A Quiet Break for Corporations

Lobbyists and lawmakers said many tariff suspensions aid small businesses. The savings "can be especially meaningful for a small company, or one struggling to stay afloat in the United States," Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement.

But The Post's analysis of data from nearly 600 trade commission reports from this session of Congress found that the biggest winners are not small U.S. firms but rather domestic subsidiaries of European corporations.

During this session, eight foreign corporations alone have generated at least 277 tariff-suspension bills. The total is undoubtedly higher, since the Post study could not identify the corporate sponsors of many bills.

The analysis shows that various Bayer subsidiaries were the unnamed primary beneficiaries of more than 70 suspension bills covering imported chemicals, including the ingredients for aspirin. Over the next two years those suspensions would cost the Treasury more than $35 million on imports worth nearly $850 million. A Bayer spokesman would say only that Bayer expects other corporations to share in the savings.

Since 2000, Bayer's political committee has made campaign contributions totaling $951,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. In 2005 alone, Bayer and its U.S. affiliates spent $3.2 million on lobbying.

Finding Competitors

To safeguard domestic producers, trade commission analysts try to identify U.S.-based companies that might make the products, then ask them whether the suspensions would be damaging.

But identifying affected companies that are small and based far from Washington can be difficult. The trade commission's Beck said that despite analysts' best efforts, they occasionally miss such firms. "It happens, but not very often," he said. "In the last 10 years I'd say I've seen one or two examples."

Grassley said his staff posts proposed suspensions on his committee's Web site and welcomes public comment. "Our process is transparent and well publicized," he said. "It probably isn't perfect, but no process is."

Kelly, general manager of R.T. Vanderbilt Co. of Connecticut, said it was largely luck when a colleague tipped off his firm about Brown's bill to suspend the tariff on Vulkanox ZMB, a chemical used in rubber production. Kelly's company produces a similar chemical at a Kentucky plant that employs more than 100 people.

The company dashed off a letter to the Ways and Means Committee, arguing that the waiver would give Lanxess, which imports Vulkanox, a competitive advantage and might force Vanderbilt to shut its factory.

"We do not understand why this legislation is needed, and its sponsor has not provided an explanation," the letter said. ". . . [T]he only result of the legislation would be windfall profits at our expense to the German, Indian and Chinese suppliers."

The letter also called it "ironic" that the European Union charges a 6.5 percent tariff on Vanderbilt's chemical.

Kelly said his company has no practical way to ensure another waiver does not slip through without its knowledge -- short of hiring a lobbyist just to keep watch.

"There maybe should be a higher bar on our elected officials on making clear why they want to do this," Kelly said.

Dungey, who co-owns Auburn Leathercrafters in Upstate New York, launched a one-woman campaign against four bills that would cut the 2.4 percent tariff on imported dog collars and leashes. She argued that anyone familiar with the industry would realize domestic producers would find the waivers "devastating."

She said she believes that Wal-Mart and other big importers count on U.S.-based manufacturers never learning about the obscure legislation. "A lot of people just don't have the time to devote to staying on top of it," Dungey said.

Wal-Mart officials said their only motivation is to save consumers money. While the dog-collar bills would cost taxpayers more than $9 million over the next three years, the company stressed that all importers would share the benefits.

The bills' legislative sponsor, Sen. Lincoln, said in a statement that she was pleased that the Senate process had allowed Dungey to raise objections. In response, Lincoln said, the measures have been removed from consideration.

Dungey said no one had told her the tariff suspension was dead. Had she not stumbled across the mention on a Web site and spent days on research, Dungey said, she is convinced the cut in tariffs would have passed without opposition -- and led to the end of her company.

"The suspension is . . . just about long enough to put most of the small guys out of business," Dungey said. "I would have just shaken my head and said, 'How can Wal-Mart sell for this price?' "

Database editor Sarah Cohen contributed to this report.