Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Updated November 25, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45846
Congressional Research Service
SUMMARY
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congress has sole constitutional authority to regulate international trade. Since 1934, Congress has periodically authorized the President to negotiate trade agreements. In some circumstances, congressional approval, via implementing legislation, may be required to give effect to those agreements. Since 1979, Congress has passed 17 implementing measures for comprehensive free trade agreements (FTAs) and multilateral trade agreements. Most recently, Congress considered and approved the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) (P.L. 116-113).
Congress also periodically considers legislation to grant Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to the President for limited time periods. Through TPA legislation, Congress delegates certain trade agreement negotiating authorities to the President; defines specific trade negotiation objectives; and sets consultation requirements. TPA legislation also outlines the terms, requirements, and procedures for FTA implementing legislation to receive expedited consideration in Congress. All but one of the 17 trade agreements approved by Congress since 1979 were considered in Congress under TPA.
Since 1979, Congress has passed six measures extending TPA for limited time periods. The most recent TPA was passed in 2015; this authority expired on July 1, 2021, potentially complicating the Administration’s future trade negotiations. As with many international trade issues, TPA has been politically contentious over time, resulting in vigorous debate and three notable lapses in authority, including the current lapse.
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, every five years, Congress can withdraw the United States from the WTO through a joint resolution. In the 116th Congress, two resolutions were introduced to withdraw U.S. membership from the WTO; neither were brought up for a vote.
The following report and tables compile the final congressional votes on FTAs, TPA, and U.S membership to the WTO.
R45846
November 25, 2024
Keigh E. Hammond Senior Research Librarian
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Congress and Free Trade Agreements ............................................................................................. 1
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority: A Timeline ....................... 3 Table 2. Final Votes on Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Implementing Legislation .......................... 5 Table 3. U.S. Membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO): Legislation and
Votes ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 4. Final Votes on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Provisions ........................................... 9
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected CRS Reports .................................................................................................. 13
Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 14
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 1
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.
The Constitution grants Congress sole authority to regulate international trade, and grants the President authority to enter into treaties with foreign powers.1 Since 1934, Congress has periodically delegated some authority to negotiate trade agreements to the President. In the Trade Act of 1974, Congress outlined roles regarding the negotiation of trade agreements; Congress delegated negotiation authority to the President, but required congressional approval (through implementation legislation) of FTAs that addressed non-tariff barriers. Congress also created a process to allow for expedited consideration of trade agreements that address non-tariff barriers and require changes to U.S. law, 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 two regional FTAs (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)). (For a list and timeline of FTAs, see Table 1. For a compilation of final congressional votes on FTAs considered by Congress, see Table 2.) These FTAs are considered comprehensive trade agreements, covering “substantially all trade” between partners.
The United States has also negotiated more limited agreements that have focused on select bilateral trade and tariff issues. Recent examples of limited-scope agreements include the agreements with Taiwan (2023); with Japan on critical minerals (2023), digital trade (2020), and limited tariff reductions (2020); and with China on the “phase one” agreement (2020). These limited-scope agreements have generally not required congressional approval or changes to U.S. law.4 This report does not cover these limited-scope agreements.
1 Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations ... ” and “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.... ” Article II, Section 2 authorizes the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. For more see CRS Report R47679, Congressional and Executive Authority Over Foreign Trade Agreements, by Christopher T. Zirpoli.
2 Section 102 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
3 For more on Trade Promotion Authority see CRS In Focus IF10038, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), by Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs.
4 In the case of the first Taiwan agreement under the U.S.-Taiwan trade initiative, Congress passed P.L. 118-13 which provided ex-post approval of the agreement. The law also addressed congressional concerns that the President was negotiating trade agreements without congressional authority; set conditions for the agreement’s entry into force, and set consultative requirements for future agreements under the U.S.-Taiwan trade initiative. For more on presidential authorities for limited scope trade agreements, see CRS Report R47679, Congressional and Executive Authority Over (continued...)
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 2
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.5 When Congress approved the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements, it included a set of procedures to allow Congress to reconsider U.S. membership in the WTO by passing a joint resolution calling for withdrawal from the organization.6 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. In the 116th Congress, two resolutions to withdraw from the WTO were introduced (H.J.Res. 89 and S.J.Res. 71); neither were brought up for a vote. See Table 3 for a compilation of legislation and votes concerning U.S. membership to the WTO.
Trade Promotion Authority
Implementing legislation for all U.S. FTAs, except the agreement with Jordan, was considered in Congress under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA is the process by which Congress enables FTA implementing 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 trade negotiation objectives and consultation requirements. Since 1974, Congress has passed seven measures extending TPA. Most recently, Congress passed TPA legislation in 2015 (via the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, P.L. 114-26); this authority lapsed on July 1, 2021. TPA, like many issues related to international trade, has been politically contentious in Congress over time, resulting in vigorous debate and two previous eight-year lapses in authority.7 For a list of final 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.
Table 1 provides a timeline of FTAs 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 explicitly required
Foreign Trade Agreements, by Christopher T. Zirpoli, and CRS In Focus IF11400, Presidential Authority to Address Tariff Barriers in Trade Agreements, by Christopher A. Casey. For more on the recent, limited scope agreements, see relevant CRS reports listed in the Appendix.
5 See CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction, coordinated by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs.
6 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.
7 TPA lapsed for multiple years between 1994 and 2002 and between 2007 and 2015.
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 3
congressional approval, or trade agreements that were signed, but not voted on by Congress, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.8
Table 2 provides final House and Senate votes on FTA implementing legislation.
Table 3 provides legislation and votes on U.S. membership to the WTO, specifically implementing legislation for multilateral agreements and resolutions calling for the United States to withdraw from the WTO.
Table 4 provides 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
(1985-2024 descending order by entry into force date)
U.S. Free
Trade
Agreement
Agreement
Signed
Implementing
Legislation
Signed by President
Agreement
Entered into
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
(CAFTA);
8/5/2004 (DR)
8/2/2005 entered into
force by country
on a rolling basis,
2006-2009d
Trade Act of 2002
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
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
8 For more information on recent limited-scope agreements see footnote 4. 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. The remaining TPP signatories made limited modifications to TPP after the U.S. withdrawal and signed a new agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 4
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 Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and Christopher A. Casey. Notes: Also see CRS Infographic IG10001, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and U.S. Trade Agreements Timeline, by Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs. 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 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 rolling 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.
CRS-5
Table 2. Final Votes on Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Implementing Legislation
(Agreements listed by date FTA went into force (see Table 1.))
Congress
(Year) U.S. FTA Bill Description of Bill
Final Votes
House Senate
116th (2020) USMCAa H.R. 5430 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 116-113. 385-41 (Passed)
12/19/2019
89-10 (Passed) 01/16/2020
112th (2011) Colombia H.R. 3078 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-42. 262-167 (Passed)
10/12/2011
66-33 (Passed)
10/12/2011
110th (2008) H.Res. 1092 Resolution to suspend TPA consideration of Colombia FTA implementation bill in the 110th Congress. (The Administration did not resubmit the Colombia FTA to Congress until the 112th Congress.)
224-195 (Passed)
04/10/2008
n/a
112th (2011) South Korea
H.R. 3080 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-41. 278-151 (Passed)
10/12/2011
83-15 (Passed)
10/12/2011
112th (2011) Panama H.R. 3079 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-43. 300-129 (Passed)
10/12/2011
77-22 (Passed)
10/12/2011
110th (2007) Peru H.R. 3688 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 110-138. 285-132 (Passed)
11/08/2007
77-18 (Passed)
12/04/2007
109th (2006) Oman H.R. 5684 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-283. 221-205 (Passed)
07/20/2006
62-32 (Passed)
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)
12/07/2005
By Unanimous Consent.
12/13/2005
109th (2005) CAFTA- DRb
H.R. 3045 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-53. 217-215 (Passed)
07/28/2005
55-45 (Passed)
07/28/2005
109th (2005) S. 1307 FTA implementation act. — 54-45 (Passed)
06/30/2005
CRS-6
Congress
(Year) U.S. FTA Bill Description of Bill
Final Votes
House Senate
108th (2004) Morocco H.R. 4842 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-302. 323-99 (Passed)
07/22/2004
By Unanimous Consent
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)
07/14/2004
80-16 (Passed)
07/15/2004
108th (2004) Chile H.R. 2738 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-77. 270-156 (Passed)
07/24/2003
65-32 (Passed)
07/31/2003
108th (2003) S.Res. 211 A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding provisions in the Chile and Singapore FTAs and immigration.
n/a By Unanimous Consent
07/31/2003
108th (2003) Singapore H.R. 2739 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-78. 272-155 (Passed)
07/24/2003
66-32 (Passed)
07/31/2003
108th (2003) S.Res. 211 A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding provisions in the Chile and Singapore FTAs on trade agreements and immigration.
n/a By Unanimous Consent
07/31/2003
107th (2001) Jordan H.R. 2603 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 107-43. Voice vote (Agreed)
07/31/2001
Voice vote (Agreed)
09/24/2001
103rd (1993) NAFTAc H.R. 3450 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 103-182. 234-200 (Passed)
11/17/1993
61-38 (Passed)
11/20/1993
100th (1988) Canadad H.R. 5090 FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 100-449. 366-40 (Passed)
08/09/1988
83-9 (Passed)
09/19/1988
104th (1996) Israel H.R. 3074 Amendments to the Israel FTA, enacted, P.L. 104-234. Voice vote (Agreed)
04/16/1996
By Unanimous Consent
09/27/1996
CRS-7
Congress
(Year) U.S. FTA Bill Description of Bill
Final Votes
House Senate
99th (1985) Israel 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. Notes: TPA=Trade Promotion Authority. For more detailed bill information, the bill numbers above link to Congress.gov, and the vote tallies link to the House and Senate roll call votes, where available. In a few examples (Oman, CAFTA-DR, Morocco), the Senate passed an implementing bill before the House version. The Senate later considered and passed the House version of the bill, as revenue-generating bills must originate in the House. The Senate bills 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.
CRS-8
Table 3. U.S. Membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO): Legislation and Votes
103rd-118th Congress (1994-2024)
Congress P.L./Bill Type Description of Bill
Final Votes
House Senate
103rd P.L. 103-465 (H.R. 5110)
Implementation act Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Implementation act for WTO agreements).
288-146 (Passed)
11/29/1994
76-24 (Passed)
12/01/1994
116th S.J.Res. 71 Proposed Withdrawal from WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
— [no votes taken]
116th H.J.Res. 89 Proposed Withdrawal from WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
[no votes taken] —
109th H.J.Res. 27 Proposed Withdrawal from WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
86-338 (Failed)
06/09/2005
—
109th H.Res. 304 Consideration of Proposed Withdrawal from WTO
Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
Voice vote (Passed)
06/08/2005
n/a
106th H.J.Res. 90 Proposed Withdrawal from WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
56-363 (Failed)
06/21/2000
—
106th H.Res. 528 Consideration of Proposed Withdrawal from WTO
Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 90) withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
343-61(Passed)
06/21/2000
n/a
106th H.J.Res. 89 Proposed Withdrawal from WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
[no votes taken] —
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-9
Table 4. Final Votes on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Provisions
((1974-2024), legislation listed by date of vote)
Congress Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions Notes
House Vote Senate Vote
Votes related to the 2015 TPA grant
114th H.R. 2146
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
218-208, (Passed) 6/18/2015 60-38, (Passed) 6/24/2015 Enacted, P.L. 114-26, 06/29/2015. Extends TPA to include the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, USMCA, and other prospective FTAs. TPA provisions expired July 1, 2021.
114th H.R. 1314 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
Measure considered under “division of the question.” Measure failed because while Title 1 (TPA) passed, Title II failed. Title 1 vote (on TPA): 219-211, 6/12/2015; Title II vote (on other issues): 126-302, 6/12/2015a
Vote concerning TPA: 62-37,
(Passed) 5/22/2015b
The TPA provisions in H.R. 1314 passed in the Senate, but failed in the House. An amendment identical to the Senate version of H.R. 1314 was then inserted into an unrelated bill, H.R. 2146 (see above).
Votes related to the 2002 TPA grant
110th H.Res. 1092 Resolution to remove TPA consideration from the U.S.-Colombia FTA bill (H.R. 5724) in the 110th Congress
224-195, (Agreed)
04/10/2008
n/a This measure removed TPA consideration (granted through the TPA provisions in the Trade Act of 2002) from the U.S.- Colombia FTA (H.R. 5724) in 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) 7/27/2002 64-34, (Passed)
8/1/2002
Enacted, P.L. 107-210, 8/6/2002. Eleven FTAs were negotiated and considered in Congress under the TPA provisions in the Trade Act of 2002. See Table 1.
CRS-10
Congress Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions Notes
House Vote Senate Vote
107th H.Res. 450 H. Res. 450 Relating to consideration of H.R. 3009
216-215, (Agreed) 6/26/2002 n/a A rule to expand the scope of H.R. 3009 (the Trade Act of 2002)
107th H.R. 3005 Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002
215-214, (Passed) 12/6/2001 n/a
TPA Lapse, 1994-2002
105th H.R. 2621 Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act of 1997
180-243, (Failed) 9/25/1998 n/a Measure attempted to renew TPA. Measure failed. TPA lapsed between 1994 and 2002.
Votes related to the 1988 TPA grant
103rd H.R. 1876 To extend fast-track procedures for Uruguay Round trade agreements
295-126, (Passed) 6/22/1993 76-16, (Passed) 6/30/1993 Enacted, P.L. 103-49, 7/2/1993. Amended the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (see below) to extend TPA for the WTO Uruguay Round agreements.
102nd S.Res. 78 Resolution disapproving a two-year extension of fast- track procedures under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.
n/a 36-59, (Failed) 5/24/1991 A failed attempt to deny a two-year extension of the TPA provisions in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Also see identical bill H.Res. 101.
102nd H.Res. 101 Resolution disapproving the extension of fast-track procedures to implement trade agreements entered into after May 31, 1991, and by May 31, 1993.
192-231, (Failed) 5/23/1991 n/a Also see identical bill S. Res. 78 (above).
102nd H.Res. 146 Resolution concerning U.S. objectives of future trade agreements
329-85, (Passed) 5/23/1991 n/a Bill attempted to emphasize that Congress could suspend fast track consideration if the Administration did not negotiate adequate protections for workers, industries, and the environment.
CRS-11
Congress Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions Notes
House Vote Senate Vote
100th H.R. 4848 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988
376-45, (Passed) 7/13/1988 85-11, (Passed) 8/3/1988 Enacted, P.L. 100-418, 8/23/1988. Provided TPA consideration for NAFTA and the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements.
100th H.R. 3 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1987
312-107, (Passed)
04/21/1987;
(Vetoed by the President,
5/24/1988);
Motion to override
Presidential veto: 308-113,
(Passed) 5/24/1988
63-36, (Passed) 4/27/1988;
(Vetoed by the President,
5/24/1988)
Motion to override veto: 61-
37, (Failed) 6/8/1988
Measure failed over presidential veto. Provisions from H.R.3, concerning TPA, were reintroduced into H.R. 4848, which was enacted as P.L. 100-418 (see above).
100th S. 1420 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1987
n/a Senate passed H.R. 3 in lieu
of this measure, by Yea-Nay
Vote of 71-27, 07/21/1987
See related bill H.R. 3, above.
Votes related to the 1984 TPA grant
98th H.R. 3398 The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
386–1, (Passed) 10/9/1984 96-0, (Passed) 9/20/1984 Enacted, P.L. 98-573, 10/30/1984. Provided TPA consideration to the Canada and Israel FTAs.
98th H.R. 5377 U.S. Israel Free Trade Area 416-6, (Passed) 10/3/1984 n/a Text of bill was inserted into H.R.3398, the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (see above). Outlined authority and negotiating priorities for the U.S.-Israel FTA.
Votes related to the 1979 TPA grant
96th H.R. 4537 Trade Agreements Act of 1979
395-7, (Passed) 07/11/1979 90-4, (Passed) 07/23/1979 Enacted, P.L. 96-39, 07/26/1979.
CRS-12
Congress Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions Notes
House Vote Senate Vote
Votes related to the 1974 TPA grant
93rd H.R. 10710 Trade Act of 1974 323-36, (Passed) 12/20/1974 72-4, (Passed) 12/20/1974 Enacted, P.L. 93-618, 01/03/1975.
Source: Compiled by CRS from Congress.gov. Notes: Bolded titles were enacted into law. For more detailed bill information, the bill numbers above link to Congress.gov. In addition to the current lapse in TPA, there were two notable lapses: between 1994 and 2002 and between 2007 and 2015. For more on TPA’s history, see CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and Christopher A. Casey. 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 roll call votes on H.R. 1314: Title I (TPA): Roll no. 362, 6/12/2015; Title II: Roll no. 361, 6/12/2015.)
b. Roll call vote 193, 5/22/2015.
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 13
Appendix. Selected CRS Reports
Trade Promotion Authority
CRS In Focus IF10038, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), by Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
CRS Infographic IG10001, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and U.S. Trade Agreements Timeline, by Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Christopher A. Casey, and Christopher M. Davis
CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and Christopher A. Casey
CRS In Focus IF11400, Presidential Authority to Address Tariff Barriers in Trade Agreements, by Christopher A. Casey
CRS Report R47679, Congressional and Executive Authority Over Foreign Trade Agreements, by Christopher T. Zirpoli
CRS Report R44707, Presidential Authority over Trade: Imposing Tariffs and Duties, by Brandon J. Murrill
Free Trade Agreements: Selected Issues
CRS Report R45148, U.S. Trade Policy Primer: Frequently Asked Questions, coordinated by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs (See section “Trade Agreements and Negotiations.”)
CRS In Focus IF10046, Worker Rights Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and M. Angeles Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10972, Labor Enforcement Issues in U.S. FTAs, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
CRS In Focus IF10166, Environmental Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), by Richard K. Lattanzio and Christopher A. Casey
CRS In Focus IF10033, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and International Trade, by Shayerah I. Akhtar and Liana Wong
CRS In Focus IF10645, Dispute Settlement in the WTO and U.S. Trade Agreements, by Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
Free Trade Agreements
CRS Report R44981, The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), by M. Angeles Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10997, U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Trade Agreement, by M. Angeles Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10047, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), by M. Angeles Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10733, U.S.-South Korea (KORUS) FTA and Bilateral Trade Relations, by Liana Wong and Mark E. Manyin
Congressional Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service R45846 · VERSION 11 · UPDATED 14
CRS Report RL34470, The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues, by M. Angeles Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10394, Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), by M. Angeles Villarreal
Multilateral Trade Agreements
CRS In Focus IF10002, World Trade Organization, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
Select Limited Scope Agreements
CRS In Focus IF12517, U.S.-Japan Critical Minerals Agreement, by Kyla H. Kitamura
CRS In Focus IF11120, U.S.-Japan Trade Agreements and Negotiations, by Cathleen D. Cimino- Isaacs and Kyla H. Kitamura
CRS In Focus IF12125, U.S.-China Phase One Trade Deal, by Karen M. Sutter
CRS In Focus IF10256, U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Economic Relations, by Karen M. Sutter
Author Information
Keigh E. Hammond Senior 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.