Chicago Tribune

Pork producers in the U.S. claim they are being wronged by their competitors north of the border because Canada subsidizes its hog industry. That means Canadian pigs can be sold here at a price that is below the cost of production. To right this alleged wrong, U.S. pork producers have appealed for government help.

Last year the Commerce Department rejected the notion that Canada illegally subsidizes its hog farmers, but nevertheless set preliminary duties on live hogs from Canada at 13 percent to 15 percent. Commerce promised to review that decision by next week.

Commerce should reject those duties. If they stick, they will lead to higher prices for independent competitors of the big U.S. hog producers and, ultimately, for everyone who enjoys a succulent side of bacon.

There's another, bizarre, angle to this case: Domestic producers not only get protection from foreign competition, they get to cash in.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission decides that U.S. hog producers have suffered "severe financial hardship" from Canadian imports, the U.S. pork producers will get the money collected from the tariffs. That's because of a measure attached by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in 2000 to a must-pass appropriations bill. Under the Byrd amendment, more than $1 billion in tariffs have been paid to U.S. companies, rather than going to the U.S. treasury.

The pork producers are the latest in a long line of industries trying to cash in on the Byrd amendment through questionable dumping claims. The drill goes like this: American steelmakers, candlemakers, furniture-makers, cement producers, food companies and makers of computer chips, pencils, uranium, chemicals, axes, cooking ware, folding metal tables and on and on--this is just a partial list--charge some foreign competitor with dumping product here.

More often than not, the U.S. government determines the claims are legit--even though the strategy of pricing below production costs is considered perfectly legitimate when done by a domestic company in the U.S. (That's not dumping, you see; that's just business.)

The Byrd amendment creates a powerful financial incentive to bring dumping cases. It also unfairly protects American companies: The World Trade Organization ruled in 2002 the Byrd amendment was illegal. Last August, the WTO gave the green light for the European Union and seven other U.S. trading partners to collect punitive sanctions from the U.S as long as Byrd remains law. Outrageously, Congress has made no move to revoke the amendment.

There's still a chance that Commerce will rescind the pork tariffs next week and that the ITC will scoff at the claims of financial hardship. Consider this: Smithfield Foods, the nation's top U.S. hog and pork producer, reported Tuesday that its latest quarterly profit had doubled compared with the previous year because hog prices and exports have surged. If that constitutes being harmed by Canada, maybe Smithfield should ask for a second helping, please. The other big pork producers are doing just fine. The main victims of this case seem to be smaller independent U.S. farmers and brokers who have to pay more to import pigs from Canada.

Each time the U.S. invokes the Byrd amendment, it thumbs its nose at the WTO and the notion of free trade. That chips away at America's credibility on trade and raises the prospects, of course, that other countries will flout WTO rulings. Foreigners aren't to blame. This outrage has been made in America.