[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 27958-27959]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         BUDGET RECONCILIATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I also take this opportunity to speak on 
a motion to instruct conferees on the Byrd amendment.
  Yesterday, a Senator sent a letter to the majority leader saying he 
would oppose the reconciliation bill if we used repeal of the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act to achieve billions in budget savings. 
While disappointed, I was not surprised. In fact, I say, join the club.
  Already, one Senator told me he would oppose reconciliation unless 
specific provisions on specialty hospitals were not included. Several 
other Senators threatened to vote against the reconciliation bill 
unless the MLLC Program was not extended. Another Senator told me he 
will vote no if we save money by trimming waste from the Medicaid 
Program. A group of southern Senators said they would vote no on the 
reconciliation bill if the Grassley provision on payment limits in the 
farm program became a part of the bill.
  So, no savings from the CDSOA repeal; no savings from the MLLC 
Program; no savings from Medicaid; no savings from payment limits. With 
everyone threatening to vote ``no'' there will be no savings in any 
Federal program, ever.
  Everyone says they are for balanced budgets as long as it is someone 
else whose budget is cut to get the job done--not their pet issue. We 
need to ask ourselves whether we want to trim the Federal budget or 
not. If not, what does the Republican Party stand for?
  The most egregious threat has to be over budget savings from the 
repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. This program is 
Government pork at its worst. It takes money that should go to the 
treasury of the United States and it transfers that money to a select 
group of companies. Talk about special interests, Mr. President. Plus 
there are very few limits on

[[Page 27959]]

what these companies can do with the money that is raised by an act of 
Congress.
  According to the General Accounting Office, one recipient even used 
the money to pay off his home mortgage. The program is so bad it did 
not even pass during the light of day a few years ago. Instead, it was 
pushed into a conference report before it could receive scrutiny by 
either House of Congress. Ironically, some are arguing that budget 
reconciliation shouldn't be used to save money by repealing this 
amendment. They argue it should go through the regular order. I don't 
know why they would argue this given the provision never went through 
regular order before it became law in the first place.
  Here, unlike passage a few years ago of this bad amendment, repeal 
went through regular order in the House. Repeal just a couple weeks ago 
went through regular order in the House where that amendment had never 
even been considered by the other body when it was originally adopted a 
few years ago.
  So let me be clear. We are not talking about repealing any aspect of 
our trade remedy laws. Every trade protection that has been in place 
for years stays in place. What we are talking about is getting rid of a 
Government subsidy program that enriches the few at the expense of the 
many.
  A recent report from the Government Accountability Office shows this 
in very stark detail. Over $1 billion has been distributed so far under 
this program. One company alone--one company alone--of that $1 billion 
received almost 20 percent of the disbursements, and the top 5 
recipients account for almost half of those disbursements.
  You do not have to cast a very wide net to see where this corporate 
welfare is going. Just 39 companies account for over 80 percent of the 
disbursements. And the World Trade Organization has authorized a number 
of our trading partners to retaliate against us. This is where, to help 
a few companies through this amendment, we are going to end up hurting 
a lot of American producers, some of them in our powerful agriculture, 
and maybe end up hurting every consumer in America. As a result, 
innocent U.S. exporters are taking a big hit so the lucky few can 
continue guzzling at the public trough.
  Already, our exporters face additional duties imposed by Japan, 
Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Here is where it affects some 
products. Our producers of live swine, fish, oysters, cigarettes, dairy 
products, wine, paper products, clothing, sweet corn, industrial belts, 
steel products, forklift trucks, printing machines, and others, are all 
bearing the brunt of sanctions against some American companies because 
we have a law on the books that violates our international agreement 
and at the same time benefits a handful of major companies in America.
  It happens that Brazil, Chile, India, and South Korea could soon 
impose sanctions. As more countries exercise their authority to 
retaliate and as payments under this program continue to grow, innocent 
U.S. exporters--the ones I have listed and others--and, more 
importantly, their employees, will continue to be hurt more and more as 
time goes on. That is not right. This situation needs to end.
  The Government Accountability Office report points out some other 
ridiculous aspects of this program, such as the complete lack of 
accountability. Recipients of funds under the program submit claims 
based upon qualifying expenditures, but there is no way to tell whether 
those claims are even justified. In fact, the evidence suggests they 
may not be justified.
  In 2004, company claims were about $1.3 trillion. Mr. President, I 
said that right: Companies were making claims for $1.3 trillion. The 
gross domestic product of the United States in 2004 was $11.75 
trillion. So if the 770 recipients of funds under the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act, referred to as the Byrd amendment, are to be 
believed, they spent about 11 percent of the U.S. gross domestic 
product last year on qualifying expenditures.
  I understand that in the year 2005--the year now ending--claims are 
about $3.2 trillion. That is equivalent to one-quarter of the GDP of 
the entire United States of America.
  I think those figures show the magnitude of the incentive for fraud 
under this program. The proponents of this program ought to be 
embarrassed. This program is bad economic policy, bad trade policy, and 
bad Government to use the power of Government to end up giving a few 
companies in this country the benefit of the Federal Government's power 
to tax.
  It should be repealed, as the House has done. I hope that coming out 
of conference we can have this provision in there. I hope we will not 
instruct conferees to disagree with the House. In the process of doing 
this, we are going to put $3.2 trillion into the Federal Treasury 
instead of having it go as corporate welfare to a handful of companies.
  If we cannot repeal such a blatant example of Government pork to save 
money during a time of skyrocketing budget deficits, then why are we 
here as representatives of the people at all? Are we here to protect 
the pockets of a select few, or do we want to do, and will do, what is 
in the best interests of our Nation?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________