The U.S. Congress and the European
Parliament: Evolving Transatlantic Legislative
Cooperation
Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs
Vincent Morelli
Section Research Manager
March 20, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41552
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared 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.
Proponents of establishing closer relations between the U.S. Congress and the EP point to the
Parliament’s growing influence as a result of the EU’s 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. Consequently, some officials and
experts on both sides of the Atlantic have asked whether 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 approaches to policies in areas of mutual interest.
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 Congress and the EP date back to 1972. The TLD’s visibility
increased somewhat 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.”
In response to the TLD’s new TEC-related responsibilities, some Members of Congress suggested
that there was a need for more cooperation with the EP, and raised questions with respect to how
this might best be accomplished. For those Members and outside advocates of closer relations,
questions have surfaced about whether the TLD itself was organized in a way that would facilitate
such relations, how the standing committees in both institutions might interact, and what role, if
any, for the U.S. Senate. Throughout 2010, and to a lesser extent in 2011, contacts between
Congress and the Parliament increased in frequency, including at the committee level. However,
many observers note that the EP has been far out in front of Congress in pursuit of a stronger
relationship mostly through EP delegations traveling to Washington to meet their counterparts. In
2010, the Parliament opened a liaison office in Washington that was charged with keeping the EP
better informed of legislative activity in 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, some point out that with the exception of a few Members with previous
experience in the TLD, Congress as a whole has been seen at best ambivalent to such efforts and
has not demonstrated as much enthusiasm as the EP about forging closer relations. This
observation had been noted by the EP itself when at the beginning of the 112th Congress neither
the new chair nor the vice chair of the USTLD were appointed until early June.
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.
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 .................................................................................................... 6
New Transatlantic Agenda......................................................................................................... 6
Transatlantic Economic Council................................................................................................ 7
The Current Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue............................................................................. 9
Initiatives to Strengthen Congress-Parliament Cooperation.......................................................... 12
European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO).......................................................................... 12
Closer Committee Contact ...................................................................................................... 14
Possible Options for Future Congress-Parliament Cooperation .................................................... 17
1. Enhance the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue ................................................................ 17
2. Develop Closer TLD Coordination with the Standing Committees and Promote
Committee Cooperation ....................................................................................................... 19
3. Utilize European Parliament Liaison Staff Deployed to Washington.................................. 21
4. Establish a Senior Staff “Fellowship” Exchange................................................................. 21
5. Deploy Congressional Staff to Brussels .............................................................................. 22
6. Establish a Congressional Commission on the EU.............................................................. 23
Role of the Senate.......................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Committees in the EP and the U.S. Congress ..................................... 27
Appendixes
Appendix. Comparison of Committees in the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress ........ 26
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28
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 long period since the end of the Cold War and the recent talk of a “pacific pivot,”
many observers assert that the security and prosperity of the United States and Europe 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 have worked closely to promote security in the Balkans and
Afghanistan, have intensified law enforcement cooperation since the 2001 terrorist attacks on the
United States, and have been cooperating closely to manage and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
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 54% of global gross domestic product
and roughly 28% of global exports and 33% of global imports. According to one recent study, the
transatlantic economy generates close to $5 trillion in commercial sales a year and employs up to
15 million workers on both sides of the Atlantic. Of particular importance is the fact that U.S. and
European companies are the biggest investors in each other’s markets. In 2010, it is estimated that
nearly $2 trillion (or 52%) of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) went to Europe while $1.4
trillion of EU FDI flowed to the United States.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
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 Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan, The Transatlantic Economy 2011, Center for Transatlantic Relations,
2011.
Congressional Research Service
1
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 aircraft 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 expressed renewed interest in strengthening
institutional ties and exploring greater cooperation in areas of mutual interest. 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 Congress and the
EP date back to 1972, but formal institutional cooperation was established in 1999 and currently
exists through the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD). In recent years, new momentum for
boosting Congressional-EP relations has come from two sources. First, 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”).
The second factor driving cooperation has been the European Parliament’s interest in working
with Congress as a co-equal legislative partner. This determination was further enhanced
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
increased 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
terrorist finance tracking 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. Similarly, with the Lisbon Treaty now in force,
the EP, unlike the U.S. Congress, must approve a revised 2007 U.S.-EU agreement permitting
airlines to share passenger name record (PNR) data with U.S. authorities as part of the ongoing
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
fight against terrorism. Some in the EP have long been concerned that the PNR agreement did not
contain sufficient protections to safeguard the personal data and privacy rights of EU citizens. In
an effort to assuage EP concerns and ensure the PNR agreement’s approval in Parliament, U.S.
and EU officials negotiated a somewhat revised PNR accord, which is currently pending in the
Parliament.
In light of the SWIFT votes and now the PNR issue, U.S. policymakers have taken note that the
EP has become 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. In November 2010, U.S.
Ambassador to the EU William Kennard 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
This message, however, may have been heard by Congress in a different way. In 2011, resolutions
were introduced in both Houses (and adopted in the Senate) effectively stating that Congress did
not support significant changes to the PNR agreement—in direct contrast to what some in the EP
have been advocating.
Many of those who support attempts 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 had 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. In 2010, U.S.-EU frictions surfaced over proposed EU legislation to regulate hedge funds
and private equity groups. And most recently, Congress has expressed its concern over the EU’s
decision to levy a carbon tax on U.S. airlines flying into Europe, a measure the EP has endorsed.
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 share legislative information with each other 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 energy efficiency standards, energy security, data protection, and cyber-
security. More recently, it has been suggested by some that as Congress continues its deliberations
on the reauthorization of the U.S. Farm Bill and the EP works on renewing the EU’s Common
Agriculture Policy (CAP), the two sides should consult and identify common issues in an effort to
avoid potential problems that could result from emerging new policies.
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
Although there had not been significant movement within Congress during 2011 or thus far in
2012 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. 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”.)
Background on the European Parliament
The 754-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 273 seats, and the center-left
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), with 189 seats. The other EP groups
are: the centrist Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), with 84 seats; the leftist and pro-environment
Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA), with 57 seats; the right-wing, anti-federalist European Conservatives and
Reformists (ECR), with 55 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 32 seats. The remaining seats are non-attached.
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.
On the other hand, although there has not been an observable opposition to such an enhanced
relationship, U.S. skeptics both inside and outside of the Congress 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 and seems unlikely to significantly alter
proposed legislation as the Congress is more apt, at times, to do.
Congressional Research Service
4
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
Given the structural and procedural differences between Congress and the EP, some have
questioned whether the two bodies could effectively work together on legislative issues. There are
other potential problems as well. In many instances, personal relationships between Committee
chairmen and its members as well as chairmen and Leadership often play important roles in
attempting to coordinate and approve legislative initiatives. Whether such personal relationships
across the Atlantic could be developed in order to coordinate legislative initiatives is for some
questionable. Also, many U.S. Members and their counterparts in the EP have very different
views on issues such as climate change or energy policy that would be difficult to reconcile.
Moreover, many point out that neither Congress nor the EP would likely be inclined toward
developing 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 a few 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.
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
Congressional Research Service
5
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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. The TPN continues to support this transatlantic dialogue today
through programs such as its two-day workshops during what has become known as
“Transatlantic Week” in Washington.
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 by 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.
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
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 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 a 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
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 attempting to develop and expand the transatlantic knowledge-base of
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 served to help 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 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
Congressional Research Service
7
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 it was the creation of the TEC that initially 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.
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 at the time 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. Although the Congress does not regularly interject itself in regulatory
matters, advocates asserted that the U.S. Congress, through its authorization and appropriation
roles, Members could prod the regulators to move the cooperative efforts forward and provide the
7 CRS interviews with congressional staff.
Congressional Research Service
8
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 Congress and Parliament in order to inject more economic and regulatory specificity
to the debate. Two reports issued at the time, 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 could take, including how the transatlantic
legislatures could play an influential role.
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, did initially have some impact on how some in Congress
viewed 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 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. Some other observers 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, did help encourage an expanded U.S.-EU legislative dialogue beyond the TEC-
related issues and began to result in a more notable desire by some in the EP to become more
engaged with their counterparts in the Congress. An example of this is seen in the PNR issue. As
opponents in the EP of some of the provisions in the revised U.S.-EU agreement have expressed
their concerns and have requested changes, there has been an attempt by the EP’s rapporteur for
PNR, as well as members of the EP’s Civil Liberties Committee, to meet with Members of
Congress to discuss the EP’s concerns, in part, in the name of legislative cooperation, as well as
transatlantic harmony.
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
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
9
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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.
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
EUTLD Steering Committee is now chaired by MEP Ehlers who will 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 13 Parliamentary and
Commission Groups operating in 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 mandated 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. Traditionally, the chair and ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee appointed the USTLD’s chair. In the 112th Congress it appears that the Chair,
Representative Stearns (FL) was appointed by the Speaker, with the possible concurrence of 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
10
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee; the Vice Chair, Representative Loretta Sanchez (CA) was
appointed by the minority leader and the ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
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 observers have suggested that
the EU Caucus in the House could 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 during the 112th Congress appears to have
maintained a level of continuity, there is still concern among some observers that the USTLD
could continue 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
Another difference between the U.S. Congress and the EP in relation to the TLD involves
staffing. Traditionally, on the U.S. side, there have been three principal staff designated as the
“U.S. secretariat” for the TLD: an administrator and one representative from the majority and
minority. In the 112th Congress, however, the majority staff also appears to serve as the
delegation’s secretariat. These staff are part of the House Foreign Affairs Committee structure and
usually have 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. This disconnect between USTLD staff and the issues most frequently found on the
TLD agenda was further highlighted when the TLD, at the beginning of the 112th Congress, was
tasked to focus on specific issues. These included transport security, financial markets, and cyber-
security, issues not normally 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,
11 CRS interviews with congressional staff.
12 CRS interviews with representatives of the business community.
Congressional Research Service
11
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 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 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.
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 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.”
Congressional Research Service
12
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 former 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 is tasked to 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 be
identified to work together on concrete issues requiring legislative and political cooperation or at
least intellectual attention and understanding.”15 The EPLO reports directly to the EP Secretary-
General. At the time of its opening, the Liaison Office had three professional and two
administrative staff; at the beginning of 2012, the EPLO had a total of 10 staff including one
foreign policy expert representing the EP’s Directorate General for External Affairs (DGEXPO)
that covers all foreign and defense policy, international development, and trade, and one expert
from the DGIPOL which covers the issues equivalent to domestic U.S. policy issues.
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 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 during the
111th Congress a number of Members involved in the TLD expressed support for the idea in
principle of establishing a 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 former
Subcommittee chairman. To date, however, 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”).
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
13
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
Closer Committee Contact16
Not long after the TLD was assigned its 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 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 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 Workforce
Committee (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) six,
and the third-largest group (the ALDE) two. 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 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
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
14
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 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 adopted by the 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.
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, or not at all. To have legislation run parallel
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
15
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 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 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 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.
Similarly, with the previously mentioned U.S.-EU PNR agreement, the EP does have a legislative
role in approving any revised agreement whereas the Congress does not. This is not to say the
Congress cannot or would not interject itself into an issue in which it would not normally have a
role. In the case of PNR, both Houses of Congress have introduced resolutions expressing
concern with potential changes to the 2007 version of the agreement, suggesting that the
Congress was satisfied with the existing accord and seeking to bolster the Administration’s
position in its renegotiation. In the case of PNR, although it is a U.S. executive agreement, most
experts believe it is unlikely that the Obama Administration would agree to any extensive changes
the EU would demand should the European Parliament reject the agreement, especially if any
changes involved U.S. law in which case the Congress would have to give its approval. Given
such differences between the U.S. and EU policymaking processes, some skeptics question
whether stronger Congressional-EP relations would add much value. Others contend, however,
that even in matters such as the SWIFT or the PNR issues—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 inform each other of the various viewpoints, frame the
debate, and perhaps influence outcomes.
Despite some differences in the way legislation is handled in 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 was hoped that these administrators
would also become points-of-contact for their counterpart committee staff in Congress. Thus far,
however, no Congressional committee has formally appointed a TLD liaison among the staff and
appears unlikely to do so in the near term. (For a comparison of European Parliament committees
and House and Senate committees with similar or related jurisdictions, see the Appendix.)
Congressional Research Service
16
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
Possible Options for Future
Congress-Parliament Cooperation
If the level of contact between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament does 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 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 deem it worthwhile in the
years ahead to further deepen relations with the EP, there are a number of potential options that
could be considered and explored.
Six 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 have suggested that
Members of the House, not just the chairman, be appointed to the TLD by the Speaker, at the
beginning of each Congress and for the full two years of a Congress. The number of U.S.
delegates to the TLD should also 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. In the 112th Congress, the Speaker notified the chair of the USTLD of his
appointment, but as of 2012 it does not appear that any other members of the TLD had been
formally appointed by anyone.
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 had also proposed that in appointing the TLD chair, the Speaker
or chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee could identify a few specific issues that the TLD
should focus on and that the USTLD chair, in conjunction with the EUTLD would establish either
Congressional Research Service
17
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
political and economic committees within which those issues would be addressed, or specific
working groups to focus on those issues. USTLD Chair Stearns, in a press release regarding his
appointment as chair, noted three major issues the TLD would undertake to address. These
included transport security and visa and cargo harmonization; financial markets; and agriculture,
specifically food safety and genetically modified organisms. With the appointment of MEP Ehlers
as the new EUTLD chair, there are indications that cyber-security could be added as an additional
issue for consideration.
Supporters of this type of structure asserted that such a 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 working group chairs would report on the topics discussed in their
committees to the entire body at some point during the TLD meetings. In addition, working group
members could become more inter-active with each other in the time between the TLD’s semi-
annual meetings by promoting on-going dialogue between themselves, committee chairs,
rapporteurs, and other delegates through the use of video conferences and meetings so that TLD
members could keep in touch year-round. This idea began to gain some traction when in
preparation for the 2011 summer meeting of the TLD, the EUTLD announced the formation of
individual working groups for at least two of the issue areas and were prepared to discuss how
these working groups would operate. However, the USTLD was not prepared to appoint members
to the working groups at that time but suggested this could be done by the fall meeting. Although
the TLD met again in December 2011, the U.S. delegation still had not named any Members to
the suggested working groups and plans shifted to the spring 2012 session to accomplish this.
The lack of a formal structure, even of working groups focused on specific issues, has led some
observers to note that the TLD has not taken advantage of its role as advisor to the TEC and
should strengthen that role. In late 2011, however, the TLD’s role as an advisory body to the TEC
was handed another opportunity to have an effective say in transatlantic economic relations.
On November 17, 2011 in a resolution adopted by the European Parliament regarding the
November 2011 U.S.-EU Summit, the EP (responding, in part, to a report published by the
TPN18) called for a joint transatlantic jobs and growth initiative, including a trade and investment
roadmap, and expressed the need to strengthen the TEC process to achieve these objectives. The
resolution also “urged the U.S. and the EU to involve the TLD closely in the TEC ...”19
At the annual U.S.-EU Summit, U.S. and EU leaders discussed potential U.S.-EU initiatives to
stimulate transatlantic economic growth and job creation. In the joint statement issued at the
conclusion of the Summit, the leaders directed the TEC to establish “a joint High Level Working
Group on Jobs and Growth, co-chaired by the European Commissioner for Trade and the U.S.
Trade Representative.” The Summit leaders asked the Working Group to “identify and assess
options for strengthening the U.S.-EU economic relationship, especially those that have the
highest potential to support jobs and growth. These types of job and growth initiatives once
identified could likely require some legislative action by the Congress and the Parliament. Thus,
the TLD, as an advisor to the TEC may have to explore ways in which it can play a more pro-
active role as promoters of the TEC’s job creation and growth efforts. Such a role suggests that
18 Toward a Strategic Vision for the Transatlantic Market, Fourth Report, Transatlantic Policy Network, 2011.
19 See paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the European Parliament resolution on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 2011
adopted on November 17, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
18
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
the TLD may need to consider creating its own working group that would closely monitor and
participate in the work of the TEC’s High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth providing
input as to what options could or could not receive legislative support. This could be another
issue for the 2012 TLD sessions.
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, 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 working groups 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 working group
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 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. 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 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
Congressional Research Service
19
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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
in 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 encouraged by both the TLD and the EPLO in Washington.
One example of where it was thought cooperation could work was in the agriculture sector. The
112th Congress has begun the process to reauthorize 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 phytosanitary issues are politically important on both sides
of the Atlantic, the U.S. and EP agriculture committees had the opportunity to explore how they
could work in concert with each other especially to identify areas of potential conflict. Here it
was thought the EU Caucus and the USTLD could have played a substantive role in helping
coordinate the interaction between Committees as well as sponsoring workshops and briefings for
all Member of Congress and EP on the issues involved in the Farm Bill/CAP debate. To date,
however, it appears that while there has been some level of contact between the two Committees
(Congressional Agriculture Committee staff visited their counterparts in the EP in June 2011
under a program sponsored by the Bertelsmann Foundation), there does not appear to have been
any substantive follow-up attempts to coordinate, or at least to discuss, related farm policy issues.
Pros and Cons. Proponents of developing closer 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, or now, transatlantic jobs and growth initiatives 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. This lack of
input from the relevant U.S. committees to the USTLD leadership appears to have limited the
kinds of progress on initiatives the TLD can advocate for in its annual input to the TEC, which is
supposed to help provide guidance to the TEC’s work program.
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 Congress, many
Congressional Research Service
20
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 European 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 meeting or briefings 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 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
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. To date, it appears that individual meetings
between the EPLO staff and congressional staff are continuing but it does not appear that any
formal workshops or seminars have been held by the EPLO for a larger staff audience of the TLD
and committee staff to discuss issues before both the Parliament and the Congress.
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 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, something a typical staff visit of
a few days could not achieve. 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
Congressional Research Service
21
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 long-term institutional ties between Congress and the EP.
One model that could be explored has already been initiated by the two largest political groups in
the EP, the center-right European Peoples Party (EPP) and Socialists and Democrats (S&D). The
EPP has occasionally invited republican staff to Brussels to learn how Parliament works and what
role political groups play. In turn, EPP staff usually spend a week in Washington meeting with
congressional staff. Although these exchanges are limited in duration, more party focused, and
not specific to an issue or legislation being consider in either body, they appear to have been
successful thus far. Similarly, the S&D has apparently initiated its own program in which an S&D
group staffer is seconded to an office of a Democratic Member for three or four weeks to learn
how Congress operates and to focus on a specific issue. Whether this kind of model could be
formalized through the TLD could be explored.
5. 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 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 USTLD in Congress 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 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
Congressional Research Service
22
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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.
6. Establish a Congressional Commission on the EU
Some proponents of forging closer ties between 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 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 Congress and the EP.
In January 2011, H.Con.Res. 2 was introduced (Representative Issa, CA) 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. 2 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. 2, 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 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 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 unless in the creation of a such a Commission the majority of the
Commission’s staff were located in Brussels, it 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
Congressional Research Service
23
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 significant 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. Recently, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (NH), chair of the Europe Subcommittee of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has indicated her interest in exploring ways the Senate
could be involved with the TLD although 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 up to this
point. Some observers believe that a reinvigorated House EU Caucus 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. Others believe that interested Senators should consider creating a
Senate EU Caucus and then offer to hold joint meetings/briefings with the House counterpart.
Through a joint Caucus effort, 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
January 2012, the TEC had met six 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, while
Senator Shaheen has raised the issue, 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.
Congressional Research Service
24
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
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 Congress. And in recognition of the wide array of legislative issues facing
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, Congress—other than those Members who have participated in the
TLD—does not seem to be, at least at this point, as interested as the European Parliament in
trying to establish closer legislative 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.
The initial involvement of the TLD in the TEC’s efforts to move regulatory cooperation toward
the ultimate goal of an unencumbered transatlantic marketplace did appear to raise the TLD’s
visibility in the U.S. Congress. Since then, however, there has been little evidence that the
USTLD’s role has generated any additional congressional interest in the TLD, the TEC, or
enthusiasm for closer cooperation and collaboration with the European Parliament. While the
creation of the TEC raised several questions about the role that Congress and the EP will or
should play in the promotion of greater transatlantic economic integration and regulatory
cooperation, on the U.S. side, those questions still appear unanswered. 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 continue to believe that it may be in U.S. interests for Congress to develop
closer ties with the Parliament. However, some of the original congressional advocates of a closer
relationship with the EP are no longer in congress and other voices of support seemed to have
waned. Outside organizations that initially showed a commitment to try to move this agenda
forward also seem to have curbed their enthusiasm for one reason or another.
Some advocates, however, still believe that if the identified concerns about the USTLD 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 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 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
25
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. 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
26
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament
Table A-1. Comparison of Committees in the EP and the U.S. Congress
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
Appropriations
• Budgets
• Budget
• Budget
• Economic and
• Financial Services
• Banking, Housing, and
Economic and
Monetary Policies
Monetary Af airs
• Judiciary
Urban Affairs
• Internal Market and
• Ways and Means
• Finance
Consumer Protection
• Judiciary
• Joint House & Senate Economic Committee
Social, Environmental,
• Culture and
• Agriculture
• Agriculture, Nutrition and
and Natural Resource
Education
• Education and the
Forestry
Issues
• Employment and
Workforce
• Commerce, Science, and
Social Affairs
• Energy and Commerce
Transportation
• Environment, Public
• Judiciary
• Energy and Natural Resources
Health, and Food
• Science, Space and
• Environment and Public
Safety
Technology
Works
• Women’s Rights and
• Small Business
• Finance
Gender Equality
• Ways and Means
• Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions
• Judiciary
• Smal Business and
Entrepreneurship
Technology,
• Industry, Research
• Energy and Commerce
• Commerce, Science and
Infrastructure, and
and Energy
• Science, Space, and
Transportation
Transportation
• Transport and
Technology
• Energy and Natural Resources
Tourism
• Transportation and
• Environment and Public
Infrastructure
Works
Agriculture,
• Agriculture and
• Agriculture
• Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Fisheries, and
Rural Development
• Energy and Commerce
Forestry
Regional
• Fisheries
• Natural Resources
• Commerce, Science, and
Development
• Regional
• Small Business
Transportation
Development
• Energy and Natural Resources
• Environment and Public
Works
• Smal Business and
Entrepreneurship
Homeland Security
• Civil Liberties,
• Homeland Security
• Homeland Security and
and Civil Liberties
Justice, and Home
• Judiciary
Governmental Affairs
Affairs
• Permanent Select
• Judiciary
Committee on
• Select Committee on
Intelligence
Intelligence
Constitutional and
• Constitutional Affairs
• Judiciary
• Judiciary
Legal Issues
• Legal Affairs
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.
Congressional Research Service
27
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
28