WTO website at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm. 

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 antidumping 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. 

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 antidumping 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 subseVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
117 

2 Available on the CBO website at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/51xx/doc5130/03-02- 

ThomasLetter.pdf. 

quently 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. 

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 Mu ̈ller 

General Manager 

American Chamber of Commerce in Germany e.V. 

The American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (AmCham) is a private, nonprofit 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
118 

1See 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). 

relations and promoting Germany as an investment location. The chamber also 

serves as a link to investors in the United States. 

f 

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. 

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, 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
119 

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). 

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. 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
120 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
121 

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 

f 

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 enveVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
122 

lopes, 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
123 

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 

f 

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. § 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
124 

• 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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
125 

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 

f 

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 antidumping 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
126 

1 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106–387, 114 Stat. 1549 (2000). 2 Http://www.citac.info/press/release/205/08_01.php 

• 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. 

f 

[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. 

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 payVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
127 

3http://www.citac.info/press/release/205/08_01.php 4 Request for Consultations, WT/DS217/1 (Jan. 9, 2001), available at http://wto.org. 

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]. 6See id. At 8.1. 7See id. At 8.4–8.6. 8See 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). 9See id. 

10Decision 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). 11See id. 12See id. 13See id. at 5.2. 14See 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. 15GATT, pmbl. 16This 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 

Continued 

ments in 2004 went to only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 companies.3

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’’). 

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

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

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

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

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
128 

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. 17 Charkravarthi Raghavan, Three Disputes Sent to Panel, Third World Network (July 24, 

2001), at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/disputes/htm. 18http/:www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php 19Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, (Mar. 2, 2004). 20See id. 21See id. 22See id. 

WTO decision, is abandoning the principles of international trade which it successfully advocated over the past half century. 

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. 

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. 

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

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

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 petiVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
129 

tions 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
130 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
131 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

Ambassador 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
132 

[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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
133 

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 

f 

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 lightcommercial 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 comVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00159 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
134 

ponent 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 antidumping 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. 

f 

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 dumpVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00160 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
135 

ing 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 

f 

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 allothers 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
136 

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 AdVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
137 

ministration 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
138 

Thank you for considering these comments. 

Sincerely, 

James A. Repman 

f 

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 cocomplainants 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 Byrdlike 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
139 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
140 

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 

f 

Executive Director 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
141 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
142 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
143 

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 

f 

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 antidumping 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
144 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
145 

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 damagelike’’ 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
146 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

Executive Director 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
147 

[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 rulesbased 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 SubCommittee if required. 

Yours sincerely, 

Gary J Campkin 

f 

Head, International Group 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
148 

[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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
149 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
150 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
151 

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, WTOlegal 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 

f 

Chairman 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
152 

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 

f 

General Counsel 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
153 

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, 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
154 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
155 

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 workVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
156 

force 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
157 

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 countryspecific 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
158 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
159 

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 wellknown 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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
160 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
161 

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. 

Andre ́s Bianchi 

f 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
162 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
163 

1This data excludes pharmaceuticals. 

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

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
164 

1 Available on the WTO website at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm 

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 antidumping 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. 

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 antidumping 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
165 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
166 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
167 

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 

f 

[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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
168 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
169 

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 

f 

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 allothers 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 colVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00195 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
170 

lected 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 

f 

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.’’ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
171 

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 antidumping 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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
172 

[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 

f 

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 

f 

Chief of legal department 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
173 

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 

f 

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: 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
174 

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 antidumping 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 antidumping 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 antiVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00200 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
175 

dumping 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-Ja ̈ger 

f 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
176 

1See 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) 

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 

f 

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 sesVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00202 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
177 

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. 4 In the case of Chile, the authorization was granted on December 17, 2004. 

sion of Congress, two bills aiming to implement the WTO ruling were introduced 

without avail. 

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. 

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 rulebased 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. 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
178 

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. 

f 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
179 

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 

f 

Vice President and General Manager 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
180 

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 

f 

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’’) 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
181 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
182 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
183 

We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the Subcommittee. 

Thomas K. Wilcher 

f 

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 

f 

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 draVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00209 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
184 

matically 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
185 

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 ‘‘allothers’’ 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
186 

ISU appreciates the Subcommittee accepting these comments and taking them 

into consideration during its deliberations. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Mark Glyptis 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
187 

We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the Subcommittee. 

Sophia Chen 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
188 

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 countervailingduty (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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
189 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
190 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
191 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
192 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
193 

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) 

f 

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 subVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00219 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
194 

sidized 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 

f 

Executive Director 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
195 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
196 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
197 

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, 

f 

Thomas Peacock 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
198 

[By permission of the Chairman:] 

Statement of Philippe De Buck, L’Union des Industries de la Communaut ́

Europ ́ enne, 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 

Fe ́de ́ration des Entreprises de Belgique—Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen 

(VBO–FEB) 

Fe ́de ́ration des Entreprises Suisse—ECONOMIESUISSE 

Confederation of Swiss Employers 

Employers & Industrialists Federation Cyprus—OEB 

Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V.—BDI 

Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverba ̈nde e.V.—BDA 

Confederation of Danish Industries—DI 

Confederation of Danish Employers—DA 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
199 

Confe ́de ́ration des Employeurs Espagnols—CEOE 

Mouvement des Entreprises de France—MEDEF 

Confederation of British Industry—CBI 

Fe ́de ́ration des Industries Grecques—SEV 

Confederazione Generale dell’ Industria Italiana—CONFINDUSTRIA 

Irish Business and Employers Confederation—IBEC 

Federation of Icelandic Industries—FII (Samto ̈k idnadarins) 

Confederation of Icelandic Employers 

Fe ́de ́ration des Industriels Luxembourgeois—FEDIL 

Malta Federation of Industry—MFOI (Malta) 

Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise—NHO 

Vereniging VNO–NCW (The Hague) 

Associac ̧a ́o Industrial Portuguesa—AIP 

Confederac ̧a ́o da Indu ́ stria Portuguesa—CIP 

Confederation of Swedish Enterprise/Svenskt Na ̈ ringsliv 

Confederation of Finnish Industries—EK 

Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association—TU ̈ SIAD (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 

f 

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 proviVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00225 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
200 

sion 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
201 

Thank you for considering these comments. 

Very truly yours, 

Jeffry H. Brozyna 

Senior Vice President-Corporate Services/General Counsel 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
202 

• 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 

f 

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. proVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00228 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
203 

ducers 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 antidumping 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
204 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
205 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
206 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President and Chief Executive Officer 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
207 

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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
208 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
209 

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 

f 

Vice President, Purchasing North America 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
210 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
211 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
212 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
213 

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 

f 

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. § 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
214 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
215 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
216 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
217 

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 

f 

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 

Tariff Code Description 

2005 

NAFTA 

Duty 

Retaliatory 

Duty 

1704.10.01 Chewing Gum 0% 9% 

1704.90.99 Sugar Confectionery 0% 9% 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
218 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23732a.001
219 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23732a.002
220 

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. 

f 

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 packVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00246 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
221 

age 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 

f 

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 ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00247 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
222 

1The 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. 2The 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. 3One 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. 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 

mittee 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. 

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 nostrings-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

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. 

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


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
223 

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. 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. 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. 7Department 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. 

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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
224 

9For 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. 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). 

whom shrimp has become an increasingly important part of their food diets, and the 

retailers (grocery stores, restaurants) who serve them. 

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 longrunning 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

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

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 texVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00250 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
225 

tile 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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
226 

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. 

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. 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
227 

We appreciate your support. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Jean Riley 

Vice President 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
228 

1The 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. 

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 abovefair-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. 

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 (suspenVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00254 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
229 

sion 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 

f 

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 antidumping 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
230 

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 near- ly $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. 

f 

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 deterVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00256 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
231 

mining 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 ‘‘allothers 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. 

f 

Chairman and CEO 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
232 

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 multifamily 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 antidumping 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
233 

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 

f 

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, 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
234 

*: Funded by the Precision Metalforming Association 

**: Precision Economics, LLC; Washington, DC 

***: American Enterprise Institute; Washington, DC 

1Schmitz, 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. 

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 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
235 

2 Ikenson, Dan, ‘‘‘Byrdening’ Relations: U.S. Trade Policies Continue to Flout the Rules,’’ Free 

Trade Bulletin, No. 5, January 13, 2004. 3Due 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. 4 Ikenson, Dan, ‘‘‘Byrdening’ Relations: U.S. Trade Policies Continue to Flout the Rules,’’ Free 

Trade Bulletin, No. 5, January 13, 2004. 

2001 nearly 900 separate claims were filed reportedly requesting $1.2 trillion in duties.2

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 

Year 

Total 

Amount 

Distributed ($ 

million) 

Total 

Amount 

Distributed to 

Steel 

Manufacturers ($ 

million) 

Percentage 

of Total Distributed to 

Steel 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

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. 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
236 

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. 

producers to file cases and to expand their coverage to a wide range of products— 

even if they only have a trivial market share.

f 

5

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
237 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
238 

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 damagelike’’ 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
239 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
240 

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 foot- wear 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 foot- wear 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
241 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
242 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
243 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
244 

1 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106–387, 114 Stat. 1549 (2000). 

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 

f 

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 § 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’’). 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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
245 

2http://www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php 3http://www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php 4 Request for Consultations, WT/DS217/1 (Jan. 9, 2001), available at http://wto.org. 

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]. 6See id. at 8.1. 7See id. at 8.4–8.6 8See 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). 9See id. 

10Decision 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). 11See id. 12See id. 13See id. at 5.2. 14See 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. 

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

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’’). 

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

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

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

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
246 

15GATT, pmbl. 16This 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, § 2.1 (1994), available at 

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf. 17 Charkravarthi Raghavan, Three Disputes Sent to Panel, Third World Network (July 24, 

2001), at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/disputes/htm. 18http://www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php 19Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, (Mar. 2, 2004). 20See id. 21See id. 

trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations.’’ 15

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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 domesVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00272 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
247 

22See id. 

tic 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

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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
248 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
249 

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 antidumping 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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
250 

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 

f 

President, CEO 

Statement of Deborah Long, Southern Shrimp Alliance 

This statement reflects the views of the Southern Shrimp Alliance (‘‘SSA’’), a nonprofit 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
251 

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. 

f 

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’’ dumpVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00277 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
252 

ing 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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
253 

1Specifically, 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). 2 19 U.S.C. § 3801(b)(3). 

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. 

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

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: 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
254 

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). 5Dispute 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). 6Dispute 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). 7The 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). 8S. Rep. 107–139, at 55 (2002). 

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

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

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

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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
255 

9 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, P.L. 108–199 (Jan. 23, 2004); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108–447 (Dec. 8, 2004). 10 19 U.S.C. § 3802(14). 11 H.R. Rep. 107–624, at 156 (2002). 12S. Rep. 107–139, at 54 (2002). 13For 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. 

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

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

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. 

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. 

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

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
256 

15 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5). 

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. 

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 ‘‘allothers’’ 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, 

f 

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: 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
257 

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 antidumping 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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
258 

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 southcentral 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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
259 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
260 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
261 

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 

f 

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 de ́cor, 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
262 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
263 

• 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
264 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
265 

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 

f 

John Layous 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
266 

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 

f 

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. AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00292 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
267 

ican 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
268 

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 nonsubsidized 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, 

f 

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 distribVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00294 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
269 

uted, 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
270 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
271 

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, 

f 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
272 

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 

f 

[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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
273 

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 ́

f 

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 antidumping 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
274 

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 

f 

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 antidumping 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
275 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
276 

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 

f 

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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00302 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
277 

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, 

f 

Leslie W. Thompson 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
278 

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 underVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00304 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
279 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
280 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
281 

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 

f 

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. VaughanBassett 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
282 

Thank you for considering our comments. 

Sincerely, 

John D. Bassett III 

f 

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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
283 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
284 

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 

f 

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 addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00310 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
285 

tion, 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 

f 

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 

f 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
286 

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 

f 

Executive Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
287 

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 

f 

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 WielandWerke AG: 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
288 

• 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 Ha ̈uβler 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
289 

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 antidumping 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
290 

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 

f 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
291 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
292 

Please contact me should you require additional information on these or other provisions. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stephen Lamar 

f 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
293 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
294 

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 

f 

General Counsel and Secretary 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
295 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
296 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
297 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
298 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
299 

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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
300 

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 

f 

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 Amylanthraquinone (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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
301 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Sr. V.P. of Intellectual Property 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
302 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
303 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
304 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
305 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
306 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
307 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
308 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
309 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
310 

• 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. 

f 

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. 

f 

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 competiVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00336 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
311 

tion 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 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
312 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
313 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President/CEO 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
314 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
315 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
316 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
317 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
318 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
319 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
320 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
321 

• 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. 

f 

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 pDichlorobenzene 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 

jamie.schaeffer@lanxess.com. 

Yours sincerely, 

Jamie B. Schaeffer 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
322 

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 

f 

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.’’ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
323 

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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
324 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
325 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
326 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
327 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
328 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
329 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
330 

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. § 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
331 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
332 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
333 

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 nonNAFTA 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. 

f 

Edward F. Gerwin, Jr. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
334 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
335 

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 

f 

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 dutyfree 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
336 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
337 

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 

f 

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 

f 

CEO/President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
338 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
339 

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 dutyfree 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
340 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
341 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Renee Chiuchiarelli 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
342 

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 

f 

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. § 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
343 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Renee Chiuchiarelli 

f 

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: 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
344 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
345 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
346 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
347 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
348 

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 

f 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
349 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
350 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
351 

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 

f 

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 necVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00377 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
352 

essary 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
353 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
354 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
355 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
356 

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 noncontroversial 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
357 

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 

f 

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). 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
358 

Celanese appreciates the opportunity to provide comment. I would be pleased to 

provide additional information at the Committee’s request. 

Bob Carpenter 

f 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
359 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 toyrelated 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). 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
360 

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 ViewMastertype 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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 toyrelated 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
361 

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 ViewMastertype 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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 toyrelated 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
362 

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 ViewMastertype 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. 

f 

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 

f 

On behalf of Tara Toy Corporation 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
363 

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 toyrelated 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 ViewMastertype 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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
364 

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 

f 

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 toyrelated 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 ViewMastertype 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. 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
365 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
366 

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 

f 

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 doVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00392 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
367 

mestic 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
368 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
369 

1See 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). 

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. 

f 

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. 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
370 

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). 

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. 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
371 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
372 

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 

f 

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 allothers 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
373 

• 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 

f 

President/CEO 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
374 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
375 

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 

f 

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’’. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
376 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
377 

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 

f 

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 nonexistent 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
378 

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 

f 

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 allothers rate in antidumping cases.’’ These bills are controversial and should be deleted from the final miscellaneous trade bill. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
379 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
380 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
381 

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 

f 

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 substanVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00407 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
382 

1See 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) 

tial 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 ‘‘allothers’’ 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
383 

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. 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
384 

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 

f 

Executive Director 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
385 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
386 

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 

f 

Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
387 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
388 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
389 

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 ‘‘allothers 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. 

f 

Chairman and CEO 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
390 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
391 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
392 

1Specifically, 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). 

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 

f 

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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
393 

2 19 U.S.C. § 3801(b)(3). 3 19 U.S.C. § 3805(b)(3). 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). 5Dispute 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). 6Dispute 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). 7The 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). 8S. 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). 

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

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: 

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

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

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

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
394 

10 19 U.S.C. § 3802(14). 11 H.R. Rep. 107–624, at 156 (2002). 12S. Rep. 107–139, at 54 (2002). 13For 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. 

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

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

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. 

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. 

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 numVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00420 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
395 

14 H.R. Rep. No. 109–118, at 75 (2005). 15 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5). 

ber of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations conducted by Commerce 

has ‘‘decreased significantly’’ in recent years.14

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. 

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 ‘‘allothers’’ 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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
396 

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 

f 

John Layous 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
397 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
398 

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 

f 

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 staVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00424 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
399 

ple 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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
400 

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 

f 

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, wideangle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, 

head sets, seat posts, all the foregoing for chief use on bicycles. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
401 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
402 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
403 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
404 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
405 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
406 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
407 

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, finVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00433 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
408 

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. 2For 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. 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 

ishers 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

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 StatesCaribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA).2

? ? ? 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


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
409 

quantities in a timely manner. He authorized CITA and USTR to submit the required report 

to the Congress. 4Decitex 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. 5Treated 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. 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. 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 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. 

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

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 ? ? ? 

? ? ? 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
410 

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. 11Doug Noble, Lenzing Fibers, Lowland, TN, telephone interview by Commission staff, June 

5 and 6, 2001. 12Donald Vidler, Commercial Director, Acordis Cellulosic Fibers Inc., New York, NY, telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 4, 2001. ***12 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. 14Lee Gordon, Senior Vice-President for Product Development, Unifi Inc., Greensboro, NC; Dr. 

David Buchanan, Professor and Assistant Dean, College of Textiles, North Carolina State Unifilament fiber is highly porous, which results in easy dyeability, high moisture and 

water absorption, and compatibility with finishing resins. 

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. 

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; ? ? ? 

? ? ? NO FOOTNOTE REFERENCE FOR #12 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 absorpVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00436 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
411 

versity; and Dr. Marjorie Norton, Professor of Clothing and Textiles, Virginia Tech University, 

telephone interviews by Commission staff, Dec. 6, 7, and 18, 2001, respectively. 15These 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. 16Tenacity 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. 17Lee 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. 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. 20 *** 22 Amy Caplin, Principal, Fitness Fabrics Ltd., New York, NY, telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 7, 2001. 23William J. Milowitz, Vice President, Duro Industries, Inc., Fall River, MA, written submission to CITA, Dec. 6, 2001. 24William J. Milowitz, Vice President, Duro Industries, Inc., telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 10, 2001. 25 John Iason, Vice President, Balson Hercules, New York, NY, written submission to CITA, 

Dec. 6, 2001. 26The ‘‘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. 

tion 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

An official of Unifi, Inc.,17 one of the petitioners and a U.S. producer of polyester 

fiber, stated that ***18*** 

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. *** 

? ? ? NO FOOTNOTE REFERENCE FOR #20 20 ? ? ? 

Dyeing and finishing 

An official of Fitness Fabrics Ltd., a fabric converter, ***22** 

***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 *** 

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. 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
412 

28Gail Vander Voort, Quality Assurance Specialist, and John McAndrews, Product Manager, 

Dress Clothing, DSCP, telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 7, 2001. 29 Information in this paragraph is from Ryoma Omuro, Itochu International Inc., New York, 

NY, telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 6, 2001. 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. 31Written 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 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 *** 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. proVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00438 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
413 

32The Commission’s advice is based on information currently available to the Commission. 

ducer, 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

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
414 

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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
415 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
416 

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 proVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00442 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
417 

grams, 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 

f 

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. 

f 

Yarn Division Manager 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
418 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
419 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
420 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
421 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
422 

1See 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. 2See id. at 14. 3 Id. at 19. 4 Id. 

5 Id. at 14. 

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 heavyduty 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

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

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, 

f 

Nancy A. Noonan 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
423 

1See 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. 2See id. at 14. 3 Id. at 19. 4 Id. 

5 Id. at 14. 

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 heavyduty 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

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

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, 

f 

Nancy A. Noonan 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
424 

1See 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. 2See id. at 14. 3 id. at 19. 4 Id. 

5 Id. at 14. 

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 heavyduty 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

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

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, 

f 

Nancy A. Noonan 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
425 

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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00451 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
426 

sideration 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 

f 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
427 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
428 

• 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. 

f 

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 

f 

Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
429 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
430 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
431 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
432 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
433 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
434 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
435 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
436 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
437 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
438 

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 

f 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
439 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
440 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
441 

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 highquality 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
442 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
443 

1Shieldalloy 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. 

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 

f 

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. 

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 SchedVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00469 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
444 

2Mn 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.’’ 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. 4Mn 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. 

ule of the United States (HTSUS),2 and the general rate of duty applicable to this 

subheading is 14 percent. 

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. 

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

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
445 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

J.W. Brown 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
446 

[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 

f 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
447 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

J.W. Brown 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
448 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
449 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
450 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

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. 

f 

J.W. Brown 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
451 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

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 drawVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00477 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
452 

back 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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Executive Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
453 

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, 

f 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
454 

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 

f 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
455 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00481 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
456 

flectors, 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
457 

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 

f 

Tax Department 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
458 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
459 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
460 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
461 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
462 

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 $12,373,598.00 $12,578,801.00 

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 $25,556,529.00 $24,013,151.00 

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 $11,330,110.00 $9,089,254.00 

FINLAND $0.00 $0.00 

SWEDEN $0.00 $0.00 

(Source: USA Trade Online Import Statistics) 

f 

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, wideVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00488 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
463 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
464 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
465 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
466 

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 

f 

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 proVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00492 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
467 

posals. 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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
468 

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 

f 

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 GlassΤΜ, 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
469 

• 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 nonagricultural 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
470 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
471 

H.R. 2478—To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, chain adjustors, 

chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8’’ internal diameter, air horns, wideangle 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
472 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
473 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
474 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
475 

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)). 

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.1Today, however, in 2005, 

there is no basis for any exemption other than under the terms applicable to all 

other government agencies. 

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 twentyfirst 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 decisionmaking 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 

f 

Executive Director 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
476 

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 

f 

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 

f 

Director of Technical Development 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
477 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
478 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

John O’Brien 

Vice President 

f 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
479 

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 

f 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
480 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
481 

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 domesVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00507 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
482 

tic 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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
483 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
484 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
485 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
486 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
487 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
488 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
489 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
490 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
491 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
492 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
493 

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 

f 

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, wideangle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, 

head sets, seat posts, all the foregoing for chief use on bicycles. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
494 

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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
495 

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 

f 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
496 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

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, 

f 

Ken Kleier 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
497 

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. 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
498 

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, 

f 

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. 

f 

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. 

f 

J.W. Brown 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
499 

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 

f 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
500 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
501 

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. 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
502 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
503 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
504 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
505 

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 

f 

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 beVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00531 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
506 

tween 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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
507 

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, 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
508 

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 Braziliandominated 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 deVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00534 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
509 

mand 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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
510 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
511 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
512 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
513 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
514 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
515 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
516 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
517 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 

f 

* Alternate member 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
518 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
519 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
520 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
521 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
522 

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 

f 

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 imVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00548 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
523 

plemented 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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
524 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
525 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
526 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
527 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
528 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
529 

H.R. 2478—To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, chain adjustors, 

chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8’’ internal diameter, air horns, wideangle 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
530 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
531 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
532 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 

f 

*Alternate member 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
533 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
534 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
535 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
536 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
537 

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 

f 

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 supVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00563 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
538 

ports 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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
539 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
540 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
541 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
542 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
543 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
544 

H.R.2478—To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, chain adjustors, 

chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8’’ internal diameter, air horns, wideangle 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
545 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
546 

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 

f 

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 writVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00572 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
547 

ing 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
548 

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 

f 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

BBC International 

BCNY International Inc. 

Bennett Footwear Group 

Cels Enterprises 

C.O. Lynch 

Cole Haan 

Converse 

Drew Shoe Corporation 

Dynasty Footwear 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
549 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
550 

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 

f 

General Counsel and Secretary 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
551 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
552 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
553 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
554 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
555 

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 

f 

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 remainVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00581 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
556 

ing 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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
557 

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 

f 

*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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
558 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
559 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
560 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
561 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
562 

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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
563 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
564 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
565 

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 

f 

General Counsel and Secretary 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
566 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
567 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
568 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
569 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
570 

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 

f 

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 remainVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00596 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
571 

ing 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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
572 

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 

f 

*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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
573 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
574 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
575 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
576 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
577 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
578 

Please contact me should you require additional information on these or other provisions. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stephen Lamar 

f 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
579 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
580 

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 

f 

General Counsel and Secretary 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
581 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
582 

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 

f 

President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
583 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
584 

1Telescopes 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. 2The 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. 3Telescopes 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. 

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 

f 

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 telescopes1 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. 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
585 

4Meade 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. 

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. 

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, 

f 

Peggy Clarke 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
586 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
587 

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). 

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 

f 

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

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
588 

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. 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
589 

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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
590 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
591 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
592 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
593 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
594 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
595 

H.R. 2478—To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, chain adjustors, 

chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8’’ internal diameter, air horns, wideangle 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
596 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
597 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
598 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 

f 

*Alternate member 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
599 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
600 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
601 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
602 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
603 

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 

f 

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 imVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00629 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
604 

plemented 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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
605 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
606 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
607 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
608 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
609 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
610 

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, wideangle 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
611 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
612 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
613 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 

f 

*Alternate member 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
614 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
615 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
616 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
617 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
618 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
619 

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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
620 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
621 

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 

f 

*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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
622 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
623 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
624 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
625 

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, wideangle 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
626 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
627 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
628 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 

f 

*Alternate member 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
629 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
630 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
631 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
632 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
633 

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 

f 

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 imVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00659 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
634 

plemented 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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
635 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
636 

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 

f 

*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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
637 

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 

f 

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 misVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00663 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
638 

cellaneous 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
639 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
640 

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, wideangle 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 

f 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
641 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
642 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
643 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 

f 

*Alternate member 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
644 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
645 

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 

f 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
646 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
647 

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 

f 

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, wideangle 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
648 

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 

f 

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 imVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00674 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
649 

plemented 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 

f 

Sr. Vice President 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
650 

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. 

AZALE ́ IA 

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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
651 

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 

f 

*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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
652 

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 

f 

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 misVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:03 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 237321 PO 00001 Frm 00678 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\23732P1.XXX 23732P1

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
653 

cellaneous 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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
654 

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 

f 

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. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
655 

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, wideangle 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 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with HEARING