by Larry Bivins
WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Reid Ribble has waded into some murky waters that could weigh on his re-election campaign with his endorsement of a measure pushed by more than two-thirds of the Republican freshman class in the House of Representatives.
Ribble, R-Sherwood, was among 65 GOP first-termers who signed an April 20 letter urging House leaders to consider a bill that would suspend tariffs on certain imports, largely chemicals and materials used in American manufacturing.
Fellow freshman Sean Duffy, R-Weston, did not sign the appeal to House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.
The letter has reignited debate over earmarks — funding for specific projects in lawmakers’ districts — and the GOP moratorium imposed on them in December 2010. Earmarks have been a source of controversy and scandal and a major factor in the erosion of public confidence in Congress.
The ban states: “It is the policy of the House Republican Conference that no member shall request a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as such items have been described in the Rules of the House.”
A limited tariff benefit is defined as any duty suspension that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
Critics contend the miscellaneous tariffs bill is merely an earmark by another name, given it is a composition of requests from individual lawmakers to suspend the duties on specific imports. The requests typically come at the behest of lobbyists and companies in a lawmaker’s district, the critics say.
Supporters counter duty suspensions are not earmarks, but rather tax breaks to help American manufacturers remain competitive globally. Supporters also point out the suspensions in the miscellaneous tariff bill would be available to any U.S. manufacturer and, therefore, are not “limited tariff benefits”
“Over the past two years, there has been paralysis on moving forward on the (tariff bill) over whether or not (its) provisions are prohibited as ‘limited tariff benefits’ under House rules,” the freshmen letter said. “As fiscal conservatives, we appreciate these concerns. However, we believe it is an error to view duty suspensions in that manner.”
The freshman are supported by several trade, business and anti-tax groups who say failure to pass the tariffs suspension bill would lead to a tax increase on manufacturers enjoying the benefits of current duty relief that expires at the end of the year.
“It is important to remember that legislation that reduces or eliminates tariffs on imports is not an earmark, but market-based consumer tax relief,” Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist wrote in a letter to House and Senate committee leaders.
While House rules make a distinction between earmarks and limited tariff benefits, Democrats are using them interchangeably in going after Republicans they feel are vulnerable in this year’s congressional election. Ribble is on that target list.
Already, Ribble’s Democratic opponent, Green Bay businessman Jamie Wall, is accusing the Northeast Wisconsin incumbent of hypocrisy by signing the freshman letter. Wall said Ribble is reneging on a campaign pledge to support the earmark moratorium.
Ribble was unavailable to discuss the issue, but his spokeswoman said the congressman has not violated House rules or retracted his support for the moratorium. She also said Ribble has not submitted any requests for individual tariff suspensions.
“The process that Congressman Ribble supports is to ensure that any tariff suspensions do not violate the earmark ban,” spokeswoman Ashley Olson said. “The tariff suspensions are available to every U.S. manufacturer, plus the small businesses, distributors and consumers that help move or sell the particular end-product. This, by very definition is not an earmark because it is available to everyone and does not benefit a particular company.”
Duffy, who introduced the Republican Conference motion banning earmarks shortly after his election in 2010, declined to sign the letter, spokesman John Gentzler said, because “there are a variety of ways of addressing the issue, and Rep. Duffy was still in the process of reviewing all the options. Without question, Rep. Duffy continues to fully support the House ban on earmarks.”
Since the freshmen’s letter became public, PolitiFact, a fact-checking project by the Tampa Bay Times, has concluded “the process and the particulars involved in earmarks vs. tariff breaks are very different.”
But PolitiFact also said tariff suspensions raise the same concerns as earmarks. “Business owners who can help fund candidates’ campaigns seek the financial benefit from their own representatives. And some of the bills are written in such a way as to only benefit a select few.”
Those same concerns were echoed by Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that monitors federal spending.
Ellis said in the end, the debate over whether a limited tariff benefit is an earmark “is a matter of semantics. Earmark or not, this brings out one of our primary concerns, which is pay to play.”
It is a process in which lobbyists and special interest groups or businesses try to influence members of Congress through campaign contributions and other means.
As for Ribble, Ellis said if the congressman were to sponsor a tariff suspension bill and can show it would benefit more than 10 companies he would be in compliance with the House moratorium rule.
“Writing a letter like this doesn’t violate anything,” Ellis said. “He just lent his name to something I wouldn’t support, but you can’t say he violated the earmark moratorium.”
On the other hand, Ellis said, Ribble and his fellow freshmen have exposed a process that has generally “flown under the radar.”
“I don’t think the freshmen realize what they’ve gotten into,” Ellis said. “Now, people are going to look at it like never before, and I don’t think it can withstand the scrutiny.”
In the past, Democrats and Republicans alike have supported miscellaneous tariff bills. The 2010 measure to suspend duties on some 600 imports passed the House on a 378-43 vote. It was supported by every member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation, except Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls.
Sensenbrenner spokeswoman Amanda Infield said the congressman rejected the bill “because he felt it was an earmark, and he feels the same way today.”
Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., have the right idea, Ellis said, in legislation they’ve introduced that would leave it up to the International Trade Commission to decide what tariff relief to grant instead of Congress. As it is now, he said, the ITC is responsible for vetting the requests to make sure, among other things, the cost of each suspension doesn’t exceed $500,000 in lost revenues.
“Let’s cut out the middle man,” Ellis said. “There’s no reason for members of Congress to be involved in this.”
DeMint’s and McCaskill’s bill, he said, “would cut out lobbyists; it would cut out some campaign contributions and it wouldn’t allow lawmakers to take the credit.”
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
