The U.S. Congress and the European
Parliament: Evolving Transatlantic Legislative
Cooperation

Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs
Vincent Morelli
Section Research Manager
December 30, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41552
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Summary
The United States and the European Union (EU) share an extensive, dynamic, and for many a
mutually beneficial political and economic partnership. A growing element of that relationship is
the role that the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament (EP)—a key EU institution—have
begun to play, including in areas ranging from foreign and economic policy to regulatory reform.
Consequently, some officials and experts on both sides of the Atlantic believe that it would be
beneficial for Congress and the EP to strengthen institutional ties further and to explore the
possibility of coordinating efforts to develop more complementary policies in some areas.
The Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD), the formal exchange between Congress (actually
the House of Representatives) and the European Parliament, was launched in 1999, although
semi-annual meetings between the Congress and the EP date back to 1972. Recently, the TLD’s
visibility has increased following the 2007 decision to name it as an advisor to the Transatlantic
Economic Council (TEC), which seeks to “advance the work of reducing or eliminating non-tariff
barriers to transatlantic commerce and trade.” Proponents of establishing closer relations between
the U.S. Congress and the EP also point to the Parliament’s growing influence as a result of the
EU’s new Lisbon Treaty, which took effect in December 2009. The Lisbon Treaty has increased
the relative power of the EP within the EU, and in some cases, with significant implications for
U.S. interests—as seen by the EP’s initial rejection in February 2010 of the U.S.-EU terrorist
finance tracking agreement (known as the SWIFT accord).
Over the last few years, in part because of the TLD’s new TEC-related responsibilities, contacts
between the Congress and the Parliament have increased in frequency, including at the committee
level. However, many observers note that the EP has been far out in front of the Congress in
pursuit of a stronger relationship. In 2010, the Parliament opened a liaison office in Washington,
charged with keeping the EP better informed of legislative activity in the Congress and vice-
versa. In addition, each EP standing committee has named a “TLD Administrator” on its staff to
act as a contact point between the committee and the TLD, as well as between the committee and
its counterpart committee in the U.S. Congress.
While there appears to be no formal opposition within Congress to increasing contacts with the
European Parliament or exploring ways to enhance the TLD, some observers point out that with
the exception of those members involved in the TLD, Congress as a whole seems to be at best
ambivalent to such efforts and has not demonstrated as much enthusiasm as the EP about forging
closer relations. And given the structural and procedural differences between the Congress and
the EP, some experts doubt whether the two bodies could effectively work together on legislative
issues. On the other hand, some members of Congress have begun to consider whether there is a
need for more cooperation with the EP, and have raised questions with respect to how this might
best be accomplished. For such members and outside advocates of closer relations, questions
have also surfaced about how transatlantic legislative cooperation might effectively be increased,
including whether the TLD itself should be reorganized, how the standing committees in both the
Congress and the EP might be involved, and what role, if any, for the U.S. Senate.
This report provides background on the Congress-EP relationship and the role of the TLD. It also
explores potential future options should an effort to strengthen ties between the two bodies gain
momentum. For additional information, see CRS Report RS21998, The European Parliament, by
Kristin Archick and Derek E. Mix, and CRS Report RL34735, Transatlantic Regulatory
Cooperation: A Possible Role for Congress
, by Raymond J. Ahearn and Vincent Morelli.
Congressional Research Service

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
The U.S.-EU Relationship..................................................................................................... 1
Role of the Legislatures......................................................................................................... 2
Development of Relations Between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament ................... 5
Transatlantic Policy Network ................................................................................................ 5
New Transatlantic Agenda..................................................................................................... 6
Transatlantic Economic Council............................................................................................ 7
The Current Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue .......................................................................... 9
Initiatives to Strengthen Congress-Parliament Cooperation........................................................ 11
European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO) ....................................................................... 12
Closer Committee Contact .................................................................................................. 13
Possible Options for Future Congress-Parliament Cooperation .................................................. 15
1. Enhance the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue .............................................................. 16
2. Develop Closer TLD Coordination with the Standing Committees and Promote
Committee Cooperation ................................................................................................... 17
3. Utilize EP Parliament Liaison Staff Deployed to Washington........................................... 18
4. Establish a Senior Staff “Fellowship” Exchange .............................................................. 19
5. Utilize the Current Staff Employed by the U.S. Mission to the EU in Brussels ................. 19
6. Deploy Congressional Staff to Brussels ........................................................................... 20
7. Establish a Congressional Commission on the EU ........................................................... 20
Role of the Senate ..................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 22

Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Committees in the EP and the U.S. Congress (as of 2010)................. 25

Appendixes
Appendix. Comparison of Committees in the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress ........ 24

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Introduction
The U.S.-EU Relationship
The United States Congress and successive U.S. administrations have long supported the
European Union (EU) as a way to advance democracy and strong economic partners in Europe.
The current 27-member EU is the latest stage in a process of European integration begun in the
1950s to promote lasting peace and prosperity on the European continent.1 During the Cold War,
the United States viewed this European integration project as central to deterring the Soviet threat
by securing free markets and engendering political stability in Europe.
Despite the end of the Cold War, many observers assert that the security and prosperity of the
United States and the EU remain inextricably linked. Both the United States and the EU face a
common set of challenges—from countering terrorism and weapons proliferation to slowing
environmental degradation to ensuring the stability of international financial markets—and have
few other comparable partners with whom they share such similar interests and values.
Proponents of close U.S.-EU ties argue that neither side can adequately address the diverse
number of global concerns alone, and that the United States and the EU have a proven track
record of working together. For example, the United States and the EU are promoting security in
the Balkans and Afghanistan, and have intensified law enforcement cooperation since the 2001
terrorist attacks on the United States.
Furthermore, the United States and the EU share a huge, mutually beneficial, and increasingly
interdependent trade and investment relationship. Despite the recent global economic downturn,
the combined U.S. and EU economies account for nearly 50% of global gross domestic product
and roughly 45% of world trade. In 2009, the value of the two-way flow of goods, services, and
income receipts from investment between the United States and the EU totaled nearly $1.2
trillion. U.S. and European companies are also the biggest investors in each other’s markets: total
stock of two-way direct investment was about $3.2 trillion in 2009.2 Historically, U.S.-EU
cooperation has also been critical in making the world trading system more open and efficient.
At the same time, the U.S.-EU relationship has been challenged in recent years by numerous
foreign policy and trade conflicts. U.S.-EU relations reached a historic low in 2003 over the U.S.-
led invasion of Iraq, which some EU member states supported and others strongly opposed. In the
aftermath of this crisis, the former Bush Administration sought to improve cooperation and
emphasize areas of partnership with the EU. In the years since, observers point out that U.S.-EU
tensions on several key issues, such as Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have dissipated.
The Obama Administration has also sought to bolster ties with the EU and has introduced some
policies that have helped reduce U.S.-EU frictions further; for example, many terrorist detainee
and interrogation practices, which the EU had long opposed as degrading shared values, have
been reversed. However, U.S.-EU differences in other areas—such as data privacy, climate
change, and energy security—persist, as do U.S.-EU trade disputes over poultry, aircraft

1 The current 27 members of the EU are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
2 For more information, see CRS Report RL30608, EU-U.S. Economic Ties: Framework, Scope, and Magnitude, by
William H. Cooper.
Congressional Research Service
1

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

subsidies, and bio-engineered food products. Regulatory barriers to greater trade and investment
also remain, despite efforts on both sides to promote regulatory cooperation.
Role of the Legislatures
In light of both the possible benefits of and challenges to greater U.S.-EU cooperation on a wide array
of common political and economic issues, some members of Congress and their counterparts in the
European Parliament (EP) have recently expressed renewed interest in strengthening institutional ties
and enhancing cooperation. The EP is a key institution of the European Union and the only one that is
directly elected (see “Background on the European Parliament” for more information on the EP).
Relations between the Congress and the EP date back to 1972, and institutional cooperation currently
exists through the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD). However, in recent years, new
momentum for boosting Congressional-EP relations has come from the decision in 2007 to name the
TLD as an advisor to the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), which was created by the United
States Government and the European Union at the annual U.S.-EU summit in 2007. The TEC is aimed
at reducing remaining non-tariff and regulatory barriers to transatlantic commerce and trade (see
“Transatlantic Economic Council”).
In addition, proponents of establishing closer relations between the U.S. Congress and the European
Parliament point to the EP’s growing influence following the entrance into force of the EU’s new
Lisbon Treaty in December 2009. Most experts agree that the Lisbon Treaty—the EU’s latest effort at
institutional reform—significantly increases the relative power of the EP within the EU. Among other
measures, the treaty further expands the EP’s role in the EU’s legislative process by giving the EP a
greater say over most all legislation passed in the EU, including in sensitive areas such as agriculture
and justice and home affairs. The treaty also strengthens the EP’s role in the EU’s budgetary process,
gives the EP the right to approve or reject international agreements by majority vote, and expands its
decision-making authority over trade-related issues.3
Analysts observe that the EP has not been shy about exerting its new powers, and in some cases, with
implications for U.S. interests. In February 2010, for example, the EP rejected a U.S.-EU agreement
(known as the SWIFT accord) that would have continued allowing U.S. authorities access to
European financial data to help counter terrorism. Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, the EP did not have the
authority to veto such an accord. Although the EP eventually approved a new U.S.-EU SWIFT
agreement in July 2010, it did so only after several EP demands related to strengthening data privacy
protections for EU citizens were agreed to by the United States and the other EU institutions.
In light of the SWIFT votes, U.S. policymakers have taken note that the EP may be an increasingly
important actor in the conduct of U.S.-EU relations. In May 2010, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden
addressed the EP in Brussels. In September 2010, in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the EP was now an “influential player.” As
such, some U.S. officials and analysts suggest that it is in U.S. interests for Congress to forge stronger
ties with the EP. Most recently, in November 2010, U.S. Ambassador to the EU William Kennard

3 The Lisbon Treaty seeks to reform the EU’s governing institutions and decision-making processes in order to enable
an enlarged Union to function more effectively. In addition to implementing a number of changes in how the EP and
the other EU institutions operate, the Lisbon Treaty seeks to give the EU a stronger and more coherent voice on the
world stage and to increase democratic transparency within the EU. For more information, see CRS Report RS21618,
The European Union’s Reform Process: The Lisbon Treaty, by Kristin Archick and Derek E. Mix.
Congressional Research Service
2

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

asserted that there is an “urgent need to intensify and deepen” the U.S. relationship with the EP, and in
particular, that between Congress and the EP.4
Many of those who support Congressional and EP aspirations to bolster relations between the two
legislative bodies also point out that, in the past, there have been instances in which legislation
passed by either the U.S. Congress or the EP has affected the other side and contributed to U.S.-
EU tensions. For example, in 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to reform
U.S. corporate accounting practices in the wake of a series of scandals at major corporations such
as Enron. EU officials objected to many of the provisions of the act, claiming that they did not
take into account differences in European corporate governance and financing mechanisms.
Meanwhile, some U.S. business interests and exporters have expressed similar concerns about the
costs and burdens of new EU regulations, such as those governing chemicals (known as
REACH), which took effect in 2007. More recently, in 2010, U.S.-EU frictions surfaced over
proposed EU legislation to regulate hedge funds and private equity groups; U.S. officials
contended that some elements of the initial legislative proposal would make it more difficult for
U.S. hedge funds to sell their products in the EU.
Pointing to the above examples, some experts assert that U.S.-EU tensions could have perhaps
been avoided—or at least reduced—if both sides’ legislative bodies had consulted more ahead of
time. Many of this view recommend that the U.S. Congress and the EP should make a more
concerted effort to coordinate legislation in some policy areas. In several post-TLD meeting
statements, both sides have urged the creation of an “early warning” system that would alert both
bodies of potential problems related to legislation working its way through either institution. In
addition to financial services and regulatory issues that would be candidates for legislative
cooperation, other areas that would possibly benefit from greater consultation and coordination
include climate change, energy efficiency and energy security, trade policy, data protection, and
homeland security issues ranging from transport security to terrorist tracking and financing.
Although there has not been a significant movement within Congress to expand Congress-EP
relations, those in favor of boosting ties between the two institutions have proposed a variety of
possible options for doing so, including increasing staff exchanges and establishing a
Congressional liaison office in Brussels. Some have suggested that Congress needs a new, more
institutionalized structure to manage its relationship with the EP. Others assert that a new
structure is not necessary, but that the existing TLD, especially on the U.S. side, should be
enhanced and reinvigorated. (For a more extensive discussion of these options and others, see
“Possible Options for Future Congress-Parliament Cooperation”.)
On the other hand, although there has not been an observable opposition to such an enhanced
relationship, skeptics doubt the utility or need to establish a stronger relationship between the
U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. They note that despite the increased powers granted
to the EP in the Lisbon Treaty, the two bodies are not exactly comparable. Unlike the U.S.
Congress, the EP does not have the right of legislative initiative; in most cases, that right rests
with the European Commission, which functions as the EU’s executive. And although the EP can
accept, amend, or reject proposed EU legislation, it shares these powers with the Council of the
European Union (also called the Council of Ministers), which represents the 27 member states.

4 U.S. Ambassador to the European Union William E. Kennard, “Improving Relations Between the U.S. Congress and
the European Parliament: A Call for Action,” U.S. Mission to the European Union, November 2010.
Congressional Research Service
3

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Given the structural and procedural differences between the Congress and the EP, some question
whether the two bodies could effectively work together on legislative issues. In addition, some
members and their counterparts in the EP have very different views on issues such as climate
change or energy policy. Moreover, many point out that neither Congress nor the EP would likely
be inclined toward devising or approving legislation that takes into account the interests of the
transatlantic relationship at the potential expense of their own constituents. Finally, most
members of Congress—other than those involved in the TLD—have not expressed as much
interest or enthusiasm as their counterparts in the EP regarding establishing closer legislative
coordination or cooperation.

Background on the European Parliament
The 736-member European Parliament (EP) is the only EU institution that is directly elected. As such, it represents
the citizens of the EU. The EP plays a role in the EU’s legislative and budgeting processes, and works closely with the
two other main EU bodies: the European Commission, which represents the interests of the EU as a whole and
essentially serves as the EU’s executive; and the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council of
Ministers), which represents the EU’s 27 member states. The EP also exercises a degree of supervision over the
Commission; it has more limited oversight over the activities of the Council.
The EP has accumulated more power over time. Although the European Commission has the right of legislative
initiative in most cases, the EP shares legislative power with the Council of Ministers in many policy areas ranging
from economics to the environment to social policy; in such areas, both the EP and the Council must approve a
Commission proposal for it to become EU law in a process known as the ordinary legislative procedure or co-decision.
With the entrance into force of the new Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, the Parliament’s right of co-decision now
applies to the majority of EU legislation (with some exceptions, such as in the areas of taxation and foreign policy).
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) serve five-year terms. Voting for the EP takes place on a national
basis, with the number of MEPs elected in each EU member state based roughly on population size. The EP currently
has seven political groups, which caucus according to political ideology rather than nationality, plus a number of
“non-attached” or independent members. A political group must contain at least 25 MEPs from a minimum of seven
EU member states. No single group in the EP has an absolute majority, making compromise and coalition-building
important elements of the legislative process.
The EP’s two largest groups are the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), with 265 seats, and the center-left
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), with 184 seats. The other EP groups
are: the centrist Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), with 85 seats; the leftist and pro-environment
Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA), with 55 seats; the right-wing, anti-federalist European Conservatives and
Reformists (ECR), with 54 seats; the far-left European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), with 35 seats; and the
euroskeptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD), with 30 seats.
Every two-and-a-half years (twice per parliamentary term), MEPs vote to elect a President of the European
Parliament to oversee its work and to represent the EP externally. The EP has 20 standing committees that are
key actors in the adoption of EU legislation and 41 delegations that maintain international parliament-to-parliament
relations. A Secretariat of approximately 5,000 non-partisan civil servants provides administrative and technical
support to the Parliament. MEPs and political groups also have their own staff assistants.
Strasbourg, France, is the official seat of the EP; this location, close to the border with Germany, was chosen to
symbolize peace and reconciliation in Europe. Plenary sessions are held in Strasbourg once a month. The work of the
EP is also carried out in Brussels, Belgium, where the standing committees meet and where occasional part-plenary
sessions are held, and in Luxembourg, where some sections of the EP’s Secretariat are based.

Congressional Research Service
4

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Development of Relations Between the
U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

As noted above, formal exchanges between the U.S. House of Representatives and the European
Parliament can be traced back to 1972, when a group of members of the House traveled to
Brussels for the express purpose of meeting and exchanging views with the Parliament. At the
time, Congress viewed the then-European Community (the precursor to the modern day EU)
mostly as a commercial and trade arrangement with the ability to negotiate trade agreements, but
the EP was an institution with limited visibility and unknown authority. The first congressional
visits to Brussels appear to have been arranged by members of the House Committee on Ways
and Means who were interested in issues such as agriculture subsidies, steel tariffs, anti-dumping
initiatives, and general trade-related areas. These initial parliamentary contacts, which only
involved the House of Representatives, became known as the United States-European
Community Interparliamentary Group. Beginning sometime after these early exchanges, with few
exceptions, members of the House and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have met
formally twice a year, once in the United States and once in Europe.
Given the evolving nature of the transatlantic relationship, and the changes taking place within
the EU itself, the purpose and focus of the Congress-EP interparliamentary exchange gradually
turned more to a foreign policy agenda dedicated to issues involving the Cold War and the
development of the European Union. By the mid-1980s, the responsibility for arranging the U.S.-
EP meetings in the U.S. Congress and the formation of the congressional delegations to Europe
shifted to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As historic political events in Europe began to
unfold in the late 1980s, the relevance and importance of the Congress-Parliament exchange
began to increase under the leadership of former representatives Lee Hamilton, Tom Lantos, and
Benjamin Gilman, who were strong supporters of close U.S.-European relations. These members,
along with a handful of others, focused on the implications of the end of the Cold War and the
role the EU had the potential to play in the new European landscape; they all believed that
Congress ought to try to better understand both the EU as a whole and its legislative process, a
feeling that continues to be shared by many, although not all, even today.
Contacts between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament have been stimulated from
time to time by events that have contributed to the slow but steady evolution of ever-closer
relations between the two institutions. Three such milestones include the creation of the
Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN) in 1992; the launch of the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA)
in 1995; and the establishment of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) in 2007.
Transatlantic Policy Network
The TPN was established in 1992 as a broad-based, multi-party group of EU and U.S. politicians,
corporate leaders, influential think tank experts, and academics. It was (and remains) dedicated to
encouraging constant dialogue and the maintenance of close personal relationships as a means to
help both the United States and the EU identify their common interests and strengthen their
partnership. The significance of the founding of TPN was that, for the first time, an outside
organization provided a venue—apart from the semi-annual Congress-Parliament meetings—
where members and MEPs could study and debate specific issues, exchange views with an eye
towards finding transatlantic solutions, and coordinate their actions with other U.S. government
officials and EU policymakers.
Congressional Research Service
5

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

New Transatlantic Agenda
Although the United States government and the European Union had been engaged in a political
and economic partnership since 1954, the launch of the NTA in 1995 sought to provide a new
framework intended to move the relationship essentially from one of consultation to one of joint
action in several areas. Often overlooked in the statement outlining the goals and purposes of the
NTA was the acknowledgment of the leaders of the United States and the EU that they “attached
great importance to enhanced parliamentary links” and agreed to “consult with parliamentary
leaders on both sides of the Atlantic regarding consultation mechanisms, including building on
existing institutions, to discuss matters related to our transatlantic partnership.”5
However, implementation of the provisions of the NTA was slow to develop. Even slower was
implementation of the decision to consult with parliamentary leaders, in part because Congress
and the European Parliament were uncertain on how to define the roles they might play in the
NTA. In January 1999, after four years of little or no progress on incorporating the legislatures
into a transatlantic decision-making process, and sensing a need to acknowledge the NTA’s
commitment to include the legislatures, the delegations of the U.S. House and the EP—at their
50th meeting—agreed to formalize the dialogue and to change the group’s name to the
Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD). In announcing the formation of the TLD, the two
delegations stated that the Dialogue “will constitute the formal response of the European
Parliament and the U.S. Congress to the commitment in the New Transatlantic Agenda to enhance
parliamentary ties between the European Union and the United States.”6 In response to the
decision to re-name the interparliamentary exchange, the U.S. House in November 1999, during
consideration of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (H.R. 3194/P.L. 106-
113), amended Section 109(c) of the Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1984/1985 (22 U.S.C. 276 note) to officially change the name of the group to the TLD.
Following the introduction of the NTA in 1995, a small minority of representatives in Congress
and the European Parliament began arguing for greater legislative involvement in broader U.S.-
EU relations, even including participation in the annual U.S.-EU Summit. The formal launch of
the TLD provided new impetus for the kind of input these legislators hoped for, and efforts were
made on both sides to reinforce the interests of the legislatures in assuming an enhanced role in
the transatlantic relationship. Since the 1999 declaration officially establishing the TLD,
numerous pieces of legislation have been introduced and even passed in both Congress and the
Parliament expressing the importance of the transatlantic partnership, calling for enhanced
dialogue and coordination between the Congress and the EP, and asserting that the legislatures
should be consulted more closely by U.S. and EU policymakers. In particular, related to the
development of the transatlantic economic relationship outlined in the NTA, in 2004 and 2005,
the EP and the U.S. House passed resolutions supporting, among other things, the completion of
the transatlantic market by 2015. In 2006, the U.S. Senate passed a similar resolution.
Although those legislators dedicated to improving parliamentary input into the U.S.-EU
relationship appeared prepared to take on a more substantive role, many observers note that the
nature of transatlantic cooperation, the complexities of the issues, the multiple layers of agencies
involved, the sometimes slow pace of reform, and the press of normal legislative business, have
frequently hindered greater Congress-Parliament participation. To address some of these concerns

5 Declaration of the New Transatlantic Agenda at the U.S.-EU Summit, December 13, 1995.
6 Joint statement of the delegations of the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament, January 16, 1999.
Congressional Research Service
6

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

on the U.S. side, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee in 2000 created a
new subcommittee solely dedicated to Europe. In 2005, several members of the House agreed to
establish a Members Caucus on the EU to consider the wide range of transatlantic political and
economic issues. Both of these developments provided new venues for a more focused discussion
of U.S.-EU relations among interested legislators. It was also hoped that the subcommittee and
caucus would help the TLD to identify new members with an interest in the EU and to assume a
more active role in promoting transatlantic contact and cooperation.
In addition, since 1999 especially, organizations such as TPN, the German Marshall Fund of the
United States, the Atlantic Council, the European Institute, and other public policy groups, have
become more involved in developing and expanding the transatlantic knowledge-base of the
Congress and the European Parliament. Such groups hold briefings and host conferences on
numerous U.S.-EU issues and promote international travel for members and staff. Publications,
such as the annual transatlantic economic report issued by the SAIS Center for Transatlantic
Relations, have brought the importance of the economic dimension of the U.S.-EU partnership to
the forefront and often highlight other specific elements of the relationship. All of these efforts
have helped members of Congress and the EP to better understand the nature of the transatlantic
partnership, to identify issues of common interest, and to expand contacts and dialogue.
Transatlantic Economic Council
Despite the various measures described above to bolster ties between the Congress and the
European Parliament, the existence and purpose of the exchange between the U.S. House and the
EP—at least on the U.S. side—continued to remain little known or understood, both within and
outside the House. This appeared to be disappointing to some members, MEPs, and other
government officials and experts because over the previous decades, many congressional
delegations had traveled to Europe and several senior members of the House had participated in
exchange activities or knew of the exchange sessions with the EP. For instance, in 1987, then-
Speaker of the House Jim Wright attended the interparliamentary meeting in Madrid, and between
1994 and 2000, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee also served as the
U.S. Chair of the interparliamentary exchange with the EP.
However, some suggest that the creation of the TEC has helped elevate relations between the U.S.
House and the EP perhaps more than any other previous initiative to strengthen the relationship.
In January 2007, upon assuming the rotating six-month presidency of the EU, German Chancellor
Angela Merkel proposed further liberalization of transatlantic trade and investment barriers by
enhancing the existing cooperation among U.S. and EU regulatory agencies. In part, her proposal
was in line with the provision in the New Transatlantic Agenda that called for the creation of a
transatlantic marketplace by eliminating or reducing both tariff and non-tariff barriers that
hindered the flow of goods, services, and capital between the United States and Europe. Building
on the Merkel initiative, the April 2007 U.S.-EU Summit adopted a Framework for Advancing
Transatlantic Economic Integration
. The Framework affirmed the importance of further
deepening transatlantic economic integration, particularly through efforts to reduce or harmonize
regulatory barriers to international trade and investment. The TEC was established as a new
institutional structure to advance the process of regulatory cooperation and barrier reduction by
encouraging both U.S. and EU regulators to move forward on issues outlined in the Framework.
It was agreed that the TEC would be headed on both sides by ministerial-level appointees with
cabinet rank.
Congressional Research Service
7

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

As part of its mandate, the TEC was directed to include a broader participation of stakeholders,
including—for the first time in a formal regulatory framework—legislators. In particular, the
Framework instructed the TEC to establish an “advisory group” that would draw upon the heads
of the “existing transatlantic dialogues” to provide input and guidance on priorities for pursuing
transatlantic economic integration. The existing transatlantic dialogues included the Transatlantic
Business Dialogue (TABD), the Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue (TACD), and the Transatlantic
Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD).
The lack of knowledge about the TLD seemed to contribute to the surprise of many in the wider
transatlantic community when the TEC leadership invited the TLD to be a member of its
Advisory Group. In fact, it was unclear that anyone at the White House at the time of the 2007
U.S.-EU Summit contacted the House leadership to inform them a new role was to be asked of
the legislative branch. Nor did it appear that anyone had informed the TLD Chairs that the TLD
was to be handed a new and possibly far-reaching responsibility—that of formally representing
the views of Congress and the European Parliament in the transatlantic economic integration and
regulatory cooperation process.7
Nevertheless, many supporters of the effort to achieve a more barrier-free transatlantic
marketplace believed that ultimate success could not be achieved without the strong commitment
and active participation of the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. Some advocates had
long decried the low level of engagement by Congress and the Parliament in the overall economic
integration and regulatory cooperation process. As such, proponents of giving the TLD a role in
the TEC maintained that through more active oversight, legislators could articulate their support
for, or concerns about, a particular regulatory direction before the regulators proceeded too far
down the negotiation path. They also asserted that for the U.S. Congress, through its authorization
and appropriation roles, members could prod the regulators to move the cooperative efforts
forward and provide the funds necessary to carry out that mandate. Finally, supporters noted that
for the European Parliament, the implementation of the EU’s new Lisbon Treaty would give the
EP more decision-making authority over trade-related issues as well as an enlarged role in
regulatory decision-making and oversight.
For those interested in the transatlantic economic relationship, the mandate to include the
legislatures in the TEC process generated greater interest in the role that the U.S. Congress and
the European Parliament can or should play in regulatory cooperation and convergence. This
interest prompted immediate efforts by groups such as the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the European-American Business Council, among others, to
reach out to the Congress and Parliament in order to inject more economic and regulatory
specificity to the debate. Two recent reports, one co-authored by the Atlantic Council and the
Bertelsmann Foundation,8 and another co-authored by several U.S. and European think tanks
entitled Shoulder to Shoulder: Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership,9 have discussed the
parameters that a regulatory cooperation dialogue should take, including how the transatlantic
legislatures could play an influential role.

7 CRS interviews with congressional staff.
8 Resetting The Trans-Atlantic Economic Council, A BluePrint, A Report by the Atlantic Council and Bertelsmann
Foundation, October 2009.
9 Shoulder to Shoulder: Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership, Atlantic Council of the United States, Center for
Transatlantic Relations et al., December 2009.
Congressional Research Service
8

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Some observers contend that the attempts by these outside organizations to increase awareness
about transatlantic economic and regulatory issues, especially among some U.S. members and
committees with relevant jurisdictions, is starting to have a some impact on both the narrow
regulatory cooperation agenda as well as on the broader legislative relationship between the U.S.
Congress and the European Parliament. Many of this view acknowledge that the transatlantic
impact of legislation has rarely been a central consideration during the legislative process,
whether in the Congress or in the EP. Nor do they believe that Congress would submit its own
legislative initiatives to any form of a transatlantic impact assessment or cede its authority to react
to a national crisis, such as a terrorist attack or banking crisis, without first consulting the EU, or
vice versa. However, some assert that efforts to improve congressional and EP understanding of
the magnitude of the transatlantic economic relationship, and the increasing dialogue on
transatlantic economic integration and regulatory cooperation, have helped to expand the U.S.-EU
legislative partnership beyond the TEC-related issues and begun to result in a more notable desire
by some in Congress to become more engaged with their counterparts in the EP.
The Current Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue
Although the creation of the TEC and the appointment of the TLD to its Advisory Group perhaps
did more to raise the visibility of the TLD than any other event over the past several years, the
TLD remains relatively unknown in the U.S. Congress compared with its status in the European
Parliament. Some suggest that a key reason for this disparity can be found in the structure and
function of the TLD itself, which differs significantly between the U.S. Congress and the EP.
The European Parliament has a much more structured architecture for its participation in the TLD
than does the U.S. Congress. At the start of each new Parliament (the current one runs from 2009-
2014), the EP adopts a resolution proposing a list of interparliamentary delegations and sets the
number of MEPs that will constitute each delegation. At present, there are a total of 41
delegations in the Parliament.10 The largest EP delegation is the Delegation for Relations with the
United States (D-US), which currently consists of 53 MEPs. Each political group in the
Parliament receives an allocation of delegation seats roughly proportional to its overall size in the
EP. For example, the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in the EP, has 19
seats in the D-US whereas the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group, which is the
smallest in the EP, has 2 seats. Similarly, each political group receives an allocation of
chairmanships/vice-chairs of the various delegations, with the largest group having the first
choice of chair. In 2009, the EPP selected the chairmanship of the D-US as its first choice and
named Elmar Brok, a German MEP, as Chair. MEPs are appointed to the delegation for the full
five-year term of the Parliament. The D-US meets on a periodic basis to discuss a wide range of
issues involving the transatlantic relationship as well as the upcoming TLD meetings.
In the EP, participants in the semi-annual TLD meetings are drawn from the D-US delegation. EP
representation in the TLD (EUTLD) is led by a Steering Committee consisting of the Chairman
and two Vice-Chairs of the D-US and ten MEPs who are the chairs of various EP standing
committees ranging from International Trade to Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. The

10 The EP’s 41 delegations consist of 37 interparliamentary delegations (some are termed either Joint Parliamentary
Committees or Parliamentary Cooperation Committees) that maintain relations with countries and regions around the
world ranging from Russia to China to the Middle East, and four delegations to parliamentary assemblies (such as the
Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly). For a list of current EP delegations, see the website of the European
Parliament, http://www.europarl.europa.eu.
Congressional Research Service
9

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

EUTLD Steering Committee is co-chaired by the Chairman of the D-US (Brok) and the Chairman
of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Gabriele Albertini, an Italian MEP also in the EPP group), who
lead the EUTLD delegation when it meets with its U.S. counterpart. The Steering Committee
coordinates all activities of the TLD, ensures that there is broad representation of MEPs from the
EP’s committees at the TLD meetings, and reports to the D-US on its activities. The number of
MEPs attending the annual TLD meetings is not limited and has often exceeded 20 members.
On the U.S. side, the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue is one of thirteen Parliamentary and
Commission Groups operating in the Congress. Unlike some of the other exchanges, such as the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATOPA) or the British-American Parliamentary Group
(BAPG), which also include the Senate, U.S. representation in the TLD (USTLD) is from the
House only. In addition, the USTLD is not statutorily authorized, although it is authorized to
receive funds each year to support its activities. Thus, while the NATOPA and the BAPG are
authorized by statute to include a total of 24 official delegates (12 each from the House and
Senate that are appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader
respectively), the TLD has no specified number of participants and no Speaker appointment.
Furthermore, official U.S. delegates of the statutorily authorized parliamentary exchanges are
appointed for the duration of each Congress. The USTLD, by contrast, has no fixed term for its
participants. Although the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
appoints the USTLD’s Chair (currently Representative Berkley, NV) and Vice-Chairs (at present,
Representative Stearns, FL, and Representative Costa, CA), there is no formal nomination of any
other USTLD delegate. Many members have attended past meetings, but participation in the
USTLD—at least until recently—often seemed to be on an ad hoc basis, with little continuity of
participants and, in some instances, largely dependent on the ability of the USTLD Chair to
convince members to attend the semi-annual meetings.11 Moreover, the USTLD has no equivalent
“Steering Committee;” while some of the original sponsors of the EU Caucus in the House hoped
that the Caucus might serve as the umbrella organization from which TLD delegates could be
drawn, there has been little association between the two, even though several members of the
House participate in both the Caucus and the TLD.
Although U.S. member participation in TLD sessions appears lately to have reached a higher
level of continuity, there is still concern among some observers that the TLD continues to have
difficulty attracting and maintaining a broad group of members willing to participate on a regular
basis. TLD supporters worry that the lack of sustained U.S. member participation hinders the
development of personal relationships between legislators, seen as essential for a truly frank and
open exchange of views and as necessary ultimately for greater legislative consultation and
coordination. Similarly, while the EUTLD has representation from most of its key parliamentary
committees, the USTLD is not structured to guarantee the inclusion of members from all of the
major congressional committees. Combined with the uncertainty over which members will
actually participate in the U.S. delegation each time the TLD meets, some MEPs have observed
that the TLD sessions do not necessarily provide them with good U.S. contacts on matters of
interest to them. Many in the transatlantic business and consumer communities—who are the
TLD’s partners in the TEC—also appear frustrated that there is no permanent list of USTLD
delegates with whom they can meet on a regular basis to discuss issues related to the TEC and the
regulatory agenda.12

11 CRS interviews with congressional staff.
12 CRS interviews with representatives of the business community.
Congressional Research Service
10

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Another difference between the U.S. Congress and the EP in relation to the TLD involves
staffing. On the U.S. side, there are three principal staff designated as the “U.S. secretariat” for
the TLD: an administrator and one representative from the majority and minority. These staff are
part of the House Foreign Affairs Committee structure and have large portfolios with many
responsibilities beyond the TLD. Observers note that the Foreign Affairs Committee staff are
highly professional, knowledgeable of transatlantic relations, and provide sufficient support for
most security and foreign policy-related discussions at the TLD meetings. However, these same
observers also point out that none of the key items on the U.S.-EU economic or regulatory agenda
are ones that fall under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
In the view of many experts, it would likely be a real stretch to expect that Foreign Affairs
Committee staff who are responsible for following issues and events in places ranging from
Russia to Kosovo to Eurasia can somehow also find the time to become proficient on automobile
crash testing, container scanning, toy safety, or hedge fund transparency. And, realistically,
neither the Foreign Affairs Committee nor the USTLD Chair and Vice-Chairs could hire a whole
cadre of staff with the kind of expertise needed to be responsive to the various issues under
consideration by the TLD, particularly those in the TEC process. Although non-foreign policy
matters are usually included in the TLD meeting agenda, it does not appear that there is regular
contact between USTLD staff and other standing committee staff that would allow for
coordination of issues and committee perspectives beyond foreign policy issues.
The EUTLD is also staffed by a secretariat, which includes six permanent EP staff dedicated to
the coordination and operation of the TLD alone. Recently, the EUTLD secretariat has worked
with the secretariats of the EP standing committees to designate a TLD Administrator for each
committee; these Administrators are intended to act as interlocutors between the committees and
the TLD, helping the TLD secretariat to identify issues that should be placed on the TLD meeting
agenda and promoting greater coordination of views and positions. In the EP, the D-US falls
under what is known as the Directorate-General for External Policy (DG-EXPO), which provides
professional support for the EP committees on Foreign Affairs, Development, and International
Trade, as well as for all of the EP delegations. The DG-EXPO also includes a Policy Department
whose staff provide research and background information for the delegations and committees,
including the EUTLD.
Initiatives to Strengthen
Congress-Parliament Cooperation

Since the launch of the TLD in 1999, there have been numerous calls on both sides of the Atlantic
to find ways to develop even closer cooperation between the Congress and the EP. Some in the
European Parliament have gone so far as to suggest the creation of a transatlantic parliamentary
assembly consisting of members of the Congress and the Parliament that would share joint
responsibility for addressing issues of mutual interest through both oversight and legislative
mechanisms. While this proposal has not found any support in the U.S. Congress, there have been
two recent developments that have enhanced the opportunity for both legislatures to explore ways
to work more directly with each other on selected issues.
Congressional Research Service
11

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO)
As noted previously, although contact between members of the U.S. House and the EP had taken
place since 1972, some in the Parliament have been increasingly interested in developing
relations with a broader audience in the Congress. In 1984, then-EP President Klaus Haensch put
forward a proposal in which he argued that it was important for MEPs to liaise directly with their
counterparts in Congress, and suggested that the Parliament should have its own representation in
Washington. This idea, in one form or another, has been part of the European Parliament’s effort
to establish “co-equality” with the U.S. Congress. However, it was only recently that the concept
began to gain significant momentum. In 2006, MEP Elmar Brok, who was rapporteur for the EP’s
Committee on Foreign Affairs at the time, prepared a Parliament report on “improving EU-U.S.
relations.” Mr. Brok’s report expressed a desire that the “EP budget for 2007 should establish a
permanent post in Washington so that the Parliament and the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue
(TLD) may maintain permanent contact with the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.”
On March 26, 2009, the EP adopted a resolution on the state of transatlantic relations.13 In that
resolution, the Parliament restated a long-held view that the U.S. Congress and the EP should
continue to develop a closer working relationship with respect to legislative initiatives in each
others’ institutions, should enhance cooperation between legislative committees, and should
create a reciprocal “early-warning” system in order to identify potential legislative activities that
could affect U.S.-EU relations. The resolution further “invited” the EP’s Secretary-General to
proceed as a “matter of utmost urgency” to implement a decision taken by the Parliament’s
Bureau on December 11, 2006, to open a parliamentary office in Washington and to deploy
officials to serve as the EP’s legislative liaison to the U.S. Congress, a responsibility that had up
to that time been entrusted to the European Commission’s Washington delegation.14
On April 29, 2010, Klaus Haensch’s vision became a reality when EP President Jerzy Buzek
officially opened the EPLO with the U.S. Congress in Washington and named Piotr Nowina-
Konopka (former EP Director for Relations with National Parliaments) its first Director. Although
the EPLO will develop contacts with a broad array of policymakers, think tanks, and other
institutions in Washington, and will serve to facilitate visits by MEPs, the primary mission of the
Liaison Office is to “build a network of Congress-Parliament staff who can work together on
concrete issues requiring legislative and political cooperation or at least intellectual attention and
understanding.”15 The EPLO will report directly to the EP Secretary-General. At the time of its
opening, the Liaison Office had three professional and two administrative staff; by the end of
2010, it is expected that the EPLO will have a total of nine or ten staff, with more likely to be
added in the future.
Interestingly, the 2009 EP resolution calling for the establishment of the EPLO also included
language inviting the U.S. Congress to consider the possibility of setting up its own congressional
liaison office in Brussels. The U.S. Congress, through periodic resolutions such as H.Res. 230
adopted in 2007, has long expressed support for closer cooperation between the Congress and the
EP. Some individual members have endorsed practices such as instituting a legislative early
warning system (often mentioned in the press releases issued at the end of TLD meetings), and a
number of members involved in the TLD appear to support the idea in principle of establishing a

13 European Parliament resolution (A6-0114/2009) adopted March 26, 2009.
14 As of December 1, 2009, and as a result of the ratification of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, the Commission’s Washington
office is now referred to as the “Delegation of the European Union.”
15 For more information, see the EPLO website, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/us.
Congressional Research Service
12

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

congressional liaison office in Brussels. At a December 15, 2009, hearing of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, the proposal for a Brussels office was raised and
received a good deal of attention, including from the Subcommittee Chairman. To date, however,
the Congress as a whole has not demonstrated significant interest in or enthusiasm about
establishing a reciprocal congressional liaison office in Brussels (for more information, see
“Possible Options for Future Congress-Parliament Cooperation”).
Closer Committee Contact16
Not long after the TLD was assigned an advisory role to the TEC, it became clear to some—
including former MEP Jonathan Evans who served as Chair of the EUTLD from 2004 to 2009—
that the structure of the TLD was not optimally organized to address the TLD’s new
responsibilities with respect to regulatory cooperation. Evans, along with some of his colleagues
and a number of outside observers, felt that while most members of Congress and the EP
participating in the TLD were well versed to discuss a broad range of foreign policy issues at the
TLD meetings, the same could not necessarily be said when it came to talking about more
technical regulatory matters. Given the wide array of issues in the regulatory dialogue—including
the mutual recognition of accounting standards, supply chain security, copyright and patent
protection, preferred traveler programs, cosmetics testing, and medical device certification—an
unstructured TLD might find itself further down the learning curve than its transatlantic business
and consumer partners in the TEC, thus requiring TLD delegates to spend time catching up on
such issues. This, in turn, could present a problem for some TLD participants who might be
reluctant to become more specialized in economic and regulatory matters at the expense of other
broader transatlantic policy issues. Moreover, such participants would probably not want the TLD
to become strictly TEC-issue oriented. As a result, Evans suggested that the Congress and the
Parliament consider ways to improve direct committee-to-committee contact on specific issues
and for the TLD to develop mechanisms whereby it could tap the expertise of the committees and
their staffs when necessary for the TLD meetings or for the TLD response to the TEC.
Like U.S. congressional committees, EP committees are key actors in the adoption of EU
legislation. Currently, the EP has 20 standing committees and 2 “special” committees, which
investigate or oversee specific issues for a limited period of time. In the U.S. Congress, the House
and Senate have similar lists of standing committees, albeit not exactly the same. Committee
jurisdictions are defined by the rules of each chamber and the House and Senate committee
jurisdictions are not always parallel. For example, the Senate Agriculture Committee is
responsible for child nutrition legislation, whereas that responsibility is handled in the House by
the House Education and Labor Committee (and not the House Agriculture Committee).
Unlike the U.S. Congress, each EP committee has a chairman and four vice-chairmen. The
political make-up of the EP committees reflects that of the Parliament as a whole and committee
posts are allocated proportional to the respective size of the political groups; for example, the
largest group (the EPP) currently chairs nine committees, the second-largest group (the S&D)
seven, and the third-largest group (the ALDE) three. Committee activity is a process of
coordination among the chair and vice-chairs. In the U.S. House and Senate, all committees are
chaired by a member of the majority party and although the minority is often consulted on

16 Judy Schneider, Senior Specialist on the Congress in CRS’ Government and Finance Division contributed
information on the U.S. committee system for this section. For more information, see CRS Report RS20794, The
Committee System in the U.S. Congress
, by Judy Schneider.
Congressional Research Service
13

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

committee activity, the committee’s authority is centered in its chair. In practice, a chair’s
prerogative includes determining the committee’s agenda, deciding when to take or delay action,
presiding during meetings, and controlling most funds allocated by the chamber to the committee.
Because of the high volume and complexity of its work, Congress divides its legislative,
oversight, and internal administrative tasks among committees and subcommittees. Committees
and subcommittees gather information; compare and evaluate legislative alternatives; identify
policy problems and propose solutions to them; select, determine the text of, and report out
measures for the full chambers to consider; monitor executive branch performance (oversight);
and conduct investigations. Subcommittees only have the power and authority granted to them by
the full committee. For example, some subcommittees hold hearings, but do not consider
legislation. Subcommittees and their areas of responsibility may also change from one Congress
to the next. Furthermore, subcommittees cannot report bills directly to the floor. In the
Parliament, the work of the committees is much the same, but only one committee—the Foreign
Affairs Committee—has subcommittees.
A significant difference between the Congress and the EP, however, is the way legislation is
handled. In the U.S. Congress, legislation may be introduced by any member of Congress. In the
House, the legislation is referred to a committee based on “primary” jurisdiction. Measures can
also be sequentially referred to additional committees, and many measures are referred to more
than one panel. In the Senate, measures are referred based on “predominant” jurisdiction and it is
rare for measures to be referred to more than one committee.
In the European Union, as noted previously, legislation is first proposed by the European
Commission and then submitted to the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The EP and the
Council share legislative authority in most policy areas and must both approve a Commission
proposal for it to become EU law. All EU legislation must have its legal basis in the EU treaties
(upon which the EU has been built) or in a piece of secondary legislation, and each legislative
proposal must cite in its preamble the EU treaty article upon which it is based. (Interestingly, a
new rule proposed by the incoming Republican leadership for the 112th Congress would require
that all bills introduced should provide the “constitutional authority” for their provisions.) The
legal basis determines which committee is deemed the “competent” committee to consider the
legislative proposal, as well as the procedure under which the legislation is considered, (i.e.,
whether the Parliament has the benefit of the “ordinary legislative procedure” (co-decision)
whereby it decides jointly with the Council on a proposal presented by the Commission).17 Under
Parliament’s rules of procedure, if the designated competent committee wishes to challenge the
legal basis of a piece of proposed legislation, it must consult the Legal Affairs Committee.
Once legislation is submitted to the competent committee, the EP committee appoints an MEP as
“rapporteur” to draft a report on the legislation under consideration. The rapporteur submits a
draft report to the committee for discussion, and the committee votes on and possibly amends the
report. This is similar to a congressional committee mark-up of legislation. The committee’s
report is then considered in a plenary session of the entire Parliament (similar to how legislation
is considered by the whole House or Senate), amended if necessary, and put to a vote in the full
EP. The Parliament thus adopts its position on the proposed EU legislation.

17 In some policy areas, such as tax matters, social security, and most aspects of foreign and defense policy, EU
member states retain decision-making authority and the Parliament does not have the right of “co-decision,” although it
may give a non-binding opinion.
Congressional Research Service
14

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Observers suggest that differences between the two bodies’ legislative processes are a key issue
when considering whether the U.S. Congress and the EP can effectively work with each other on
matters of common interest that might involve legislation. Given that the European Commission
is the originator of EU legislation, coordinating the legislative process between the two
legislatures could be difficult especially because the U.S. Congress can introduce legislation and
consider it as rapidly or as deliberately as it wishes. To have legislation run parallel in both
legislatures, the Commission would probably have to submit a legislative proposal around the
same time a similar piece was introduced in either the House or Senate. Although the EP can ask
the Commission to introduce legislation on a particular issue that might be under consideration in
the Congress and that the Parliament believes should be addressed, the Commission can take up
to six months to decide whether or not it will submit legislation in response to the EP’s request.
Even if the Commission decided to comply, the process of developing the actual legislative
proposal could take up to one year or longer. Thus, it would require much coordination to have
legislation considered on a simultaneous or near-simultaneous basis in both the Congress and the
EP, as well as a strong political commitment from both sides to do so.
Analysts also note that there are some issues in which the Parliament may have a legislative say,
but the Congress does not, and vice-versa. For example, when the renewal of the U.S.-EU SWIFT
agreement was considered, the Parliament played a key role and rejected the accord initially.
Later, after changes were negotiated between the European Commission and the U.S.
government, the Parliament held a second vote and approved the agreement. During this whole
process, the SWIFT accord was not sent to the U.S. Congress for consideration because it was
negotiated by the United States as an executive agreement. Given such differences between the
U.S. and EU policymaking processes, some skeptics question whether stronger Congressional-EP
relations would provide much value-added. Others contend, however, that even in matters such as
SWIFT—in which one side has a legislative role and the other does not—closer ties and personal
relationships between members of Congress and their counterparts in the EP could help sway the
debate and perhaps produce more favorable outcomes.
Despite some differences in the way legislation is handled in the Congress and the EP, many
experts assert that there appears to be opportunities for committees in both bodies to track what
issues are being considered and where interests intersect. Possible mechanisms for doing so
include video conferences, joint hearings, delegation visits, and staff exchanges. As mentioned,
the EP has already identified “TLD administrators” for each EP committee; in addition to
informing the TLD of what issues are under consideration in the committees, it is hoped that
these administrators will also become points-of-contact for their counterpart committee staff in
the Congress. For a comparison of European Parliament committees and House and Senate
committees with similar or related jurisdictions, see the Appendix.
Possible Options for Future
Congress-Parliament Cooperation

As the level of contact between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament has begun to
increase and as more observers begin to advocate for closer cooperation between the two bodies,
several ideas have been put forward to help strengthen the overall effectiveness of the Congress-
to-Parliament partnership. While the European Parliament has been far out in front of the
Congress in the pursuit of a stronger relationship, as noted earlier, the U.S. Congress as a whole
has not seemed to embrace the need for significantly closer ties. Nevertheless, should Congress
Congressional Research Service
15

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

deem it worthwhile in the months or years ahead to further develop relations with the EP, there
are a number of potential options that could be considered and explored.
Seven possible options for enhancing Congress-Parliament cooperation are discussed below;
several focus on the TLD, some are specific to the USTLD, and others pertain to the broader
Congress-EP relationship. Some observers suggest that a new structure on the U.S. side is needed
to oversee and guide Congress-EP relations. However, others contend that appropriate structures
already exist to do this; the U.S. Congress and its committees and subcommittees, the EU Caucus,
and the TLD itself provide the necessary structure for managing the Congress-EP relationship.
For those of this view, the issue is not necessarily to create a new structure but to try to make the
existing structure work more effectively.
1. Enhance the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue
For some, the first step in any attempt to boost Congress-EP relations and enhance the
effectiveness of the TLD might be to elevate the status of the USTLD by having the TLD
formally authorized by statute. Short of that, supporters of this option suggest that members of the
House could be appointed to the TLD by the Speaker for the full two years of a Congress and the
number of U.S. delegates to the TLD could be firmly established (e.g., at 12, with up to eight
additional delegation seats open to any member interested). In appointing members to the TLD, it
has been suggested that the Speaker should ensure representation from a cross-section of standing
committees in the House. The proposed list of candidates could be developed through a
consultation process between the Chair/Vice-Chairs of the USTLD and the chairs of the standing
committees. Whether the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the USTLD should continue to be appointed
by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee or instead by the Speaker would also need to be
discussed.
Some proponents of this option believe that the Congressional Caucus on the EU should be
revitalized and form the umbrella organization for Congress-EP relations, much like the EP’s
Delegation for Relations with the United States. As discussed more below, the EU Caucus could
also be open to the U.S. Senate. Some observers suggest that it might be beneficial for the
appointed USTLD delegates to become the core of the EU Caucus; other members of the Caucus
could act as substitutes for any USTLD delegate unable to attend a particular session or serve as
additional USTLD participants.
Advocates of enhancing the TLD have also proposed that the TLD establish a political committee
and an economic committee. Members from both the U.S. and European TLD delegations would
be assigned as chairs and vice-chairs of these committees. Rapporteurs might be assigned to
research and report on specific issues. Supporters assert that this structure would offer members
and MEPs the opportunity to focus more sustained attention on issues in which they may have a
particular interest or expertise. The TLD committee chairs would report on the topics discussed in
their committees to the entire body at some point during the TLD meetings. Another suggestion
would be for the TLD to be more active in between its semi-annual meetings by promoting on-
going dialogue between committee chairs, rapporteurs, and other delegates through the use of
video conferences so that TLD members can keep in touch year-round.
In the U.S. Congress, some observers have also argued that it may be worth considering hiring
one or two dedicated USTLD staff in the House, instead of relying on the current structure of
utilizing Foreign Affairs Committee staff. These permanent USTLD staff could potentially
become part of the Speaker’s Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. Such permanent USTLD staff
could coordinate the activities of the TLD, help the USTLD liaise with standing committee staff,
Congressional Research Service
16

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

and meet regularly with representatives of the EP’s Washington liaison office. In addition, the
USTLD might consider establishing its own website to keep members informed of its activities.
Pros and Cons. Supporters of enhancing the existing TLD—especially by having it authorized in
statute in the U.S. Congress and having the Speaker officially appoint U.S. delegates—maintain
that such measures would raise the standing of the TLD in the House and guarantee a more
consistent group of attendees, especially on the U.S. side. Assigning members and MEPs as
chairs, vice-chairs, and rapporteurs of the proposed TLD committees could also convey a sense of
“ownership” within the TLD and hopefully generate more dialogue in between the semi-annual
TLD meetings. In addition, advocates assert that establishing TLD committee rapporteurs to
report on specific issues might increase liaison between the TLD and the standing committees
given that the rapporteurs would most likely contact the respective standing committees in their
own institutions to discuss their research efforts. The research projects undertaken by the
rapporteurs would also provide the opportunity for TLD staff to be in contact with each other on a
more regular basis and with appropriate committee staff; as a result, TLD staff would be better
able to help identify key issues on which both institutions may be working and where the
potential may exist to pursue parallel tracks on legislation.
Skeptics of this option contend, however, that it would require a significant amount of political
will in both bodies—but especially in the U.S. Congress—for it to materialize. In particular, they
argue, this option would likely require a strong commitment not only from those members
currently involved in the TLD but also from the Speaker, in order to sufficiently convey to
members the importance of participating in this interparliamentary group. In light of the recent
U.S. election and the change in House leadership, many observers note that the new Speaker will
have a plethora of other organizational and substantive issues on his plate. Those of this view also
doubt that the House leadership would be receptive to hiring additional staff dedicated to the TLD
given the current political and economic climate.
2. Develop Closer TLD Coordination with the Standing
Committees and Promote Committee Cooperation

As noted previously, one problem that has arisen since the launch of the TLD in 1999 is that no
single committee—in either the Congress or the EP—exercises jurisdiction over the broad array
of issues on the transatlantic agenda, and particularly now on the regulatory agenda. In the U.S.
House, the committee that has the primary authority to oversee the transatlantic political
relationship—the Foreign Affairs Committee under House Rule X—has no authority on the
specific regulatory issues under consideration by the TEC. And while the close connection
between the USTLD and the Foreign Affairs Committee continues, it remains unclear whether
other House committees—such as Financial Services, Judiciary, or Homeland Security—would
necessarily defer to the TLD to provide advice and guidance to the TEC on issues that fall within
their jurisdictions, such as accounting standards, technology innovation, intellectual property, and
border control measures.
Thus, many observers argue that an information-sharing process must be established between the
TLD and the standing committees, especially on the U.S. side. As mentioned above, the European
Parliament has already sought to address the TLD-committee relationship in two ways. First, the
EUTLD requires representation from most of the EP’s standing committees. Second, each EP
committee has identified a “TLD Administrator” on its staff to act as the liaison between the
committee and the TLD, and at some point, between the committee and its counterpart committee
Congressional Research Service
17

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

in the Congress. Any such TLD-to-committee interaction in the U.S. Congress seems to occur, at
best, on an ad hoc basis.
In addition to promoting closer links between the TLD and the standing committees in each
legislature, some experts suggest that the committees themselves should explore ways to work
directly and more closely with each other (on the U.S. side, some contend both House and Senate
committees should be involved). In part, this could be accomplished through video conferences,
joint hearings, and delegation visits. One example of where this cooperation might work is in the
agriculture sector. It appears that the Congress may need to re-authorize the U.S. farm bill over
the next two years. At the same time, the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy is up for renewal in
2012. Since agricultural policy, farm and export subsidies, and phyto-sanitary issues are
politically important on both sides of the Atlantic, the U.S. and EP agriculture committees could
explore how they could work in concert with each other.
Pros and Cons. Proponents of developing better ties between the TLD and the standing
committees stress that for at least the TEC responsibilities of the TLD, it is essential that
committees with jurisdiction over issues on the TEC agenda be included in the TLD dialogue in
some way. They assert that this is necessary because when the TEC meets and issues its
recommendations on how the United States and EU might deal with matters such as consumer
product safety or port security functions, it likely does so with what it believes to be the best
guidance from the House of Representatives and the Parliament as a whole, not just from two or
three individual members of Congress or the EP who happen to be the TLD Chairs and Vice-
Chairs. In addition, supporters contend that strengthening coordination between the TLD and the
standing committees would allow for greater committee input into what should be included on the
TLD meeting agendas and could help bring more U.S. members with relevant expertise into the
dialogue with the European Parliament.
Some observers point out, however, that developing closer TLD coordination with the standing
committees on the U.S. side would likely take some time and would require a sustained effort by
the USTLD Chair. Given the still limited knowledge about the TLD and the EP in the Congress,
many committees would have to be convinced as to why cooperation might be in their interests.
In terms of establishing direct committee-to-committee contact in an effort to improve legislative
coordination between the two sides, others argue that some U.S. members might also be hesitant
to pursue this option for fear of being seen as putting the interests of the transatlantic relationship
ahead of those of their own constituents.
3. Utilize EP Parliament Liaison Staff Deployed to Washington
This option would take advantage of the Parliament’s decision to deploy its own liaison staff to
Washington. Under this option, regular meetings between the EPLO and the USTLD chairs,
USTLD delegates, the EU Caucus, and staff could be arranged to share insights, observations,
and other information regarding activities in both the Congress and the EP. As EP staffers are
already in Washington and have a direct line of communication back to the Parliament, they
would presumably be able to update members and staff on legislative proposals under
consideration in the EP.
Pros and Cons. Supporters of this option note that it could likely be implemented quickly given
that the staff of the EPLO appear eager to establish good, close relations with members of
Congress and their staffs and would likely welcome the opportunity to have a regular exchange of
views. For many U.S. members and staffers, this option would also have the advantage of being
relatively low-cost in terms of both money and time, but could help promote more dialogue
Congressional Research Service
18

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

among TLD delegates in between the semi-annual meetings. Others argue that this option may
not be sufficient to significantly bolster the Congress-Parliament relationship. Some also question
whether this option could be structured enough to bring into the TLD dialogue a broader range of
committee staff on a regular and sustained basis.
4. Establish a Senior Staff “Fellowship” Exchange
Under this option, senior congressional staffers from either the Leadership offices or standing
committees could be designated by the House and/or Senate Leadership as congressional
“fellows” and seconded to the EP for a short-duration rotation (perhaps 2-3 months) with possibly
the EP Secretariat, a selected EP committee, or the EP’s Unit for Transatlantic Relations. This
kind of exchange could accommodate up to 3 or 4 staff rotating to Brussels over the course of a
year and would provide staff exposure to the Parliament as well as an avenue for continuous
information exchange. Issues such as housing and other per diem costs would have to be
determined by the Congress but under a “fellowship” type of program, it would appear that
congressional staff could hold an office and use equipment provided by the EP within the EP
itself, much as foreign “fellows” can work out of congressional offices.
Pros and Cons. Advocates of establishing a fellowship exchange assert that this option would
have the possible benefit of creating a cadre of U.S. staffers with first-hand knowledge of the EP
and how it functions, as well as personal contacts within the EP. This could help further the goal
of developing closer links between Congress and the EP. On the negative side, some point out that
rotating U.S. congressional staff through Brussels on a short-term basis might not allow for the
time necessary to establish strong relationships with EP counterparts that could prove sustainable
and useful in the future. Others note that many congressional staffers—even at the senior level—
often rotate in and out of congressional service, potentially limiting the utility of such a
fellowship program in terms of enhancing institutional ties between Congress and the EP.
5. Utilize the Current Staff Employed by the U.S. Mission to the EU
in Brussels

Currently, the U.S. Mission to the EU in Brussels, Belgium employs staff to help follow the
activities of the European Parliament. The staff track the work of the EP and submit reports to the
Mission and the State Department. Some observers have suggested that it may be possible for the
House Leadership to arrange with the State Department to have these individuals also send their
reports to either the Leadership office or the TLD staff. Details of the exact responsibilities and
reporting requirements of the U.S. Mission staff to Congress would have to be clearly defined;
one key question would be whether the U.S. Mission staff could be “tasked” with specific
requests from members of Congress or staff about EP activities and legislation. In addition,
Congress and the State Department would have to work out the security arrangements for the
transfer of reports and other materials in a timely manner from the Mission to the Congress.
Pros and Cons. Supporters of this option point out that it could provide members of Congress
and staffers with greater insights into the work of the EP and potentially enable Congress and the
TLD to keep better track of legislative proposals under consideration in the EP, especially those
that could affect U.S. interests. On the downside, some note that the State Department and the
U.S. Mission to the EU might be neither willing nor able to accommodate such a congressional
request for a variety of legal, financial, and security reasons. This option could also raise the
Congressional Research Service
19

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

question of the Executive/Legislative relationship and some contend that it could run the risk of
Mission censorship of the information being provided to the Congress.
6. Deploy Congressional Staff to Brussels
This option, similar to what the EP has already done, would involve opening a congressional
liaison office in Brussels and deploying U.S. congressional staff there to work with the European
Parliament on a daily basis. Aside from the logistical issues of work visas, diplomatic status, per
diem, and others, this option would raise a series of questions for Congress such as who hires the
employees, who do they report to (the Speaker and/or Senate Majority Leader, Committees, TLD
leadership), and how does the minority party fit in. Other issues for consideration would include
whether U.S. congressional staff could legally occupy office space inside the Parliament and
whether the Congress would pay rent and operating costs to the Parliament. As a variation of this
option, some observers have suggested that it might be possible for congressional staff to work
out of the U.S. Mission to the EU, much as the EPLO has been established administratively
within the office space of the Washington Delegation of the European Union.
Pros and Cons. Proponents of this option assert that establishing a congressional liaison office in
Brussels would be one of the most effective ways to pursue greater legislative consultation and
cooperation between Congress and the EP. U.S. staffers deployed to Brussels would be able to
follow events in the Parliament closely and keep U.S. members, committees, and congressional
staff informed of EP views and activities on a regular basis. Congressional staff in Brussels would
also be well placed to develop working relationships with MEPs, EP committees, and EP staffers;
in turn, they could connect members and MEPs with similar legislative interests and help promote
greater dialogue on key issues.
Critics contend, however, that establishing a congressional liaison office in Brussels is premature.
In the absence of a broader political commitment from the U.S. Congress to boost ties with the
EP, it appears difficult to even bolster the TLD let alone establish a whole new congressional
entity focused on the EP. Although some of this view acknowledge that the EP’s new liaison
office in Washington may help develop closer relations between the EP and the Congress, they
assert that most members of Congress are not convinced of the need to coordinate legislation with
the EP or to have a reciprocal presence in Brussels at this time. Establishing a congressional
liaison office in Brussels would also be a considerable logistical undertaking and depending on
the eventual size of the office and the specific staff and housing arrangements, could entail a
significant financial expenditure. Some observers worry that a congressional liaison office in
Brussels could also set a precedent and lead to unrealistic expectations that Congress might seek
to establish similar offices in other countries. Possibly locating congressional staff within the U.S.
Mission to the EU would likely require extensive negotiations with the U.S. State Department and
could raise constitutional questions about the separation of powers.
7. Establish a Congressional Commission on the EU
Some proponents of forging closer ties between the Congress and the EP have called for
establishing a Congressional Commission on the EU to monitor relevant EU legislation, evaluate
its implications for the United States, and serve as the primary congressional liaison with the EP
and the other EU institutions. Supporters of such an initiative assert that it could be largely
modeled on the existing U.S. Helsinki Commission, an independent government agency, which
since 1976 has sought to encourage compliance with the political commitments made by the
member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Like the
Congressional Research Service
20

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Helsinki Commission, it has been suggested that a Congressional Commission on the EU should
include an equal number of members from both the House and Senate, and representatives from
both the majority and minority; the Commission’s chair and vice-chair would rotate each new
Congress between the House and Senate. The Commission would be able to hold hearings and
meetings on matters of mutual interest to the Congress and the EP.
In September 2010, H.Con.Res. 322 was introduced (Representative Issa, CA, Representative
Hastings, FL, and Representative Gordon, TN) proposing the creation of such a Commission
along the lines described above. Although most of the staff of this potential Commission would
presumably be located in Washington, H.Con.Res. 322 also allows for the provision of funds for
the lease of office space by the Commission at or near the EP in Brussels.
Pros and Cons. Advocates of establishing a Congressional Commission on the EU argue that it
would likely focus greater attention on the Congress-EP relationship and the U.S.-EU partnership
more broadly, although some point out that it is unclear how a Commission could be any more
effective than the Europe Subcommittees, the EU Caucus, or the TLD in raising awareness of the
EU. As proposed in H.Con.Res. 322, a primary purpose of the Commission would be to monitor
and assess EU legislation and its potential impact on the United States; in doing so, some suggest
it could help to strengthen the TLD by demonstrating the EP’s growing influence and the
importance of increasing congressional engagement with the EP. In appointing members to serve
on the Commission, it would create a small but invested group of members with a sustained
interest in the EU and the EP. Proponents also point out that it would bring the Senate formally
into the growing dialogue with the EP. And as a liaison between the Congress and the EP, such a
Commission could help to improve committee-to-committee relations between the two bodies
and/or provide an “early warning” mechanism for legislation under consideration in either the EP
or the Congress.
On the other hand, critics assert that this option is also premature given the lack of wider
congressional interest in promoting closer cooperation with the EP at this time. They also argue
that there is nothing in the proposal for a new Commission that could not already be done under
the current structures, and that the creation of a such a Commission would not necessarily
guarantee a more effective or productive Congress-Parliament relationship. Some analysts point
out that it is unclear how the proposed Commission would relate to the TLD, or whether a TLD
would even be required, and they question whether the Senate would be willing or interested in
participating (see below). Others believe that if the current TLD were enhanced and if the
standing committees in both the U.S. Congress and the EP were to increase direct contact with
each other, such a Commission would be redundant. Moreover, amid the current U.S. political
climate, some doubt that the proposed Commission could garner the necessary support in the near
future, in part because it would likely entail additional financial and staffing commitments.
Role of the Senate
Many observers have raised the question of what role the Senate might play in efforts to
strengthen ties between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. For the operation of the
TLD in general, the Senate has never been involved. Visiting EP delegations coming to the
United States for TLD meetings or for consultations with members of Congress have paid
courtesy calls occasionally on the Senate but the Senate has never participated formally in the
TLD sessions. While there has been some interest on the part of a few Senators to explore ways
of being involved with the TLD, there has been no intent to create a Senate version of the TLD or
to statutorily establish a TLD with both House and Senate participation. Some observers believe
Congressional Research Service
21

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

that a reinvigorated Congressional Caucus on the EU could reach out to the Senate to include
some Senators as members of the Caucus, thus giving the Senate contact with the activities of the
TLD. Through the Caucus, the Senate could potentially participate in TLD meetings as additional
USTLD delegates (as described above in Option 1).
For many experts, the fact that the Senate has a co-equal role in regulatory oversight, but is not
included as part of the TLD for purposes of the TEC Advisory Group, is a serious concern. As of
December 2010, the TEC has met five times with the Advisory Group, yet there does not seem to
be a formal mechanism within the TLD to include the Senate in its discussions with the TEC nor
is there a way within the TEC Advisory Group to solicit Senate opinion. Thus, while the TLD
over time could develop some level of authority to represent the views of the House on issues
addressed in the Advisory Group’s meetings with the TEC, the TLD, as currently structured,
cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Senate. Many observers assert that this oversight must be
addressed if the TEC intends to receive the advice of the whole Congress.
One option that would allow the TLD to continue its broad mandate to address a wide range of
transatlantic issues and at the same time include the Senate in its role as a TEC advisor, may be
for the USTLD Chair to consider creating a Congressional TEC Working Group. This Working
Group would include members from both the House and Senate who sit on committees with
jurisdiction over issues on the TEC Advisory Group meeting agenda in order to encourage Senate
input into the TEC process. At a December 2009 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, the issue of the TLD and the role of the Senate in the TEC
process was addressed by the witnesses and, according to Committee staff, will apparently be
investigated further.
Some observers suggest that any efforts to elevate the broader Congress-Parliament relationship
must have Senate participation. For example, Senate committees might also be encouraged to
establish direct contact with EP committees with similar jurisdictions. As noted previously,
however, it remains unclear to what extent members of the Senate may be interested in
developing relations with the EP, establishing ties with MEPs, or forging closer links between the
relevant Senate and EP committees.
Conclusion
The European Parliament places a premium on its partnership with the U.S. Congress, and is
committed to developing closer relations between the two legislative bodies. As noted above, the
EP has implemented its long-held intention to open a legislative liaison office in Washington to
increase its presence in the Congress. And in recognition of the wide array of legislative issues
facing the Congress and the EP that could affect the broader transatlantic relationship, the EP has
sought to involve its various standing committees in the work of the TLD in an attempt to
enhance its effectiveness and utility.
On the U.S. side, however, the Congress—other than those members leading the TLD—does not
seem to be, at least at this point, as interested as the European Parliament in trying to establish
closer legislative coordination or cooperation. Some attribute this lack of enthusiasm on the U.S.
side to the fact that many believe that the two institutions do not have the exact same legislative
powers or mandates. And many members of Congress believe that the TLD, although never
intended to be anything more than a mechanism for exchanging views among parliamentarians,
currently welds little influence or authority as a transatlantic policy resource.
Congressional Research Service
22

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Nevertheless, the involvement of the TLD in the TEC’s efforts to move regulatory cooperation
toward the ultimate goal of an unencumbered transatlantic marketplace has raised the TLD’s
visibility in the U.S. Congress. It has also brought to light several questions about the role that
Congress and the EP will or should play not only in the promotion of greater transatlantic
economic integration and regulatory cooperation, but also how the two institutions might help
shape the broader U.S.-EU relationship. Given the EP’s growing power and influence within the
EU as a result of the Lisbon Treaty, some U.S. officials and members of Congress believe that it
may be in U.S. interests for Congress to develop closer ties with the Parliament.
Many experts believe that if the identified concerns about the TLD are more fully addressed, the
TLD could become an organization capable of taking on a more important stakeholder role in
promoting Congress-Parliament cooperation and a stronger voice for transatlantic relations in
both the Congress and the EP. In the near term, however, these analysts acknowledge that the
TLD’s most immediate challenge will remain fulfilling its responsibilities as a member of the
TEC Advisory Group. In the longer term, most observers stress that significantly bolstering the
overall relationship between the Congress and the Parliament will require a sustained political
commitment on both sides and serious consideration of all possible options, including but not
necessarily limited to those focused on the TLD.
Congressional Research Service
23

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Appendix. Comparison of Committees in the
European Parliament and the U.S. Congress

The following chart identifies the European Parliament (EP) committees and the U.S. House and
Senate committees with similar or related jurisdictions, as of 2010. However, due to the unique
nature of both systems, not all EP committees have a corresponding congressional equivalent. For
organizational purposes, committees are grouped into broad “subject areas” given the various
competencies of both EP and U.S. committees. These “subject areas” have been generally
determined by EP committee competencies; accordingly, not all U.S. congressional committees
are included.
Given the complexities of the U.S. committee system in particular, this chart is meant largely for
illustrative purposes, and should not be construed as an exhaustive treatment of committee
jurisdictions or competencies. Both EP and U.S. congressional committees are listed in
alphabetical order.
Congressional Research Service
24

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament

Table A-1. Comparison of Committees in the EP and the U.S. Congress (as of 2010)
Related U.S. Congressional Committees
Subject Area
EP Committees
House Senate
Foreign Affairs and
• Development
• Armed Services
• Armed Services
International
• Foreign Affairs
• Foreign Affairs
• Foreign Relations
Development
International Trade
• International Trade
• Ways and Means
• Finance
Budget and
• Budgetary Control
• Appropriations
• Appropriations
Appropriation
• Budgets
• Budget
• Budget
Issues
• Policy Challengesa
Economic and
• Economic and
• Financial Services
• Banking, Housing, and Urban
Monetary Policies
Monetary Affairs
• Judiciary
Affairs
• Financial, Economic and • Ways and Means
• Finance
Social Crisis0
• Judiciary
• Internal Market and
Consumer Protection
• Joint House & Senate Economic Committee
Social, Environmental,
Culture and Education
• Agriculture
• Agriculture, Nutrition and
and Natural Resource
• Employment and Social • Education and Labor
Forestry
Issues
Affairs
• Energy and Commerce
• Commerce, Science, and
• Environment, Public
• Judiciary
Transportation
Health, and Food Safety • Science and Technology
• Energy and Natural Resources
• Women’s Rights and
• Small Business
• Environment and Public Works
Gender Equality
• Ways and Means
• Finance
• Select Committee on Energy • Health, Education, Labor and
Independence and Global
Pensions
Warming
• Judiciary
• Smal Business and
Entrepreneurship
Technology,
• Industry, Research and
• Energy and Commerce
• Commerce, Science and
Infrastructure, and
Energy
• Science and Technology
Transportation
Transportation
• Transport and Tourism • Transportation and
• Energy and Natural Resources
Infrastructure
• Environment and Public Works
Agriculture,
• Agriculture and Rural
• Agriculture
• Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Fisheries, and
Development
• Energy and Commerce
Forestry
Regional
• Fisheries
• Natural Resources
• Commerce, Science, and
Development
• Regional Development
• Small Business
Transportation
• Energy and Natural Resources
• Environment and Public Works
• Smal Business and
Entrepreneurship
Homeland Security
• Civil Liberties, Justice,
• Homeland Security
• Homeland Security and
and Civil Liberties
and Home Affairs
• Judiciary
Governmental Af airs
• Permanent Select
• Judiciary
Committee on Intelligence
• Select Committee on
Intelligence
Legal and
• Legal Affairs
• Judiciary
• Judiciary
Constitutional
• Constitutional Affairs
Issues
Other

• Petitions
• No equivalent
• No equivalent
Source: This chart was prepared by Kristin Archick, Specialist in European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
Trade Division, and Judy Schneider, Specialist on the Congress, Government and Finance Division, CRS.
a. Temporary EU Committee.
Congressional Research Service
25

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament


Author Contact Information

Kristin Archick
Vincent Morelli
Specialist in European Affairs
Section Research Manager
karchick@crs.loc.gov, 7-2668
vmorelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8051


Congressional Research Service
26