The MTB is the most popular bill you’ve never heard of. The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) is a compendium of more than two thousand tariff waivers which reduce the fees importers pay for a wide range of imported products – from snow globes to sports bras, from capers to dimethyl carbonate polymer with 1,6-hexanediol and 2-oxepanone. Each Congress crafts the bill out of the limelight with only a few (thousand) vested interests looking on. This year, it’s become a hot topic because of the existing moratorium on earmarks and a debate around whether the miscellaneous tariff bill is an earmark bill.

However, that point has been settled. The House Republican Conference rules for the 112th Congress includes “limited tariff benefits” which Congress defines as those going to “10 or fewer entities” as part of the “earmark moratorium.” Case closed.

What we’ve heard from lawmakers is that tariff relief provisions are important and would benefit multiple companies and downstream users, plus the products could be imported by people not even envisioned, therefore exceeding 10 companies and no longer being a “limited tariff benefit.” However, by that definition, nothing would ever be a limited tariff benefit, so why include it in the moratorium?

The whole debate misses the point. Just like the fight over the propriety of earmarks; this isn’t just about the ends, but also the means. Taxpayers for Common Sense has long been concerned with the MTB because of the potential pay-to-play and special interest giveaways that it perpetuates. That’s the larger issue. Call them earmarks, call them limited tariff benefits, call them whatever you like, we are still concerned with this legislation.

Here’s how this system works: lawmakers file their individual tariff relief bills along with paperwork that provides documentation regarding the beneficiaries, the specific product, etc. Next, the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigates to see that there aren’t domestic competitors for the products (which would sink the proposed tariff benefit) and that the cost doesn’t exceed $500,000. Then the Customs Service will determine if it is implementable. And finally Congress cobbles together all the vetted provisions into one massive MTB. This process differs slightly from appropriations and authorization earmarks in that there is an joint legislative branch-independent agency process of proposing, vetting, passing, and presumably signing proposals into law. However, there isn’t much need for the initial proposing by Congress. The companies that want tariff relief could apply directly to the ITC, be vetted, and then that list be submitted to Congress for approval. Or, the ITC could independently review the tariff system and see where they can reduce tariffs without harming domestic manufacturers. It’s hard to see how Congress being in the front end improves the system. But it sure is good for lobbyists seeking clients and lawmakers looking for contributions from donors and brownie points from constituents.

That’s how we have Sen. Casey (D-PA) pushing for 137 different tariff reductions, including 16 for Bayer CropScience (and another 17 for Bayer MaterialScience) who made $7,000 in campaign contributions this year or Rep. Burton (R-IN) who made 32 requests, all for Dow Agrosciences (propicanazole, anyone?) which happens to be headquartered near his district.

Instead of ramming through bloated business-as-usual bills, the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees should be looking at how to reform the system. For instance, Sens. Portman (R-OH) and McCaskill (D-MO) proposed having the ITC review tariffs for relief on their own or at a company’s request (it would also index the $500,000 to inflation). That would be a far better system than what we have now.

The debate over tariff benefits being earmarks is distracting semantics. We’re concerned about the process and whether Congress is making these decisions on the merits. Instead of treating the earmark moratorium like it didn’t exist, Congressional leadership must use it to build a better tariff system.