Earmarks Issue Delaying Miscellaneous Trade Bill
The House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees have been working to develop an omnibus Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
However, knowledgeable trade sources state that the process of developing an omnibus MTB is being negatively impacted by recent Congressional actions regarding limited tariff benefits, earmarks, etc.
It is not yet known how severely or how long these issues will delay the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committee's efforts to introduce (and pass) an Omnibus MTB.
Republicans Banned from Requesting Limited Tariff Benefits, Earmarks, Etc.
On March 11, 2010, the House Republican Conference adopted a policy unilaterally banning its members from requesting a congressional earmark1, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit (i.e., a provision that modifies the Harmonized Tariff Schedule in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities).
In addition, various resolutions and bills have been introduced (primarily in the House) to take action (ban, increase transparency, etc.) on earmarks, limited tariff benefits, etc. None of these resolutions and bills have been enacted.
(Congress adjourned at the end of 2009 without passing an Omnibus MTB. As a result, hundreds of HTS 9902 tariff numbers, which provided temporary duty suspensions or reductions to certain products, expired on December 31, 2009.
Just before adjournment, Representatives Levin (D) and Brady (R) introduced H.R. 4380, the "Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2009" to renew certain HTS 9902 expired provisions and create certain new HTS 9902 provisions. A Senate MTB has not been introduced as the Finance Committee has not yet completed the process of vetting the individual MTBs introduced in the Senate in 2009 and those bills have not yet been compiled into a Senate Omnibus MTB.
Action on smaller MTB had been expected in early 2010. This smaller bill was to include certain (i) House extensions of expired suspensions and reductions, (ii) Senate extensions of expired suspensions and reductions, and (iii) new suspensions and reductions which both the House and Senate have cleared. Under this scenario, any remaining individual MTBs could be considered later in 2010.)
1The House Rules define a congressional earmark as a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a member, providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, or other expenditure with or to an entity or targeted to a specific State, etc. other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.