A small, unknown congressional bill, currently committee-stalled in both houses of Congress, illustrates the difficulty in passing any legislation, even if it is supported by both sides of the aisle. Case in point— the Affordable Footwear Act of 2007 (AFA), a “bipartisan effort” also known as H.R. 3934. Its companion bill in the Senate is S. 2372. Notable Republicans, an Independent, and Democrats have signed on: Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), as well as Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Joe Lieberman(ID-CT), and John Sununu (R-NH).
A Democrat (Joseph Crowley, NY) sponsored AFA in the House, and a Republican (Gordon H. Smith, OR) in the Senate. Currently, 157 Representatives and 13 Senators have co-sponsored the bill. It appears, however, that AFA will die with the 110th Congress, unless it is “attached to the upcoming Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.” The Cato Institute addressed the debate on July 25.
Although the title of the bill invites the perpetually cynical cry of “nothing [of real importance] gets done in Washington,” the issues the AFA takes up are anything but insignificant. Tariff policy is intertwined with trade policy, and both affect the U.S. economy. Cato spokesman, Daniel T. Griswold, said federal trade policy needs to calculate the “net cost of protectionism.” In other words, Congress needs to “liberalize trade.”
The footwear tariffs, according to Griswold, are a “glaring exception” to most of the sensible tariff laws. Of all shoes sold in the U.S., 98% are imported. Duty rates range from 10.7% to 67%. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) agreed with Griswold, saying that “shoes are the extreme case” in U.S. tariff rates.Tariffs on sneakers range from 48% to 67%. “Among the highest remaining U.S. tariffs,” according to the Cato event description, “are those imposed on imported shoes, with the highest duties applying to the cheapest shoes.”
Higher rates are not the only problem, though. In machine gun-like fashion, the Oregon representative listed the following tariff rates:
An issue, however, is only an issue if there is debate. William Hawkins, who sits on the U.S. Business and Industry Council, provided opposition to the AFA. Hawkins argued that the stalled bill is only a piece of “special interest legislation.” The “current tariff” on sneakers raises the price only $1.00, or 4.3%. A dollar increase on sneakers is “unlikely” to be hurting the poor, he argues.
Hawkins further asks the question, “Who benefits?” Far from being an act in “altruism,” the AFA exists because of “lobbyists” from China, he argues.
Currently, 72% of imported footwear comes from China. In Hawkins opinion, the U.S. has helped China enough. Congress should not pass an act, therefore, that requires the American taxpayer to cut China’s expenses. Instead, Hawkins wants the U.S. to continue the historical goal of tariff policy: “to discriminate between [our] friends and foes.” Given that China uses “their money” against “U.S. interest,” passing the AFA would force Americans to act against American interest, he asserts.
Daniel Smith is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
