United States of America: Bill to suspend tariffs on imports of numerous items
Description
The U.S. Congress is in the process of developing a miscellaneous tariff bill (MTB) that would provide for the suspension of import tariffs (i.e., duty-free treatment on a most-favored-nation basis) for dozens of products. Some of the products covered by this bill already receive duty-free treatment under the terms of a previous MTB, which formed a part of the even broader Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432), but those suspensions expired on December 31, 2009. The products that were granted duty-free treatment under that earlier law thus “snapped back” to dutiable status on January 1, 2010. The new MTB would restore many of those lost suspensions, and also cover new items that would receive duty-free treatment for the first time.
The House Ways and Means Committee’s Trade Subcommittee Chairman, Sander Levin (Democrat of Michigan) and Ranking Member Kevin Brady (Republican of Texas) introduced on December 17, 2009 the “Miscellaneous Tariff Bill” (H.R.4380). The bill as currently drafted includes three-year, temporary suspensions or reductions of duties on more than 600 products. Information on each of the individual items included may be accessed at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/MoreInfo.asp?section=61. The temporary duty suspensions granted as part of the most recent MTB are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2009. Many of the items included in the new MTB would renew existing duty suspensions or reductions..
MTBs are developed in the first instance by the two main trade committees in Congress, these being the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives and the Finance Committee in the Senate. In this instance it is the Senate Finance Committee that is taking the lead in developing the MTB. A list of the many separate bills that were under consideration for inclusion in the MTB was posted. Most of the proposed suspensions affect chemicals, many of which are quite obscure to the layman, but other items that might be included are rolled glass sheets, various types of footwear, snow globes, magnets, ski poles, manganese flake, fabric bags, and even swimming pools (among many others). Additional items could be proposed in the House of Representatives.
Not all items that are under consideration will ultimately make it into the final bill. Both of the trade committees operate under general rules providing that any individual item in the bill cannot exceed more than $500,000 in revenue loss (i.e., foregone tariffs), and both committees will usually insist that there be no domestic production of, or opposition to, the products in question. The committees also receive input on these matters from the administration and from the U.S. International Trade Commission. The process is described at greater length on the websites of the Senate Finance Committee (click here) and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (click here).
MTBs became more controversial following the publication of an exposé by the Washington Post in 2006.* This minor scandal helped to inspire provisions in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, under which legislators are required to disclose when they add a tariff suspension to a larger bill. They must justify the tax break in writing and name the company that would benefit, and the information must be posted in a searchable form on the Internet at least two days before Congress votes on the measure. The heightened scrutiny was also a contributing factor in the failure of the 110th Congress (2007-2008) to enact a duty-suspension bill.
* : Joe Stephens, “A Quiet Break for Corporations” The Washington Post (September 20, 2006).
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | Yes |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | Yes |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the items hyperlinked in the description of the measure.
Government Response:
- 514 reads
