Budget Reconciliation

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 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/