House Passes Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Would Repeal the Byrd Amendment

The Senate passed its version of S. 1932 on November 3, 2005. According to a House Ways and Means Committee press release, the House and Senate will now convene a conference on the two versions to work out the differences.

House-Passed Version of S. 1932 Would Repeal the Byrd Amendment

The House passed version of S. 1932 contains a provision that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), commonly known as the "Byrd Amendment."

Specifically, Section 8701 of S. 1932 would repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1675c), and the item relating to section 754 in the table of contents for Title VII of that Act.

S. 1932, Section 8701 further states that for existing accounts, all amounts remaining, upon enactment of this title, in any special account established under 754(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this title) shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.

(The Byrd Amendment requires that the revenues from antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duties assessed on or after October 1, 2000 be distributed on an annual basis to the affected domestic producers (i.e. currently operating producers (including worker representatives) that were either petitioners for the AD/CV duty order in question or interested parties in support of the petition) for specified qualifying expenditures (e.g. manufacturing facilities, research and development, personnel training). See ITT's Online Archives or 10/19/00 news, 00101837, for BP summary.)

Senate-Passed Version of S. 1932 Would Not Repeal the Byrd Amendment

A State Department Washington File article opines that the final passage of the repeal of the Byrd Amendment remains uncertain as the Senate version of S. 1932 has no such provision.

The article also notes that the Bush Administration has long requested repeal of the Byrd Amendment, but opposition to its repeal remains strong in Congress, especially in the Senate.

According to the article, the Administration issued a statement noting that the repeal of the Byrd Amendment would enable the U.S. to fulfill its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations and avoid retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners.

(On August 31, 2004, the WTO authorized numerous countries to retaliate against the U.S. for its failure to bring the CDSOA into conformity with WTO rules by December 27, 2003.

On May 1, 2005, both the European Union (EU) and Canada began imposing 15% additional duties on various U.S.-origin products in light of the U.S.' failure to repeal the Byrd Amendment.

Japan has also announced that it will begin imposing on September 1, 2005, retaliatory sanctions on certain U.S. products in 19 HS codes in light of the U.S.' failure to repeal the Byrd Amendment.

On August 18, 2005, Mexico began imposing retaliatory duties on certain U.S. exports of chewing gum, dairy blends, and wine as a result of the U.S.' failure to repeal the Byrd Amendment.

The Canadian government has previously explained that the WTO has granted retaliation authorization to Canada, the EU, Brazil, Chile, India, Japan, Korea, and Mexico. The Canadian government has also stated that although Thailand and Indonesia participated in the WTO Byrd Amendment dispute, these two countries did not request retaliation rights.)

S. 1932, as passed by the House, available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s1932eah.txt.pdf.

House Ways and Means Committee summary (dated 10/26/05) available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/budget/102405reconsummary.pdf.

State Department Washington File article (dated 11/21/05) available at http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=November&x=20051121121000ebyessedo0.8750269&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html.