Byrd Amendment

Good Riddance.

The vote yesterday was praised by free-trade advocates and foreign nations, which have viewed the Byrd amendment as a sign of U.S. protectionism and its continued existence as a sign of U.S. contempt for international trade rules. They had feared that the Byrd amendment would remain intact even though several countries have imposed retaliatory duties on U.S. goods since the WTO ruled the amendment illegal.
...
The Byrd amendment became law in 2000 under pressure from steelmakers and their congressional allies who argued that companies damaged by unfair competition deserved to receive the duties the government collected in anti-dumping cases. U.S. companies have received more than $1.25 billion under the law, with more than one-third of that amount going to the Timken Co., an Ohio bearings maker, and much of the rest going to makers of candles and steel, according to Alexander's group.

Another example of a law implemented that did more harm than good.

But the law galled Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico and other trading partners, and in 2002 a WTO panel agreed with their argument that it meant foreign firms shipping goods to the United States could be hit illegally with a double whammy -- anti-dumping duties, plus a government handout to their U.S. competitors. After Congress refused to change the law, the countries began retaliating by imposing tariffs starting last May 1 on a variety of U.S. goods including paper, clothing, wine, machinery, cigarettes and oysters. The tariffs have totaled about $114 million in 2005.