Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Senate Votes to Repeal the Byrd Amendment
CITAC
The U.S. Senate today approved repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, commonly known as the “Byrd Amendment,� as part of The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. In a compromise reached between House of Representatives and Senate conferees, the repeal will be delayed for two years and Byrd Amendment distributions will continue for entries made prior to October 1, 2007. The conference report now heads back to the House for final action to resolve discrepancies between the House and Senate reports that are unrelated to repeal of the Byrd Amendment. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation soon.
The U.S. Senate today approved repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, commonly known as the “Byrd Amendment,� as part of The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. In a compromise reached between House of Representatives and Senate conferees, the repeal will be delayed for two years and Byrd Amendment distributions will continue for entries made prior to October 1, 2007. The conference report now heads back to the House for final action to resolve discrepancies between the House and Senate reports that are unrelated to repeal of the Byrd Amendment. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation soon.
Comments:
<< Home
The repeal of the Byrd Amendment is further proof that our so-called leaders in Washington could care less about protecting American jobs or getting the trade deficit under control.
Perhaps. But I'm not convinced of that.
My understanding of the review of Byrd was, in essence, that Byrd was the wrong tool for the job. Not that there shouldn't be such a tool, just that Byrd wasn't working and in fact making things worse (and more litigious).
For instance (and this example didn't come out of the report, I'm reading between the lines here), a tool that fed funds back into entire industries rather than just those that hired big lawyers might work better for smaller businesses that can't afford to hire teams of trade lawyers.
Personally, I find it more puzzling that the Bush administration refused to label China a currency manipulator, because there, in one fell swoop, many employment problems across many whole industries could be addressed.
Post a Comment
My understanding of the review of Byrd was, in essence, that Byrd was the wrong tool for the job. Not that there shouldn't be such a tool, just that Byrd wasn't working and in fact making things worse (and more litigious).
For instance (and this example didn't come out of the report, I'm reading between the lines here), a tool that fed funds back into entire industries rather than just those that hired big lawyers might work better for smaller businesses that can't afford to hire teams of trade lawyers.
Personally, I find it more puzzling that the Bush administration refused to label China a currency manipulator, because there, in one fell swoop, many employment problems across many whole industries could be addressed.
<< Home
