G-8 agrees to subsidy cuts for WTO's success (Goodby America Farm

Good points. You're right they do disguise the port as for the local farmer but really it's for the "evil big business". To me it doesn't matter. Either the pork is needed or it's not...I believe it's not whether for local farmer or big agriculture. It's all the same...my tax dollars getting wasted to pay off someone else. It's completely inefficient.

Farmer/business pays lobbiest to get them pork. Lobbiest pays congresscritter to get pork. Congresscritter taxes us to pay for pork. Where's the value add in that "value chain"?

Where's the value add in that "value chain"?Excellent point...just a wealth-redistribution scheme, where if it were put on the ballot, they know it wouldn't pass, so they just legislate it. Whether it's Unions, Corporations, Lawyers Groups, or Political cronies, the vote-buying is all financed, ultimately, by the taxpayer without his consent.

The B.S. about indirect-approval via your elected representative is a joke...the ballot doesn't contain ANY citizen with down-to-earth common sense, but simply forwards the special interest candidate who can garner the most campaign dollars and fool the majority of the voters with his rhetoric.

The whole scheme of from-your-pocket-and-into-mine, using the "legal" system is evidenced today in Lawsuits, too, where Lawyers appropriate funds for themselves from the deepest pocket they can find, and the consumer ultimately picks up THAT tab.....

That's fine, except for the fact that your typical farmer is a small businesses. Now if you were to compare them to the pool of small business owners, your statistics wouldn't be bogus.

Let's see . . . your opinion, or the Heritage Foundation's research? You, or Heritage? Tough one. /sarc

Yeah, I remember reading the US constitution, where it said that the G8 'ministers' are authorized to regulate foreign trade for the United States, NOT!!!

We grow it and sell the corn for less than it costs to raise it.

Sounds like you're in the wrong business.

Here's your new congress....

Does any of this seem constitutional to you? It doesn't to me.

***

Report on the G8 global partnership

St.Petersburg, July 16, 2006

We reaffirm our commitment to the Global Partnership against the Proliferation of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction as set out in the 2002 Kananaskis G-8 Summit documents.

Since 2002, the Global Partnership has become a large-scale international initiative which has contributed to the enhancement of international security and stability. Fourteen States have now joined the Global Partnership. We reaffirm our openness to further expansion of the Partnership to recipient countries, including those from the CIS, and donor countries, which support the Kananaskis documents.

The past year has witnessed continuing progress in turning initial pledges into projects and activities. At the same time, we recognize that more needs to be done by all participants, to enhance effectiveness of cooperation to achieve the Partnership's goals.

The destruction of chemical weapons, dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines, employment of former weapons scientists, and disposal of fissile material were identified as priorities at Kananaskis. The Russian Federation considers the first two areas of cooperation as being of primary importance for the implementation of the GP projects in Russia.

We reaffirm our commitment to raise up to $20 billion through 2012 to support priority projects under this initiative, initially in Russia.

I. Practical Progress in Implementing the Global Partnership.

Chemical Weapons Destruction

International assistance in the construction of chemical weapons destruction facilities was recognized at Kananaskis as a key requirement to help Russia to eliminate its stockpiles of chemical weapons, pursuant to its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Russia has also substantially increased its own funding for CW destruction Programme in Russia, while stressing the importance of foreign assistance to accelerate the implementation of this Programme.

Two chemical weapons destruction facilities have been built. The facility at Gorny operated from 2002-2005 and destroyed all chemical weapons stored at this facility. Assistance was provided by Germany, the EU, the Netherlands, Finland and Poland. The facility at Kambarka has become operational by the end of December, 2005. It has been built with assistance of Germany, the EU, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland.

Work has also advanced on the construction of the facility at Shchuch'ye, involving the US, Canada, UK, Italy, Switzerland, Czech Republic, the EU, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland, and Belgium. This facility is scheduled to become operational in 2008. France is planning to provide funding for the process of chemical weapons destruction in Russia, initially in Shchuch'ye, after ratification of the bilateral agreement of February 14, 2006.

Italy will provide assistance for the construction of the chemical weapons destruction facility at Pochep. Germany is prepared to assist in the construction of the facility in Leonidovka; an exchange of Verbal Notes is under way. Great Britain and Canada are considering assistance for the facility at Kizner.
Canada, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland, and Switzerland are funding public outreach centres in the vicinity of some facilities.

Dismantlement of nuclear submarines and related work

Dismantlement of nuclear submarines withdrawn from the Russian Navy is another priority area identified at Kananaskis. This is a complex activity, including transport of the submarines, defuelling, dismantlement and safe storage of the reactor compartments.

Substantial progress has been made since 2002, with 61 submarines dismantled, including 17 with foreign assistance from the US, Canada, the UK, Japan, Norway. The activities have taken place mainly in the North West of Russia while they have also taken place in the Russian Far East.

In addition to the dismantlement of submarines, the Global Partnership projects also addressed the development of infrastructure to ensure nuclear material from the dismantlement process is made safe and secure. Key projects underway include: the German-financed construction of a long-term interim storage facility for 150 reactor compartments at Sayda Bay - the operation of the first section of the storage facility will start on July 18, 2006; the rehabilitation of the temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel at Andreeva Bay funded by the UK, Norway and Sweden; refitting of the nuclear waste incinerator in Zvezdochka shipyard funded by France; a multi-use naval vessel for the transport of nuclear (and related) materials funded by Italy; and a Spent Nuclear Fuel storage facility at the Atomflot site, Murmansk funded by the UK. Canada funded environmental improvements at Zvezdochka.

The parties continue to use successfully the Framework Agreement on a Multilateral Nuclear Environment Programme in the Russian Federation, which provided the basis for the implementation of the Northern Dimensional Environmental Programme's (NDEP) "Nuclear Window", that includes a number of nuclear multilateral and bilateral projects, such as rehabilitation programmes at Gremikha funded by France, the NDEP and the EU.

As of December 1, 2005, the parties have accumulated 70,114 mln. euro in the NDEP's "Nuclear Window". Up to now, three contracts have been concluded for the 19,1 mln. euro. The parties are planning to provide up to 150 mln. euro for this Programme by the end of 2008.

Disposition of fissile material

In 2000 the US and the Russian Federation agreed to each convert 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium designated as no longer required for defence programmes into forms not useable for weapons. As a number of countries have put aside funds for this purpose, it is hoped that the outstanding issues will be resolved to enable this important activity to commence.

The US and Russia have agreed on a common approach to resolve the question of liability protections, which will help put this and other programmes on solid ground for the long term.

Employment of former weapons scientists

Since 2002 more than 1400 research projects have been funded through the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) in Russia and the Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine (STCU) by the US, the EU, UK, Canada, Japan, and other countries, involving more than 17,000 former weapon scientists. In the coming year, the funding parties will analyse the activities and ways to improve further the effectiveness of the two Centers.

Other areas of co-operation

- Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials
The G8 Gleneagles Statement and the Sea Island G8 Action Plan on Non-Proliferation highlighted the importance of addressing the security of nuclear materials, equipment and technology as well as radioactive sources.

A number of donors have now established programmes with Russia and Ukraine to upgrade the physical protection of and account for nuclear materials. These include the US, UK, Germany, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the EU.

There is also increasing cooperation among those engaged in securing radiological sources. A number of donors, including the US, Norway, Denmark, the Nordic Environmental Finance Corporation (NEFCO), Germany, Canada, and France are supporting dismantling, storing and replacing some 700 highly radioactive radioisotopic thermoelectric generators (RTGs) which have been used to power Russian lighthouses. With Canadian assistance, a Russian "RTG Master Plan" is being developed and efforts are under way to increase co-ordination among participating countries

Global Partnership countries are also cooperating in other important spheres. The United States is cooperating with Russia and Ukraine on the dismantlement of strategic weapons systems, and enhancing the security of weapons transportation and storage. Some bio-security projects are being implemented by several Global Partnership members.

The US and Russia, with additional financial support from several other countries, are co-operating on the construction of fossil fuel power plants that, when completed, will allow the permanent closure of the three remaining Russian reactors that are producing weapon-grade plutonium. Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, the UK and New Zealand have also contributed funds to support these projects.

In Ukraine, a further step towards nuclear safety has been made with the replenishment of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund providing the necessary financial resources for completion of the new shelter. A number of donors are engaged in projects with Ukraine to enhance export control and border security systems to help prevent the illicit trafficking in WMD across national borders.

II. Countries participating in the Global Partnership note the following achievements in implementation:

Coordination and Transparency: The growing pace of interaction and number of projects and other activities demands close cooperation, coordination and transparency. This has led to the creation of various informal structures between Russia and individual donor countries or a number of donor countries active in the same area. As an example, groups are in place to facilitate coordination for nuclear submarine dismantlement projects in Andreeva Bay, Gremikha, elimination of RTGs, and construction of the chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye. This practice can be emulated for other activities.

Close consultation, coordination and exchange of information on current and planned activities contribute to improving projects, reduce duplication and gaps, and enable best use of each country's resources.

Legal issues: The legal basis for the Global Partnership has continued to expand. Since the last year one bilateral agreement in the area of chemical weapons destruction was concluded between Russia and France. Three other agreements involving dismantlement of nuclear submarines were signed with France, Japan and EBRD. As well, the practice of "piggy-backing", whereby a third country or organisation uses an established bilateral agreement between another donor and Russia, has proven useful.

Access: The partners make every effort to resolve issues related to access as quickly as possible, in accordance with Russian legislation and bilateral agreements. Many problems have been resolved through cooperation with Russian authorities and site personnel. The parties agree to continue to resolve any possible issue related to access that may arise in the spirit of cooperation and partnership bearing in mind the common goals of the GP.

Taxation: In 2006, the Government of the Russian Federation introduced an amendment to its national legislation to improve the system of tax exemption for organizations receiving foreign assistance for the destruction of WMD.

III. Countries participating in the Global Partnership will pursue the following goals:

Financing

It is essential for the success of the Partnership that all participants continue to turn financial pledges into concrete activities. The partners welcome that Russia has substantially increased its own funding for the GP since the commencement of the initiative. Russia has already expended more than $1 billion for chemical weapons destruction and near $220 million for nuclear submarine dismantlement. The partners acknowledge that one of the essential factors of successful projects is a predictable, coordinated, targeted and efficient assistance.

Priorities

Significant work remains to be done to complete successfully current programmes by 2012 to address all Kananaskis priorities. The GP participating countries agree on the need to reflect more widely the entire set of priorities set out at Kananaskis. The GP countries recognize that financial assistance for chemical weapons destruction in the Russian Federation will be needed mainly in the years 2006-2009. They take note of the interest of some partners to expand cooperation in the field of dismantlement of nuclear submarines in the Far East of the Russian Federation.

Expanding the Global Partnership

The Global Partnership is open to further expansion in accordance with the Kananaskis documents. Taking into account the ongoing focus on projects in Russia, we continue to review the eligibility of other countries, including those from the CIS, to join the Partnership. Formal confirmation of their readiness to meet the conditions established in the Kananaskis documents, as well as detailed information on the projects they would request be addressed under the Global Partnership are required. The work in this area will continue.

Global Partnership Working Group

Conscious of the need for ongoing attention to specific issues affecting implementation, and of the value of regular exchanges among all participants, the Global Partnership Working Group will continue to serve as the forum to identify and resolve any problems that arise. The Group, which brings together all countries participating in the Global Partnership, G8 and non-G8 alike, will also continue to provide an appropriate forum to exchange information and best practices.

Nearing the mid point in the lifespan of the Global Partnership it is recognized that there is a need to undertake an unbiased qualitative and quantitative assessment of the Global Partnership in order to provide a clear picture of what remains to be done. Such an assessment can help clarify how each country can best define its participation, and how each can benefit from the expertise developed. The Global Partnership Working Group intends to undertake such a review during the coming year. Both recipient and donor countries welcome such a review guided by the central goals of the Kananaskis pledges.

Check this link to see all the money we've agreed to spend to implement this agreement, WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS

http://g8russia.ru/i/Annex_to_GP_Report_-_final-eng.doc

Surely you don't believe that our domestic policy should be driven by the demands of foreign countries, especially those who make their claim on US citizerns because we are "rich", do you? I might add that these countries are extrodinarily resource rich.

Developing nations call on rich nations to abandon farming subsidies

July 17.

Five major developing nations - Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa - need to press the rich nations to open their markets and abandon agricultural and other subsidies, Mexican leader Vicente Fox said in St. Petersburg on Sunday.

Fox, who was invited to the G8 summit as part of the outreach effort, said his country was especially interested in topics related to health and infectious diseases, primarily avian influenza. As a major producer of fossil fuels, Mexico is also concerned about energy security, its president said.

On Sunday, Fox and his spouse Martha Saagun went on a tour of St. Petersburg that included its famous Hermitage museum and the Church of the Resurrection on Blood, a major church erected where Czar Alexander II was assassinated in 1881.

We reaffirm our commitment to the Global Partnership against the Proliferation of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction as set out in the 2002 Kananaskis G-8 Summit documents.

I guess a G8 commitment is the same as law?

Check this link to see all the money we've agreed to spend to implement this agreement, WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS

Really? Congress didn't appropriate the funds? So who did? How?

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Foreign ownership of U.S. airlines?
Bush ready to defy Congress' ban despite pilots' fears of another Dubai ports deal

Posted: July 18, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Department of Transportation, acting under President Bush's orders, is preparing to issue an administrative ruling that would open U.S. airlines up to foreign ownership, despite specific prohibitions and warnings from Congress, as well as predictions by pilots that another Dubai ports controversy is in the offing.

The proposed ruling puts the Air Line Pilots Association, or ALPA – the largest airline pilot union in the world representing 61,000 pilots who fly for 40 U.S. and Canadian airlines – at odds with the Bush administration.

The administration is determined to comply with European Union demands presented in the November 2005 "open skies" negotiations. (So-called "open skies" agreements are bilateral or multilateral agreements that liberalize the rules for international aviation markets and minimize government intervention.)

The EU is threatening to delay the signing of an open skies treaty unless the U.S. changes restrictions on the percentage of a U.S. airline that can be foreign-owned. The U.S. currently has 74 bilateral open skies agreements, none of which require any rule changes on the foreign ownership of U.S. airlines.

The Bush administration continues to advocate the EU position, arguing that the Department of Transportation should issue new administrative rules, if necessary, even in direct defiance of Congress.

U.S. pilots have provided WND with copies of draft letters the Air Line Pilots Association has organized.

ALPA is encouraging pilots to write letters and e-mails of protest to Congress, newspapers and national television and radio outlets.

"Do not underestimate the seriousness of this issue!" ALPA has advised, "This is do-or-die, sink-or-swim time."

Some U.S. pilots who have spoken with WND on condition of anonymity expressed concern about job reprisals.

The pilots have argued another Dubai Ports World-type controversy is brewing in which the "Bush administration does not care about selling out key U.S. assets to foreigners." ALPA calls for action echo the alarm:

The writing is clearly on the wall! This Administration wants foreign investors, airlines or otherwise, to pay for the costs of our aviation infrastructure, while risking hundreds of thousands of aviation jobs, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program (CRAF), and the safety and security of our national airspace. Forty percent of all Air Force Reserve and National Guard pilots are also airline pilots.
ALPA believes the foreign-ownership issue is a fight for survival:

The time to act is now! Together, with every pilot across this country participating in this effort, we can stop this rogue attack on our profession and our industry. There is no issue more important than preventing this NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) from moving forward. If the White House is successful in changing the foreign ownership rules through DOT affirmative action, within just a few short years our industry will mirror the maritime industry. Our jobs will no longer exist, our country's ability to militarily act abroad will be handicapped, and our families may no longer be safe in our own airspace!
The ALPA concern concludes with this: "Our country already has a dependence upon foreign oil. Are we going to allow the DOT to make air travel dependent on foreign airlines, too?"

On June 14, in an official statement of administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget in the executive office of the president put out a notice that the Department of Transportation intended to change the foreign ownership rule by issuing a new administrative rule:

The Administration understands that an amendment may be offered to prohibit the use of funds to implement a final rule regarding foreign investment in U.S. airlines. The proposed rule would facilitate a landmark agreement with the European Union that would provide significant benefit to consumers as well as the domestic passenger and cargo airline industry. The Administration has worked with Congress to address concerns with the final rule and recently extended the final comment period by an additional 60 days. The Administration strongly opposes any amendment that would prevent the Department of Transportation from finalizing its rule.
To counter the Bush administration, five congressmen wrote a letter eight days later, June 22, to DOT Secretary Norman Mineta on U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stationary.

In citing specific congressional prohibitions, the letter noted Congress had taken two specific actions to put the White House on notice that "a major change to the current law regarding foreign ownership of U.S. airlines should be accomplished only by congressional action, not unilaterally imposed by the executive branch."

The letter cited the following congressional prohibitions:

First, the Conference Report on H.R. 4939, Making Emergency Supplementary Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, includes 'language preventing the Secretary from issuing a final rule regarding foreign control of U.S. airlines for 120 days.' Second, during consideration of H.R. 5576 – the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (TTHUD appropriations), the House adopted, by an overwhelming vote of 291 to 137, an amendment prohibiting the department from finalizing or implementing the policy proposed in the rulemaking during the next fiscal year.
The letter concluded by reminding Mineta, "the courts have ruled that an executive branch agency does not have authority to interpret a law in a manner inconsistent with the plain meaning of the words of the law."

Signing the letter were Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Frank A. LoBiondo, R-N.J.; chairman on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee; Ted Poe, R-Texas; James L. Oberstar. D-Minn., ranking Democratic member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; and Jerry F. Costello, D-Ill., ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

A major proponent of the rule change has been Under Secretary of Transportation Jeffery Shane, who was quoted on a government Web site in April suggesting Mineta remains "committed to completing this important rulemaking procedure."