which would otherwise recover more quickly, thereby restoring farmers and other agricultural producers to at least sustainable, if not fully profitable, conditions. Accordingly, R-CALF opposes efforts to re-open the WTO Antidumping Agreement and other agreements governing trade remedies in the upcoming negotiations. The current agreement has been in place for only five years. It would be premature to reopen the agreement IV. SPECIAL RULES FOR PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS Agricultural commodities such as cattle and beef, as well as other products, are frequently affected by price volatility and problems arising from perishability that make it impossible to ride out" downturns in the market. Grain and swine producers, as well as ranchers, have seen virtual collapses in prices in recent years, collapses which are widely acknowledged to be due to oversupply. Current international trading rules do not provide adequate and timely mechanisms for remedying these kinds of economic crises. Trade remedies should be available for perishable and seasonal agricultural products that reflect the commercial realities of these products. It bears noting in this regard that the former head of the Uruguay Round agriculture negotiating team observed at the Ag Forum immediately preceding the FTAA Business Forum in Belo Horizonte that specific rules for perishable commodities could be helpful and may be advisable. The Agreement on Agriculture recognizes the need for separate treatment or timelines for perishable and seasonal commodities. R-CALF believes that the United States Trade Representative should add to the agenda in Seattle the issues of special rules that would provide producers with effective tools to deal with these problems. Also, R-CALF requests that the United States include in the negotiations consideration of what special rules are needed to cope with commodity price collapses such as have been and currently are being experienced in livestock and grain. V. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT The agreement on dispute settlement that came out of the Uruguay Round was a substantial improvement on the previous system. However, recent disputes such as the EU Beef Hormone case indicate that additional work in this area is needed, especially in the context of compliance with panel decisions and time periods for implementation. The United States should oppose any proposals that would result in extensions of existing timelines, which would delay relief from measures that are inconsistent with WTO obligations. VI. SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY ISSUES Cattle producers are well acquainted with SPS issues, both as an export issue and an import issue. On the export side, questionable Canadian regulations, for example, impede the export of U.S. feeder cattle to Canada. The EU Beef Hormone dispute exemplifies the problems that cattle producers have in gaining market access for exports of beef. On the import side, the health of domestic livestock depends on effective prevention, control and eradication of pests and diseases. In short, we need full implementation of the SPS Agreement by all of our trading partners. In this regard, strict adherence to sound science is essential. If American producers demonstrate scientifically the absence of any hazards and if we also accept agricultural goods from pest free zones or certified products from other countries, we must have reciprocity and open access to our products as well. VII. LABOR AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUES The work of the WTO Committee on Trade and the Environment is valuable, at least in the area of transparency, and also in terms of efforts to define how multilateral environmental agreements related to the WTO. Cattle producers are among the many U.S. industries that face artificial competitive disadvantages because the labor and environmental standards of the United States are not internationally agreed to or applied. The United States must stress the importance of attaining harmonization at least with our major trading partners in agriculture on these issues. VIII. STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES State trading enterprises (STEs) are another important priority that urgently needs addressing. The impact of STEs such as the Canadian Wheat Board is not limited to the commodity markets in which they specifically operate, but also other markets for which those commodities are an input. For example, the CWB's export restrictions on feed barley distort the conditions of trade in cattle as Canadian ranchers and feedlots receive an effective subsidy for feeding their cattle that U.S. ranchers and feedlots do not. In R-CALF's view, efforts to ensure STE compliance with Article XVII principles have been unsuccessful. The actual elimination of STES appears the only workable solution. IX. RULES OF ORIGIN AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING R-CALF believes that open issues with regard to rules of origin should not be made part of the negotiations, but should instead be handled within the WTO as is. R-CALF joins with other cattle and beef producer organizations in the call for country of origin labeling for imports of beef and beef products. Consumers are entitled to know where their hamburger, steak or pot roast comes from. Many consumers assume that a product which is labeled as USDA-approved was produced in the United States. Country of origin labeling would educate consumers. The proposal for country of origin labeling has been criticized as possibly inconsistent with U.S. WTO obligations. R-CALF disagrees with these assessments, and believes the issue can and should be addressed on a bilateral basis. If necessary, however, the issue also can be addressed in the Seattle context. Concerns that such labeling requirements would be very costly are mistaken. Cattle producers in numerous countries including Canada and Mexico are exploring technologies that would make it possible to track a steer or heifer from the feedlot back to the ranch or farm from which it originally came. If such technology is available, surely it is likewise possible to label the beef that is produced from these animals with the country of origin. Moreover, the estimates of the costs of such a requirement are dwarfed by the amount of trade of cattle and beef. R-CALF appreciates this opportunity to present its views to the Subcommittee on Ways and Means on the important issues facing our negotiators in Seattle in November. We would be pleased to respond to questions or provide any additional information that the Subcommittee might need. Respectfully submitted, LEO R. MCDONNELL, JR. Columbus, MT 59019 JOHN LOCKIE Columbus, Montana HERMAN SCHUMACHER Herreid, SD 57632 DENNIS MCDONALD Melville, MT 59055 BILL DONALD Melville, MT 59055 Big Timber, MT 59011 Statement of Rubber and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association The Rubber and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association (RPFMA) is the spokesman for the manufacturers of most of the rubber-soled, fabric-upper footwear, waterproof footwear, slippers, and components for such footwear made in this country. The names and addresses of the Association's members are attached hereto. Rubber footwear is a labor-intensive, import-sensitive industry: labor constitutes about 40% of total cost; imports of fabric upper footwear and of slippers take more than 90% of the U.S. market and imports of waterproof footwear take close to 50%. These imports are from countries where wages are 1/15th to 1/20th of the level in the domestic industry. The duties on rubber footwear and slippers are considerably higher than the average duty on all manufactured products imported into the United States. With insignificant exceptions, the duties on rubber footwear and slippers were not cut in the Kennedy Round, the Tokyo Round, or the Uruguay Round, and the facts which dictated the maintenance of this industry's duty structure then are even more compelling today. The shrinkage of domestic employment from about 26,000 production workers in the 1970s to about 5,000 today and the increase in market share enjoyed by imports are clear evidence that the duties on rubber footwear and slippers cannot be considered an impediment to the ability of the products of foreign factories to come into this market. The companies which are left in this domestic industry represent the survival of the fittest. Their state-of-the-art facilities, the quality of their products, and their name brand recognition will permit them to continue manufacturing in this country provided that the current level of tariffs on competing imports is not reduced. The rubber footwear and slipper industry recognizes the value to our country of a successful outcome to the trade negotiations which presumably will be jump-started at the Seattle WTO meeting, for this industry knows that the health of our economy is dependent to a considerable degree on America's ability to export its products. There is, however, very little that our Government can do to improve the export prospects for rubber footwear and slippers in light of the ability of low-wage foreign producers to dominate the markets of the world. On the one hand, there is no quid pro quo which could be offered to this industry as an enhancement to its export prospects, and, on the other hand, any modification of the industry's duty structure would threaten the continued domestic presence of those companies which still produce in America. Similarly, any such modification would have a serious impact on the many domestic component suppliers-from shoelaces to shoe boxes-to the rubber footwear producers in this country. This industry, which has already stated its basic case to the Trade Policy Staff Committee and to the International Trade Commission, expects to justify an exception from duty cuts before whatever forum is established by the "Seattle Round." Our purpose in submitting the present statement is merely to alert the Ways and Means Committee, in its oversight role, of the fact that the legitimate needs of such an import-sensitive industry as rubber footwear and slippers, as well as the suppliers to this industry, should not be overlooked in the course of this major effort to remove impediments to trade. The history of past multi-lateral trade negotiations demonstrates that there are very few domestic industries whose survival is as threatened by imports as is the rubber footwear and slipper industry. History also demonstrates that the success of the Kennedy, Tokyo, and Uruguay Rounds was in no way blemished by the restraint shown in excluding the products of this industry from duty cuts. Accordingly, we urge the Subcommittee on Trade to seek to have the agenda for the Seattle meetings include an assurance of flexibility in the conduct of negotiations which will permit exceptions from duty cuts where warranted, as is clearly the case with respect to rubber footwear and slippers. KAUFMAN FOOTWEAR CORP. Kitchner, Ontario N2G 4J8 CANADA Statement of Bill Welsch, President, Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE), Hayfork, California Dear Committee Members: The membership of SAFE is deeply concerned about the upcoming meeting in Seattle and the U.S. position negotiations on world trade. We are concerned about environmental and social justice in particular.... as environmentalists, labor groups and human rights groups have been systematically and consistently excluded from having any input on government's actions while representatives of the corporate world have had an exclusive say in all matters involving trade, including in human, worker, and environmental protection laws. Social and environmental environments are forever intertwined. The fact that agents of government, and of our national and transnational corporations have politically separated this bond in their trade discussions does not alter this truth, it only reinforces the belief that corporate money can and does influence political decisions and public policy. Agreements made under NAFTA and GATT have already revealed that our representatives in government are quite willing to abdicate their responsibility to the public, and act as agents of national and trans-national corporations....and in the process, Congress has granted special rights to corporate entities while snipping away at, and denying at times, the constitution rights of the public for which they have taken an oath to serve, (IE. Passage of a salvage logging rider that denied the citizens the right of appeal; giving trans-national corporations the right to sue the Federal government without the permission of Congress... a right not held by the public). The intent of the WTO is also clear. The intent is to reduce labor costs and environmental protections in order to raise profits for corporations and investors by pitting the poor against the poor in third world nations; which in turn drives down wages and undercuts environmental protections in first world nations. All, in the name of "competition." While old world colonialism is out, neo-colonialism is in. The old mercantile theory.... that colonies exist for the benefit of the mother country has been replaced with a new mercantile theory... that government exists for the benefit of corporations. Government is supposed to regulate corporations, not act as an agent thereof. Our government came about with the consent of the governed. It was formed to protect the natural born rights of its citizens, to provide for their general welfare, and to protect them from all enemies, foreign and domestic. In protecting the natural born rights of its citizens and the rights of those residing, visiting or working in our nation, environmental and worker protection laws were passed. Any or all of these protection laws are now subjected to being overruled by an unelected body within the WTO. We the people, have no representation in this court, and no right to appeal any decision made. Human or environmental right violations are not issues taken up in this court. What is taken up, is whether or not trade is in any way being hampered by the establishment of laws protecting human or worker rights or the environment. The problem with corporate power was, and still remains predictable. President Grover Cleveland, in a prophetic speech before Congress in December of 1888 stated: "Our survival for one hundred years is not sufficient to assure us that we no longer have dangers to fear in the maintenance, with all its promised blessings, a government founded upon freedom of the people, upon more careful inspection we find that wealth and luxury of our cities mingled with poverty and discontent with agricultural pursuits...corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of law and the servants of the people are fast becoming the people's masters. Unfortunately, what President Cleveland did not foresee, was the take over of agricultural pursuits by corporate America, destroying for ever the ethos of the early American farmer and replacing family farms with corporate farm factories. In 1935, General Smedley Butler, former U.S. Marine Commandant revealed the power of corporate America when he stated: "I spent thirty-three years in the Marines, most of my time being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1910-12. I helped make Mexico and especially_Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for National City (Bank) boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. In China in 1927 I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. I had a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions. I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents." General David Sharp, former U.S. Marine Command, 1966, had this to say: I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of other nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own....And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Ameri What hasn't been said in the 1990's is the truth about the secret partnership of corporate America and the U.S. government in the war against peasants throughout Central America in the 80's. Under the guise of saving these nations from Communism, men, women and children were murdered, tortured and raped in the reinstitution of corporate control of Central America. At the time, we were openly trading with communist nations, and in fact supplying nations classified as "terrorists nations," including Iraq (which at the time was under communist Russia's sphere of influence) with weapons. Our involvement in Central America with the Contras and others, aided and abetted the taking of more lives than the Serbs recently took in Kosovo. In one massacre alone, in El Mozote, El Salvador, American trained and financed troops killed over 200 people in one convent. Of 143 identifiable bodies exhumed, 131 were children, the average age of which was 6.1 By no stretch of the imagination could these individuals have been a threat to U.S. The fact that this administration engaged in secret talks, for several years, to create a multi-lateral agreement on trade, without any input from human rights groups, worker rights groups, or environmental groups clearly demonstrates the power and influence corporations have upon both the legislative and executive branches of government. When the pursuit of trade is based entirely on profits; when trade is carried out through the exploiting of human and natural resources with little to no concern for either, this can not be called "free trade," it is the crushing of freedom. Monetarily, we subsidize corporate America in excess of $125 billion per year. When hidden subsidizes are added, such as tax breaks, foreign aid (which at times is really corporate aid), and the decoupling of trade from human rights, the visual subsidy becomes dwarfed when compared to the unseen subsidies. We have seen no move by "free traders" in government to remove this cost from "free trade." We are rightfully concerned about human rights and worker rights. We are concerned about the exploitation of the world's resources, particularly when the benefits of the exploitation go largely to an elite and wealthy few while the cost, the pain, and the misery is paid in varying degrees by the many, with the heaviest load placed upon the weak, the meek, the poor and the defenseless. Naturally, as an environmental group, deforestation is a major concern, particularly when global free logging is one of the main items on the upcoming WTO ministers' agenda. Deforestation will be hastened by global free logging. Already deforestation is a world wide problem. Deforestation has played a major role in: altering climates, increasing the siltation of rivers, lakes and streams; dislocating indigenous populations, exacerbating floods, contributing to global warming and leaving a legacy of impoverishment for future generations. The doubling of the world's population is close at hand. How can future generations absorb the debts of the present, solve the problems of crime, education, medical care, etc, and continue feed the bulk the world's wealth into the hands of an unsatiable few? All wealth comes originally from the exploitation of natural resources. How long can these resources last amid rising populations and declining resources? How many of our natural resources will survive future floods, hurricanes, and forest fires, the intensity of which will be greater because of man's exploitation of these resources? It is the duty of the government of any nation to protect the public's interest and welfare, and to protect its nations natural resources. It is not the duty of any government to act as a corporate partner, acting in the interests of private individuals and corporations at the public's expense. Any trade agreement must include verifiable human and worker rights protections as well as environmental protections. Environmental protections must based upon current knowledge and "public," as opposed to "industry" science. The end of sweat shops, child labor, and forced 1 U.N. Truth Commission Report on El Mozote |