Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and
Trade Promotion Authority
Updated July 22, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45846

SUMMARY

R45846
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and
July 22, 2020
Trade Promotion Authority
Keigh E. Hammond
Through Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Congress has delegated authority to the President to
Research Librarian
negotiate free trade agreements (FTAs). This authority requires congressional approval of

comprehensive FTAs, through implementation legislation, and provides for expedited
consideration of such legislation if the Administration meets certain requirements during the

negotiation process. Since 1979, Congress has passed 17 implementation measures for FTAs and
multilateral trade agreements. All but one of these trade agreements were considered in Congress under TPA. Most recently,
Congress considered and approved the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) (P.L. 116-113), under TPA.
TPA is currently authorized through July 1, 2021, by the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of
2015 (P.L. 114-26). Since 1979, Congress has passed six measures extending TPA for limited time periods. As with many
international trade issues, TPA has been politically contentious over time, resulting in vigorous debate and two eight-year
lapses in authority.
Congress also has a specific role in determining U.S. membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Congress first
approved U.S. membership in the international organization in 1994, by passing the implementing legislation for the WTO
Uruguay Round Agreements. The implementing legislation also established a procedure whereby Congress can withdraw the
United States from the WTO through a joint resolution. In May 2020, two resolutions (H.J.Res. 89 and S.J.Res. 71) were
introduced to withdraw U.S. membership from the WTO.
The following report and tables compile the final congressional votes on free trade agreements (FTAs), trade promotion
authority (TPA), and U.S membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 8 Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority

Congress and Free Trade Agreements
This report compiles the final congressional votes on free trade agreements (FTAs), trade
promotion authority (TPA), and U.S membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
In the past 30 years, the United States has pursued bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade
agreements in an attempt to liberalize markets and reduce trade and investment barriers. Congress
has played a central role in shaping this trade policy. Congress—through debate and legislation—
defines trade negotiation priorities and approves FTAs. Congress also helps oversee agreements’
implementation and enforcement.
While the President has the authority to negotiate treaties with foreign countries, Congress has
sole constitutional authority to regulate international trade.1 Since 1934, Congress has
periodically delegated some authority to negotiate trade agreements to the President. In the Trade
Act of 1974, Congress outlined many of the congressional and executive roles regarding trade
agreements; Congress delegated negotiation authority to the President, but required congressional
approval (through implementation legislation) of free trade agreements. Congress also created a
process to allow for expedited consideration of trade agreement implementing legislation,
provided that the President observe certain statutory requirements.2 This expedient consideration
is known as TPA or, formerly, “fast-track” consideration.3
Free Trade Agreements: Bilateral and Regional
The United States is currently party to 12 bilateral FTAs (with Australia, Bahrain, Chile,
Colombia, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore) and to 2
regional free trade agreements (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the
Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)).4 (For
a list and timeline of FTAs, see Table 1. For a compilation of final congressional votes on FTAs
considered in Congress, see Table 2.) These FTAs are considered comprehensive trade
agreements, covering "substantially all trade" between partners. Recently, the United States has
also negotiated more limited agreements that have focused on select bilateral trade and tariff
issues; examples include the “phase one” agreements with China and Japan. This report does not
cover these limited-scope agreements, as they have not required congressional approval or
implementation legislation.5
The United States is currently pursuing additional bilateral trade negotiations. The U.S. Trade
Representative has notified Congress, under TPA procedures, that the Administration is pursuing

1 Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...”
and “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises....”
2 Section 102 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
3 For more on Trade Promotion Authority see CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of
Congress in Trade Policy, by Ian F. Fergusson and CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA):
Frequently Asked Questions, by Ian F. Fergusson and Christopher M. Davis.
4 For more, see CRS Report R45198, U.S. and Global Trade Agreements: Issues for Congress, by Brock R. Williams,
and CRS Report R44981, NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), by M. Angeles
Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson
5 For more on the recent limited scope agreements with China and Japan, see: CRS Insight IN11208, U.S. Signs Phase
One Trade Deal with China, by Karen M. Sutter and CRS Report R46140, “Stage One” U.S.-Japan Trade Agreements,
coordinated by Brock R. Williams. For more on the evolution of U.S. trade agreement policy, see CRS Report R45198,
U.S. and Global Trade Agreements: Issues for Congress, by Brock R. Williams.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 10 link to page 12 Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority

negotiations with the European Union, Japan (in addition to the limited stage-one agreement),
Kenya, and the United Kingdom. These negotiations are ongoing.
Multilateral Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization
In addition to bilateral and regional FTAs, the United States is also party to multilateral trade
agreements that outline membership in the WTO, a 164-member international organization. The
WTO was created in 1995 to oversee and administer multilateral trade rules, serve as a forum for
trade liberalization negotiations, and resolve trade disputes.6 When Congress approved the WTO
Uruguay Round Agreements, it included a set of procedures to allow Congress to reconsider U.S.
106organization.7 Congress may vote every five years on withdrawal from the WTO. Resolutions
were introduced in the House during the 106th and 109th Congress; neither passed. Most recently,
two resolutions were introduced in the 116th Congress (H.J.Res. 89 and S.J.Res. 71); to date,
neither has received a vote.8 See Table 3 for a compilation of major legislation and votes
concerning U.S. membership to the WTO.
Trade Promotion Authority
All U.S. FTAs, except the agreement with Jordan, were considered in Congress under Trade
Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA is the process by which Congress enables FTA legislation to be
considered under expedited legislative procedures, provided the President observes certain
statutory obligations. Because TPA is extended only for limited periods, Congress periodically
considers legislation to extend it and to outline future negotiation objectives. TPA is currently
authorized through July 1, 2021, by the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and
Accountability Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-26). Since 1974, Congress has passed seven measures
extending TPA. TPA, like many issues related to international trade, has been politically
contentious in Congress over time, resulting in vigorous debate and two eight-year lapses in
authority.9 For a list of major votes on TPA, see Table 4.
Congressional Votes on Select Trade Legislation
Congressional consideration of bills can be a complex process, sometimes requiring multiple
votes. For clarity’s sake, this report only provides the final vote for each measure. More complete
bill information can be found on Congress.gov—including roll call votes for all legislation back
to 1993. The bill numbers listed in the following tables link to Congress.gov, and the vote tallies
link to the House and Senate roll call votes, for all votes back to 1993.

6 See CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction, coordinated by Cathleen D.
Cimino-Isaacs.
7 Section 125(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465) sets procedures for congressional disapproval
of WTO participation. It specifies that Congress’s approval of the WTO agreement shall cease to be effective “if and
only if” Congress enacts a joint resolution calling for withdrawal. Congress may vote every five years on withdrawal.
For more information, also see CRS Insight IN11399, The WTO Withdrawal Resolutions, by Ian F. Fergusson and
Christopher M. Davis.
8 According to news reports, changes in House and Senate rules may, in effect, prevent votes from occurring on the two
WTO withdrawal proposals in the 116th Congress. (Sabrina Rodriguez and Doug Palmer, “House leaders maneuver to
prevent vote on WTO withdrawal,” Politico Pro Weekly Trade, June 25, 2020; and “Hawley’s WTO withdrawal
resolution unlikely to get Senate vote,” Inside U.S. Trade, July 1, 2020.)
9 Since 1974, there were two notable lapses in TPA: between 1994 and 2002 and between 2007 and 2015. For more on
TPA, see CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Ian F. Fergusson
and Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 16 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority

Table 1 provides a timeline of free trade agreements including the date the agreement was signed,
the date implementing legislation was enacted, and the date the agreement went into force. The
table also notes the TPA legislation under which the trade agreement was considered in Congress.
The table includes comprehensive FTAs that have entered into force and have required
congressional approval. This table does not include limited-scope agreements that have not
required congressional approval, or trade agreements that were signed, but not voted on by
Congress, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.10
Table 2 provides major votes on FTAs, including the final House and Senate votes on FTA
implementing legislation.
Table 3 provides major votes on U.S. membership to the WTO, including implementing
legislation for multilateral agreements and resolutions calling for the United States to withdraw
from the WTO.
Table 4 provides major votes on TPA legislation. It includes the final House and Senate votes on
TPA-related provisions. Votes are grouped by the trade agreement authority granted to the
President.
For a selected list of CRS products on FTAs and TPA, see the Appendix.
Table 1. U.S. Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority: A Timeline
1985-2020 descending order by entry into force date
Implementing
U.S. Free
Legislation
Agreement
Trade
Agreement
Signed by
Entered into
Agreement
Signed
President
Force
TPAa
USMCAb
11/30/2018
1/29/2020
7/1/2020 Bipartisan Congressional Trade
Priorities and Accountability Act
of 2015
Colombia
11/22/2006
10/21/2011
5/15/2012 Trade Act of 2002
South Korea
6/30/2007
10/21/2011
3/15/2012 Trade Act of 2002
Panama
6/28/2007
10/21/2011
10/31/2012 Trade Act of 2002
Peru
4/12/2006
12/14/2007
2/1/2009 Trade Act of 2002
Oman
1/19/2006
9/26/2006
1/1/2009 Trade Act of 2002
Bahrain
9/14/2004
1/11/2006
1/11/2006 Trade Act of 2002
CAFTA-DRc
5/28/2004
8/2/2005
entered into Trade Act of 2002
(CAFTA);
force by country
8/5/2004 (DR)
on a rol ing basis,
2006-2009d
Morocco
6/15/2004
8/17/2004
1/1/2006 Trade Act of 2002
Australia
5/18/2004
8/3/2004
1/1/2005 Trade Act of 2002

10 For more information on recent limited-scope agreements see: CRS Insight IN11208, U.S. Signs Phase One Trade
Deal with China, by Karen M. Sutter and CRS Report R46140, “Stage One” U.S.-Japan Trade Agreements,
coordinated by Brock R. Williams. For more on the evolution of U.S. FTA policy, see CRS Report R45198, U.S. and
Global Trade Agreements: Issues for Congress, by Brock R. Williams. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a
proposed FTA, signed by the United States and 11 other Asia-Pacific countries on Feb. 4, 2016. In Jan. 2017, the
United States notified the other TPP signatories that it would not ratify the agreement, effectively ending TPP’s
potential entry into force as written.
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority

Implementing
U.S. Free
Legislation
Agreement
Trade
Agreement
Signed by
Entered into
Agreement
Signed
President
Force
TPAa
Chile
6/6/2003
9/3/2003
1/1/2004 Trade Act of 2002
Singapore
5/6/2003
9/3/2003
1/1/2004 Trade Act of 2002
Jordan
10/24/2000
9/28/2001
12/17/2001 Not considered under TPA
NAFTAe
12/17/1992
12/8/1993
1/1/1994 Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988
Canadaf
1/2/1988
9/28/1988
1/1/1989 Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
Israel
4/22/1985
6/11/1985
8/19/1985 Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
Source: Compiled from the U.S. Trade Representative’s website, Congress.gov, Treaties in Force, Congressional
Quarterly Almanac, and CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in
Trade Policy, by Ian F. Fergusson
Notes: Also see CRS Infographic IG10001, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and U.S. Trade Agreements, by Brock R.
Wil iams.
a. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is the legislation that grants the President authority to negotiate trade
agreements for which implementing legislation may receive expedited treatment in Congress.
b. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) superseded the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA).
c. CAFTA-DR (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States FTA) includes Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
d. CAFTA-DR entered into force on a rol ing basis as the President certified each country’s compliance with
the agreement: El Salvador (March 1, 2006); Honduras and Nicaragua (April 1, 2006); Guatemala (July 1,
2006); the Dominican Republic (March 1, 2007); and Costa Rica (January 1, 2009).
e. NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) included Mexico and Canada, and was superseded by
USMCA.
f.
The U.S.-Canada FTA was superseded by NAFTA.

Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 10 link to page 10
Table 2. Major Votes on Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Implementing Legislation
(Agreements listed by date of FTA enactment)
Final Votes
Congress
(Year)
U.S. FTA
Bill
Description of Bill
House
Senate
116th (2020)
USMCAa
H.R. 5430
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 116-113.
385-41 (Passed)
89-10 (Passed) 01/16/2020
12/19/2019
112th (2011)
Colombia
H.R. 3078
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-42.
262-167 (Passed)
66-33 (Passed)
10/12/2011
10/12/2011
110th (2008)
H.Res. 1092
Resolution to suspend TPA consideration of Colombia FTA
224-195 (Passed)
n/a
in the 110th Congress. (The Administration did not resubmit
04/10/2008
the Colombia FTA to Congress until the 112th Congress.)
112th (2011)
South
H.R. 3080
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-41.
278-151 (Passed)
83-15 (Passed)
Korea
10/12/2011
10/12/2011
112th (2011)
Panama
H.R. 3079
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-43.
300-129 (Passed)
77-22 (Passed)
10/12/2011
10/12/2011
110th (2007)
Peru
H.R. 3688
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 110-138.
285-132 (Passed)
77-18 (Passed)
11/08/2007
12/04/2007
109th (2006)
Oman
H.R. 5684
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-283.
221-205 (Passed)
62-32 (Passed)
07/20/2006
09/19/2006
109th (2006)

S. 3569
FTA implementation act.
—
60-34 (Passed)
06/29/2006
109th (2006)
Bahrain
H.R. 4340
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-169.
327-95 (Passed)
By Unanimous Consent.
12/07/2005
12/13/2005
109th (2005)
CAFTA-
H.R. 3045
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-53.
217-215 (Passed)
55-45 (Passed)
DRb
07/28/2005
07/28/2005
109th (2005)

S. 1307
FTA implementation act.
—
54-45 (Passed)
06/30/2005
CRS-5

link to page 10 link to page 10
Final Votes
Congress
(Year)
U.S. FTA
Bill
Description of Bill
House
Senate
108th (2004)
Morocco
H.R. 4842
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-302.
323-99 (Passed)
By Unanimous Consent
07/22/2004
07/22/2004
108th (2004)

S. 2677
FTA implementation act.
—
85-13 (Passed)
07/21/2004
108th (2004)
Australia
H.R. 4759
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-286.
314-109 (Passed)
80-16 (Passed)
07/14/2004
07/15/2004
108th (2004)
Chile
H.R. 2738
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-77.
270-156 (Passed)
65-32 (Passed)
07/24/2003
07/31/2003
108th (2003)

S.Res. 211
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding
n/a
By Unanimous Consent
provisions in the Chile and Singapore FTAs and immigration.
07/31/2003
108th (2003)
Singapore
H.R. 2739
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-78.
272-155 (Passed)
66-32 (Passed)
07/24/2003
07/31/2003
108th (2003)

S.Res. 211
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding
n/a
By Unanimous Consent
provisions in the Chile and Singapore FTAs on trade
07/31/2003
agreements and immigration.
107th (2001)
Jordan
H.R. 2603
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 107-43.
Voice vote (Agreed)
Voice vote (Agreed)
07/31/2001
09/24/2001
103rd (1993)
NAFTAc
H.R. 3450
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 103-182.
234-200 (Passed)
61-38 (Passed)
11/17/1993
11/20/1993
100th (1988)
Canadad
H.R. 5090
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 100-449.
366-40 (Passed)
83-9 (Passed)
08/09/1988
09/19/1988
104th (1996)
Israel
H.R. 3074
Amendments to the Israel FTA, enacted, P.L. 104-234.
Voice vote (Agreed)
By Unanimous Consent
04/16/1996
09/27/1996
99th (1985)

H.R. 2268
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 99-47.
422-0 (Passed) 05/07/1985
Voice Vote (Agreed)
05/23/1985
Source: Compiled from Congress.gov and CQ Almanac.
CRS-6

Notes: TPA=Trade Promotion Authority. For more detailed bil information, the bil numbers above link to Congress.gov, and the vote tallies link to the House and
Senate rol call votes, where available. In a few examples (Oman, CAFTA-DR, Morocco), the Senate passed an implementing bil before the House version. The Senate
later considered and passed the House version of the bil , as revenue-generating bil s must originate in the House. The Senate bil s that received a vote are included in
the above table.
a. USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, superseded NAFTA.
b. CAFTA-DR is the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States FTA, and includes Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the
Dominican Republic.
c. NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, included Mexico and Canada and was superseded by USMCA.
d. U.S.-Canada FTA was effectively superseded by NAFTA.

Table 3. U.S. Membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO): Major Legislation and Votes
103rd-116th Congress (1994-2020)
Final Votes
Congress
P.L./Bill
Type
Description of Bill
House
Senate
103rd
P.L. 103-465
Implementation act
Uruguay Round Agreements Act
288-146 (Passed)
76-24 (Passed)
(H.R. 5110)
(Implementation act for WTO agreements).
11/29/1994
12/01/1994
116th
S.J.Res. 71
Proposed Withdrawal from
Withdrawing the approval of the United
—
[to date, no votes taken]
WTO
States from the Agreement establishing the
WTO.
116th
H.J.Res. 89
Proposed Withdrawal from
Withdrawing the approval of the United
[to date, no votes taken]
—
WTO
States from the Agreement establishing the
WTO.
109th
H.J.Res. 27
Proposed Withdrawal from
Withdrawing the approval of the United
86-338 (Failed)
—
WTO
States from the Agreement establishing the
06/09/2005
WTO.
109th
H.Res. 304
Consideration of Proposed
Providing for consideration of the joint
Voice vote (Passed)
n/a
Withdrawal from WTO
resolution (H.J.Res. 27) withdrawing the
06/08/2005
approval of the United States from the
Agreement establishing the WTO.
CRS-7

Final Votes
Congress
P.L./Bill
Type
Description of Bill
House
Senate
106th
H.J.Res. 90
Proposed Withdrawal from
Withdrawing the approval of the United
56-363 (Failed)
—
WTO
States from the Agreement establishing the
06/21/2000
WTO.
106th
H.Res. 528
Consideration of Proposed
Providing for consideration of the joint
343-61(Passed)
n/a
Withdrawal from WTO
resolution (H.J.Res. 90) withdrawing the
06/21/2000
approval of the United States from the
Agreement establishing the WTO.
106th
H.J.Res. 89
Proposed Withdrawal from
Withdrawing the approval of the United
[no votes taken]
—
WTO
States from the Agreement establishing the
WTO.
Source: Compiled from Congress.gov.
Notes: The Uruguay Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) included a series of multilateral agreements that established the WTO and outlined trade rules
and membership to the international organization. The President signed the Uruguay Round Agreements on April 15, 1994. Congress considered implementation
legislation for the agreements under the TPA provisions in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The implementation act was signed into law on
December 8, 1994, and the Uruguay Round Agreements went into force on January 1, 1995.
Section 125(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465) sets procedures for congressional disapproval of WTO participation. It specifies that Congress’s
approval of the WTO agreements shall cease to be effective “if and only if” Congress enacts a joint resolution calling for withdrawal. Congress may vote every five years
on withdrawal.

CRS-8

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 6
Table 4. Major Votes on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Provisions
Final votes on TPA provisions (1974-2019), legislation listed by date of vote.
Final Votes on TPA provisions
Name of Act or
Congress
Bill
Description
House Vote
Senate Vote
Notes
Votes related to the 2015 TPA grant

114th
H.R. 2146
Bipartisan Congressional
218-208, (Passed)
60-38, (Passed)
Enacted, P.L. 114-26, 06/29/2015. Extends TPA to

Trade Priorities and
6/18/2015
6/24/2015
include the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations,
Accountability Act of
USMCA, and other prospective FTAs.
2015
114th
H.R. 1314
Bipartisan Budget Act of
Measure considered
Vote concerning TPA:
The TPA provisions in H.R. 1314 passed in the
2015
under “division of the
62-37, (Passed)
Senate, but failed in the House. An amendment
question.” Measure
5/22/2015b
identical to the Senate version of H.R. 1314 was
failed because while
then inserted into an unrelated bil , H.R. 2146 (see
Title 1 (TPA) passed,
above).
Title II failed.
Title 1 vote (on TPA):
219-211, 6/12/2015;
Title II vote (on other
issues): 126-302,
6/12/2015a
Votes related to the 2002 TPA grant

110th
H.Res. 1092
Resolution to remove TPA
224-195, (Agreed)
n/a
This measure removed TPA consideration (granted
consideration from the U.S.-
04/10/2008
through the TPA provisions in the Trade Act of
Colombia FTA bil (H.R.
2002) from the U.S.-Colombia FTA (H.R. 5724) in
5724) in the 110th Congress
the 110th Congress. No further legislative action
occurred in the 110th Congress on H.R. 5724. The
U.S.-Colombia FTA was not resubmitted to
Congress until the 112th Congress.
107th
H.R. 3009
The Trade Act of 2002
215-212, (Passed)
64-34, (Passed)
Enacted, P.L. 107-210, 8/6/2002. Eleven FTAs were
7/27/2002
8/1/2002
negotiated and considered in Congress under the
TPA provisions in the Trade Act of 2002. See
Table 1.
CRS-9

Final Votes on TPA provisions
Name of Act or
Congress
Bill
Description
House Vote
Senate Vote
Notes
107th
H.Res. 450
H. Res. 450 Relating to
216-215, (Agreed)
n/a
A rule to expand the scope of H.R. 3009 (the Trade
consideration of H.R. 3009
6/26/2002
Act of 2002)
107th
H.R. 3005
Bipartisan Trade Promotion
215-214, (Passed)
n/a

Authority Act of 2002
12/6/2001
TPA Lapse, 1994-2002

105th
H.R. 2621
Reciprocal Trade
180-243, (Failed)
n/a
Measure attempted to renew TPA. Measure failed.
Agreement Authorities Act
9/25/1998
TPA lapsed between 1994 and 2002.
of 1997
Votes related to the 1988 TPA grant

103rd
H.R. 1876
To extend fast-track
295-126, (Passed)
76-16, (Passed)
Enacted, P.L. 103-49, 7/2/1993. Amended the
procedures for Uruguay
6/22/1993
6/30/1993
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988
Round trade
(see below) to extend TPA for the WTO Uruguay
agreements
Round agreements.
102nd
S.Res. 78
Resolution disapproving a
n/a
36-59, (Failed)
A failed attempt to deny a two-year extension of
two-year extension of fast-
5/24/1991
the TPA provisions in the Omnibus Trade and
track procedures under the
Competitiveness Act of 1988. Also see identical bil
Omnibus Trade and
H.Res. 101.
Competitiveness Act of
1988.
102nd
H.Res. 101
Resolution disapproving the
192-231, (Failed)
n/a
Also see identical bil S. Res. 78 (above).
extension of fast-track
5/23/1991
procedures to implement
trade agreements entered
into after May 31, 1991, and
by May 31, 1993.
102nd
H.Res. 146
Resolution concerning U.S.
329-85, (Passed)
n/a
Bil attempted to emphasize that Congress could
objectives of future trade
5/23/1991
suspend fast track consideration if the
agreements
Administration did not negotiate adequate
protections for workers, industries, and the
environment.
CRS-10

Final Votes on TPA provisions
Name of Act or
Congress
Bill
Description
House Vote
Senate Vote
Notes
100th
H.R. 4848
Omnibus Trade and
376-45, (Passed)
85-11, (Passed) 8/3/1988 Enacted, P.L. 100-418, 8/23/1988. Provided TPA
Competitiveness Act of
7/13/1988
consideration for NAFTA and the WTO Uruguay
1988
Round Agreements.
100th
H.R. 3
Omnibus Trade and
312-107, (Passed)
63-36, (Passed)
Measure failed over presidential veto. Provisions
Competitiveness Act of
04/21/1987;
4/27/1988;
from H.R.3, concerning TPA, were reintroduced
1987
(Vetoed by the
(Vetoed by the
into H.R. 4848, which was enacted as P.L. 100-418
President, 5/24/1988);
President, 5/24/1988)
(see above).
Motion to override
Motion to override
Presidential veto: 308-
veto: 61-37, (Failed)
113, (Passed) 5/24/1988
6/8/1988

100th
S. 1420
Omnibus Trade and
n/a
Senate passed H.R. 3 in
See related bil H.R. 3, above.
Competitiveness Act of
lieu of this measure, by
1987
Yea-Nay Vote of 71-27,
07/21/1987
Votes related to the 1984 TPA grant

98th
H.R. 3398
The Trade and Tariff
386–1, (Passed)
96-0, (Passed) 9/20/1984 Enacted, P.L. 98-573, 10/30/1984. Provided TPA
Act of 1984
10/9/1984
consideration to the Canada and Israel FTAs.
98th
H.R. 5377
U.S. Israel Free Trade Area
416-6, (Passed)
n/a
Text of bil was inserted into H.R.3398, the Trade
10/3/1984
and Tariff Act of 1984 (see above). Outlined
authority and negotiating priorities for the U.S.-
Israel FTA.
Votes related to the 1974 TPA grant

96th
H.R. 4537
Trade Agreements Act
395-7, (Passed)
90-4, (Passed)
Enacted, P.L. 96-39, 07/26/1979.
of 1979
07/11/1979
07/23/1979
Votes related to the 1974 TPA grant

93rd
H.R. 10710
Trade Act of 1974
323-36, (Passed)
72-4, (Passed)
Enacted, P.L. 93-618, 01/03/1975.
12/20/1974
12/20/1974
Source: Compiled by CRS from Congress.gov.
CRS-11

Notes: Bolded titles were enacted into law. For more detailed bil information, the bil numbers above link to Congress.gov. There were two notable lapses in TPA:
between 1994 and 2002 and between 2007 and 2015. For more on TPA, see CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Ian F.
Fergusson and Christopher M. Davis.
a. The measure was voted on in the House under a procedure known as “division of the question,” which requires separate votes on each component, but approval of
both to pass. Title 1 concerning TPA passed the House; however, Title II, concerning trade adjustment assistance, failed. Thus, the measure failed, under “division of
the question.” (House rol call votes on H.R. 1314: Title I (TPA): Rol no. 362, 6/12/2015; Title II: Rol no. 361, 6/12/2015.)
b. Rol call vote 193, 5/22/2015.

CRS-12

Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority

Appendix. Selected CRS Reports and Resources
On Trade Promotion Authority
CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Ian F.
Fergusson and Christopher M. Davis
CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade
Policy, by Ian F. Fergusson
CRS Infographic IG10001, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and U.S. Trade Agreements, by
Brock R. Williams
On Select Free Trade Agreements
CRS Report R45198, U.S. and Global Trade Agreements: Issues for Congress, by Brock R.
Williams
CRS Report R44981, NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), by M.
Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson
CRS In Focus IF10997, U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Trade Agreement, by M. Angeles
Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10399, USMCA: Implementation and Considerations for Congress, by
Nina M. Hart
CRS In Focus IF10733, U.S.-South Korea (KORUS) FTA, coordinated by Brock R. Williams
CRS Report RL34470, The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues, by M.
Angeles Villarreal and Edward Y. Gracia
CRS Report RS22164, DR-CAFTA: Regional Issues, by Clare Ribando Seelke
CRS In Focus IF10394, Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA-DR), by M. Angeles Villarreal
CRS Insight IN10903, CRS Products on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), by
M. Angeles Villarreal
On Multilateral Trade Agreements
CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction, coordinated by
Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
Select Limited Scope Agreements
CRS Report R46140, “Stage One” U.S.-Japan Trade Agreements, coordinated by Brock R.
Williams
CRS Insight IN11208, U.S. Signs Phase One Trade Deal with China, by Karen M. Sutter
Congressional Research Service
13

Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority

Author Information

Keigh E. Hammond

Research Librarian

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45846 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED
14