|
Press Release The "Byrd Ammendment" Must Go! What is the 'Byrd Amendment'? Also known as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), the Byrd Amendment annually funnels money collected from the imposition of antidumping or countervailing duties directly to companies that petitioned for those duties. The CDSOA does not require that the funds be used for any particular purpose, although the amount received by each company is based loosely on what the company spent on specified purposes, such as improving manufacturing facilities, equipment, research and development, personnel training, etc. What is the origin of the 'Byrd Amendment'? The CDSOA was first proposed by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) and later inserted by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) onto the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2000 during Conference Committee action on the bill. The provision was not included in either the House or the Senate-passed version of the bill. No committee of jurisdiction in either the House or the Senate had an opportunity to review it. President Clinton signed the bill on October 28, 2000, but protested the CDSOA provision, recognizing that it violates common sense as well as our international trade obligations. The 'Byrd Amendment' must go because it is bad for consumers and consuming industries. The CDSOA encourages U.S. producers to file AD and CVD actions knowing full well they will be eligible for monetary distributions. In addition, the CDSOA encourages U.S. producers to expand their petitions to include products they do not even make, because they can collect money on imports that their customers must import due to their unavailability in the United States. There are many examples of petitions that are over-inclusive in this way, from ball bearings to candles to steel wire rod. Customers will face higher prices and product shortages as imports from affected countries drop or disappear altogether. The 'Byrd Amendment' must go because it violates our WTO obligations. Nine members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenged the Byrd Amendment in 2001. A Dispute Settlement Body panel ruled in 2002 that the provision violates our international obligations, concluding that the only way to address the trade violation is to repeal the law. The United States appealed thedecision, but an Appellate Body upheld the original panel finding, obligating the United States to bring the measure into compliance with the WTO, or face retaliation. The United States has already missed its final deadline for action, December 27, 2003. Now U.S. exporters will face retaliation in an amount to be determined by a WTO arbitrator. The 'Byrd Amendment' must go because it is "pork barrel" legislation for some of our largest corporations. In March 2004, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which administers the kickbacks, issued checks to producers and unions for FY 2003 totaling nearly $200 million. Disbursements in FY 2001 totaled $230 million, and in FY 2002, $330 million. The distributions to date total more than $750 million, much of it to companies that do not need the money. The Byrd Amendment is corporate welfare writ large: outright cash subsidies to U.S. producers who have done nothing more than file AD or CVD petitions. A brief glance at the top beneficiaries in 2003 illustrates the extraordinary levels of welfare the United States is doling out to selected corporations: Byrd Amendment Million Dollar (Or More) Jackpot Winners, By Company: By Sector: Source: The Trade Partnership from Customs and Border Protection
data.
|
© 2004 American Seafood Distributors Association, All Rights Reserved.
