Reclaiming Congress’s Constitutional Mandate in Trade Resolution

Bill Number: H.Con.Res. 2
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Congress
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Last Updated: 2025-02-07T22:02:32Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This concurrent resolution, titled the "Reclaiming Congress's Constitutional Mandate in Trade Resolution," aims to reassert Congress's constitutional authority over trade policy by establishing a temporary joint committee to create a plan for transferring the functions and responsibilities of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)—an executive branch agency—from the executive branch to the legislative branch. This aligns with Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs.

Key Provisions

Establishment of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Trade Responsibilities:
Composed of 14 members: 9 from the House (from the Committees on Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce, appointed by the Speaker and minority leader) and 5 from the Senate (from the Committee on Finance, appointed by the majority and minority leaders).
The Speaker designates the Chair (from House appointees), and the Senate majority leader designates the Vice Chair.
Duties include developing a detailed plan to transfer USTR functions to the legislative branch, consulting with an advisory board, and setting a transfer deadline no earlier than 4 years after the committee's report or July 1, 2028 (whichever is later).
Authorities: The committee can hold meetings, require witness attendance and document production (similar to subpoena powers), administer oaths, and hire staff or use existing congressional resources.
Report: Must submit the transfer plan to Congress within 16 months of all members being appointed.
Funding and termination: Expenses are split between House and Senate accounts; the committee dissolves 1 year after submitting its report.

Establishment of the Congressional Advisory Board on Trade Responsibilities:
Composed of 21 members: Appointed by House and Senate leaders (12 total), the USTR (6), and including the USTR or designee.
Members include experts on constitutional trade roles and representatives from non-federal governments, labor, industry, agriculture, small business, services, retail, environmental groups, and consumer interests.
Duties: Provide advice to the committee on the transfer plan.
Serves without pay but with travel reimbursements for non-local members; no independent staff but can borrow from the committee.
Terminates 1 year after the committee's report.

Assistance from Executive Branch:
The USTR and other executive offices must provide information and support to the committee and advisory board as reasonably requested.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

As a concurrent resolution, this does not enact binding law or amend statutes directly; it requires House and Senate adoption but no presidential signature. It introduces no immediate changes but proposes a framework for future legislation to reorganize USTR functions, which are currently governed by laws like the Trade Act of 1974 (establishing USTR in the executive branch under the President). The plan could lead to statutory reforms shifting trade negotiation and implementation powers from the executive to Congress.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The USTR (part of the Executive Office of the President) could face reorganization or dissolution in its current form, disrupting executive-led trade operations. Congress would gain direct control over trade policy, potentially requiring new legislative infrastructure for negotiations and enforcement.
On Citizens: Indirect effects through changes in trade policy development, which influences jobs, prices, and industries like agriculture and manufacturing. A legislative shift might slow trade deals but increase congressional oversight, affecting how tariffs and agreements protect domestic interests.
On International Relations: Trade negotiations with other countries could become more politicized or delayed if moved to Congress, potentially weakening U.S. negotiating agility in bilateral or multilateral deals (e.g., with the WTO or partners like China or the EU). This might signal a more isolationist or domestically focused U.S. trade stance.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Congress: House Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce; Senate Committee on Finance—directly involved in appointments and implementation.
Executive Branch: USTR and its staff, who must assist and face potential transfer of duties; broader impact on presidential trade authority.
Advisory Groups and Experts: Trade policy specialists, industry representatives (e.g., agriculture, labor, small business), environmental and consumer organizations—providing input via the advisory board.
Broader Economy: Businesses, workers, and consumers in trade-dependent sectors, as policy shifts could alter tariffs, agreements, and market access.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Constitutional: Emphasizes restoring Congress's explicit powers under Article I, Section 8 (commerce clause), challenging the historical delegation of trade authority to the executive via laws like fast-track trade promotion. This could spark debates on separation of powers, as the executive has long led trade under implied presidential foreign affairs authority (Article II).
Legal: The resolution's plan would need separate enabling legislation to execute the transfer, potentially facing court challenges on feasibility or constitutionality (e.g., if it impairs executive functions). It builds on precedents like congressional trade oversight but proposes a novel branch shift.
Political: Represents a push for congressional reassertion amid partisan divides on trade (e.g., protectionism vs. free trade). As an ad hoc, temporary measure introduced in the 119th Congress (starting 2025), its success depends on bipartisan support; failure to adopt the plan could highlight inter-branch tensions without real change.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]

Recent Actions

2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-01-03: Submitted in House
2025-01-03: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

Reclaiming Congress’s Constitutional Mandate in Trade Resolution — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (11 pages)