Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may bring up an earmark-laden tariffs bill in the lame duck that, if supported in a bipartisan fashion, would violate the pledge Senate Republicans made to oppose earmarks.

The current definition of an earmark, debated and agreed upon by Senate Republicans in their 2012 post-election conference rules meeting, includes what are known as “limited tariff benefits.” These are bills to suspend or reduce tariffs on certain imported goods, ranging from eye lash curlers to volleyballs, to grill brushes. Earlier this year, Heritage Action published a study showing that the overwhelming majority of the proposed limited tariff bills benefit 10 or fewer companies, making the point that indeed, these bills function as earmarks to favored companies and don't benefit industries across-the-board.

The GOP’s ban on earmarks, however, may be tested if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid includes a bill to renew more than 2,000 limited tariff benefits into a larger, "must-pass" spending package in the lame duck session. This bill would not only violate the earmark ban but put a damper on positive efforts by members of both parties to reform a broken system.

Currently, a company’s representative or senator must introduce a bill for each tariff suspension. This is almost always done at the request of a specific constituent company. The arrangement often makes it necessary for a company to hire lobbyists to ingratiate themselves to their elected officials’ offices. Then, if the company succeeds, the congressman or senator introduces a targeted bill to benefit it.

A better option would be to allow companies to directly petition the International Trade Commission, which has to review all suspension bills anyway.  Businesses shouldn’t be forced to beg for favors from their elected officials.

Democrats, like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill agree. Bipartisan legislation, supported by many Republicans and co-sponsored by Senator McCaskill, would streamline the process for duty suspensions by allowing companies to submit their proposals directly to the ITC.  

Senate leaders should work together to pass the MTB reform bill before passing another bill to keep up the earmarking under the broken tariff suspension system. 

After all, it’s settled fact that both Republicans and Democrats agree limited tariff benefits are earmarks. Republican senators included them in their definition when they, as a caucus, decided to ban earmarks after the 2010 elections and reaffirmed that definition in their 2012 rules package.

The Senate rules that govern both parties recognize limited tariff benefits as earmarks, too. Rule 44, titled “Congressionally Directed Spending and Related Items” specifically includes limited tariff benefits in the definition.

And, right now there is rare agreement between Republicans and Democrats that the process for providing limited tariff benefits must be improved. 

The Senate would be wise to act on that positive impulse rather than bring up another bill likely to be dead-on-arrival due to the Republican conference's existing ban on earmarks.