Posted on 12/22/2005 8:09:53 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
WASHINGTON, DC—Steve Swanson, Chairman of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, announced today that the U.S. lumber industry is challenging the constitutionality of a dispute settlement system under the North American Free Trade Agreement, commonly referred to as Chapter 19. The Chapter 19 system allows bi-national panels of individuals to make binding decisions about application of U.S. law to U.S. unfair trade findings contrary to due process and other constitutional requirements.
“The Constitution does not permit these panels to be the final arbiter of whether U.S. law provides for relief from unfair subsidies and dumping for U.S. producers and workers,” said Swanson. “The challenge is against the Chapter 19 dispute mechanism, not the NAFTA as a whole.”
United States courts ordinarily decide appeals of findings that imports are subsidized or dumped. NAFTA Chapter 19 made findings regarding Canadian and Mexican imports appealable only to panels of individuals, some of whom are not U.S. citizens and none of whom is accountable within the U.S. government. Nothing like Chapter 19 has been included in other trade agreements, including DR-CAFTA.
When the Congress first considered Chapter 19 in 1988, the U.S. Justice Department warned that the Chapter 19 system would be unconstitutional. The U.S. government has repeatedly found that Canadian lumber imports are subsidized and dumped and threaten injury to the U.S. lumber industry. The World Trade Organization has approved these findings, and countervailing (anti-subsidy) and antidumping duties have been imposed on Canadian lumber imports since 2002. But a NAFTA dispute panel has exceeded its authority by directing the U.S. International Trade Commission to reverse a finding that unfair imports threaten the U.S. lumber industry. The U.S. government requested that one panelist be removed because of a conflict of interest, but he stayed on the panel.
“As NAFTA panels threaten to subvert application of the trade laws to unfair lumber imports, we must enforce our constitutional right to due process and accountable decision-making,” explained Swanson. “If Canadian lumber subsidies and dumping are not fully addressed, the unfair imports will result in scores of sawmill closures, cause thousands of job losses, and undermine millions of family timberland owners.” Swanson concluded, “All that the U.S. industry has ever requested is an end to Canadian lumber subsidies and dumping through open and competitive timber and log markets. The U.S. industry vigorously supports the U.S. government’s pursuit of free trade principles and a negotiated settlement based on reasonable Canadian commitments to timber policy reform. Until then, we will defend our rights to relief under U.S. law.”
The Coalition’s filing of this case comports with statutory requirements that it be initiated within 30 days of the end of a Chapter 19 proceeding.
The globalists and NGO's are not "behind" farm subsidies- AMERICAN FARMERS are behind farm subsisidies. Because without them, farmers would be forced to produce, grow things, etc., and with the efficiency of the US farmer, there would be an absolute glut of food on the market if everyone used their land to its potential- which in turn would lower prices, but it would put farmers out of business, and eventually the land trusts would indeed begin to purchase the land from farmers at cut-rate prices because farmers would go out of business.
The problem is that sooner or later that is exactly what will happen. What should occur to STOP that from happening is for farm subsidies to be phased out with various programs that provide an incentive for farmers to sell their land to NON-Land Trust orgs.
Saying that the WTO, Land Trusts, and NGO's are behind US farm subsidies is like saying Hillary Clinton wants Americans to vote Republican in 2006.
By the way, you were concerned about consumers in your earlier posts. With Farm subsidies, it hurts the consumer. With lumber subsidies in Cananda it punishes the more efficient American mills. I don't understand where you're coming from anymore? Do you want taxpayers to get the bill for lower priced lumber from Cananda, or pay the market rate without gov't interference and let the most efficient producer win?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.