[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 159 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13460-S13461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the leader, in opening the Senate this 
morning, said we would come to the floor later today to begin to debate 
motions to instruct the conferees on the budget resolution conference 
that is now underway and being negotiated between the House and the 
Senate.
  Of course, that is critical to our going home--the process to 
finalize the work of the Congress this year. So for the next few 
moments, I wish to speak about two issues that are in that conference 
that will be a part of the debate this afternoon on the instruction of 
conferees.
  The first one is what we call the Byrd amendment, also known as the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.
  To set the record straight, it is important to say that so people 
understand when I reference the Byrd amendment I am not talking about 
the Byrd rule as it relates to what can and cannot be inside the budget 
resolution but is, in fact, what Senator Byrd, I, and joined by others 
some time ago know as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.
  As many Senators are aware, this amendment, the Byrd amendment, has 
had tremendous support in this body. In fact, in 2003, 70 Senators 
notified the President of our strong support for this provision. 
Further, just recently, 25 Republican Senators notified the majority 
leader of our strong opposition to any repeal of the Byrd amendment in 
the Deficit Reduction Act. I firmly believe those 25 Senators stand 
firm in their opposition to any repeal. A provision such as the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act that has so much support has 
no place whatsoever in the budget resolution or what we call the 
Deficit Reduction Act. However, some in this body are calling the Byrd 
amendment ``corporate welfare.'' If people in this country call a 
provision that protects U.S. companies and manufacturers from 
intentional and illegal foreign dumping and in subsidies, so be it. You 
can call it anything you want, but that is the reality of the existing 
law. When foreign companies continue to dump and get subsidies even 
after an order goes into effect, the U.S. industry gets absolutely no 
benefit from that measure. The only way we can level the playing field 
in those instances is to prevent those duties to be distributed to the 
very American companies that are injured by those flagrant and illegal 
practices.

  Some in this body would like to repeal the Byrd amendment because it 
has been estimated to result in $3.2 billion in cost savings.
  I have to tell you this estimate, in my opinion, is pure fabrication.
  This year, for example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 
that this act's provisions would come to $800 million in fiscal year 
2005. In reality, however, the figure was $226 million. CBO's estimate 
was off by a factor of

[[Page S13461]]

three. That tells me that the 5-year estimate for 2006-2010 is grossly 
overestimated. Therefore, if we include repeal of the Byrd amendment to 
inflate budget-deficit reduction numbers, we are clearly not getting 
those cost savings, while at the same time injuring U.S. companies that 
are committed to preserving and growing manufacturing jobs in this 
country.
  Finally, some have argued we must repeal the act because it is in 
violation of the WTO.
  First, I believe this shows how far the WTO has overstepped their 
guidelines in placing obligations on our country we have never agreed 
to.
  Second, there is nothing in any WTO agreement that specifies how 
countries must spend their dumping duty proceeds. If we must do 
anything with respect to WTO, we ought to tell Ambassador Portman, as 
the Senate has done many times in the past, to negotiate a specific 
agreement permitting duty distribution in the Doha Round. This is not 
the time to repeal this provision while our negotiators are still at 
the negotiating table.
  I strongly urge my colleagues and the leadership to remove the repeal 
of the Byrd amendment from the Deficit Reduction Act. This is simply 
not the time nor the place for such an action.
  Further, I urge my colleagues to fall in line and support a motion to 
instruct conferees to remove this repeal. Failure to do so will send a 
message to our injured U.S. companies and manufacturers that Congress 
is wearing rose-colored glasses and fails to see or act upon the evils 
of illegal dumping and foreign subsidies.

                          ____________________