Hi All,
Could somebody fill me in on the lumber tariff that is to take effect in june? Should I buy my lumber now and hope it doesn’t get stolen at the job site? thanks, cc
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
There's a constant source of clean water for you to use, and all you have to do is collect it.
Featured Video
How to Install Cable Rail Around Wood-Post CornersHighlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
Sorry, you're too late. It went into effect yesterday - 27% added at the border.
OK.
When you snooze, you loose. Guess I've been snoozin, cause I don't know what the heck you all are talking about. I'm gonna take a wild guess though anyway....I heard something about Canada was going to impose a tariff on all lumber it exports to USA in retaliation for the USA imposing steel tariffs.
Is this what this is about? Please hope someone can fill me in. How much is this gonna cost me at the lumber yard?
Thanks.
Davo
No, the US is imposing a huge tarriff on imported Canadian lumber because the lumber lobby in the US wants to make large profits without modernizing their equipment or making any investment in their own industry. The US government will collect 100% of the sudden dramatic price increase.
All parties on the Canadian side of the dispute have offered various rememdies to artificially raise the cost of Canadian lumber; however, the US has turned them all down because none of these solutions puts additional money into the pockets of supporters of the republican party (I guess artificially making them price competitive wasn't as much of an issue as they first said ?). .
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
Hi Phil.
I'm sorry that the USA is imposing these tariffs. I know that at least 75 to 80 percent of all the framing lumber I buy locally is lumber shipped from Canada. I never had a problem with this, and I still don't. I always thought the US market was welcoming these shipments because they did'nt want to use up all of their own stock. Perhaps I'm wrong?
As for taking pot shots at the Republicans.....heck, I'm a republican supporter, but no money is gonna pass to my hands.
As for artificially raising prices...I could see why the US would not sanction that. Tariffs are imposed when an industry is supposedly being hurt by a foriegn competetor who is "dumping" its product at a cost so low that our own industry cannot compete. Many times a competetor is able to do this because its own industry or government is either partially subsidizing its operations, and/or allowing deregulation of either EPA standards or labor practice standards.
I'm not saying this is the case with Canada's lumber industry. I don't know the facts at all. All I'm saying is that tariffs are normally imposed by the US for the reasons I listed; be they real or simply perceived to be real by the US government.
The whole concept of tariffs are that the monies generated from such tariffs are to be made available to the US industry (companies) that are supposedly being adversly affected by all of this. Therefore, artificially inflating prices on Canada's side of the border, would simply put more money in THEIR pocket, not to the affected companies that maintain they are being hurt.
Now the real question...."What US companies are being hurt?" Are there any, or is this just all"smoke & mirrors?"
If the truth comes out that no US companies are being affected by imported Canadian lumber, then YES I'LL AGREE WITH YOU THAT SOMEONE IS GETTING THEIR POCKETS LINED....but show me the proof before taking pot shots at the good ole Republican Party!
Davo
Davo, this has been fought several times already....and Canada has always won, unreservedly. We are not subsidising the lumber. That has been proven time and again in the courts. And just to clarify, it isn't the entire US lumber industry......definitely not the American producers in the Northeast and Northwest, who are totally against the tariffs (which are ridiculously high.....that 27% is an average, and some companies are paying a lot more). It's the Southern producers and Montana, mostly, who have steadfastedly refused to invest in technology and train to the same level as the Canadians....and, as stated, every dollar collected will pass directly to them, to do with what they will. I doubt they will bring up their businesses to a state of competitiveness....they never have before with any of the money they've collected. Even in the Atlantic region, where the US acknowledges that most timber is harvest off private lands (a big part of the issue), we get a 9. something % tariff which is totally bogus....it's just punishment. Anyway, the bottom line to the American homeowner is an extra $1500 or more per new house, just to prop up a bunch of companies. And the fact of the matter is, the US needs to import at least a third of the lumber it uses....a lot of that is now going to come from Europe (and you wanna talk about subsidisation?), which is currently grabbing market share from us. We're talking about tens of thousands of Canadian jobs gone over an American policy to prop up uncompetitive companies (and spreading the pain over every American homeowner).
As far as the Republicans go, they're making it quite clear that free trade is just rhetoric to them, if it doesn't work to their advantage....trade bullying and protectionism is the policy. THere's lumber (protested vigourously by the NAHB, among others)....hurts the American homeowner,. There's steel....protested very vigorously by the American appliance manufacturers, among others....they are quite clear in stating that this policy will drive tens of thousands of jobs in appliance manufacturing offshore. There is farming....massive subsidies to prop up the farms, with amost all the money going to 10% of the farmers, something like that. Canada is taking the US to the courst on that one too. And natural gas pipelines. There will no doubt be more, and it is all at the expense of the long term interests of the US economy and most of the population. remeber that next time you see Bush going on about free trade; he does the opposite.cabinetmaker/college instructor. Cape Breton, N.S
Davo -
Don't get too worked up over Phil - He knows everything, and takes cheap shots at everybody.
As best as I can understand, the lumber tariffs were pushed by the American lumber industry. Their claim is that the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized, which amounts to unfair trade practices. So the tariffs were put in place to supposedly "balance" things out.
I haven't seen any solid evidence that the Canadian lumber industry is actually subsidized, or that anyone is getting their pockets lined in the U.S.
I don't like the tariffs, as the U.S. consumers are the ones that get hit the hardest by paying higher lumber prices.
You're a jewel. When's the last time you had a good buffing?
A couple comments for the discussion. I, like most builders, am also upset over this tariff issue which always seems to happen at the start of the building season when it hurts the most. I have to agree with Adrian on this. I don't think Canada does subsidize their lumber industry. All this does is hit the American consumer in the pocket.
By the way, as to the european lumber market, I had a unit of 2x4 studs delivered to a job the other day and was really impressed with the quality. Very straight grained, almost no knots, etc. Looked more like finish lumber. Checked the lumber cover, it came from Germany. I thought they didn't have much timber left over there? Is this coming from Russia or somewhere else?. Anyone know?
Bish
How much was it?
I come from a family of pine tree growers in S. GA, and I'm pretty embarrassed to say I was right delighted with the straight, smooth, and light as a feather Canadian studs I used in my new addition here in Atlanta. They were less than $2 each, and I was SO HAPPY! I'll trade strong for straight all day when I'm building on 16" centers anyway. When I came up short and went back to my local Home Depot for more lumber and all they had was crooked, moldy, knotty Southern Yellow Pine, probably milled from my own home town, I was sad. I look at the 4x4s they've got at the store and I can see they were cut from trees that aren't even as old as me. I see the middle of the tree smack centered on the post and count the rings to the bark that's left on the corners and think "I could have planted that thing when I was a teenager." That's just too YOUNG to die! It's like trying to make a profit off your baby by bottling drool. I hope they are serious about improving the quality output of the Southern lumber industry, because it needs it. My immediate family has sworn off selling timber now. We signed up for tax breaks for conservation use of the land, cut down and sold the all the slash and loblolly on our place for pulp wood, and are working harder than ever to get the whole place to go back to pure stands of longleaf like it was meant to be. It makes me want to cry to think what those private lands down there used to be and how they got USED UP in just one generation. Virgin longleaf pine is just the most beautiful, strongest, most rot resistant wood I know, and it's gone. The woods it grows in have the greatest biodiversity in North America. We can't ever get it back, but we can at least give it our best shot. By controlled burning, selective cutting of lightning damaged trees, and about 150 years of waiting, at least our tiny portion might be reverted. But across the road I have a cousin from the other school of thought, growing fields of loblolly in rows, rotating his crops in about 15 year cycles. I suppose that makes 2 knotty, bowed out 2x4's per tree. My heart weeps. And so does my sheetrocker.
So even if they make the manager at the planer mill use some quality control on keeping the blades sharp, he can only do so much with what he's buying from the tree farms. I don't remember reading about Canada finishing off their forests before automobiles even caught on. They probably have the advantage there no matter what the government does.
B
I haven't seen any solid evidence that the Canadian lumber industry is actually subsidized, or that anyone is getting their pockets lined in the U.S.
Boss, don't forget that the tariffs collected are paid to the lumber producers who brought the complaint to the Dept. of Commerce. Getting that money for no increase in production or quality would seem to qualify as pocket-lining.
You say the money goes to the lumber producers. Others say it goes to the U.S. government.
Anyone have any solid evidence which one is correct?
My wife says if I go to one more tractor show, she's going to leave me. I'm going to miss her.
Under U.S. trade law, companies that are hurt by so-called unfair trade practices of foreign companies get to pocket the duties that are put in place--which in this case will total several billion dollars a year (http://www.centremagazine.com/article.asp?id=8517)
Quick search found this. No mention of the disposition of the duty on the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports' web site, but thats not a surprise. I'll see if I can find something a little more 'official'.
I'll have to admit - I'm a bit surprised.
I'd still like to see more, and will keep an eye out for your posts to see if you dig anything up.
My kid had sex with your honor student.
BH;
The tariffs collected absolutely go the US producers....only collected by the government. One possible deal that might have been made was for the Canadian government to impose a tax on exports....at least keeping the money in Canada and out of the hands of the American industry....where it's just like unearned profit....but it died on the table. This is all a matter of public record, and it's not in dispute...the money goes to the producers. Billions of dollars of it.
The other thing that may not show up in the American media is that a big percentage of what went to export went to the U.S. (60% I think;and NO WAY does the profit margin begin to cover the tariffs)........ these operations are very productive and need to operate near capacity at all times......take away the US market, and it's not viable to operate at all. It takes time to develop other markets, or build demand in existing markets. So it's not like these mills are just selling less, because of the tariffs....in a lot of cases, they can't afford to run at all, without those American sales. So mills are closing, and towns are devestated....the whole industry is hammered. One ironic thing is, some of the companies impacted are Americans operating in Canada.
All for some votes in Montana and the South.cabinetmaker/college instructor. Cape Breton, N.S
Adrian -
Nothing personal, but I tend to not take the word of someone I've never met and know little about who posts something on a discussion board.
I'm still waiting to see something concrete about it.
If the U.S. lumber companies are getting billions from this, I wonder why it didn't create much of a stir in the news? Seems like U.S. lumber producers pocketing money that's coming out of Joe taxpayer's wallet would make a good story.
Edited 5/24/2002 2:38:10 PM ET by Boss Hog
Ron;
I'll tell you what, it's Friday night and finding sources you would accept to support this is about zero on my list of priorities...it's still true, but, whatever. You could look it up if you want. Maybe I will tomorrow. It's one part of a big mess, and it doesn't make the headlines, it gets buried in the text. Softwood dimensional lumber isn't a big part of what I do, but it is part of it, and I watch it....I deal with mills and industry groups and export issues as part of my job, and I'm in the process right now of plannning how my province trains workers for the wood processing industries, so I'm interested, believe me.
Tomorrow is family day, but I'll see what I can dig up if I get a chance.cabinetmaker/college instructor. Cape Breton, N.S
"If the U.S. lumber companies are getting billions from this, I wonder why it didn't create much of a stir in the news? Seems like U.S. lumber producers pocketing money that's coming out of Joe taxpayer's wallet would make a good story."
Boss I find it surprising that this didn't get more news coverage in the U.S. as here in Canada it has been and still is front page news. Although now that its a done deal we are boycotting everything American.
If its un American to buy Canadian
Then its un Canadian to buy American
This is one of the slogans that are run in our papers here.
Edited 5/24/2002 8:04:12 PM ET by KC
Boss,
It doesn't make the US new because US towns are not losing their mills.
Check the Chicago media for stories on candy factories moving to Canada and Mexico where they can afford sugar.
I guess history is written by the winners, and news is written by the losers.
I'll see what I can find but I expect it will be a little difficult. The potential wealth transfer of several billion dollars from the American consumer to the mill owners is obviously not something the Coalition or those in government who back them are going to be blowing the horn about.
You mentioned others have said the funds go to the US government. Could you back that up or even advise who said it? I'm quite willing to be proven wrong.
Dick, Adrian, Canadians in general. Sandra... And some straight thinking people south of the border...
...As Mike Smith would say...[ my posts get done in lately]...B-t M-
You people don't want our lumber?...Fine!!!!!!
...Oh, you do................... Call your congressman, or woman...
Newf Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
Carpenter, woodworker, gardener, Can't sew or cook
Newf:
A tariff is a protective tax. In early USA history it was used to protect young industries from cheaper imports. It may also be used to increase an industries profits.
But why did the Canadians not raise the price of their lumber. That would have defeated the lobbist in congress. Also where does NAFTA fit into this situation.Maybe the people who own lumber mills in the USA, also, own and control the industry in Canada? And just maybe they and their lobbist have too much influence in both governments
But, I agree, waste your time, call your representative. Just like our screams over the unnecessary increase in gas prices.Consumers will pay,billionairs will gain.
Just remember; At best a Bush is just a mindless shrub.
We can't just unilaterally raise the price because most of the shipments are under long-term contracts. The Canadian government offered to raise the price to some floor level that would make the US mills competitive - that was turned down flat; because, wait for it, that would be "interfering with the competitive process". Several other schemes were also proposed; however, the only one that the US will accept is that we sell our raw lumber directly to the US and close all the Canadian mills. Right now, our law is just the same as American law in this matter: we don't export raw lumber. .
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
Phill,
I seem to remember one of the stipulations of free trade being that Canadians cannot charge US customers a higher price for our resources than for ourselves. This was to stop us from having cheaper energy than the US.
I don't know if it applies to lumber, but we would have to see our domestic prices go up to support charging more in the US.
Then again, this whole free trade thing has become a 27% farce anyway...
I am amused that these Republican capitalist champions of enterprise are exercising so much market control, but such are the contradictions of the American experience.
Less amusing are the 'grass is always greener' Canadians who want to Americanize Canada, but that's a whole other debate.
"Where does NAFTA fit nto all this"?
Of course, it's being challenged under NAFTA and the WTO....we're also going to challenge the ridiculous farm subsidies, and who knows what other subsidies Bush has up his sleeve. But it takes time, and a hell of a lot of money......and the tariffs have to be paid, in cash (no bonds, even in the warmup period), even if they end up being refunded later, as has always been the case, because the American position on lumber has never, ever been upheld. Does a number on your cash flow if you're a lumber company. That's the strategy, though, starve the Canadian (insert British, Australian or whatever other country you can think of here) companies into submission. meanwhile, our government is talking about help to the lumbermen and the farmers to get them through until they win the appeals.....that's money out of my tax dollars I'll never see again. Another nuisance.
Someone else mentioned log exports to the U.S.....I would like to see an embargo there. It's not correct that we don't export raw logs, but they do have to be surplus to requirements (that's the B.C rule, anyway, and I assume it's similar in the other provinces. Federal export permits are required in all provinces. The U.S claims that log export controls of any kind consitute a subsidy. The WTO doesn't agree, by the way).
Re: the Byrd Act; Canada isn't alone in challenging that whole system under WTO. Anyway, here's more reading on the subject at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~eicb/softwood/lumber-e.htm cabinetmaker/college instructor. Cape Breton, N.S
The U.S claims that log export controls of any kind consitute a subsidy - while at the same time restricting log exports at both state and federal levels.
In a sidebar activity, Chinese steelmakers just won a landmark U.S. anti-dumping case. This is the first time an anti-dumping case against the Chinese has gone through to a decision (for those not familiar with the process: a US company makes a complaint against a small foreign company, could be in any industry, and presents their side of the case; the foreign company's shipments are harrassed and often countervailling duties are applied, usually to all products from the country of origin of the charged company; if the foreign company objects, then they must sue for relief as they were automatically presumed guilty; each accused company must defend itself individually, using very expensive US lawyers and consultants against US government supplied lawyers through a trial that goes on for years; the other country involved, is offered a deal where they voluntarily restrict exports to the US from all companies in that country and the US will apply a lower tarrif; if the company/country refuses to deal, then the case is prolonged for a few years and then just as the final phase of the hearing opens, a new deal where the original charge is dropped if the foreign company will drop its suit is offered, it is usually accepted; there are about 175 cases open against Chinese steelmakers).
Well, somebody dropped the ball and a case finally made it to a decision by the US Department of Commerce and the Chinese companies won, there had been no dumping. Even though the cases are virtually identical, apparently only the products of these two companies will be exempted from duties for 5 years; but, if an omnibus deal is accepted for any of the other cases, it will also apply to these two companies.
.
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
Edited 5/30/2002 1:36:15 PM ET by Phill Giles
Newf, I hope your poltergeist finds richer ground so you can post again.
In the latest issue of "Rural Builder" this was discussed. The article stated unequivically that the tariff was due to the Canadian Lumber industry that is partially subsidized by their government selling lumber less then what the actual market value is. Say what you want but check out the article before the flameing and anti american rhetoric begins. Darkworksite4: When the job is to small for everyone else, Its just about right for me"
Ron, here is what the National Association of Home Builders has to say:
- Bruce Smith, a home builder from Walnut Creek, Calif. and president of the 203,000-member NAHB, said, “We are confident that if the petitions are fairly evaluated in an open manner, and the concerns of American consumers and the more than 6 million workers in home building and other lumber-using industries are considered, the protectionist measures urged by a few large lumber producers will fail and free lumber trade between the U.S. and Canada will prevail.”
- uncertainty in the lumber markets has sent prices soaring and is adversely affecting housing affordability. The cost of softwood lumber has surged by 25 percent in little more than a month.
- “In the last four weeks, this lumber price hike has added $1,500 to the cost of a typical new home,” said Smith. “If the U.S. government were to impose the duties requested by the lumber coalition, that figure could spike all the way up to $4,000. U.S. Census estimates have shown that a price increase of such magnitude could drive nearly 1.2 million households out of the housing market each year, depriving them of the American dream of homeownership."
http://www.nahb.com/news/lumberpetition.htm
Dick
The softwood tariffs were discussed on the old forum and at that time the American posters seemed quite well informed. Those posters must have switched over to the new forum called quittin time I haven't gone looking for it yet but I think I will have to check it out.
On a side note I am also on Vancouver Island so maybe because we are so affected by these tariffs we are more informed than most.
http://curve.phpwebhosting.com/~luka/ubbthreads/categories.php?Cat=
Where on the Island are you? I'm in Cedar, just south of Nanaimo.
Dick
I was born and raised in Nanaimo, I now live and work in Campbell River and area, moved up here in 85. I periodically still do work down your way, did a job in Bowser last fall. Spent a lot of time in the summers as a kid swimming in the Nanaimo river above the Cedar bridge.
Thanks for the link to the other forum
Canadian log prices are only lower than what American woodlot owners would like to get. Once you factor in taxes and efficiency, the differential is very small. Except for the US, all other lumber producers around the Pacific rim have lower raw lumber prices. .
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
Newf - your lumber is fine with me, pretty much any size , shape or species.
And this whole thing was in the daily news up in Seattle for months, years, etc.
Weyerhauser and their buddies are all against it ( remember that weyehauser bought macmillan bloedel for 4 billion last year) as is the home building industry....
sorry republican sympathizers....it's another case of government by the few for the fewer hosing working people around the globe. It wouldn't matter if every carpenter and mill worker and logger in Canada and the US walked off the job tomorrow until the thing was settled to OUR advantage, we would still get boned.
I'm curious - Why exactly is it that Weyerhauser is against this? Seems like they'd stand to gain a lot.
Weyerhauser is a very large, surprisingly efficient, multi-national; they were already competitive. Why would you expect them to be happy to see their smaller domestic competitors suddenly get competitive with them with zero investment ?.
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
Well said RReed!!
TLayers
Onions
Have
Layers,
Carpenters
Have
Layers
I really dont care who is getting the money. That is not my imediate worry.
Prices of homes in the US, are controled by prices set by other homes built and sold in the recent past. Bankers normally will loan 70 percent of that value. No home builder I know is even close to wealthy. That would mean to me that all of us on the average dont make that much on a home building it. WE have had pretty decent sales this past quarter, all over the US on the average. So we are at least working, arent we? But we might be the next industry hit hard since Sept 11. WE did have bragging rights that our industry has held up while many others have miserably failed. What are we going to due to keep our prices down ?? Will we pay the price??Will we look to an alterantive? Such as steel studs to keep our walls straight . The yellow pine studs are , or were a thing of the past here. They do not make the grade, as other diminsional lumder doesnt in the yp industry. The builders in America have said NO to yellow pine except in trusses. WE have already talked before that we are usinf icf exclusively in most areas. WE dont have the time to straight saw pine for joists. Over and over we are expected to push it , doing it quicker , and in time of the past , cheaper. Are we buying any more grocreries , because we are operating nail guns now ???????????? Are we doing it cheaper , or are we making more profit than builders of 30 years ago????? Im old enough to remember the first nail guns put in use in our town . [it was my dad]
Where will this take us ????
I think it does matter to Canada , if we are 60 percent of their business. I know it matters to US builders. Canada , I can feel your pain , and also our pain will be here shortly.
Looking for the best way home
Tim Mooney
It was Phil that said the money went to the U.S. government.
"The US government will collect 100% of the sudden dramatic price increase."
He said it in post #20467.4
Edited 5/25/2002 7:58:13 AM ET by Boss Hog
A Second Round of Byrd Amendment Payments
The Byrd Amendment requires the U.S. Customs Service to distribute revenues collected in anti-dumping or countervailing-duty cases to companies that filed complaints of unfair foreign competition with the International Trade Commission. In August 2001, the U.S. Customs Service published a list of Byrd Amendment recipients. A group of well-known recipients, including AFL-CIO, J.C. Penny and Montgomery Ward, will share in a new disbursement totaling $24.3 million.
February 1, 2002
http://www.gattiassociates.com/developments/imde_450.htm
....................................................................................................................................
U.S. Customs Publishes List of First Disbursements Underthe Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Customs Service today posted on it's Web site the detailed results of the first disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). This legislation, also known as the Byrd Amendment, required U.S. Customs to disburse anti-dumping and countervailing (AD/CV) duties to domestic producers injured by foreign dumping and subsidies. The claimants have received more than $200 million to date.
http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2002/0130-00.htm
.................................................................................................................................
Here you go Boss. Lumber producers initiating the action not only get the benefit of the artificially raised prices, they also get the duties paid by Canadian producers. Good incentive to modernize and increase competiveness isn't it?Just a little blueskying here. Suppose the tariff cuts Canadian shipments in half to about $5 billion. Tariffs will run about $1.25 Billion. At $10 Billion, Canadians had about 1/3 the US market so call the market $30 Billion. If the tariffs increase the domestic price of lumber by only 20%, thats about $5 Billion in cream on the american portion of the supply. Total is about $6.25 Billion 'lining the pockets' of the US producers, all paid for by American consumers and your largest trading partner. Ain't free trade wonderful! And isn't it funny that Canadians have to 'prove it' to you.
Edited 5/25/2002 3:23:06 PM ET by Dick
Thanks for the info, Dick. I'll try to read through the links you provided tomorrow or Monday - Don't have time tonight.
I do kinda resent your "isn't it funny that Canadians have to 'prove it' to you" comment though. I never asked you to prove anything just because you were Canadian. I asked for more concrete evidence since I thought I was getting conflicting info.
I've been nothing but civil to you, and don't see any reason for you to have a chip on your shoulder. Keep in mind that I'm against these tariffs too.
I apologize; I phrased that poorly. I was attempting to comment on the fact that the Byrd ammendment was slipped by you folks by the business interests, the legal profession and your political representatives and consequently, a Canadian was explaining your laws to you. I wasn't refering to your personal request for proof.
Well, you're right - They definitely slipped that one by without me hearing anything about it.
And heres how:
......................................................................................................................................
Legislation UpdateContinued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000the Byrd amendment
In late 2000, one of the final acts of the outgoing 106th U.S. Congress was to pass the Agriculture Spending bill, Public Law 106-387.
Included in that bill, little noticed as amendment Title X, was the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA).
• click here to read the CDSOA in 114 Stat. 1549A -- see pages 72-75 requires PDF reader
Essentially, the CDSOA modifies the Tariff Act of 1930 and instructs Customs to put all antidumping tariffs collected into a special account. Previously, that money had gone directly into the general Treasury. Then, each year, the money collected would be handed out directly to the U.S. companies who successfully filed antidumping complaints.
While the CDSOA, originally authored by Senator DeWine, had been around since early in the 106th Congress, it had failed to gather any significant support. Serious questions were raised about its legality under World Trade Organization rules and NAFTA rules.
Senator Byrd, the influential senior Senator from West Virginia, saw the CDSOA as a way to show support for the ailing U.S. steel industry. Senator Byrd used his influence to add the CDSOA as Title X and it passed with no deliberation. After that, it became known as the "Byrd Amendment."
The CDSOA took effect in October 2001 and the first payouts were made December 1, 2001. Only Timken and Torrington were eligible for payments.
When Senator Byrd sponsored the legislation, he promised that the program would primarily benefit steel manufacturers and cost no more than $38 million. In fact, the program cost over $200 million, and the two bearing manufacturers received almost $80 million of that.
The CDSOA has provoked a massive backlash around the world, even within other (primarily smaller) U.S. companies who claim to have been damaged by unfair imports but could not afford the expense of filing antidumping claims.
13 November, 2000
Forbes magazine called this the "Trade Lawyers Relief Act".
http://www.ebearing.com/legislation/2000act.htm
....................................................................................................................................
Re: your comment about the chip on my shoulder. I live on Vancouver Island where we depend fairly heavily on the forest industry. There are over a dozen mills shut down within a thirty mile radius of where I live. Most of the fallers, equipment operaors and truck drivers who work in the woods are not working. Parts suppliers, equipment repair, metal fabricators, even cleaning services have lost a good part of their business. Fewer dollars circulating in the local economy mean that everyone from grocery stores to cabinet makers have less work and less income. A good number of my friends have packed up and headed to the oil patch in the Fort MacMurray (nobodies idea of a paradise)region just to keep their mortgage payments up. All this because of the softwood boondoggle. Chip on my shoulder? Probably.
Edited 5/26/2002 12:07:36 PM ET by Dick
I appreciate the continued info you've supplied, Dick.
Don't recall if this has been brought up, but why has it been said that the Canadian lumber producers are subsidized? I've heard that's part of the reason for the tariffs, but haven't heard anyone talk about it much. Are they really subsidized?
I mentioned the "chip on your shoulder" because you sometimes forget that I'm also against the tariffs. Ihaven't disagreed with anything you've said so far. Don't blame you if you're ticked off, but don't appreciate your tone sometimes.
Things occur
http://www.acah.org/Subsidy.htm#Canada
This outlines the concerns and gives a bit of a condensed history from American Consumers for Affordable Homes.
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~mshannon/softwood2.htm
This is the National Lumber and Building Materials Dealers Association in the US and their take on it.
http://www.fairlumbercoalition.org/
These are the people who brought the complaint.
These will give you some idea of what the issues are. You can decide if it is subsidized or not - there is plenty of other information available if this isn't enough.
Edited 5/27/2002 12:47:48 AM ET by Dick
The part of the equation that the Southerners and their allies focus on is what they consider low stumpage rates (on lumber harvested from public land; lumber harvested from private land is sold obviously for the highest price people can get for it. It's different from province to province; in B.C, most of the land is public, in the Atlantic, most of the land is private). The stumpage rates, the provinces feel, reperesent market value, but the Coalition etc. disagree.
The part of the equation that gets ignored is what the logging companies are required to do to be permitted to harvest, which is significant. Forest management is required here (not perfect, but not terrible either; Canada cuts about half of what we grow each year, and with a lot more commercial forest land, we harvest about half of what is cut in the U.S each year....makes you wonder). Here is a quote from an American newspaper on the subject: it comes from the website I posted earlier, with some info on the softwood issue, and this particular part has a backgrounder at the end with a section "What Americans are saying"....includes steel, etc. also.
"The Canadian provinces, which own most timberland, use a different
system. They sell long-term, renewable licenses to timber firms to manage the forest and harvest the timber--combining what in the United States would be Forest Service responsibilities with those of a logging firm. Canadian firms are required to build their own roads, protect environmental values and do many other Forest Service-like tasks. The price for harvested trees is set administratively by the provincial governments, which believe they do a good job of establishing a reasonable market value. That belief is shared by groups representing American home builders, organizations like the Cato Institute and the Congressional Research Service.
--Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 31, 2002
http://webapps.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?FileSpec=/Min_Pub_Docs/105242.htm&Language=E
cabinetmaker/college instructor. Cape Breton, N.S
View ImageLOCAL NEWS
Softwood lumber dispute hits border crossings
As I pointed out yesterday its still front page news in Canada
Hayley Mick
Times Colonist (Victoria)
Monday, May 27, 2002
View Image
VANCOUVER -- David Zoblaror drove into Canada on Sunday with his family for a visit from California and had never heard of the U.S.-Canada softwood lumber dispute.
That made him a perfect target for an information campaign that forestry workers staged Sunday at several Canada-U.S. border crossings.
Zoblaror, who entered at the Douglas Peace Arch border crossing, was quite willing to accept an information pamphlet about the 27-per-cent tariff being imposed on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S.
The tariffs are expected to cost thousands of jobs in the forest industry and millions of dollars in revenue for the B.C. economy.
"It's good for people to be aware and educated," said Zoblaror. "Now we know a little bit about it."
Peter Scott, a Canadian citizen and permanent U.S. resident who commutes to Richmond, said he has seen very little coverage on the issue in the U.S. media.
"I don't know if the average American knows about the softwood lumber dispute," he said.
The campaign was organized by the Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, but B.C. Forestry Minister Mike de Jong also spent the early part of the morning distributing leaflets.
IWA president Dave Haggard said one of the main goals of the leaflet campaign was to educate U.S. citizens who may not know about the dispute. He said the campaign was intended to be friendly.
"We blame a few well-heeled American industrialists with political connections for this problem, not American workers or people," he said in a news release.
At a noon rally at the Peace Arch, with Canadian and U.S. flags fluttering side-by-side overhead, Haggard had some tough words for U.S. President George W. Bush and large U.S. lumber companies.
"They buy our goods and products, and what do they do? They tell us to leave our lumber at home," he told the crowd of about 200 people.
© Copyright 2002 Times Colonist (Victoria)
Another take on the whole issue is that Bush needs the Senate to fufill his world agenda and he is barely hanging on to it. If he loses the few Senators in the south and west, he's a lame duck.
The lumber industry is just a bargaining chip in a much bigger game.
In a article in Qualified Remodeler entitled" US imposes tariffs on Canadian lumber" it stated ;
"In a move builder groups and and consumer advocates say creates a hidden tax on hombuyers, the US Commerce Department has imposed a 29% duty on all imports of Canadian Softwood lumber.
The Commerce Department determined that the Canadian government subsidizes its lumber production by under priceing timber harvested on publicly owned lands. The United States imported $6.4 billion worth of lumber from Canada in 2000. The National Association of Home Builders and other groups say the decision helps the US lumber producers at the expense of the rest of the US economy.
Home building and remodeling account for two-thirds of lumber consumption in the United States. According to the NAHB, there is not enough lumber produced in the United States to meet US lumber needs.
Because builders will have to continue to buy Canadian lumber, the tariff will add about $1500 to the cost of a typical home, the NAHB say.
Darkworksite4: When the job is to small for everyone else, Its just about right for me"
I, not this "Phil" person, made that post; and, the US government does collect that tarrif - you are now discussing disbursement, which is not the same..
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario