January 16, 2014
Practice Groups:
Trade Promotion Authority Legislation Could Have
Significant Impact on U.S. Trade Agenda
Public Policy and
Law;
By: Frank J. Schweitzer, Michael W. Evans and Ryan J. Severson
International Trade;
Introduction
Global Government
Solutions
On January 9, 2014, congressional leaders for the key committees responsible for trade
legislation introduced a bill to renew expedited procedures for obtaining passage of trade
agreement implementing legislation. The United States is in the midst of an exceptionally
ambitious and active trade agenda that includes negotiations with regions with about $44
trillion in annual economic output. These negotiations could produce the largest, most
consequential, and highest standard trade agreements in history. The “Bipartisan
Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014,” introduced by Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch
(R-UT), and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), will be
intensely debated by those representing the myriad interests of business, labor, consumers,
and environmental organizations, among many others.
Ambitious U.S. Trade Agenda
The United States and eleven other Pacific Rim countries that together account for about 40
percent of global gross domestic product and include key Asia-Pacific markets are
negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile,
Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam
are seeking to conclude an agreement in 2014. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR), the TPP negotiations are now “in the end game,” following nearly
twenty rounds of technical negotiations and several ministerial-level meetings since 2009.
In addition, last year the United States and the 28 member states of the European Union
(EU) launched negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). A
principal goal of the TTIP negotiations is to secure greater regulatory cooperation in order to
enhance trade and investment between the world’s largest and most developed economies
that represent about half of the world’s economic output and nearly a third of global trade.
Separately, last year the United States, together with economies representing nearly twothirds of total global trade in services, commenced negotiations on a Trade in Services
Agreement (TISA) aimed at liberalization beyond the General Agreement on Trade in
Services, the principal multilateral treaty governing trade in services.
Framework for the Formulation and Execution of U.S. International Trade and
Investment Policy
Both the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government play a role in the
formulation and execution of U.S. trade policy and in concluding U.S. international trade
agreements. The U.S. Constitution provides Congress with express authority over foreign
Trade Promotion Authority Legislation Could Have Significant Impact on
U.S. Trade Agenda
trade pursuant to Article I, section 8, which gives Congress the power “to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts, and excises” and “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” At the
same time, the Constitution vests the president with exclusive authority to negotiate treaties,
and the president enjoys broad authority over the conduct of foreign affairs pursuant to his
powers under Article II.
Given the constitutional framework and the pragmatic recognition of the negotiating dynamic
for the United States to credibly reach agreements with foreign nations, the Congress since
1974 has, during certain periods, enacted special expedited procedures to consider trade
agreements negotiated by the U.S. government. Such legislation, often referred to as “fast
track” or “trade promotion authority,” commits Congress to vote on bills implementing trade
agreements within a fixed period, with limited debate, without amendment, and subject to an
up-or-down vote, once the president submits an implementing bill—provided that the
president has adhered to other obligations contained in the statute, including specific
negotiating objectives, as well as congressional notification and consultation requirements.
Congress first enacted this authority in 1974. The most recent legislation was enacted in
2002 and expired in 2007.
USTR, an agency within the Executive Office of the President, is the president’s principal
adviser on trade and on the impact of international trade matters on U.S. government
policies. USTR has primary responsibility for the coordination and implementation of U.S.
trade policy, including the negotiation, monitoring, and enforcement of U.S. international
trade agreements.
Summary of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014
The bill includes statutorily-mandated negotiating objectives; sets out requirements related to
notification, consultations, and access to information; and also lays out the procedures for
the implementation of trade agreements.
The legislation includes many of the largely familiar overall objectives from previous versions
of trade promotion authority, including obtaining better market access, reducing trade and
investment barriers, fostering economic growth, raising living standards, increasing U.S.
competitiveness, and enhancing the global economy. The new bill recognizes the
increasingly “multi-sectoral nature of trade and investment activity” and also calls for
“strengthening the effective operation of legal regimes and the rule of law.”
Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives. Apart from laying out “overall trade negotiating
objectives,” the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act also establishes 18 detailed
“principal negotiating objectives,” several of which are either new or updated objectives.
Several changes reflect shifts in the global economy since trade promotion authority
legislation was enacted more than a decade ago in 2002, and are summarized below.
• Good and services in the digital economy. The bill contains expanded provisions and
notes the increasing “utilization of global value chains” for trade in goods. The legislation
highlights the importance of services in all sectors of trade and recognizes that services
operate as a facilitator of trade and calls for the negotiation of an expansive trade in
services agreement. The bill also calls for enhanced facilitation of digital trade through
greater cross-border data flow.
2
Trade Promotion Authority Legislation Could Have Significant Impact on
U.S. Trade Agenda
• Agriculture. The bill contains updated agricultural provisions, including those that seek
robust rules on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (e.g., government measures related
to the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health).
• Foreign Investment. The bill contains provisions regarding the need to maintain strong
investment protections for U.S. foreign investors (non-discrimination, free transferability of
investment related funds, the elimination of performance requirements, “fair and equitable
treatment consistent with United States legal principles and practices, including the
principle of due process,” as well as standards for expropriation and compensation for
expropriation). The bill also aims to improve investor-state dispute settlement
mechanisms, including through provisions related to frivolous claims, the efficient
selection of arbitrators, enhanced opportunities for public input into the formulation of
government positions, and the use of an appellate body to provide coherence to the
interpretations of investment arbitration tribunals.
• Intellectual property rights. As in 2002, the objectives continue to call for trade
agreements to protect intellectual property (IP) rights, foster innovation, and promote
access to medicine. New provisions contained in the bill also address cyber theft.
• Labor and environment. The bill calls for U.S. trading partners to adopt and maintain, and
not waive or derogate from, measures implementing internationally recognized labor
standards and multilateral environmental agreements, in a manner affecting trade and
investment. These updated labor and environment objectives are in accord with
provisions in recent U.S. trade agreements.
• Currency. The bill adds a new negotiating objective that directs U.S. trade partners to
avoid manipulating exchange rates. The provision provides that “parties to a trade
agreement with the United States avoid manipulating exchange rates in order to prevent
effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage over
other parties to the agreement, such as through cooperative mechanisms, enforceable
rules, reporting, monitoring, transparency, or other means, as appropriate.” The inclusion
of currency as a principal negotiating objective is significant, as this issue has, and will
continue to be, the subject of intense debate regarding the propriety and effectiveness of
addressing currency manipulation through trade agreements.
• State-owned enterprises. The bill adds a negotiating objective that calls for (i) eliminating
distortions in trade and unfair competition that arise from state-owned enterprises (SOEs),
and (ii) ensuring that SOEs act solely based on commercial considerations.
• Regulatory practices. The bill updates existing objectives relating to regulatory practices.
The revisions are aimed at improving regulatory coherence and compatibility, as well as
increasing transparency in regulations and processes for the development of standards,
and achieving procedural fairness.
• Localization requirements. The bill adds a new negotiating objective to seek restrictions
on the use of local content and other domestic sourcing requirements and the forced
localization of facilities.
Increased Congressional Oversight. The bill includes several provisions to enhance
congressional oversight of trade negotiations.
• Consultations. The bill requires USTR to consult with Members of Congress (including
relevant committees and newly-established House and Senate Advisory Groups on
3
Trade Promotion Authority Legislation Could Have Significant Impact on
U.S. Trade Agenda
Negotiations), providing information and briefings on an ongoing basis regarding
negotiating objectives, the status of trade negotiations, and the nature of any potential
changes in law or regulation resulting from trade agreements under discussion.
• Congressional Trade Advisor designations and attendance at negotiating rounds. A very
significant provision is the one that would allow any member of Congress to be
designated as a Congressional Advisor and to be accredited to attend negotiating rounds.
• Access to information. The bill includes a mandate that every Member of Congress has
access to negotiating text.
• Guidelines. The bill also requires USTR to develop written guidelines on the legislation’s
requirements for enhanced coordination with Congress, as well as the methods by which
USTR will engage with the general public and solicit input on trade issues. These
guidelines are aimed at increasing the transparency of the trade negotiation process.
Notification Requirements. The bill requires the president to notify Congress at least 90
days before initiating negotiations with another country, providing specific negotiation
objectives and information to Congress about whether the president intends to seek an
agreement or change an existing agreement. With respect to negotiations in certain sectors
of the economy (including agriculture, import-sensitive products, the fishing industry, and
textiles), the president would be required to engage in special consultations and submit
additional information to Congress.
The bill also includes provisions that mandate advising Congress on the extent to which
trade agreements under negotiation would require amendments to existing law as well as the
impact of potential pacts on employment, labor rights, and other issues. The president would
be required to submit a detailed enforcement plan to Congress upon the submission of a
completed trade deal.
Implementation of Trade Agreements. The bill contemplates strict entry-into-force rules.
An agreement in compliance with the negotiating objectives outlined in the bill would enter
into force if:
• The president notifies Congress before entering into the agreement, submits to Congress
a description of changes to existing laws required by the agreement, and submits the final
text of the agreement to Congress along with a draft of implementing legislation, a
statement of proposed administrative actions to implement the agreement, and other
information;
• The implementing bill is enacted into law under procedures that require an up-or-down
vote in both chambers of Congress without amendment;
• The president notifies Congress that parties to the agreement have taken necessary
measures to comply with the agreement before the agreement goes into force; and
• Congress has not passed a resolution of disapproval relating to the agreement.
The legislation also provides that Congress can adopt a resolution of disapproval on the
grounds that the proposed trade agreement is inconsistent with the negotiating objectives of
the legislation. Additionally, Congress can reject a proposed agreement due to a lack of
notice and consultation.
4
Trade Promotion Authority Legislation Could Have Significant Impact on
U.S. Trade Agenda
Duration of Trade Negotiating Authority. The trade negotiating authority of the president
would extend to trade agreements completed before July 1, 2018, with options for additional
three-year renewal if an extension is sought and neither chamber of Congress disapproves.
Trade Agreements Currently Under Negotiation. Provided certain conditions were
satisfied, the bill would provide procedural flexibilities for certain trade agreements that were
under negotiation before the enactment of the legislation, such as the TPP and TTIP, TISA,
or agreements under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.
Reaction of House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin
(D-MI) to the Bill
Ranking Member Levin declined to join his colleagues on the bill, and released a statement
saying that “The effort by Sen. Baucus, Rep. Camp and Sen. Hatch has fallen far short of
adequately replacing the failed 2002 TPA model.” Levin stressed the need for legislation
that addresses currency manipulation by providing direct relief to U.S. industries that are
injured by imports—in contrast to the approach outlined by Chairman Baucus, Chairman
Camp, and Ranking Member Hatch, which addresses currency manipulation through the
bill’s negotiating objectives.
In his statement, Ranking Member Levin declared that any TPA bill must embody four key
principles related to the role of Congress, transparency, reciprocity, and enforcement:
• Increase the role of Congress. Under Levin’s approach, the House and Senate would
form working groups to serve as trade advisors who would be closely involved in
negotiations. Levin also believes that Congress should have a role in determining trade
partners and deciding whether particular agreements proposed by the president should
be subject to fast-track treatment before negotiations begin. In addition, Levin believes
that Congress should reserve the power to remove fast-track treatment during the
negotiations, if appropriate.
• Provide greater transparency. Levin called for all Members and staff with necessary
security clearances to have access to the text of trade negotiations, including proposals
made by trading partners. In addition, Levin stressed the need for greater private sector
participation through advisory committees, which would also have access to negotiation
texts. USTR would also be required to solicit public comments on trade proposals under
Levin’s approach.
• Reciprocity and objectives that “reflect American values.” Levin called for trade promotion
authority legislation to “ensure that trade and investment obligations do not undermine the
ability of governments to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the
environment and public health and safety.”
• Enforcement. Levin believes that TPA legislation should strengthen the enforcement of
existing trade agreements and includes a broad strategy to increase U.S.
competitiveness.
Further, Ranking Member Levin called for Congress to immediately reauthorize Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
5
Trade Promotion Authority Legislation Could Have Significant Impact on
U.S. Trade Agenda
Authors:
Frank J. Schweitzer
frank.schweitzer@klgates.com
+1.202.778.9488
Michael W. Evans
michael.evans@klgates.com
+1.202.661.3807
Ryan J. Severson
ryan.severson@klgates.com
+1.202.778.9251
Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Brisbane Brussels Charleston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Doha Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt
Harrisburg Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Melbourne Miami Milan Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris
Perth Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park San Diego San Francisco São Paulo Seattle Seoul Shanghai Singapore Spokane
Sydney Taipei Tokyo Warsaw Washington, D.C. Wilmington
K&L Gates practices out of 48 fully integrated offices located in the United States, Asia, Australia, Europe, the
Middle East and South America and represents leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies,
capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities,
educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its
locations, practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in
regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
©2013 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
6