99 



Canadian producers, who have production costs 

 which are 20 percent higher than U. S. 

 producers, would be flooding U. S. markets with 

 subsidized hogs. 



WHY NOT LEARN FROM 

 OUR MISTAKES? 



U.S. Has No Compensation for 

 Canadian Subsidized Pork Imports 



In reality that is what is happening right now 

 with pork that has been slaughtered and 

 processed in Canada. 



The waning hours of the CFTA negotiations saw 

 the creation of binational panels for the purpose 

 of settling disputes. These panels have regularly 

 assumed the authority to interpret and all but 

 rewrite the laws governing the U.S. Department 

 of Commerce and the International Trade 

 Commission. One of those recent binational 

 panel decisions removed the countervailing 

 duties from pork and pork products. 



This decision allows subsidized Canadian pork to 

 compete with unsubsidized U. S. producers and 

 processors. The result is lower prices paid to 

 U. S. producers, more jobs for Canadian meat 

 packers and more unemployment in similar 



industries here. 



It's Worth Pondering—Can bi- 

 national panels be truly unbiased? 



1) Each time the American pork interests have 

 registered a challenge the panel was made up of 

 two V. S. representatives and three from Canada. 

 The decisions were always three to two favoring the 

 Canadian position, except for the latest decision 

 which allowed the current practice of 

 countervailing duties on live hogs to remain in 

 place. 



2) Even though the binational panel dispute 

 mechanism has shown its flaws in well publicized 

 cases and as recently as 1992, the NAFTA 

 contains a very similar provision. 



Making a Bad Deal Even Worse 



The only safety net in the CFTA is Section 22 

 (6) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which 

 states that "Where the Secretary determines—that 

 a condition exists requiring emergency treatment, 

 the President may take immediate action under 

 this section without awaiting the 

 recommendation of the tariff commission.* 



Unfortunately, previous administrations which 

 negotiated both of these pacts have possessed a 

 "free trade at all costs" attitude which prevented 

 them from invoking Section 22 (B), because to 

 do so would have been an admission that the 

 CFTA was flawed. 



Decline in Weil-Being of U.S. Farmers 

 From 1988 to 1992 



Farmers lost 4 cent* of the food dollar 



•N2 



The American Food Dollar 



I Anownt to Pwm 



iotnar Cmu. 



Similarly, the people who serve on the binational 

 panels would be admitting that the CFTA has 

 problems if they found in favor of U. S. 

 interests. Often those who sit on these panels 

 have interests in dumping laws and have past 

 and possibly future interests on the Canadian 

 side of the border. 



While the CFTA has flaws which make it a very 



-8- 



