DEC 10 '91 08:49 ND DEPT OF AGRICULTURE BISMARCK P.5 Section 301 Must Be Maintained. We must maintain Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This Section allows the U.S. Trade Representative to take prompt and proper action against any country whose unfair trade practices injure a domestic U.S. industry. I strongly hope that this Committee will be able to correct the course of the negotiations now under way. If there is anything I can do to assist this Committee, please let me know. (Attachment follows:) We, the undersigned North Dakota farm organizations and agricultural commodity groups petition the Bush Administration and the U.3. Trade Ambassador to focus on the following objectives in their attempt to reach an agreement in the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations: 1) Xaximum effort should be exerted to negotiate an end to the export subsidies, especially those of the European Community, that are currently depressing market prices, distorting world trade, and costing exporting countries an enormous amount of lost income. 2) We want the negotiations to succeed in prying open foreign markets that have been closed to American agricultural commodities by the same nations that enjoy generous export sales to the U.S. We want reciprocal trade agreements that give American producars a fair and equal opportunity to compete in international markets. 3) We oppose the efforts of the U.5. Trade Ambassador to negotiate away internal domestic support prices programs, We don't believe our domestic farm program should be the business of international trade negotiations. 4) We oppose any action by the U.S. to weaken section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which is designed to provide some protection against damage to our agricultural economy from imports. North Dakota Farm Bureau North Dakota Farmers Union National Farmers organization of N.D. Dakota Resourcs Council Red River Valley Sugar Beat Growers Association North Dakota Grain Growers Association U.S. Durum Growers Association North Dakota Soybean Growers Association North Dakota Barley Council North Dakota Milk Producers Association North Dakota Corn Growers Association M.D. Agriculture Commissioner Sarah Vogel Byron L. Dargan, Member of Congress Let me thank you for taking the initiative to hold this timely hearing on the review of international trade negotiations affecting agricultural policy under the GATT. While we await the outcome of the GATT negotiations, it is important that we not lose sight of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Program because, coupled with GATT, it has the potential to grant foreign producers greater access to domestic markets. In a state such as Pennsylvania in which agriculture is the largest industry, there is great concern regarding the recent decision to review the previously denied GSP petitions from Eastern and Central Europe. I hope your hearing will shed some light on the GSP review process and explore the possible outcome of such a review. Listed below are several questions that I would like you to ask the Honorable Julius L. Katz and Dr. Richard T. Crowder on my behalf regarding the GSP program. Question #1. Prior to the Trade Policy Review Group's recommendation to the President that he reconsider the petition from Eastern and Central Europe for inclusion of Goya cheese, mushrooms, grape wine and some assorted hardware to the GSP list, did the Group conduct any type of economic impact study on domestic producers? If so, what were the findings. If not, why? Question #2. Pennsylvania, particularly the Chester and Butler County areas, is the largest producer of fresh and processed mushrooms in the country. Given the degree of concentration in my state and others, how do you safeguard mushroom growers and thousands of workers against adverse impacts if petitions are granted and all 130 duty free non-quota countries are reviewed? a Question #3. According to the regulations governing GSP, wait of three years is required upon initial rejection of petitions, absent intervention. What has changed in Eastern and Central Europe in 97 days to warrant a review of these petitions? Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate your attention to this matter of great importance to Pennsylvania, and I look forward to working with you on agricultural issues in the future. Sincerely, Най инул Harris Wofford Thank you for your letter of December 18, in which you express concern about the reconsideration of certain petitions from Central and Eastern Europe countries that seek to have products granted duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program. As I indicated to you in an October 18 letter, the re-review of these petitions was initiated in July 1991 under a Special GSP Review for Central and Eastern Europe pursuant to the President's Trade and Enhancement Initiative. In reviewing GSP petitions, the GSP statute directs the President to take into consideration (inter alia) "the effect of such decisions on furthering economic development of beneficiary countries." The decision to rereview was based upon the finding of a team of experts sent to the region in May 1991, which determined that export growth was more crucial to economic development in the region than previously thought. In re-reviewing these petitions the Administration will carefully weigh all factors set out in the GSP law, i.e., the anticipated impact on domestic producers, the extent of the beneficiary county's competitiveness in the product, the extent to which countries (including the European Community) are granting preferences to such countries, and the effect such action will have on furthering the economic development of countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In addition, as noted in the Federal Register of December 18, 1991, "a GSP country could be excluded from GSP eligibility on a newly designated article if that country is found to be sufficiently competitive with respect to that product. Therefore, product designations in the Special GSP Review may be made on a differential basis." In making these determinations, we will bear in mind the concerns raised by U.S. producers, such as those mentioned in your letter. We look forward to working closely with you and your staff as we examine these factors in the re-review process. The public |