{ "id": "R44584", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44584", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455049, "date": "2016-08-12", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:46:48.850754", "title": "Implementing Bills for Trade Agreements: Statutory Procedures under Trade Promotion Authority", "summary": "The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (BCTPAA, title II of P.L. 114-26) renewed the \u201ctrade promotion authority\u201d (TPA) under which implementing bills for trade agreements that address non-tariff barriers to trade (and certain levels of tariff reduction) are eligible for expedited (or \u201cfast track\u201d) consideration by Congress under the \u201ctrade authorities procedures\u201d established by the Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618). These expedited procedures provide for automatic introduction of the implementing bill submitted by the President, attempt to ensure that both chambers will consider and vote on it, prohibit amendment, and eliminate any need to resolve bicameral differences before sending the measure to the President. (In practice, each chamber has usually agreed to consider each implementing bill under terms that modify or override the statutory requirements, but that usually retain the prohibition on amendment.) \nThese arrangements have been viewed as assuring negotiating partners that the United States will implement a trade agreement in the form negotiated; they also ensure that Congress will be able to conclude action within a delimited period of time. For these reasons, however, they also have often been seen as restricting Congress to approving or disapproving the terms of a trade agreement in the form negotiated by the President. \nThe BCTPAA, however, also mitigates these restrictions in several ways. First, it establishes numerous requirements that a trade agreement must meet in order for the implementing bill to be eligible for expedited consideration. Principally, it provides that (1) the trade agreement must promote a series of negotiating objectives, (2) the agreement and the implementing bill must meet several other requirements of content, (3) the President and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) must submit a range of required notifications, reports, and other materials to Congress in relation to any covered trade negotiations, and (4) the President and the USTR must engage in an extensive variety of ongoing consultations with Advisory Groups on Negotiations (established by the act), the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, and other organs of Congress. \nSecond, the BCTPAA provides several means by which Congress can deny expedited consideration for a specific trade agreement and either decline to consider it or consider it under terms that would permit amendment and eliminate debate limits. A \u201cprocedural disapproval resolution\u201d (PDR) declares a trade agreement ineligible for expedited consideration because adequate consultations have not occurred or the agreement does not promote statutory objectives. Expedited consideration of the implementing bill is withdrawn if, within a 60-day period, each chamber adopts a PDR (subject to an applicable expedited procedure). Each chamber, as well, has available its own form of \u201cconsultation and compliance resolution\u201d (CCR), by which it can deny expedited consideration in that chamber if it judges that adequate consultations have not occurred; the CCR, however, is not subject to expedited consideration. (By agreeing to a third form of resolution, either chamber may declare that a proposed agreement contravenes U.S. negotiating objectives regarding \u201ctrade remedies.\u201d This resolution may receive expedited consideration, but if adopted, does not deny expedited consideration to an implementing bill.) Also, either chamber might use its general rules to deny expedited consideration to an implementing bill, typically through a special rule in the House or by unanimous consent in the Senate. \nControl over the use of all the mechanisms established by the BCTPAA lies principally with the revenue committees. They are the ones that receive most of the notifications and reports and that are most involved in the consultations, required by the act. The act also makes them responsible for negotiating the terms of the consultations with the executive. Significantly, the structure of the act allows them to use the act\u2019s informational requirements and consultations to develop, and propose to the President, the text of the implementing bill he is to submit. They customarily do this through a proceeding known as a \u201cmock markup.\u201d \nFinally, the BCTPAA provides that any of the resolutions through which Congress can deny expedited consideration becomes available for floor consideration in either chamber only through action by the respective revenue committee. Accordingly, although the President need not submit his draft implementing bill in the form proposed through a mock markup, the revenue committee could still effectively determine whether that measure may receive expedited consideration. In all these ways, the structure of the BCTPAA establishes the revenue committees as the chief agents of Congress in preserving its constitutional prerogatives in relation to the trade agreements covered by the act. \nThis report is not designed to address events that may occur in congressional consideration of implementing legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or any other specific trade agreement under the BCTPAA. It will be updated only if changes occur in the statutory conditions for consideration of this class of trade agreements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44584", "sha1": "3d39ae5ac17ac9319887ea44072c21a968f06e3d", "filename": "files/20160812_R44584_3d39ae5ac17ac9319887ea44072c21a968f06e3d.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44584", "sha1": "185d29af1ffcc2513eeb62f62b9a28b5a3c9be53", "filename": "files/20160812_R44584_185d29af1ffcc2513eeb62f62b9a28b5a3c9be53.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions", "Economic Policy", "Foreign Affairs", "Industry and Trade", "Legislative Process" ] }