```

[Senate Report 114-45]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        Calendar No. 76
114th Congress    }                                       {      Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session      }                                       {      114-45

======================================================================

 
          TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

                  May 13, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

               Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on Finance, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1269]

       Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office

    The Committee on Finance, having considered an original 
bill (S. 1269) to reauthorize trade facilitation and trade 
enforcement functions and activities, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. REPORT AND OTHER MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE......................2
          A. Report of the Committee on Finance..................     2
          B. Summary of Congressional Consideration of the Bill..     2
          C. Background..........................................     2
              1. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)........     2
              2. De minimis......................................     4
              3. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties (level 
                  the playing field legislation).................     4
              4. Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)..........     6
              5. International Trade Data system (ITDS)..........     6
              6. Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of 
                  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC)......     7
              7. Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEEs)......     7
              8. Commercial Targeting and National Targeting 
                  Analysis Groups (NTAGs)........................     8
              9. Import Health and Safety........................     8
              10. Intellectual property rights enforcement at the 
                  border.........................................    10
              11. Bulk residue controversy.......................    10
              12. Currency Manipulation..........................    10
              13. Drawback simplification........................    12
              14. Enforce Act....................................    12
              15. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (as 
                  Amended).......................................    13
              16. Interagency Trade Enforcement Center...........    14
              17. Trade Enforcement..............................    14
              18. Miscellaneous Tariff bill......................    14
              19. Consumptive Demand.............................    15
 II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL.................................15
          SECTION 1--SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS..............    15
          SECTION 2--DEFINITIONS.................................    15
          TITLE I--TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT......    16
          TITLE II--IMPORT HEALTH AND SAFETY.....................    28
          TITLE III--IMPORT-RELATED PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL 
              PROPERTY RIGHTS....................................    29
          TITLE IV--EVASION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING 
              DUTY ORDERS........................................    34
          TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING 
              DUTY LAWS..........................................    37
          TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL TRADE ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL 
              PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION.........................    38
              Subtitle A--Trade Enforcement......................    38
              Subtitle B--Intellectual Property Rights Protection    43
          TITLE VII--CURRENCY MANIPULATION.......................    45
              Subtitle A--Investigation of Currency 
                  Undervaluation.................................    45
              Subtitle B--Engagement on Currency Exchange Rate 
                  and Economic Policies..........................    46
          TITLE VIII--PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DUTY 
              SUSPENSIONS AND REDUCTIONS.........................    47
          TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.....................    49
          TITLE X--OFFSETS.......................................    56
III. BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE BILL....................................58
 IV. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE..........................................69
  V. REGULATORY IMPACT OF THE BILL...................................70
 VI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS................................................71
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED...........72

             I. REPORT AND OTHER MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE

                 A. Report of the Committee on Finance

    The Committee on Finance, having considered an original 
bill (S. 1269) 107 to reauthorize trade facilitation and trade 
enforcement functions and activities, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

         B. Summary of Congressional Consideration of the Bill

    On April 20, 2015 Senator Hatch introduced S. 1015 on 
behalf of himself and Senator Wyden.
    The Senate Committee on Finance met in open executive 
session on April 22, 2015 to consider the Chairman's Mark to 
reauthorize trade facilitation and trade enforcement functions 
and activities, and for other purposes. The proposal the 
Committee considered was based upon S. 1015. During the 
Committee's consideration of the proposal, 7 amendments were 
approved. The Committee approved the amended proposal by voice 
vote; and ordered the amended proposal reported as an original 
bill (S. 1269).

                             C. Background

              1. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

    International trade is a critical component of the U.S. 
economy, with U.S. goods trade amounting to about $4 trillion 
in 2014, with merchandise imports of $2.4 trillion and exports 
of $1.6 trillion. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the 
agency charged with managing the import process at the border, 
admitted about 30.4 million import entries per year through 
over 300 U.S. ports of entry (POEs) in fiscal year (FY) 2013. 
The largest volume of imports comes through land (truck and 
rail) and maritime flows, which together account for over 25 
million shipping containers per year.
    The efficient flow of legally traded goods in and out of 
the United States is thus a vital element of the country's 
economic security. While U.S. trade in imports depends on the 
smooth flow of legal cargo through POEs, the goal of trade 
facilitation often competes with two additional goals: (1) the 
enforcement of U.S. trade laws designed to protect U.S. 
consumers and business against illegal imports and to collect 
customs revenue; and (2) import security, or preventing the 
entry of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) 
weapons and related material; illegal drugs; and other 
contraband.

                      SELECTED LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    The United States Customs Service (USCS) was established by 
an act of Congress on July 1, 1789. In September 2, 1789, the 
USCS was placed under the Secretary of the Treasury. Other key 
laws establishing and authorizing the trade functions of the 
USCS included provisions in the Tariff Act of 1930, the Customs 
Simplification Act of 1953, and the Reorganization Plan of 
1965.
    The last time that USCS's trade functions were 
fundamentally reorganized was in 1993, in Title VI of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-
182), also known as the Customs Modernization and Informed 
Compliance Act, or ``Mod Act.'' The Mod Act placed a greater 
administrative burden on the importer, and shifted USCS's focus 
to the collection of data and post-entry enforcement (i.e., 
audits) to ensure that all legal requirements have been met. By 
reducing USCS's role in duty determination, the act freed up 
agency assets to modernize the import process and improve post-
entry enforcement. Although private industry stakeholders faced 
increased responsibilities, the law also provided for a quicker 
and more transparent import process through streamlined and 
automated customs operations.
    Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security 
Act (P.L. 107-296) placed all or some part of 22 different 
federal departments and agencies, including the USCS, into the 
newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The USCS 
became DHS' bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 
has been the lead agency on import policy since 2003.
    The customs reauthorization legislation in the Trade Act of 
2002 (Title III of P.L. 107-210, the Customs Border Security 
Act of 2002) authorized appropriations for a number of 
noncommercial and commercial CBP programs. Sec. 338 of the Act 
amended the Tariff Act of 1930 to authorize the Secretary of 
the Treasury to require, by regulation, the electronic 
submission of this information to CBP. Sec. 343(a) required the 
Secretary, in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, 
to promulgate regulations for advanced cargo information based 
on the Secretary's determination of what is ``reasonably 
necessary to ensure aviation, maritime, and surface 
transportation safety and security.'' Sec. 343(b) required 
shippers of cargo loading in a U.S. port (including an ocean 
transportation intermediary that is a non-vessel-operating 
common carrier) to submit a complete set of shipping documents 
within 24 hours after the cargo is delivered to the marine 
terminal operator, and under no circumstances later than 24 
hours prior to departure of the vessel.
    The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA, 
P.L. 107-295) amended DHS authority under the Trade Act of 2002 
to collect advanced cargo data from importers and exporters and 
permitted CBP to share the information with other federal 
agencies.

                             2. De minimis

    The de minimis level, currently $200, refers to the value 
threshold below which unaccompanied shipments can enter U.S. 
commerce without the need for formal entry procedures or 
payment of customs duties. The de minimis level was provided 
for in P.L. 103-182, and in section 321(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C), as amended).
    The exemption is intended to ``avoid expense and 
inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount 
of revenue that would otherwise be collected.'' Thus, a goal of 
the de minimis threshold is to balance the collection of tariff 
revenue with the administrative costs (to the government) of 
customs duty collection. The statute also gives the Secretary 
of the Treasury the ability to raise the de minimis level by 
regulation.

  3. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties (level the playing field 
                              legislation)

                 ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

    Two major U.S. trade remedies are the antidumping (AD) law, 
which combats the sale of imported products at less than fair 
market value, and the countervailing duty (CVD) law, which aims 
to offset foreign government subsidization of imported goods.
    The AD law (19 U.S.C. 1673 et seq.) provides relief to U.S. 
industries and workers that are ``materially injured, or . . . 
threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an 
industry in the United States is materially retarded'' due to 
imports sold in the U.S. market at prices that are less than 
fair market value. The CVD law (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) 
provides relief to domestic industries that are ``materially 
injured, or . . . threatened with material injury, or the 
establishment of an industry in the United States is materially 
retarded'' due to imported goods that have been subsidized by a 
foreign government or public entity, and can therefore be sold 
at lower prices than similar goods produced in the U.S.

                  SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

    The first CVD statute was passed as part of the Tariff Act 
of 1890, but was limited to the protection of American sugar 
producers. The first general CVD provision appeared in the 
Tariff Act of 1897 (also known as the Dingley Tariff; Section 
7, 55th Congress, Session I, Ch. 11. 1897). This provision 
authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to investigate and 
impose duties ``whenever any country, dependency, or colony 
shall pay or bestow, directly or indirectly, a bounty or grant 
upon the exportation of any article or merchandise from such 
country, dependency, or colony . . .''.
    Prior to 1995, there were two countervailing duty law in 
force. Section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the earlier of 
the two laws, applied to countries that were not ``under the 
agreement,'' or members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade (GATT). This statute was subsequently repealed in section 
261(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA, P.L. 103-465) 
with the advent of the WTO.
    Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671ff) 
describes the CVD law, which applies to all U.S. trading 
partners. In the statute, a countervailable subsidy is defined 
as a case in which a government of a country or any public 
entity within the territory of the country: (1) provides a 
financial contribution; (2) provides any form of income or 
price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the GATT 
1994; or (3) makes a payment or funding mechanism to provide a 
financial contribution, or entrusts or directs a private entity 
to make a financial contribution, if providing the contribution 
would normally be vested in the government and the practice 
does not differ in substance from practices normally followed 
by governments; to a manufacturer, producer, or exporter of 
merchandise. When a commodity exported into the U.S. is 
subsidized in this manner and a U.S. industry is ``materially 
injured,'' ``threatened with material injury,'' or ``the 
establishment . . . is materially retarded,'' a countervailing 
duty is imposed ``equal to the amount of the net 
countervailable subsidy'' (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)). The relief 
provided in each case is an additional import duty equal to the 
subsidy (countervailing duty).

                              ANTIDUMPING

    In the case of dumping, the unfair trade practice consists 
of ``the sale or likely sale of goods at less than fair value'' 
(19 U.S.C. 1677(34)). The relief provided is an additional duty 
based on the amount of dumping (as calculated, a weighted 
average dumping margin) placed on the subject imports.
    The U.S. AD statute originated in the Emergency Tariff Act 
of 1921, which allowed for a special ``antidumping duty'' to be 
assessed when a foreign producer sold ``a class or kind of 
foreign merchandise'' for importation into the U.S. at ``less 
than its fair value.'' Another AD provision, the Antidumping 
Act of 1916, imposed criminal penalties for dumping and 
although there were cases brought under the Act, its provisions 
were never carried out. The 1916 Act was repealed in December 
2004 in response to a WTO dispute settlement determination that 
the law was in violation of U.S.WTO obligations. The current AD 
statute, as substantially amended, currently appears in Title 
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673ff).

                             INVESTIGATIONS

    Although AD and CVD investigations involve fundamentally 
different types of unfair trade behavior, the remedies provided 
(an additional duty offsetting the ``dumping margin'' in AD 
cases, or the amount of subsidy in CVD cases) and investigative 
procedures are similar.
    AD and CVD investigations involve a complex, quasi-judicial 
process conducted by two U.S. agencies:
           The U.S. International Trade Commission 
        (USITC) determines whether or not a U.S. industry has 
        suffered material injury, or the threat thereof; and
           The Office of Enforcement and Compliance at 
        the International Trade Administration of the U.S. 
        Department of Commerce (called the ``administering 
        authority'' in the statute) determines the existence 
        and amount of dumping or subsidy.
    Both agencies conduct investigations on the basis of U.S. 
statutory authority, agency regulations, precedence established 
in prior investigations, and case law established in the Court 
of International Trade (CIT) and other judicial bodies.

               4. Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)

    General authority for the Automated Commercial Environment 
(ACE) and the International Trade Data System (below) were 
provided for in Title VI of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182), which established 
the National Customs Automation Program, an automated 
electronic system for the processing of commercial imports. 
Expenditures for ACE were first provided in the then-U.S. 
Customs Service FY2001 appropriations (the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law 106-554). Subsequently, 
Section 13031(f) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(4)) created a 
separate account within the general fund of the Treasury known 
as the ``Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation 
Account,'' which also provided that $350 million would be 
deposited into the account (from custom merchandise processing 
fees) in fiscal years 2003-2005.
    ACE is designed to replace the obsolete, mainframe-based 
Automated Commercial System (ACS) that began operations in 
1984, and is still in use for some trade functions. CBP has 
designated ACE as the automated system that will become the 
platform for a future ``single window'' through which importers 
and exporters will be able to transmit data and coordinate with 
other Federal trade-participating government agencies regarding 
shipments of merchandise in an efficient and cost-effective 
manner.

               5. International Trade Data system (ITDS)

    Section 411(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1411(d)) provides that the Secretary of Treasury shall oversee 
the establishment of an electronic system to be known as the 
``International Trade Data System'' (ITDS). The ITDS, along 
with ACE, is a tool for improving CBP's interagency 
coordination with its 47 partner government agencies (PGAs). 
ITDS is an intergovernmental project to coordinate and 
standardize the collection of trade enforcement data by all 
federal government agencies that play a role in trade 
enforcement. The goal is to build a ``single window'' for the 
electronic collection and distribution of standard government-
wide import and export data for the use of government agencies 
with a role in trade enforcement, in order to eliminate 
redundant information requirements. Under section 405 of the 
Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2005 
(P.L. 109-347), federal agencies that require documentation 
related to the importation or exportation of cargo are required 
to participate in ACE once the ITDS is fully operational. On 
February 14, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13659 
(``Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's 
Businesses''), mandating development and completion of the ITDS 
by December 31, 2016.

  6. Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of U.S. Customs and 
                        Border Protection (COAC)

    The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (COAC) was established by the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-203; 
19 U.S.C. 2071 note). The COAC is administered jointly by the 
Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security, and operates 
under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA) (5 U.S.C. App). The COAC is comprised of private sector 
representatives that advise the Secretaries of the Department 
of Treasury and DHS on the commercial operations of CBP and 
related DHS functions. COAC meetings consider issues including 
global supply chain security and facilitation, CBP 
modernization and automation, air cargo security, customs 
broker regulations, trade enforcement, agricultural inspection, 
and protection of intellectual property rights.

             7. Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEEs)

    In August 2012, CBP initiated a test of four Centers of 
Excellence and Expertise (CEEs or Centers) to serve as 
industry-specific single points of post-entry processing for 
certain businesses enrolled in the C-TPAT and ISA trusted 
trader programs (77 Federal Register 50248, August 28, 2012; 78 
Federal Register 20345, April 4, 2013; 79 Federal Register 
13322, March 10, 2014). The Centers are staffed with CBP 
employees who facilitate trade by providing account management 
functions, and are designed as ``one-stop-shops'' to align 
customs practices with the demands of modern business and to 
facilitate trade in the targeted industries. CBP's integrated 
staff in the Centers process entry summaries, post-entry 
amendment and correction reviews, protests, and other 
administrative work. The Centers were designed so that the 
industries would receive fewer cargo delays, reduce costs, and 
enjoy greater predictability, while CBP would be able to shift 
its emphasis at the POEs to address higher-risk shipments and 
focus on trade enforcement issues. The Centers also support 
improved information sharing between industry representatives 
and CBP staff to lead to more focused trade enforcement 
efforts.
    The 10 CEEs currently operating are:
           Electronics in Los Angeles;
           Pharmaceuticals, Health and Chemicals in New 
        York;
           Automotive and Aerospace in Detroit;
           Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Minerals in 
        Houston;
           Apparel, Footwear, and Textiles in San 
        Francisco;
           Agriculture and Prepared Products in Miami;
           Consumer Products and Mass Merchandising in 
        Atlanta;
           Industrial and Manufacturing Materials in 
        Buffalo;
           Base Metals in Chicago; and
           Machinery in Laredo.

 8. Commercial Targeting and National Targeting Analysis Groups (NTAGs)

    The National Targeting and Analysis Groups (NTAGs) are the 
primary national trade targeting assets for CBP. NTAGs provide 
in-depth risk analysis for CBP's Priority Trade Issues (PTIs), 
including Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD). The NTAGs work in concert 
with the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE), and the 
Cargo National Targeting Center (NTC-C) Tactical Trade 
Targeting Unit (T3U), to enhance trade targeting expertise. 
These entities work with the entire cycle of trade fraud 
enforcement, from information intake, analysis, targeting, 
investigative case support, and operational assessments.

                      9. Import Health and Safety

                        IMPORT HEALTH AND SAFETY

    CBP collaborates at U.S. POEs with many federal agencies to 
enforce health and safety laws that prevent unsafe products 
from entering the United States. CBP is provided this authority 
through the Tariff Act of 1930, the Trade Act of 2002, and the 
Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006, 
and corresponding CBP regulations.
    CBP exercises its regulatory authority to require detailed 
advance electronic cargo information on arriving goods. 19 
U.S.C. 1484 gives CBP the authority to enforce the legal 
requirements for the entry of merchandise into the United 
States, and 19 U.S.C. 1499 and other statutes provide general 
inspection and examination authorities. CBP samples and holds 
merchandise on behalf of other PGAs (for example, the Food & 
Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission) 
that have specific authority to determine the admissibility of 
these products. CBP exercises enforcement authority using 
bonding procedures as permitted by the general authority under 
19 U.S.C. 1623. CBP also has authority under the Tariff Act of 
1930, particularly 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c) to seize merchandise that 
is imported in violation of any health, safety or conservation 
prohibition.
    CBP actively engages in interagency import safety efforts 
by promoting risk management strategies and developing uniform 
enforcement strategies, such as detention, seizure, and 
destruction policies. However, there is no statutory mechanism 
for agencies of the Federal government to coordinate, as a 
whole, on ensuring the safety of merchandise imported into the 
United States and focus on shipments that are higher risk.

       10. Intellectual property rights enforcement at the border

                                OVERVIEW

    The protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights (IPR)--such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, and 
trade secrets--is an important component of U.S. trade policy, 
due to the significant role of IPR in the U.S. economy and the 
potentially negative commercial, health, safety, and security 
consequences of counterfeiting and piracy. Multiple federal 
agencies and interagency coordinating bodies are involved in 
U.S. efforts to protect and enforce IPR. Congress has an 
interest in the effectiveness of U.S. IPR enforcement efforts, 
including with respect to the level and allocation of federal 
resources, authorities of agencies, and the coordination of 
activities.
    IPR is enforced at U.S. borders through seizures of 
counterfeit and pirated goods, investigations, and 
prosecutions. DHS, through seizures of counterfeit and pirated 
goods by CBP and investigations by ICE of suspected IP 
infringement, plays a key role in such efforts. In FY2014, the 
number of IPR seizures at the U.S. border totaled 23,140 of 
commodities valued at $1.2 billion, with China and Hong Kong 
ranking as the two largest source economies for seizures by 
value.
    IPR infringement in the past primarily constituted of 
counterfeiting and piracy of physical goods, but in recent 
years, according to many sources, including the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation and USTR's Special 301 Report, there has been 
a growing amount of piracy taking place through digital trade. 
Digital trade presents new challenges and opportunities in 
terms of IPR protection and enforcement.

                               RESOURCES

    CBP's Office of International Trade is responsible for the 
IPR enforcement program. According to DHS' 2016 budget 
justification, ``CBP's strategy to enforce IPR is based on the 
pillars of facilitation, enforcement, and deterrence.'' CBP 
partners with the private sector in an effort to transform IPR 
risk assessment by identifying low-risk shipments. CBP 
conducted 81 IPR ``Field Training'' sessions for their 
personnel in FY2014.
    In FY2014, CBP had 19,580 full-time equivalent CBP officers 
assigned to its POEs. For FY2016, the agency is requesting a 
total of 20,656 full-time equivalent CBP officers, with 2,371 
of that total assigned to ``Trade and Revenue'' positions.

                              COORDINATION

    DHS houses the National Intellectual Property Rights 
Coordination Center (IPR Center), a task force for optimizing 
the roles and law enforcement activities of member agencies and 
enhancing government-industry partnerships to support IPR 
enforcement initiatives. The IPR Center's mission is ``to 
ensure national security by protecting the public's health and 
safety, the U.S. economy, and our war fighters, and to stop 
predatory and unfair trade practices that threaten the global 
economy.'' Established by ICE in 2002, the IPR Center's role is 
to improve and coordinate federal intellectual property 
functions to more effectively combat IPR-infringing products. 
The IPR Center arose out of efforts by the National Security 
Council's Special Coordination Group on Intellectual Property 
Rights and Trade Related Crime to implement Presidential 
Decision Directive 42, issued in 1995, concerning international 
crime. The IPR Center brings together, in a task force setting, 
23 partner agencies, consisting of 19 federal agencies, 
Interpol, Europol, and the governments of Canada and Mexico. It 
is led by the ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) 
Director, with Deputy Directors from HSI and CBP. The IPR 
Center's approach focuses on investigations, interdiction, and 
outreach and training to address counterfeiting and piracy. In 
FY2014, appropriations for ICE provided that not less than $10 
million would be available for investigations of IPR 
violations, including for the operations of the IPR Center. In 
FY2014, IPR Center-led interagency collaboration resulted in 
683 arrests, with 454 indictments and 461 convictions.

                      11. Bulk residue controversy

    When instruments of international traffic (e.g., cargo 
container) return to the United States, they sometimes hold 
residue from their exported product. Prior to 2009, instruments 
of international traffic (IIT) containing residue could return 
to the United States under the IIT exemption of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (i.e., are exempt from manifested and entry 
requirements). In 2009 CBP issued HQ ruling H026715 that 
requires IITs containing residue to be manifested and entered. 
This ruling was significantly problematic for private sector 
stakeholders due to the difficulty and potential expense that 
would be incurred in adhering to manifest and entry 
requirements for residue.
    In response to private sector concerns, CBP created a 
working group with private sector stakeholders in 2010 to 
identify the least disruptive methods to enforce HQ ruling 
H026715. In November, 2013 CBP announced the launch of the 
Residue Cargo Pilot program, but it and its start date has been 
pushed back indefinitely.

                       12. Currency Manipulation

    The Committee is concerned that foreign countries, have 
been using policies to undervalue their currencies in order to 
gain unfair trade advantages over the United States or prevent 
effective balance of payments adjustments. In the view of the 
Committee, the currently tools available to the United States 
to address the challenges posed by currency manipulation could 
be enhanced.
    Surveillance of foreign exchange rate policies of major 
U.S. trading partners is undertaken by the Department of the 
Treasury, as required by law; by multilateral institutions like 
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WTO; and in 
various international fora such as G-20 meetings of finance 
ministers and central bank governors, the G-7, and the U.S.-
China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED).
    The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (the 
``Act'') requires that the Secretary of the Treasury report, on 
a semiannual basis, on international economic and exchange rate 
policies of our major trading partners. According to Section 
3004 of the Act, the report must consider ``whether countries 
manipulate the rate of exchange between their currency and the 
United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective 
balance of payments adjustment or gaining unfair advantage in 
international trade.'' The Treasury Department most recently 
cited China, in 1994, as a country for currency manipulation 
under the terms of the Act. Successive Administrations have 
stressed that they address the issue in bilateral and 
multilateral discussions, including the S&ED with China, the G-
7, and the G-20.
    Article IV (``Obligations Regarding Exchange 
Arrangements'') of the IMF's Articles of Agreement identifies 
that ``each member shall avoid manipulating exchange rates or 
the international monetary system in order to prevent effective 
balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive 
advantage over other members.'' The IMF regularly monitors 
bilateral and multilateral exchange rate measures, and counsels 
member countries when evidence is suggestive of misalignments 
with fundamentals, though tying exchange rates to macroeconomic 
fundamentals has proven to be a notoriously difficult 
undertaking. Such difficulty is one of the reasons why 
detection of misalignments is quantitatively challenging. 
Moreover, deviations between a country's foreign exchange rate 
policies and a hypothetically pure ``freely floating exchange 
rate'' regime depend, in addition to central bank actions and 
macroeconomic fundamentals, on the extent to which a country 
controls and restricts capital outflows and inflows--a 
consideration often overlooked in ``currency manipulation'' 
discussions.
    The World Trade Organization can levy trade sanctions or 
pursue resolution of trade disputes between WTO member 
countries through WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. Trade 
sanctions based on ``currency manipulation'' through WTO 
processes would be cumbersome, however, given measurement and 
exchange-rate modeling difficulties.
    In its most recent (October 15, 2014) Report to Congress on 
International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, issued by 
the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of International 
Affairs, Treasury concluded that no major trading partner of 
the United States met the standard of manipulating the rate of 
exchange between their currency and the United States dollar 
for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments 
adjustments or gaining unfair competitive advantage in 
international trade as identified in Section 3004 of the Act 
during the period covered in the Report.
    Nonetheless, Treasury continues to closely monitor 
developments in economies where exchange rate adjustment is 
incomplete and push for comprehensive adherence to all G7 and 
G20 commitments. According to the Treasury Report: ``These 
include the recent G-7 commitments to orient fiscal and 
monetary policies towards domestic objectives using domestic 
instruments and to not target exchange rates. They also include 
the G-20 commitments to move more rapidly toward market-
determined exchange rate systems and exchange rate flexibility, 
to avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments, to refrain 
from competitive devaluation, and to not target exchange rates 
for competitive purposes. Treasury will continue to monitor 
closely exchange rate developments in all the economies covered 
in this report, and press for further policy changes that yield 
greater exchange rate flexibility, greater transparency on 
intervention, a more level playing field, and support for 
strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.''

                          CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

    In recent Congresses, Senators and Members of the House of 
Representative introduced legislation intended to address 
instances of ``currency manipulation'' undertaken for purposes 
of unfair trade advantage or prevention of balance of payments 
adjustment. Examples include: The Currency Reform for Fair 
Trade Act (H.R. 2378), which passed in the House in the 11th 
Congress; and The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act 
of 2011 (S. 1619), which passed in the Senate in the 112th 
Congress. Neither bill became law. Those bills, among other 
provisions, would have specified the definition of a 
countervailable subsidy (a subsidy eligible to be offset 
through higher import duties) to include some measure of the 
benefit conferred on imports into the United States from 
countries with undervalued currencies.

                      13. Drawback simplification

    Drawback is defined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 
as ``the refund or remission, in whole or in part, of a customs 
duty, fee, or internal revenue tax which was imposed on 
imported merchandise under Federal law because of its 
importation, and the refund of internal revenue taxes paid on 
domestic alcohol as prescribed in 19 U.S.C. 1313(d).'' The 
purpose of customs duty drawback is to permit U.S.-made 
products to compete more effectively in world markets by 
enabling U.S. manufacturers and importers to select the most 
advantageous sources for raw materials and components without 
regard to duties in order to save production costs. Thus, 
drawback also encourages domestic production.
    Generally speaking, the term refers to a refund of 99 
percent of duties and/or Internal Revenue taxes paid on certain 
imported merchandise (excluding antidumping or countervailing 
duties, harbor maintenance fees, and merchandise processing 
fees) entering the United States, provided the article is 
exported or destroyed under CBP supervision. Drawback of duty 
and some taxes is provided in U.S. law by 19 U.S.C. 1313, while 
refunds of certain excise taxes also administered by CBP are 
covered by 26 U.S.C. 5062.

                            14. Enforce Act

    CBP has not adequately investigated allegations of AD/CVD 
orders and has had considerable difficulty collecting the 
actual amount of duties owed on merchandise subject to AD and 
CVD action. This issue has been the focus of several 
congressional hearings.
    Potential duty shortfalls are important to U.S. producers 
benefiting from AD or CVD orders in two ways. First, if an AD 
investigation was completed before the repeal of the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) in 2005-2007, producers 
of U.S. import-competing merchandise may be eligible for CDSOA 
disbursements of duties under certain conditions. Second, 
shortfalls in duty collections diminish the effect of an AD or 
CVD order because the adversely affected U.S. industry involved 
does not receive the full protection of the additional duty. As 
a result, the domestic industry may continue to be injured by 
the anti-competitive practices of the foreign supplier even 
after an order has been imposed.
    Shortfalls in AD/CV duty collection have also significantly 
impacted U.S. revenue. In 2011 testimony before the 
Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security of the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations, the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that from FY 2001 to FY 
2010 over $1 billion in AD/CV duties were uncollected. 
According to CBP data from FY 2011 to FY 2013, the amount of 
uncollected revenue has increased by an additional $177.6 
million.

         15. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (as Amended)

    Chapter 1 of title III (sections 301-310) of the Trade Act 
of 1974 (P.L. 93-618; referred to collectively as ``Section 
301''), as amended, provides the authority and procedures to 
enforce U.S. rights under international trade agreements and to 
respond to certain unfair foreign practices. Section 301 is the 
principal statutory authority under which the United States may 
impose trade sanctions on foreign countries that either violate 
trade agreements or otherwise maintain laws or practices that 
are unjustifiable and restrict U.S. commerce. When a Section 
301 investigation involves an alleged violation of a trade 
agreement, such as agreements under the WTO or the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the USTR must follow the 
consultation and dispute settlement procedures set out in that 
agreement. The 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (P.L. 
100-418) strengthened Section 301 by creating ``Special 301'' 
provisions, which require the USTR to conduct an annual review 
of foreign countries' intellectual property rights (IPR) 
protection policies and practices. Special 301 directs USTR to 
identify countries that deny adequate protection of IPR, or 
restrict IPR-related products, and to initiate Section 301 
procedures against countries whose practices are considered to 
be the most serious or harmful--``priority foreign countries.'' 
If an agreement is not reached within a certain timeframe, the 
USTR must determine if trade sanctions should be imposed. As 
part of the Special 301 Report, USTR has created a Priority 
Watch List and Watch List to identify countries with particular 
problems with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market 
access for persons relying on IPR. Countries placed on the 
Priority Watch List have more significant problems in these 
areas.
    Section 301 provides the domestic counterpart to the WTO 
consultation and dispute settlement procedures. It authorizes 
the USTR to impose retaliatory measures to remedy an 
uncorrected foreign practice, some of which may involve 
suspending an obligation under a trade agreement--for example, 
imposing a tariff increase on a product in excess of the rate 
negotiated in the WTO or the ``bound'' rate. The USTR may 
terminate a Section 301 case if the dispute is settled, but, 
under section 306 of the act, the USTR must monitor foreign 
compliance and may take further retaliatory action if 
compliance measures are unsatisfactory. While Section 301 also 
permits the USTR to initiate an investigation on its own 
motion, it is not necessary for the USTR to invoke Section 301 
in order to initiate a dispute. Nevertheless, the authorities 
in Section 301 are available to the USTR if it decides to 
impose sanctions in a trade dispute that it initiated earlier. 
The USTR administers the statutory procedures through an 
interagency committee.
    Under Section 301, if the USTR determines that a foreign 
government's act, policy or practice violates or is 
inconsistent with a trade agreement, or is unjustifiable and 
burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, then action by the USTR is 
mandatory, subject to the specific direction, if any, of the 
President to enforce the trade agreement rights or to obtain 
the elimination of the act, policy, or practice. If the USTR 
determines that the act, policy, or practice is unreasonable or 
discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce and 
actions by the United States is appropriate, then the USTR has 
discretionary authority to take appropriate and feasible 
action, subject to the specific direction, if any, of the 
President, to obtain the elimination of the act, policy, or 
practice.

                16. Interagency Trade Enforcement Center

    The enforcement of U.S. trade rights under international 
trade agreements and enforcement of U.S. trade laws has been 
one of the key issues in the development of trade policy in 
recent years. On February 28, 2012, President Barack Obama 
signed Executive Order 13601 establishing the Interagency Trade 
Enforcement Center (ITEC) to advance U.S. foreign trade policy 
through strengthened and coordinated enforcement of U.S. trade 
rights. The goal was to take an interagency approach to 
monitoring and enforcing U.S. trade rights around the world by 
using expertise from across the federal government. The ITEC is 
led by a Director designated by the U.S. Trade Representative 
and a Deputy Director designated by the Secretary of Commerce. 
The ITEC coordinates interagency trade enforcement matters 
among USTR and the Departments of Commerce, State, Treasury, 
Justice, Agriculture, and Homeland Security, as well as the 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and other 
agencies that the President or USTR may designate. Funding for 
the ITEC is appropriated through the International Trade 
Administration under the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies appropriations accounts. ITA works closely 
with the ITEC to identify issues and develop information in 
areas of economic importance to U.S. industries.

                         17. Trade Enforcement

    The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), in 
coordination with other federal agencies, enforces U.S. trade 
rights and benefits under international agreements through 
consultations, negotiations, and litigation in formal dispute 
settlement proceedings. USTR coordinates the Federal 
government's activities in identifying, monitoring, enforcing, 
and resolving the full range of international trade issues to 
assure that American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses 
receive the maximum benefit under international trade 
agreements of the United States. Those agreements include 
multilateral agreements such as those adopted at the creation 
of the WTO, regional agreements such as the North American Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and bilateral agreements such as the 
various free trade agreements (FTAs).

                     18. Miscellaneous Tariff bill

    U.S. importers often request that Members of Congress 
introduce bills seeking to temporarily suspend or reduce 
tariffs on certain imports. The rationale for these requests, 
in general, is that they help domestic producers of downstream 
goods reduce costs, thus making their products more 
competitive. In turn, these cost reductions may be passed on to 
the consumer.
    In recent congressional practice, the Senate Finance and 
House Ways and Means Committees have combined individual duty 
suspension bills and other technical trade provisions into 
larger pieces of legislation known as miscellaneous tariff 
bills (MTBs). Before inclusion in an MTB, the individual bills 
are reviewed by the trade subcommittees of the relevant 
committees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), 
and executive branch agencies to ensure that they are 
noncontroversial (generally, that no domestic producer, Member, 
or government agency objects), relatively revenue-neutral 
(revenue loss due to the duty suspension of no more than 
$500,000 per product), and are able to be administered CBP.
    In the past, duty suspensions in MTBs have only been 
available for a limited time (generally three years from the 
date of enactment), and if no subsequent MTB legislation is 
passed, the duty-free or reduced duty status of the products 
expires. Expired duty suspensions must be re-introduced to be 
included in new MTB legislation, and in most cases, the 
favorable duty status is not retroactively renewed.
    The last enacted MTB expired on December 31, 2012. This 
MTB, the United States Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010 
(P.L. 111-227) suspended entirely or reduced duties on over 600 
products. Since legislative attempts to pass an additional MTB 
were not successful, duties must be paid on these products, 
most of which are inputs in various U.S. manufactured products.

                         19. Consumptive Demand

    Prohibition of goods made with forced labor has a long 
history in the United States. Congress first prohibited 
importation of goods made with prison labor under the McKinley 
Tariff Act of 1890 (Chapter 1244, 26 Stat. 567, Sec. 51). 
Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) expanded 
the categories of prohibited labor to include convict labor, 
forced labor, and indentured labor under penal sanctions. It 
also added an exception that permitted the importation of goods 
made with forced labor when domestic production of those goods 
was not sufficient to meet the consumptive demand requirements 
of the United States.
    Section 307 defines ``forced labor'' as having two key 
components: (a) it is involuntary; and (b) it carries a threat 
of penalty for its nonperformance. It also provides that the 
term ``forced labor and/or indentured labor'' includes forced 
or indentured child labor. The provision does not specify a 
minimum content requirement, and therefore encompasses goods 
with even minimal amounts of content produced with forced or 
indentured labor. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized 
and directed by the statute to prescribe such regulations as 
may be necessary for the enforcement of the provision, and 
under those regulations CBP is the lead agency responsible for 
enforcement of Section 307.

                  II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL

Section 1--Short Title; Table of Contents

    This section sets forth the short title of this Act as the 
Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. Section 1 
also provides the table of contents.

Section 2--Definitions

    This section defines the terms ``Automated Commercial 
Environment,'' ``Commissioner,'' ``customs and trade laws of 
the United States,'' ``private sector entity,'' ``trade 
enforcement,'' and ``trade facilitation.''

           TITLE I--TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT

Section 101--Improving Partnership Programs

    Section 101(a) requires the Commissioner to ensure that all 
Agency partnership programs provide trade benefits to 
participants.
    Section 101(b) requires the Commissioner in developing and 
operating all partnership programs to (1) consult with the 
private sector, the public, and other Federal agencies, when 
appropriate, to ensure that participants in those programs 
receive commercially significant and measurable trade benefits 
in all such programs, including providing pre-clearance of 
merchandise for qualified persons that demonstrate the highest 
levels of compliance with customs and trade laws of the United 
States, regulations of CBP, and other requirements the 
Commissioner determines to be necessary; (2) ensure an 
integrated and transparent system of trade benefits and 
compliance requirements for all CBP partnership programs; (3) 
consider consolidating Agency partnership programs to support 
the objectives of such programs, increase participation, and 
enhance the benefits provided to participants; and (4) 
coordinate with the Director of ICE and other Federal agencies 
with authority to detain and release merchandise entering the 
United States to (A) ensure coordination in the release of such 
merchandise through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 
and the International Trade Data System (ITDS), (B) ensure that 
partnership programs of those agencies are compatible with 
CBP's partnership programs, (C) develop criteria for 
authorizing the release, on an expedited basis, of merchandise 
for which documentation is required from one or more of those 
agencies to clear or license the merchandise for entry into the 
United States, and (D) to create pathways, within and among the 
appropriate Federal Agencies, for qualified persons that 
demonstrate the highest levels of compliance to receive 
immediate clearance absent information that a transaction may 
pose a national security or compliance threat; and (5) ensure 
that trade benefits are provided to participants in partnership 
programs.
    Section 101(c) requires the Commissioner to submit a report 
to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, no later than 
180 days after enactment and on December 31 of each year 
thereafter, containing (1) an identification of each 
partnership program; (2) for each such program (A) 
participation requirements, (B) the commercially significant 
and measurable trade benefits provided to participants in the 
program, (C) the number of participants in the program, and (D) 
for programs that have multiple tiers of participation, the 
number of participants in each tier; (3) the number of 
participants enrolled in more than one program; (4) an 
assessment of the effectiveness of each program in advancing 
the security, trade enforcement, and trade facilitation 
missions of CBP; (5) a summary of CBP's efforts to coordinate 
with other federal agencies with authority to detain and 
release merchandise entering the United States to ensure that 
partnership programs of those agencies are compatible with 
CBP's partnership programs; (6) a summary of the criteria 
developed with these agencies for authorizing the release, on 
an expedited basis, of merchandise for which documentation is 
required for one or more of those agencies to clear or license 
the merchandise for entry into the United States; (7) a summary 
of CBP's efforts to work with private sector entities and the 
public to develop and improve partnership programs; (8) a 
description of efforts taken by CBP to make private sector 
entities aware of partnership programs; and (9) a summary of 
plans, targets, and goals of CBP with respect to such programs 
over the two years following the submission of the report.
    Current law provides for voluntary government-private 
sector programs, such as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against 
Terrorism (C-TPAT) and Importer Self-Assessment (ISA) programs, 
to strengthen and improve the overall security of the 
international supply chain and protect the revenue of the 
United States. It is the view of this Committee that CBP has 
not adequately worked with the private sector and other 
government agencies to provide commercially significant and 
measurable trade benefits for private sector entities 
participating in government-private sector partnership 
programs. This section is intended to rectify these 
deficiencies by requiring CBP to ensure such programs provide 
benefits and to more effectively work with the private sector 
and other Federal agencies.

Section 102--Report on effectiveness of trade enforcement activities

    This section requires the Comptroller General of the United 
States to submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
not later than one year after the enactment of this Act a 
report on the effectiveness of trade enforcement activities of 
CBP that shall include (1) a description of the use of 
resources; results of audits and verification; targeting; and 
training of CBP personnel; (2) a description of trade 
enforcement activities to address undervaluation; 
transshipment; legitimacy of entries making entry; protection 
of revenues, fraud prevention and detection, and penalties, 
including international misclassification, inadequate bonding, 
and other misrepresentations, and (3) a description of trade 
enforcement activities with respect to the priority trade 
issues, including methodologies used in such enforcement of 
activities, recommendations for improving such enforcement 
activities, and a description of the implementation of previous 
recommendations for improving such enforcement activities.
    It is the view of this Committee that the report required 
under this section should provide Congress with sufficient 
information to determine the effectiveness of resources used to 
enforce the customs and trade laws of the United States. 
Furthermore, the information reported should be in sufficient 
detail to allow Congress, at its discretion, to reallocate 
agency resources to the most effective means of enforcing the 
customs and trade laws of the United States.

Section 103--Priorities and performance standards for customs 
        modernization, trade facilitation, and trade enforcement 
        functions and programs

    Section 103(a) requires the Commissioner, in consultation 
with the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee 
on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives to establish 
priorities and performance standards to measure the development 
and levels of achievement of customs modernization, trade 
facilitation and trade enforcement functions and programs 
described in subsection (b). Such priorities and performance 
standards, shall, at a minimum, include priorities and 
standards relating to efficiency, outcome, output, and other 
types of applicable measures.
    Section 103(b) provides that the functions and programs 
referred to in subsection (a) are: (1) the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE); (2) each priority trade issue described in 
section 111(a) of this Act: agricultural programs, antidumping 
and countervailing duties, import safety, intellectual property 
rights, revenue, textiles and wearing apparel, and trade 
agreements and preference programs; (3) the Centers of 
Excellence and Expertise described in section 110 of this Act; 
(4) Drawback for exported merchandise under section 313 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313), as amended by section 906 
of this Act; (5) transactions relating to imported merchandise 
in bond; (6) collection of countervailing duties; (7) the 
expedited clearance of cargo; (8) the issuance of regulations 
and rulings; and (9) the issuance of Regulatory Audit Reports.
    Section 103(c) requires consultations and notification to 
Congress. It provides that consultations required under (a)(1) 
shall occur, at a minimum, on an annual basis. This section 
provides that the Commissioner shall notify the Committee on 
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of 
the House of Representatives of any changes to the priorities 
referred to in subsection (a) not later than 30 days before 
such changes are to take effect.
    Past efforts by CBP to modernize and to improve trade 
facilitation and enforcement and other functions have not been 
conducted in a consistent or efficient manner. Recent efforts 
by CBP have improved. However, it is the view of this Committee 
that these efforts could be further improved and sustained by 
the requirements of this section. This section requires the 
Commissioner, in consultation with the relevant committees, to 
establish priorities and performance standards to measure the 
development and levels of achievement of customs modernization, 
trade facilitation, trade enforcement functions and programs 
specified in this section. In addition to consultations, the 
Commissioner shall notify the relevant committees of any 
changes in the aforementioned priorities not later than 30 days 
before such changes are to take effect. The consultations 
required in this section shall occur, at a minimum, on an 
annual basis.

Section 104--Educational seminars to improve efforts to classify and 
        appraise imported articles, to improve trade enforcement 
        efforts, and to otherwise facilitate legitimate international 
        trade

    Section 104(a) requires the Commissioner and Director, on a 
fiscal year basis, to carry out educational seminars to (1) 
improve the ability of CBP to classify and appraise articles 
imported into the United States; (2) improve the trade 
enforcement efforts of CBP and ICE personnel; and (3) otherwise 
improve the ability and effectiveness of CBP and ICE personnel 
to facilitate legitimate international trade.
    Section 104(b) provides that the Commissioner, the 
Director, and interested private sector parties, selected under 
subsection (c), shall provide instruction and related 
instructional materials at each educational seminar to CBP and, 
as appropriate, ICE personnel on the following: (1) conducting 
physical inspection of an article imported into the United 
States; (2) reviewing the manifest and other accompanying 
documentation of an article imported into the United States to 
determine if the country of origin of the article is accurate; 
(3) customs valuation; and (4) industry supply chains. The 
Commissioner, the Director, and interested private sector 
parties, selected under subsection (c), shall provide 
opportunities to enhance enforcement of (1) collection of 
countervailing and antidumping duties; (2) evasion of duties on 
imports of textiles; (3) protection of intellectual property 
rights; and (4) enforcement of child labor laws.
    Section 104(c) provides that the Commissioner shall 
establish a process to solicit, evaluate, and select interested 
parties in the private sector for purposes of assisting in 
providing instruction and related instructional materials 
described in subsection (b) at each educational seminar under 
this section. Selection criteria shall include: (1) 
availability and usefulness; (2) the volume, value and 
incidence of mislabeling or misidentification of origin of 
imported articles; and (3) other appropriate criteria 
established by the Commissioner.
    Section 104(d) provides that the Commissioner shall give 
due consideration to carrying out an educational seminar under 
this section to improve the ability of CBP personnel to enforce 
a countervailing or antidumping duty order upon the request of 
a petitioner in an action underlying a countervailing or 
antidumping duty order.
    Section 104(e) provides that the Commissioner and the 
Director shall establish performance standards to measure the 
development of achievement of educational seminars under this 
section.
    Section 104(f) provides that beginning September 30, 2016, 
the Commissioner and the Director shall submit to the Committee 
on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of 
the House of Representatives an annual report on the 
effectiveness of educational seminars under this section.
    Section 104(g) defines key terms.

Section 105--Joint strategic plan

    Section 105(a) requires the Commissioner and Director to 
create and submit to the Committees a biennial joint strategic 
plan.
    Section 105(b) requires the joint strategic plan to contain 
a comprehensive multi-year plan for trade enforcement and trade 
facilitation that includes: (1) a summary of action taken to 
improve trade enforcement and trade facilitation, including 
specific performance metrics to evaluate progress over a 2-year 
period; (2) a statement of the objectives and plans to further 
improve trade enforcement and trade facilitation; (3) a 
specific identification of priority trade issues described in 
section 111(a) of this Act that can be addressed in order to 
enhance trade enforcement and trade facilitation and a 
description of strategies and plans for addressing each issue; 
(4) a description of efforts made to improve consultation and 
coordination among and within Federal agencies regarding trade 
enforcement and trade facilitation; (5) a description of 
training that has occurred to date within CBP and ICE to 
improve trade enforcement and trade facilitation; (6) a 
description of efforts to work with international organizations 
to enhance trade facilitation and trade enforcement; (7) a 
description of organizational benchmarks for optimizing 
staffing and wait times at ports of entry; (8) a specific 
identification of any domestic or international best practices 
that may further improve trade enforcement and trade 
facilitation; (9) any legislative recommendations to further 
improve trade enforcement and trade facilitation; and (10) a 
description of efforts made to improve consultation and 
coordination with the private sector to enhance trade 
enforcement and trade facilitation.
    Section 105(c) requires the Commissioner and the Director 
to consult with relevant Federal agencies, including: the 
Department of Treasury, Department of Agriculture, Department 
of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of the Interior, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 
Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of 
the United States Trade Representative, as well as the Customs 
Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) when developing the joint 
strategic plan.
    Section 105(d) requires the joint strategic plan to be 
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
annex.
    It is the view of the Committee that CBP and ICE do not 
adequately set strategic plans and measure their progress in 
adhering to goals that have been set. This section will address 
this problem by requiring both agencies to work together in 
order to address this identified deficiency in both agencies. 
It is the sense of this Committee that the agencies should not 
only focus on short-term goals that are easily attainable, but 
should also focus on goals that may only be achievable over the 
long-term. In both cases, the agencies must determine ways to 
measure their progress in meeting these goals and articulate 
their progress.
    When providing a description of organizational benchmarks 
for optimizing staffing and wait times at ports of entry, it is 
the view of the Committee that CBP should also provide a 
description of progress made to standardize, automate, and 
publically report wait times and wait time collection practices 
at ports of entry. Additionally, when providing legislative 
recommendations to further improve trade enforcement and trade 
facilitation, it is the view of the Committee that CBP should 
submit the projected future funding needs for Federal land 
border ports of entry projects, as required by Division D of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (PL 112-74).

Section 106--Automated commercial environment

    Section 106(a) amends section 13031(f)(4) of the 
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 by 
directing authorized appropriations of $153,736,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2016 and 2018 to complete the development and 
implementation of ACE.
    Section 106(b) amends section 311(b)(3) of the Customs 
Border Security Act of 2002 to require the Commissioner to 
submit to the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committees, and 
House Ways and Means and Appropriations Committees, a report by 
December 31, 2016 detailing (1) CBP's incorporation of all core 
trade processing capabilities into ACT; (2) CBP's remaining 
priorities for processing entry summary data elements, cargo 
manifest data elements, cargo financial data elements, and 
exports elements in the ACE computer system and plans for 
implementing these remaining priorities; (4) the components of 
the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) that have not 
been implemented; and (5) any additional components of NCAP 
initiated by the Commissioner to complete the development, 
establishment, and implementation of the ACE computer system. 
The Commissioner must also provide an updated report on 
September 30, 2017 which also evaluates the effectiveness of 
the implementation of the ACE computer system and details the 
percentage of trade processed in the ACE every month since 
September 30, 2016.
    Section 106(c) requires the Government Accountability 
Office to provide to the Senate Finance and Appropriations 
Committees, and House Ways and Means and Appropriations 
Committees, not later than December 31, 2017, a report 
assessing the progress of other Federal agencies in accessing 
and utilizing ACE and assessing the potential cost savings to 
the United States Government and importers and exporters and 
the potential benefits to the enforcement of the customs and 
trade laws of the United States if elements in section 106(b) 
are implemented.
    The Committee recognizes the dramatic improvement in the 
development of ACE once the agile development methodology was 
initiated. The Committee continues to support the development 
of ACE and the use of ACE by other Federal agencies.

Section 107--International Trade Data System

    This section amends section 411(d) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 by inserting a new paragraph that requires the Secretary 
of the Treasury to work with the heads of Federal agencies 
participating in the International Trade Data System (ITDS) to 
ensure the agencies (1) develop and maintain the necessary 
information technology to support ITDS and submit all data to 
the ITDS electronically; (2) enter into a memorandum of 
understanding to provide for the information sharing between 
the agency and CBP necessary for the operation and maintenance 
of the ITDS; (3) no later than June 30, 2016, identify and 
transmit to the Commissioner the admissibility criteria and 
data elements required by the agency to authorize the release 
of cargo by CBP for incorporation into ACE; and (4) not later 
than December 31, 2016, utilize the ITDS as the primary means 
of receiving from users the standard set of data and other 
relevant documentation, exclusive of applications for permits, 
licenses, or certification required for the release of imported 
cargo and clearance of cargo for export.
    The Committee appreciates the on-going efforts to 
effectively implement ITDS and supports the completion of ITDS 
not later than December 31, 2016 in order to improve trade 
facilitation and enforcement via the ``single window'' concept. 
The completion of ITDS is necessary in order to initiate the 
``single window'' concept that will allow for the electronic 
collection and distribution of standard government-wide import 
and export data for the use of government agencies with a role 
in trade enforcement, in order to eliminate redundant 
information requirements.

Section 108--Consultations with respect to mutual recognition 
        arrangements

    This section requires as a negotiating objective for any 
mutual recognition arrangement with a foreign country regarding 
partnership programs to ensure compatibility with CBP 
partnership programs and to enhance trade facilitation and 
trade enforcement. It also requires the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to consult with the relevant committees not later than 
30 days before initiating negotiations to enter into any such 
arrangement and not later than 30 days before entering into any 
such arrangement.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trusted 
partnership programs in differentiating between imports that 
require additional inspections because they pose a high-risk to 
the economic or physical security of the United States and 
those that do not in order to facilitate the efficient movement 
of trade. The Committee finds, however, that too often 
companies enrolled in a CBP trusted partnership program have to 
needlessly expend additional resources to comply with foreign 
nations' partnership program requirements that do not greatly 
differ from partnership program requirements administered by 
CBP. Accordingly, the Committee included a negotiating 
objective for any mutual recognition arrangement with a foreign 
country regarding partnership programs to ensure compatibility 
with CBP partnership programs in order to enhance trade 
facilitation and trade enforcement while reducing the needless 
expense of CBP trusted partners in joining foreign partnership 
programs.

Section 109--Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee

    Section 109(a) requires the Secretaries of Treasury and 
Homeland Security to jointly establish the COAC by no later 
than 60 days after the enactment of this Act.
    Section 109(b) requires that the COAC be comprised of (1) 
20 appointed individuals from the private sector; (2) the 
Commissioner and the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Tax 
Policy, who shall co-chair meetings; and (3) the Assistant 
Secretary for Policy of the Department of Homeland Security and 
ICE Director, who shall serve as deputy co-chairs of meetings. 
Private sector individuals are representative of individuals 
and firms affected by the commercial operations of CBP, without 
regard to political affiliation, and may be appointed to 
multiple terms of three years, but may not serve more than two 
terms sequentially.
    Section 109(c) requires the COAC to (1) advise the 
Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security on all matters 
involving the commercial operations of CBP; (2) provide 
recommendations to the Secretaries on improvements to CBP's 
commercial operations; and (3) collaborate in developing the 
agenda for COAC meetings; and (4) perform other functions 
relating to the commercial operations of CBP as prescribed by 
law or as directed by the Secretaries.
    Section 109(d) provides that the COAC shall meet at the 
call of the Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security or at 
the call of at least two-thirds of the COAC. membership. The 
COAC must meet at least four times each year, and the meetings 
must be open unless the Secretaries determine that a meeting 
will include matters that cannot be disclosed without seriously 
damaging policies or other matters affecting the commercial 
operations of CBP and the investigations of ICE.
    Section 109(e) requires the COAC to submit annual reports 
to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives that describe 
the COAC's activities and provide recommendations regarding the 
commercial operations of CBP.
    Section 109(f) subjects the COAC to the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, except section 14(a)(2) (5 
U.S.C. App.; relating to the termination of advisory 
committees).
    Section 109(g) makes a conforming amendment to repeal 
section 9503(c) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1987 (19 U.S.C. 2071 note). Additionally, any reference in law 
to the Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the 
United States Customs Services shall be deemed in referenced to 
COAC.

Section 110--Centers of Excellence and Expertise

    Section 110(a) requires the Commissioner, in consultation 
with the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the COAC to 
develop and implement Centers of Excellence and Expertise 
(CEEs) throughout CBP that (1) enhance the economic 
competiveness of the United States by consistently enforcing 
the laws and regulations of the United States at all ports of 
entry and facilitating the flow of legitimate trade through 
increasing industry-based knowledge; (2) improve enforcement 
efforts, including priority trade issues described in 111(a) of 
this Act; (3) build upon the expertise of CBP in particular 
industry operations, supply chains, and compliance 
requirements; (4) promote the uniform implementation at each 
port of entry policies and regulations relating to imports; (5) 
centralize the trade enforcement and trace facilitations 
efforts of CBP; (6) formalize an account-based approach to 
apply, as the Commissioner determines appropriate, to the 
importation of merchandise; (7) foster partnerships through the 
expansion of trade programs and other trusted partner programs; 
(8) develop applicable performance measurements to meet 
internal efficiency and effectiveness goals; and (9) whenever 
feasible, facilitate a more efficient flow of information 
between Federal agencies.
    Section 110(b) requires that not later than December 31, 
2016, the Commissioner submit to the Committee on Finance of 
the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives a report detailing: (1) the scope, function, 
and structure of each CEE; (2) the effectiveness of each CEE in 
improving enforcement efforts; (3) the quantitative and 
qualitative benefits of each CEE; (4) all applicable 
performance measurements with respect to each CEE; (5) the 
performance of each CEE in increasing the accuracy and 
completeness of data with respect to international trade and 
facilitating a more efficient flow of information between 
Federal agencies; and (6) any planned changes in the number, 
scope, functions or any other aspect of the CEEs.
    The Committee recognizes CBP's efforts to address many 
concerns the private sector has regarding the agency's 
management of the importation process. With the establishment 
of the CEEs, CBP has reorganized in order to focus on industry-
specific issues and provide tailored support to unique trading 
environments. It is the view of the Committee that the CEEs 
should be statutorily established in order to ensure that CBP 
continues to unify trade facilitation and trade enforcement 
across all ports of entry, facilitate the timely resolution of 
trade compliance issues nationwide, and further strengthen 
CBP's knowledge of key industry practices. Specifically, the 
CEEs will (1) enhance economic competiveness of the United 
States by consistently enforcing the laws and regulations of 
the United States at all ports of entry and facilitating the 
flow of legitimate trade through increasing industry-based 
knowledge; (2) improve enforcement efforts, including priority 
trade issues described in 111(a) of this Act; (3) build upon 
the expertise of CBP in particular industry operations, supply 
chains, and compliance requirements; (4) promote the uniform 
implementation at each port of entry policies and regulations 
relating to imports; (5) centralize the trade enforcement and 
trace facilitations efforts of CBP; (6) formalize an account-
based approach to apply, as the Commissioner determines 
appropriate, to the importation of merchandise; (7) foster 
partnerships through the expansion of trade programs and other 
trusted partner programs; (8) develop applicable performance 
measurements to meet internal efficiency and effectiveness 
goals; and (9) whenever feasible, facilitate a more efficient 
flow of information between Federal agencies.

Section 111--Commercial Targeting Division and National Targeting and 
        Analysis Groups

    Section 111(a) amends section 2(d) of the Act of March 3, 
1927 (19 U.S.C. 2072(d)) to add at the end, a new paragraph 
(3), entitled ``Commercial Targeting Division and National 
Targeting Analysis Groups''. New subparagraph 2(d)(3)(A) 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish and 
maintain a Commercial Targeting Division (CTD) within CBP's 
Office of International Trade. The CTD shall be comprised of 
headquarters staff led by an Executive Director, and individual 
National Targeting and Analysis Groups (NTAGs) led by Directors 
reporting to the Executive Director. The CTD shall develop and 
conduct commercial targeting with respect to cargo destined for 
the United States.
    Subparagraph 2(d)(3)(B) requires the establishment of an 
NTAG for each, at a minimum, of the following priority trade 
issues (PTIs): (1) agricultural programs; (2) antidumping and 
countervailing duties; (3) import safety; (4) intellectual 
property rights; (5) revenue; (6) textiles and wearing apparel; 
and (7) trade agreements and preference programs. This 
subparagraph allows the Commissioner to alter the 
aforementioned PTIs in consultation with the Committee on 
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of 
the House of Representatives.
    The duties of each NTAG include (1) directing the trade 
enforcement and compliance assessment activities of U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection that relate to the Group's PTI; 
(2) facilitating, promoting, and coordinating cooperation and 
the exchange of information between CBP, ICE, and other 
relevant Federal departments and agencies regarding the Group's 
PTI; and (3) serving as the primary liaison between CBP and the 
public regarding United States Government activities regarding 
the Group's priority trade issue.
    Subparagraph 2(d)(3)(C) requires the CTD to establish 
methodologies for assessing the risk that cargo destined for 
the United States may violate U.S. customs and trade laws and 
for issuing Trade Alerts. The CTD should assess the risk of 
cargo based on all information available to CBP through the 
Automated Targeting System, ACE, the Automated Commercial 
System, the Automated Export System, ITDS, and TECS (formerly 
known as the ``Treasury Enforcement Communications System''), 
the case management system of ICE or any successor systems and 
publicly available information. The CTD should also use 
information provided by private sector entities and coordinate 
targeting efforts with other Federal agencies.
    Subparagraph 2(d)(3)(D) authorizes the Executive Director 
of the CTD and NTAG Directors to issue Trade Alerts to port 
directors when such person determines cargo may violate U.S. 
customs and trade laws. The Trade Alert may direct further 
inspection or physical examination or testing of merchandise by 
the port personnel if certain risk-assessment thresholds are 
met. A port director may determine not to carry out the 
direction of the Trade Alerts if the port director finds such 
determination is justified by security interests and the port 
director notifies the Assistant Commissioners of the Office of 
Field Operations and the Office of International Trade of such 
determination. The Division must compile an annual report of 
all determinations by port directors to override Trade Alerts 
and include an evaluation of the utilization of Trade Alerts, 
and that report must be submitted to the Committee on Finance 
of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
of Representatives not later than December 31 each year.
    Section 111(b) amends section 343(a)(3)(F) of the Trade Act 
of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), to indicate that information 
collected pursuant to the regulations shall be used exclusively 
for ensuring cargo safety and security, preventing smuggling, 
and commercial risk assessment targeting, and shall not be used 
for any commercial enforcement purposes, including for 
determining merchandise entry.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of the NTAGs in 
providing a national strategic perspective on trade through 
risk analysis and multi-disciplined trade strategies while also 
developing and applying advanced risk management techniques to 
support trade facilitation and enforcement. It is the view of 
the Committee that the NTAGs should be statutorily established 
and elevated in the hierarchy of the agency through the 
establishment of the CTD. Upon the enactment of this Act, the 
mission of the NTAGs will be expanded to include: (1) directing 
the trade enforcement and compliance assessment activities of 
CBP that relate to the Group's priority trade issue; (2) 
facilitating, promoting, and coordinating cooperation and the 
exchange of information between CBP, ICE, and other relevant 
Federal departments and agencies regarding the Group's priority 
trade issue; and (3) serving as the primary liaison between CBP 
and the public regarding United States Government activities 
regarding the Group's priority trade issue.
    This section requires the NTAGs to target imports that may 
violate customs and trade laws, with particular focus on laws 
and regulations related to the following priority trade issues: 
(1) agriculture programs; (2) antidumping and countervailing 
duties; (3) import safety; (4) intellectual property rights; 
(5) revenue; (6) textiles and wearing apparel; and (7) trade 
agreements and preference programs. The NTAGs will issue trade 
alters that may direct further inspection or physical 
examination or testing of merchandise by the port personnel if 
certain risk-assessment thresholds are met.

Section 112--Report on oversight of revenue protection and enforcement 
        measures

    The section requires the Inspector General of Department of 
Treasury to submit a report to the Committee on Finance of the 
Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives that assesses: (1) CBP's effectiveness with 
respect to revenue protection; (2) CBP's effectiveness with 
respect to measuring accountability and performance related to 
revenue protection; (3) the number and outcome of 
investigations with respect to the underpayment of duties; and 
(4) the effectiveness of CBP's training efforts with respect to 
duty collection.
    The Inspector General of the Department of Treasury shall 
submit this report by March 31, 2016, and no later than March 
31 of each second year thereafter.
    It is the Committee's view that the report should provide 
Congress with sufficient information to determine the 
effectiveness of resources used to protect the revenue of the 
United States. The information contained in this report should 
be in sufficient detail to allow Congress to identify 
deficiencies in the protection of revenue and address these 
issues through further legislation.

Section 113--Report on security and revenue measures with respect to 
        merchandise transported in bond

    This section requires the Secretaries of Treasury and 
Homeland Security to jointly submit to the relevant committees 
a report on: (1) the total entries shipped in bond; (2) the 
ports of entry (POE) merchandise arrives in for transportation 
in bond; (3) the average time taken to reconcile records of 
merchandise transported in bond; (4) the average time 
merchandise is transported in bond; (5) the total revenue owed 
and collected for merchandise transported in bond; (6) the 
total number of instances the destination changes for 
merchandise transported in bond; and (7) the number of entries 
that have not been reconciled for merchandise transported in 
bond. The Secretaries of the Department of Treasury and 
Department of Homeland Security shall submit this report by 
December 31 of 2016, 2017, and 2018.
    It is the view of this Committee that the report required 
under this section should provide Congress with sufficient 
information to determine the effectiveness of resources used to 
protect the revenue and security of the United States for 
merchandise shipped in bond. The information contained in this 
report should be in sufficient detail to allow Congress to 
identify deficiencies in the protection of the revenue and 
security of the United States and address these issues through 
further legislation.

Section 114--Importer of record program

    Section 114(a) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to establish an importer of record program within 180 days of 
enactment of this Act.
    Section 114(b) requires CBP to: (1) develop criteria that 
an importer must meet in order to obtain an importer of record 
number; (2) provide a process by which importers are assigned 
importer of record numbers; (3) maintain a centralized database 
of importer of record numbers; (4) evaluate and maintain the 
accuracy of the database if information changes; and (5) take 
measures to ensure that duplicate importer of record numbers 
are not issued
    Section 114(c) requires the Secretary to submit to the 
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
and Means of the House of Representatives a report on the 
importer of record program within one year of the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    Section 114(d) defines the term ``number'' as used in this 
section.
    It is the view of the Committee that CBP does not currently 
collect enough information from prospective importers in order 
to adequately identify them and is not fully capable of 
inspecting current importer of record numbers to identify the 
individual or company associated with an importer of record 
number. This section addressed these deficiencies by requiring 
CBP to: (1) develop criteria that an importer must meet in 
order to obtain an importer of record number; (2) provide a 
process by which importers are assigned importer of record 
numbers; (3) maintain a centralized database of importer of 
record numbers; (4) evaluate and maintain the accuracy of the 
database if information changes; and (5) take measures to 
ensure that duplicate importer of record numbers are not 
issued. When developing the criteria to obtain an importer of 
record number, it is the view of Committee that CBP should 
request information on the industry that an importer is 
classified under. This information should be obtained by 
requesting the 6-digit North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code, or successor classification system.
    When developing the centralized database of importer of 
record numbers required under this section, CBP shall ensure 
that it can identify every importer of record number associated 
with an entity. This includes importer of record numbers that 
an entity may acquire when purchasing another entity.

Section 115--Establishment of new importer program

    Section 115(a) requires the Commissioner to establish a new 
importer program no later than 180 days after the enactment of 
this Act that requires CBP to adjust bond amounts for new 
importers based on the level of risk posed to the revenue of 
the Federal Government.
    Section 115(b) requires the Commissioner to ensure that 
CBP: (1) develops risk-based criteria for determining which 
importers are considered new importers; (2) develops risk 
assessment guidelines for new importers to adjust bond amounts 
and increase screening of imported products; (3) develops 
procedures to ensure increased oversight of imported products 
of new importers related to enforcement of priority trade 
issues created by section 111(a); (4) develops procedures to 
ensure increased oversight of imported products of new 
importers by the Centers of Excellence and Expertise 
established by section 110; and (5) establishes a centralized 
database of new importers to ensure accuracy of information 
that is required to be provided by new importers.
    It is the view of the Committee that CBP has not fully 
addressed the risk that new importers pose to the revenue of 
the United States and the harm that they may pose to the 
economic or physical security of the United States. This 
section addresses these concerns by requiring that CBP (1) 
develops risk-based criteria for determining which importers 
are considered new importers; (2) develops risk assessment 
guidelines for new importers to adjust bond amounts and 
increase screening of imported products; (3) develops 
procedures to ensure increased oversight of imported products 
of new importers related to enforcement of priority trade 
issues created by section 111(a); (4) develops procedures to 
ensure increased oversight of imported products of new 
importers by the Centers of Excellence and Expertise 
established by section 110; and (5) establishes a centralized 
database of new importers to ensure accuracy of information 
that is required to be provided by new importers.

                   TITLE II--IMPORT HEALTH AND SAFETY

Section 201--Interagency Import Safety Working Group

    Section 201(a) establishes an interagency Import Safety 
Working Group.
    Section 201(b) sets forth the membership of the Working 
Group and designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the 
Chair and the Secretary of Health and Human Services as the 
Vice Chair. The membership of the Working Group also shall 
include the Secretaries of Treasury, Commerce and Agriculture; 
the United States Trade Representative; the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget; the Commissioners of CBP and 
the Food and Drugs; the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission; the Director of ICE; and the head of any other 
Federal agency designated by the President to participate.
    Section 201(c) requires the Working Group to (1) consult on 
the development of a joint import safety rapid response plan 
required under section 202; (2) evaluate federal government and 
agency resources, plans, and practices to ensure the safety of 
U.S. imports and the expeditious entry of such merchandise; (3) 
review the engagement and cooperation of foreign governments 
and foreign manufacturers; (4) identify best practices, in 
consultation with the private sector, to assist U.S. importers 
in ensuring import health and safety of imported merchandise; 
(5) identify best practices to improve Federal, state, and 
local coordination in responding to import health and safety 
threats; and (6) identify appropriate steps to improve domestic 
accountability and foreign government engagement with respect 
to imports.

Section 202--Joint import safety rapid response plan

    Section 202(a) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
in consultation with the interagency Import Safety Working 
Group, to develop a joint import safety rapid response plan 
(Plan) that establishes protocols and practices CBP should use 
when responding to cargo that poses a threat to the health or 
safety of U.S. consumers and in recovering from or mitigating 
the effects of actions and responses to such an incident.
    Section 202(b) sets forth the contents of the report, which 
must address (1) the responsibilities of CBP and other Federal 
agencies in responding to an import health and safety threat; 
(2) the protocols and practices used in responding to such 
threats; (3) the mitigation measures CBP must take when 
responding to such threats after the incident to ensure the 
resumption of the entry of merchandise into the United States; 
and (4) exercises CBP should take with Federal, State, and 
local agencies as well as the private sector to simulate 
responses to such threats.
    Section 202(c) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to review and update the joint import safety rapid response 
plan, as appropriate, after conducting exercises under 
subsection (d)
    Section 202(d) requires the Commissioner, in conjunction 
with Federal, state, and local agencies, to conduct exercises 
to test the Plan. When conducting exercises, the Commissioner 
must make allowances for the specific needs of the port where 
the exercise is occurring, base evaluations on current import 
risk assessments, and ensure that the exercises are conducted 
consistent with other national preparedness plans. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security and Commissioner must ensure 
that the testing and evaluations use performance measures in 
order to identify best practices and recommendations in 
responding to import health and safety threats and develop 
metrics with respect to the resumption of the entry of 
merchandise into the United States. Best practices and 
recommendations should then be shared among relevant 
stakeholders and incorporated into the Plan.

Section 203--Training

    This section requires the Commissioner to ensure that CBP 
port personnel are trained to effectively enforce U.S. import 
health and safety laws.
    It is the view of this Committee that Federal agencies can 
improve their ability to respond to imports that pose a threat 
to the health or safety of U.S. consumers. This title supports 
on-going efforts by requiring appropriate Federal agencies to 
coordinate in the development of a response plan that will (1) 
establish protocols and define practices for CBP to use in 
taking action in response to, and coordinating federal 
responses to, an incident in which cargo destined for, or 
merchandise entering, the United States poses a threat to the 
health or safety of consumers in the United States and (2) 
include guidance on recovering from or mitigating the effects 
of actions and responses to an import safety incident.

  TITLE III--IMPORT-RELATED PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Title III provides Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with addition 
tools to protect and enforce intellectual property rights 
(IPR). Strong IPR protection is vitally important to the 
economy of the United States and the health and safety of the 
American people. It is therefore critical that our border 
enforcement agencies protect our borders from pirated, 
counterfeit, and other goods that infringe IPR.

Section 301--Definition of intellectual property rights

    This section defines the term ``intellectual property 
rights'' as used in this title to include copyrights, 
trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property rights 
that are enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Section 302--Exchange of information related to trade enforcement

    Section 302 requires CBP to share unredacted images and 
authorizes CBP to share unredacted samples prior to seizure of 
merchandise suspected of violating certain intellectual 
property rights (IPR) if CBP determines that examination or 
testing of the merchandise by the right holder would assist in 
determining if there is a violation, except in such cases as 
would compromise an ongoing law enforcement investigation or 
national security.
    This section supersedes section 818(g) of the 2012 National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Public Law 112-81 (125 Stat. 
1496), which authorized, but did not require, CBP to share 
unredacted images and samples with right holders for violations 
of trademark rights. In addition to violations of trademark 
rights, this section also applies to violations of copyright 
law, including certain violations of the Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act (DMCA) prohibiting the importation of unlawful 
circumvention devices.
    This section identifies persons with whom the images and 
samples should be shared. For trademark violations, CBP should 
share with the owner of the trademark, and for copyright 
violations, CBP should share with the owner of the copyright. 
For violations of the DMCA, CBP should share with the owner of 
the copyright protected by a technological measure that the 
merchandise is suspected of being primarily designed or 
produced for the purpose of circumventing. A producer of a 
hardware device that includes the technological means of 
protection that the merchandise is designed to circumvent, the 
publisher of copyrighted material that is designed for use on 
the same device, or both, or others may be the owner of the 
copyright.
    Effective border enforcement of IPR is critical to the 
United States economy and the health and safety of the people 
of the United States. The Committee believes that CBP's 
implementation of section 818(g) of the 2012 NDAA has resulted 
in a process that does not provide effective enforcement for 
trademark holders, and the Committee intends for CBP to 
implement this section in a manner that ensures effective 
border enforcement of IPR.

Section 303--Seizure of circumvention devices

    Section 303 provides CBP with explicit authority to seize 
and forfeit circumvention devices, the importation of which is 
unlawful under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2) or (b)(1). While CBP 
already has authority to seize and forfeit illegal merchandise, 
including unlawful circumvention devices, the Committee is 
providing CBP with explicit authority to seize and forfeit 
unlawful circumvention devices because the unlawful trade in 
circumvention devices has helped to facilitate the market for 
pirated goods, especially on the Internet, which has caused 
significant harm to United States creators and consumers. It is 
the Committee's intent that unlawful circumvention devices 
should be seized and forfeited pursuant to the authority 
provided by this section, and CBP should dedicate adequate 
resources to target merchandise for seizure and forfeiture 
pursuant to this authority.
    This section also requires CBP to disclose certain 
information within 30 business days after seizure of an 
unlawful circumvention device to any person injured by a 
violation of (a)(2) or (b)(1) of section 1201 of title 17 that 
is included on a list maintained by the Commissioner. The 
information provided by CBP must be equivalent to the 
information CBP provides to copyright owners pursuant to 19 CFR 
133.42.
    This section requires the Commissioner to maintain a list 
of persons who may be potentially injured by an unlawful 
circumvention device by publishing a notice in the Federal 
Register requesting such persons to notify CBP that they wish 
to be included on the list. The Commissioner shall update this 
list annually through publication in the Federal Register, and 
CBP should have the flexibility to revise the list to 
accommodate changes in corporate structure, as through a merger 
or acquisition or new entrant into the market.
    Persons injured by the importation of an unlawful 
circumvention device may potentially include, but are not 
limited to, the producer of a hardware device that includes the 
technological means of protection that the seized merchandise 
is designed to circumvent, the publisher of copyrighted 
material that is designed for use on the same device, or both.
    This section also requires CBP to prescribe regulations 
within one year of enactment of this Act establishing 
procedures that implement the process required by this section 
for CBP to disclose certain information to persons injured by 
an unlawful circumvention device.

Section 304--Enforcement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection of works 
        for which copyright registration is pending

    Section 304 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
establish a process for the enforcement of copyrights for which 
the owner has submitted an application for registration with 
the U.S. Copyright Office to the same extent and in the same 
manner as if the copyright were registered with the Copyright 
Office, including the sharing of information as described in 
Section 302 above.
    Under current CBP regulations, a copyright owner must wait 
until the copyright is registered with the U.S. Copyright 
Office before recording the copyright with CBP for effective 
border enforcement. During the time for processing an 
application at the U.S. Copyright Office, many right holders 
may suffer significant damage due to a lack of border 
enforcement. The purpose of this section is to rectify this 
problem for right holders.

Section 305--National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center

    Infringement of intellectual property rights (IPR) causes 
significant harm to the U.S. economy, hurts American workers, 
and negatively impacts the health and safety of the American 
people. It is critical that U.S. law enforcement agencies 
provide effective enforcement of intellectual property rights, 
especially to stop the flow of infringing goods crossing United 
States borders. Effective border enforcement requires 
investigating the sources of IPR infringement. To do this 
effectively, federal law enforcement agencies must coordinate 
with each other, with state, local, and international law 
enforcement agencies, and with the private sector.
    To enhance intellectual property rights enforcement, 
Section 305 establishes within ICE the National Intellectual 
Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), which shall 
be headed by an Assistant Director.
    This section assigns the Assistant Director certain duties, 
including (1) coordinating the investigation of sources of 
merchandise that infringes intellectual property rights (IPR); 
(2) conducting and coordinating training with other domestic 
and international law enforcement agencies to improve IPR 
enforcement; (3) coordinating, with the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, U.S. activities to prevent the importation or 
exportation of IPR infringing merchandise; (4) supporting the 
international interdiction of merchandise destined for the U.S. 
that infringe IPR; (5) collecting and integrating information 
regarding infringements; (6) developing a means to receive and 
organize information regarding infringement of IPR; (7) 
disseminating information regarding infringement of IPR to 
other Federal agencies; (8) developing risk-based alert systems 
in coordination with CBP to improve the targeting of persons 
that repeatedly infringe intellectual property rights; (9) 
coordinating with U.S. Attorneys' offices to investigate and 
prosecute IPR crime; and (10) carrying out other duties 
assigned by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    In developing and implementing the risk-based alert system 
to improve the targeting of persons that repeatedly infringe 
intellectual property rights, the Assistant Director shall 
focus on the propensity to commit violations of other U.S. 
customs and trade laws, including the evasion of duties, taxes, 
and fees, especially by the fraudulent declaration of 
commercial merchandise as gifts.
    This section also requires the Assistant Director to 
coordinate with federal, state, local and international law 
enforcement, intellectual property, and trade agencies, as 
appropriate, in carrying out the IPR Center's duties.
    This section requires the Assistant Director to (1) conduct 
outreach to the private sector to determine trends in and 
methods of infringing IPR; and (2) coordinate public and 
private-sector efforts to combat the infringement of IPR.

Section 306--Joint strategic plan for the enforcement of Intellectual 
        Property Rights

    Section 306 requires the Commissioner and Director to 
include in the joint strategic plan on trade facilitation and 
enforcement required under section 105 of the Act the 
following: (1) a description of DHS's IPR enforcement efforts; 
(2) a list of the top 10 ports, by volume and value, where CBP 
seized IPR infringing goods in the preceding two years; and (3) 
a recommendation of the optimal allocation of personnel to 
ensure CBP and ICE are effectively enforcing IPR.

Section 307--Personnel dedicated to the enforcement of Intellectual 
        Property Rights

    CBP should dedicate adequate personnel to stop the flow of 
IPR infringing merchandise across U.S. borders. Section 307 
requires the Commissioner to ensure sufficient personnel are 
assigned throughout CBP with responsibility to enforce IPR with 
respect to U.S. imports. This section also requires the 
Commissioner to assign at least three full-time CBP employees 
to the IPR Center established under Section 305, and to ensure 
that sufficient personnel are assigned to U.S. ports of entry 
to carry out IPR Center directives.

Section 308--Training with respect to the enforcement of Intellectual 
        Property Rights

    CBP should ensure that its personnel are adequately 
trained. Section 308 requires the Commissioner to effectively 
train CBP port personnel to detect and identify IPR infringing 
imported goods; to work with the private sector to identify 
opportunities for collaboration with respect to training for 
officers of the agency to enforce IPR; and to consult with 
private sector entities to identify technologies which can 
cost-effectively identify infringing merchandise and to provide 
for cost-effective training for CBP officers with regard to the 
use of such technologies. This section also permits CBP to 
receive donations of technology to improve IPR enforcement.

Section 309--International cooperation and information sharing

    For effective border enforcement of IPR, United States 
border enforcement agencies should coordinate with competent 
foreign law enforcement agencies. Section 309 requires the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with competent 
foreign law enforcement agencies to enhance IPR enforcement, 
including by information sharing and technical assistance. This 
section also requires the Commissioner and the ICE Director to 
lead interagency efforts to collaborate with law enforcement 
and customs authorities of foreign countries.

Section 310--Report on Intellectual Property Rights enforcement

    Section 310 requires the Commissioner and the ICE Director 
to jointly submit a report on efforts to combat IPR 
infringement to this Committee and the Committee on Ways and 
Means of the House of Representatives. The report should 
include: (1) information regarding the number, and a 
description of, certain efforts to investigate and prosecute 
IPR infringements; (2) an estimate of the average time required 
by the Office of Trade of CBP to respond to a request from port 
personnel for advice with respect to whether merchandise 
detained by CBP infringed IPR, distinguished by types of IPR 
infringed; (3) a summary of the outreach efforts of the CBP and 
ICE with respect to interdiction, investigation and information 
sharing between certain agencies related to the infringement of 
IPR, collaboration with the private sector, and coordination 
with foreign governments; (4) a summary of the efforts of CBP 
and ICE to address the challenges with respect to the 
enforcement of intellectual property rights presented by 
Internet commerce and the transit of small packages and an 
identification of the volume, value, and type of merchandise 
seized for infringing intellectual property rights as a result 
of such efforts; and (5) a summary of training relating to the 
enforcement of intellectual property rights conducted under 
Section 308 and expenditures for such training.
    This report enhances accountability for United States 
border enforcement agencies regarding IPR enforcement. In 
addition, the information contained in the report will inform 
Congress and help to determine additional actions to take to 
enhance IPR enforcement at U.S. borders.

Section 311--Information for travelers regarding violations of 
        Intellectual Property Rights

    Many U.S. citizens are unaware of the dangers presented by 
trade in IPR infringing goods. Some may unwittingly facilitate 
this trade by acquiring these illicit goods abroad. Section 311 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and 
implement an educational campaign for travelers entering or 
departing the United States on the legal, economic, and public 
health and safety implications of importing IPR infringing 
goods into the United States. This section further requires the 
Commissioner to ensure that all versions, including the 
electronic versions, of CBP Form 6059B (customs declaration), 
or a successor form, include a written warning to inform 
travelers arriving in the United States that importation of 
merchandise that infringes IPR may subject travelers to civil 
or criminal penalties and may pose serious risks to health and 
safety.

    TITLE IV--EVASION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS

Section 401--Short title

    This section sets forth the short title of this title as 
the Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2015.

Section 402--Procedures for investigating claims of evasion of 
        antidumping and countervailing duty orders

    Section 402(a) amends the Tariff Act of 1930 by creating a 
set of procedures for investigating allegations of evasion of 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders and provides tools 
for enforcing the orders, under newly created section 517, 
entitled ``Procedures for Investigating Claims of Evasion of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders.''
    Section 517(a) lists the definitions for the section, 
including for the Administering Authority, Commissioner of U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, covered merchandise, entry, 
evasion which excepts clerical errors, and interested party.
    Section 517(b) requires the Commissioner to initiate an 
investigation within 10 business days of receipt of an 
allegation filed by an interested party and accompanied by 
information reasonably available to that party or referral by a 
Federal Agency that reasonably suggests that merchandise 
covered by an AD/CVD order has been entered into the United 
States through evasion. Upon request, the Commissioner may 
provide technical assistance and advice to eligible small 
businesses to enable such businesses to prepare and submit 
allegations of evasion. The Commissioner may consolidate 
multiple allegations and referrals. If during the course of 
conducting an investigation the Commissioner has reason to 
suspect that covered merchandise may pose a health or safety 
risk, the Commissioner is required to provide appropriate 
information to other Federal agencies.
    Section 517(c) requires the Commissioner to make a 
determination not later than 270 calendar days after the date 
of initiation of an evasion investigation with respect to 
whether there is substantial evidence that the merchandise 
under investigation was entered into the United States through 
evasion. The section authorizes the Commissioner to request 
information from the interested party making the allegation, as 
well as the importer, foreign producer, and foreign exporter of 
the alleged covered merchandise. The Commissioner may also 
request information from the government of the foreign country 
from which the alleged covered merchandise was exported. The 
bill provides that the Commissioner may make an adverse 
inference if the importer, exporter, or producer of the 
merchandise under investigation, or the interested party making 
the allegation, did not act to the best of its ability to 
provide information requested by the Commissioner. The bill 
further requires the Commissioner, no later than five business 
days after making a determination, to notify the interested 
party or parties who made an allegation that resulted in the 
initiation of an evasion investigation of the determination. 
Further, the Commissioner may provide importers information 
discovered in the investigation which would help educate 
importers regarding the lawful importation of merchandise into 
the United States.
    Section 517(d) requires that if the Commissioner makes an 
affirmative determination of evasion, the Commissioner shall 
(1) suspend the liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the 
covered merchandise that is the subject of the allegation 
entered between the date of initiation and the date of the 
determination; (2) extend the period for liquidating any 
unliquidated entries of merchandise that entered before the 
initiation of the investigation; (3) notify Commerce of the 
determination and request that Commerce determine the 
appropriate duty rates for such covered merchandise; (4) 
require importers of such covered merchandise to post cash 
deposits and assess duties on the covered merchandise as 
directed by Commerce; and (5) take such additional enforcement 
measures as the Commissioner deems appropriate, including 
initiating proceedings for related violations of law, modifying 
CBP's procedures for identifying future evasion, requiring a 
deposit of estimated duties on future entries, and referring 
the matter to ICE for civil or criminal investigation. The 
section also requires the Department of Commerce to promptly 
provide the Commissioner with cash deposit rates and 
antidumping and countervailing duty rates, and establishes a 
special rule for cases in which the producer or exporter is 
unknown.
    Section 517(e) requires the Commissioner to determine 
within 90 calendar days of initiation of an evasion 
investigation whether there is a reasonable suspicion that 
entries of covered merchandise that are the subject of the 
allegation were entered through evasion. If the Commissioner 
decides there is a reasonable suspicion, the Commissioner shall 
(1) suspend the liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the 
covered merchandise entered after the date of initiation; (2) 
extend the period for liquidating any unliquidated entries of 
merchandise that entered before the initiation of the 
investigation; and (3) take any additional measures necessary 
to protect the ability to collect appropriate duties, which may 
include requiring a single transaction bond or posting cash 
deposits with respect to entries of covered merchandise.
    Section 517(f) provides a period of 30 business days for 
interested party who made the allegation of evasion or the 
importer of the covered merchandise alleged to have entered the 
merchandise subject to the evasion determination to request de 
novo administrative review by the Commissioner after 
notification of a determination.
    Section 517(g) establishes that judicial review shall be 
available to the interested party alleging evasion or the party 
found to have entered merchandise subject to the investigation 
through evasion of any administrative review of the evasion 
determination by CBP.
    Section 517(h) sets out a rule of construction with respect 
to other civil and criminal proceedings so that no 
determination under subsection (c) or action taken by the 
Commissioner pursuant to the section shall be construed to 
limit the authority to carry out, or the scope of, any other 
proceeding or investigation pursuant to any other provision of 
Federal or State law.
    Section 402(b) makes a conforming amendment.
    Section 402(c) provides the effective date of the section 
is 180 days after the date of enactment.
    Section 402(d) provides that the Secretary of the Treasury 
shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to 
implement the bill within 180 days of enactment.
    Section 402(e) establishes the application of the section 
to Canada and Mexico.

Section 403--Annual report on prevention and investigation of evasion 
        of antidumping and countervailing duty orders

    Section 403(a) requires the Commissioner to submit to the 
Committees an annual report on the Commissioner's efforts to 
prevent and investigate the evasion of antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders.
    Section 403(b) provides the contents of the report which 
shall include, for the preceding calendar year, a summary of 
CBP's efforts to prevent and investigate antidumping and 
countervailing duty evasion, the number of allegations received 
and the number resulting in investigations, a summary of 
investigations initiated under the new procedures, the number 
of investigations not completed during the specified time 
period, the amount of additional duties determined to be owed, 
the penalties imposed for each investigation, an identification 
of the countries of origin of covered merchandise entered 
through evasion, the amount of duties collected as a result of 
investigations, a description of the allocation of personnel 
and other resources to prevent and investigate evasion, a 
description of relevant training. The report shall also include 
a description of processes and procedures of CBP to prevent and 
investigate evasion.
    Section 403(c) requires the Commissioner to make available 
a public summary of the report required in subsection (a) which 
includes, at a minimum, a description of the type of 
merchandise at issue in the investigations, the amount of 
additional duties found to be owed, the countries of origin of 
merchandise entered through evasion, and a description of the 
type of measures used to prevent and investigate evasion.
    Section 403(d) includes additional definitions.
    This title creates procedures that require CBP to 
investigation allegations of evasion of antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders and provides tools to counteract the 
detrimental effect of those practices. This title addresses the 
concerns of the Committee that CBP does not currently 
adequately protect the United States from evasion of AD/CVD 
orders.

    TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAWS

Section 501--Consequences of failure to cooperate with a request for 
        information in a proceeding

    Section 501 amends Section 776(b) and 776(c) of the of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to provide the U.S. Department of Commerce 
flexibility to select appropriate facts available or adverse 
facts available when a foreign party fails to cooperate with 
the agency's request for information in a proceeding.

Section 502--Definition of material injury

    Section 502(a) adds a new section 771(7)(J) of the Act 
which clarifies that, when considering whether a domestic 
industry suffered material injury, the International Trade 
Commission shall not make a negative determination merely 
because the domestic industry is profitable or because its 
performance has improved.
    Section 502(b) modifies section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act 
to direct the Commission to consider certain additional injury 
factors such as the ability of domestic producers to service 
debt, as well as the return such producers receive on their 
assets. The amendment also makes clear that the term 
``profits'' includes gross profits, operating profits, and net 
profits.
    Section 502(c) modifies section 771(7)(C)(iv) of the Act to 
simplify the ``captive production'' test. In particular, this 
amendment eliminates the third part of the captive production 
test--that the production of the domestic like product sold in 
the merchant market is not generally used in the production of 
that downstream article.

Section 503--Particular market situation

    Section 503 amends section 771(15), section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III), and section 773(e) the definitions of 
``ordinary course of trade,'' ``normal value'' and 
``constructed value.'' These modifications provide that where a 
particular market situation exists that distorts pricing or 
cost in a foreign producer's home market, the Department of 
Commerce has flexibility in calculating a duty that is not 
based on distorted pricing or costs.

Section 504--Distortion of prices or costs

    Section 504(a) amends section 773(b)(2) of the Act by 
removing the requirement that a party allege that a foreign 
producer has made sales below its costs before Commerce 
initiates an investigation.
    Section 504(b) modifies section 773(c) of the Act to 
clarify that Commerce can disregard prices or costs of inputs 
that foreign producers purchase if Commerce has reason to 
believe or suspect that the inputs in question have been 
subsidized or dumped.

Section 505--Reduction in burden on Department of Commerce by reducing 
        the number of voluntary respondents

    Section 505 amends Section 782(a) of the Act to clarify 
Commerce's authority to select and limit voluntary respondents.

Section 506--Application to Canada and Mexico

    Section 506 clarifies that the legislation applies to goods 
from Canada and Mexico pursuant to the North American Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
    This title amends U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty 
laws relating to the investigations by the Department of 
Commerce and International Trade Commission. The changes in 
Section 501 clarify statutory requirements for the use of facts 
available. The changes in Section 502 respond to concerns that 
the Commission may in some cases not examine all data relevant 
to analyzing the effects of dumped and subsidized imports on 
the domestic industry, and concerns regarding the Commission's 
ability to accurately assess captive production issues. The 
changes in Sections 503 and 504 provide clarifications 
regarding home market distortion and cost and price distortion. 
Section 505 clarifies the treatment of voluntary respondents in 
light of certain recent court decisions.

TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL TRADE ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 
                               PROTECTION

                     SUBTITLE A--TRADE ENFORCEMENT

Section 601--Trade Enforcement Priorities

    Section 601 amends section 310 of the Trade Act of 1974 to 
set out in section 310(a) a process for USTR to identify trade 
enforcement priorities, consult with Congress on the 
establishment of those priorities, and report on the actions 
taken to address those priorities. Section 310(a)(1) provides 
that USTR must consult with the Committee on Finance and the 
Committee on Ways and Means no later than May 31 each year 
regarding the prioritization of acts, policies, or practices of 
foreign governments that raise concerns under a U.S. trade 
agreement, or otherwise pose a barrier to U.S. exports. The 
section also provides that USTR shall focus on eliminating 
acts, policies, and practices that are likely to have the most 
impact on economic growth, and take into account relevant 
factors, including the trade barrier's economic significance 
and effect on U.S. jobs, and whether it was identified in the 
National Trade Estimate Report or by a Federal agency or 
congressional committee. Section 601(a) further requires the 
USTR to report on the identified trade enforcement priorities 
no later than July 31 of each year. The report must also 
include a description of actions taken to address trade 
enforcement priorities identified in prior years.
    Section 310(b), as amended by section 601, requires USTR to 
undertake semi-annual enforcement consultations with the Senate 
Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee, which 
occurs at the same time as the reporting established under 
310(a), and not later than January 31 of each year. The semi-
annual consultations shall address the identification, 
prioritization, investigation, and resolution of acts, 
policies, or practices of foreign government of concern under 
U.S. trade agreements; active enforcement investigations; 
ongoing enforcement actions; and enforcement resources.
    Section 310(c), as amended by section 601, requires the 
USTR to take appropriate action, as defined in this section, to 
address an identified trade enforcement priority by the first 
semi-annual enforcement consultations after identification of 
the priority.
    Section 310(d) requires the USTR to notify and consult with 
the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee 
in advance of initiation of any formal trade dispute brought by 
the United States, and as soon as practicable after initiation 
of trade disputes against the United States. It also requires 
notification and consultation in advance of the circulation of 
dispute settlement reports.

Section 602--Exercise of WTO authorization to suspend concessions or 
        other obligations under trade agreements

    Section 602(a) amends section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 
to establishes that, if an action to suspend concessions under 
the WTO Agreement has been terminated, and a petitioner or any 
representative of domestic industry which would benefit from 
reinstatement of action has submitted to the USTR a written 
request for reinstatement, and the USTR has completed the 
requirements of sections 306(d) and 307(c)(3) of the Trade Act 
of 1974, then the Trade Representative may at any time 
determine to take action to exercise an authorization by the 
WTO to suspend concessions or other obligations.
    Section 602(b) contains conforming amendments.

Section 603--Trade monitoring

    Section 603 amends chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act 
of 1974 by adding a new section 205 that requires the U.S. 
International Trade Commission, within 180 days of enactment, 
to make available on a website of the Commission an import 
monitoring tool to allow the public access to data on the 
volume and value of goods imported into the United States for 
the purpose of assessing whether such data has changed with 
respect to such goods over a period of time. Not later than 270 
days after the date of the enactment of this section, and not 
less frequently than quarterly thereafter, the Secretary of 
Commerce shall publish on a website of the Department of 
Commerce, and notify the appropriate Committees of the 
availability of, a monitoring report on changes in the volume 
and value of trade with respect to imports and exports of goods 
categorized based on the 6-digit HTS during the most recent 
quarter for which such data are available and previous quarters 
as the Secretary considers practicable.

Section 604--Establishment of Interagency Trade Enforcement Center

    Section 604(a) amends chapter 4 of title I of the Trade Act 
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171) by adding at the end section 142, 
entitled ``Interagency Trade Enforcement Center'' that does the 
following:
    Section 142(a) establishes an Interagency Trade Enforcement 
Center (Center) in the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR).
    Section 142(b) provides that the main functions of the 
Center are to: (1) serve as the primary forum within the 
Federal government for the USTR and other agencies to 
coordinate the enforcement of United States trade rights under 
international trade agreements and enforcement of United States 
trade remedy laws; (2) coordinate the exchange of information 
related to potential violations of international trade 
agreements; and (3) conduct outreach to United States workers, 
businesses, and other interested persons.
    Section 142(c) requires the head of the Center to be a 
Director who shall be appointed from among full-time senior-
level officials of USTR. The Center shall also have a Deputy 
Directory appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from among 
full-time, senior-level officials of Commerce. Other Federal 
government agencies that the Center coordinates with may detail 
or assign employees to the Center.
    Section 142(d) requires funding and administrative support 
for the Center to be provided by the USTR.
    Section 142(e) requires the Director to submit an annual 
report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the 
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on 
the actions taken by the Center with respect to the enforcement 
of U.S. trade rights under trade agreements in the preceding 
year.
    Section 142(f) defines key terms.
    Section 604(b) makes a clerical amendment.

Section 605--Establishment of Chief Manufacturing Negotiator

    This section establishes a Chief Manufacturing Negotiator 
at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) 
with the rank of Ambassador appointed by the President, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, to conduct trade 
negotiations and to enforce trade agreements relating to U.S. 
manufacturing products and services. The Chief Manufacturing 
Negotiator will vigorously advocate on behalf of U.S. 
manufacturing interests and perform other functions directed by 
the USTR. Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Chief Manufacturing 
Negotiator must submit to this Committee and the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a report on the 
actions taken by the Chief Manufacturing Negotiator in the 
preceding year.
    This section also amends Section 5314 of title 5, United 
States Code, to set the pay for this position at Level III of 
the Executive Schedule. This section also amends Section 5314 
of title 5 to correct the title of the Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator. This section also includes technical amendments 
relating to compensation rates for officers and employees of 
USTR, as well as experts and consultants employed by USTR.

Section 606--Enforcement under Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 with 
        respect to unreasonable acts, policies, and practices relating 
        to the environment

    This section amends section 301(d)(3)(B) of the Trade Act 
of 1974 to include, among the conduct that is unreasonable for 
purposes of taking discretionary action under 301(b), a 
persistent pattern of conduct by a foreign country that: (1) 
fails to effectively enforce the environmental laws of the 
foreign country; (2) waives or otherwise derogates from the 
environmental laws of the foreign country or weakens the 
protections afforded by such laws; (3) fails to provide for the 
judicial or administrative proceedings giving access to 
remedies for violations of the environmental laws of the 
foreign country; (4) fails to provide appropriate and effective 
sanctions or remedies for violations of the environmental laws 
of the foreign country; or (5) fails to effectively enforce 
environmental commitments under agreements to which the foreign 
country and the United States are a part.
    It is the view of the Committee that the United States 
should have this tool to address trade related environmental 
issues enumerated above.

Section 607--Trade Enforcement Trust Fund

    Section 607(a) establishes a Trade Enforcement Trust Fund 
(Trust Fund) in the Treasury of the United States.
    Section 607(b) requires the Treasury to transfer $15 
million each fiscal year to the Trust Fund. The aggregate money 
held in the Trust Fund may not exceed $30 million at any time.
    Section 607(c) requires the Treasury to invest Trust Fund 
money that is not required to meet current withdrawals.
    Section 607(d) allows the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) to use amounts in the Trust Fund to: (1) 
enforce the provisions of and commitments and obligations under 
WTO Agreements and free trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party to and resolve any actions by foreign 
countries that are inconsistent with those provisions, 
commitments, and obligations; (2) monitor the implementation by 
foreign countries of the provisions and commitments and 
obligations under free trade agreements which the United States 
is a party to; and (3) thoroughly investigate and respond to 
petitions under section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2412) requesting that action be taken under section 301 of such 
Act (19 U.S.C. 2411). In addition, identified Federal agencies 
may also use amounts in the Trust Fund to ensure capacity 
building efforts undertaken by the United States (1) prioritize 
and give special attention to the implementation of 
intellectual property, labor, and environmental commitments; 
(2) are self-sustaining and promote local ownership; (3) 
include performance indicators against which the progress and 
obstacles for the implementation of commitments and obligations 
described in (1) can be identified and assessed within a 
meaningful time frame; and (4) monitor and evaluate capacity 
building efforts of the United States under (1), (2), and (3).
    Section 607(e) requires that, not later than 18 months 
after the entry into force of any free trade agreements entered 
into after the date of enactment of this Act, any Federal 
agency that has used amounts in the Trust Fund in connection 
with that agreement to submit to Congress a report on the 
actions taken by that agency in connection with that agreement.
    Section 607(f) requires the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit to Congress not later than one year 
after the date of enactment of this Act a report that contains 
(1) a comprehensive analysis of the trade enforcement 
expenditures of each Federal agency with responsibilities 
relating to trade that specifies, with respect to each agency, 
the amounts appropriated for trade enforcement and the number 
of full-time employees carrying out activities related to trade 
enforcement and (2) recommendations on the additional employees 
and resources that each Federal agency may need to effectively 
enforce free trade agreements the United States is a party to.
    Section 607(g) defines key terms.

Section 608--Honey transshipment

    Section 608(a) requires the Commissioner to direct 
appropriate personnel and resources to address concerns that 
honey is being imported into the United States in violation of 
U.S. customs and trade laws.
    Section 608(b) requires CBP to compile a database of the 
individual characteristics of foreign honey to facilitate the 
verification of country of origin markings, and seek to work 
with foreign governments, industry and the Food and Drug 
Administration in compiling the database.
    Section 608(c) requires the Commissioner to submit a report 
to Congress within 180 days after enactment of the Act that (1) 
describes and assesses the limitations in existing analysis 
capabilities of laboratories with respect to determining the 
country of origin of honey, and (2) includes any recommendation 
of the Commissioner for improving such capabilities.
    Section 608(d) expresses the sense of Congress that the 
Commissioner of Food and Drugs should promptly establish a 
honey national identification standard to ensure that honey 
imports (1) are classified appropriately for duty assessment; 
and (2) are denied entry to the United States if such imports 
pose a threat to the health or safety of consumers.

Section 609--Inclusion of interest in certain distributions of 
        antidumping duties and countervailing duties

    Section 609(a) provides that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall deposit all interest in subsection (c) into the 
special account established under section 754(e) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 for inclusion in distributions described in 
subsection (b) made on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    Section 609(b) defines distributions as those made under 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675c) 
(repealed by subtitle F of title VII of the Deficit Reduction 
Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 154)) with respect 
to entries of merchandise made on or before September 30, 2007 
and that were unliquidated, not in litigation, and not under an 
order of liquidation on December 8, 2010.
    Section 609(c) defines interest as an amount earned on 
antidumping duties or countervailing duties distributed in 
subsection (b) that is realized through application of a 
payment received on or after October 1, 2014 by CBP or in 
connection with a customs bond pursuant to a court order or a 
settlement for any such bond. It further provides that the 
types of interest include interest accrued under section 778 or 
505(d) of the Trade Act of 1930, or equitable interest under 
common law, or interest under section 963 of the Revised 
Statutes awarded by a court against a surety under its bond for 
late payment of antidumping duties, countervailing duties, or 
other interest.
    Section 609(d) defines key terms.

Section 610--Illicitly imported, exported, or trafficked cultural 
        property, archaeological or ethnological materials, and fish, 
        wildlife, and plants

    Section 610(a) requires the Commissioner and ICE Director 
to ensure that appropriate personnel are trained in the 
detection, identification, detention, seizure, and forfeiture 
of cultural property and archaeological or ethnological 
materials, and fish, wildlife and plants, the importation, 
exportation, or trafficking of which violates the laws of the 
United States.
    Section 610(b) permits the Commissioner and the Director to 
accept training and other support services from experts outside 
of the Federal Government with respect to the detection, 
identification, detention, seizure, and forfeiture of cultural 
property and archaeological or ethnological materials, or fish, 
wildlife, and plants described in this section.
    Enforcement of U.S. trade agreements and U.S. trade laws is 
critical to ensuring that the U.S. manufacturers, workers and 
farmers are not harmed by discriminatory and other harmful 
trade practices of our trading partners. It is the Committee's 
view that the new tools provided in this subtitle are necessary 
to further this goal and strengthen the enforcement function of 
the United States.

          SUBTITLE B--INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION

Section 611--Establishment of Chief Innovation and Intellectual 
        Property Negotiator

    Protection of intellectual property rights is critical to 
the U.S. economy, jobs, national security, and the health and 
safety of the American people. Nearly the entire U.S. economy 
relies on some form of intellectual property rights because 
virtually every industry either produces or uses it. IPR 
infringement causes significant financial losses for U.S. right 
holders and businesses around the world. It also undermines 
U.S. innovation and creativity, hurting U.S. economic 
competitiveness to the detriment of American businesses and 
workers. IPR infringement also endangers the public and harms 
national security, as counterfeit products may pose significant 
risks to consumer health and safety.
    Section 611 amends section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
U.S.C. 2171) to establish a Chief Innovation and Intellectual 
Property Negotiator at the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR), who shall be appointed by the President, 
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to conduct 
trade negotiations and to enforce trade agreements relating to 
United States intellectual property, and to take appropriate 
actions to address acts, policies, and practices of foreign 
governments that have a significant adverse impact on the value 
of United States innovation. The Chief Innovation and 
Intellectual Property Negotiator shall have the rank of 
Ambassador.
    To ensure the rate of pay for the Chief Innovation and 
Intellectual Property Negotiator is equivalent to other Deputy 
USTR positions, this section amends section 5314 of title 5, 
United States Code, to set the pay for this position at Level 
III of the Executive Schedule.
    This section also requires the USTR to submit an annual 
report to this Committee and to the Committee on Ways and Means 
of the House of Representatives detailing the enforcement 
actions taken by USTR to ensure the protection of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests, and other 
actions taken to advance United States innovation and 
intellectual property interests.
    The establishment of a Chief Innovation and Intellectual 
Property Negotiator with the rank of Ambassador reflects the 
critical importance of intellectual property to the U.S. 
economy. The establishment of this position, which will be 
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate, and the additional requirement for USTR to 
submit an annual report to Congress enhances USTR's 
accountability to Congress and the American people regarding 
its efforts to protect intellectual property and innovation.

Section 612--Measures relating to countries that deny adequate 
        protection for Intellectual Property Rights

    The Committee supports USTR's use of the Special 301 
Report, which is an important tool to encourage and maintain 
adequate and effective intellectual property rights protection 
and enforcement worldwide. The purpose of section 612 is to 
enhance the effectiveness of the Special 301 Report by ensuring 
that it addresses inadequate protections for trade secrets, and 
by providing USTR with tools to ensure countries listed in the 
report that have consistently failed to adequately protect 
intellectual property rights make progress in achieving 
effective protection of intellectual property rights and 
equitable market access for U.S. persons that rely upon 
intellectual property protections.
    Inadequate protection for trade secrets and trade secret 
theft are increasing problems around the world. A trade secret 
is often among a business's core business assets, and 
protection of its trade secret is essential for that business's 
ability to compete. Trade secret theft, including industrial 
and economic espionage, imposes significant costs on the U.S. 
economy, weakens U.S. competitiveness, puts U.S. jobs at risk, 
and threatens national security. For these reasons, this 
Committee is concerned about inadequate protection for trade 
secrets, and the rise in trade secret theft. To reflect the 
seriousness of this threat to the U.S. economy and to U.S. 
national security, this section requires USTR to identify 
foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection 
of trade secrets as part of the Special 301 Report.
    To assist USTR in encouraging foreign countries placed on 
the Priority Watch List to address deficiencies with respect to 
IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons 
relying on IPR, this section requires USTR, within 90 days 
after submitting the annual National Trade Estimate, to develop 
an action plan for foreign countries that have spent at least 
one year on the Priority Watch List. The action plan calls for 
such countries to meet benchmarks designed to assist them to 
achieve effective protection of intellectual property rights, 
and equitable market access for U.S. persons that rely upon 
intellectual property protections.
    This section also authorizes the President to take 
appropriate action with respect to foreign countries that fail 
to meet action plan benchmarks and requires USTR to transmit to 
this Committee and to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
House of Representatives a report on the action plans and the 
progress in achieving the action plan benchmarks.

                    TITLE VII--CURRENCY MANIPULATION

          SUBTITLE A--INVESTIGATION OF CURRENCY UNDERVALUATION

Section 701--Short title

    Section 701 sets forth the short title of this title as the 
Currency Undervaluation Investigation Act.

Section 702--Investigation or review of currency undervaluation under 
        countervailing duty law

    Section 702 amends subsection (c) of section 702 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)) by requiring the 
administering authority to initiate an investigation to 
determine whether currency undervaluation by the government of 
a country or any public entity within the territory of a 
country is providing, directly or indirectly, a countervailable 
subsidy.

Section 703--Benefit calculation methodology with respect to currency 
        undervaluation

    Section 703 amends section 771 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(19 U.S.C. 1677) by requiring the administering authoring to 
determine whether there is a benefit to the recipient of a 
countervailable subsidy and measure such benefit by comparing 
the simple average of the real exchange rates derived from 
application of the macroeconomic-balance approach and the 
equilibrium-exchange-rate approach to the official daily 
exchange rate identified by the administering authority. This 
section also defines key terms.

Section 704--Modification of definition of specificity with respect to 
        export subsidy

    Section 704 amends section 771(5A)(B) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(5A)(B)) by adding at the end the following 
sentence: ``The fact that a subsidy may also be provided in 
circumstances that do not involve export shall not, for that 
reason alone, mean that the subsidy cannot be considered 
contingent upon export performance.''.

Section 705--Application to Canada and Mexico

    Section 705 provides that the amendments made by this title 
shall apply with respect to goods from Canada and Mexico.

Section 706--Effective date

    Section 706 provides that the amendments made by this title 
apply to countervailing duty investigations initiated under 
subtitle A of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1671 et seq.) and reviews initiated under subtitle C of title 
VII of such Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 et seq.) (1) before the date of 
the enactment of this bill, if the investigation or review is 
pending a final determination as of such date of enactment; and 
(2) on or after such date of enactment.

 SUBTITLE B--ENGAGEMENT ON CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE AND ECONOMIC POLICIES

Section 711--Enhancement of Engagement on Currency Exchange Rate and 
        Economic Policies with Certain Major Trading Partners of the 
        United States

    Section 711(a) requires that, not later than 180 days after 
the enactment of this Act and not less than every 180 days 
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
Financial Services of the House of Representatives a report on 
the macroeconomic and currency exchange rate policies of each 
country that is a major trading partner of the United States 
which includes an enhanced analysis with respect to certain 
major trading partners of the United States the currency of 
which is persistently and substantially undervalued.
    Section 711(b) directs the Secretary to conduct enhanced 
bilateral engagement with each country for which an enhanced 
analysis of macroeconomic and currency exchange rate policies 
is included in the report submitted. The Secretary may 
determine not to enhance bilateral engagement with a country if 
the Secretary submits to the relevant Committees a report that 
describes how the currency and other macroeconomic policies of 
that country are addressing the undervaluation and surpluses 
identified with respect to that country.
    Section 711(c) authorizes the President to take the 
following remedial actions for a country that fails to adopt 
appropriate policies to address and correct persistent 
imbalances: (1) prohibiting the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation from approving any new financing with respect to a 
project located in that country; (2) restricting Federal 
government procurement from that country, consistent with our 
international obligations; (3) engaging in additional efforts 
through the International Monetary Fund on rigorous 
surveillance of the macroeconomic and exchange rate policies of 
that country; and (4) considering the failure of the country to 
take remedial action when assessing the country as a potential 
trade agreement.
    Section 711(d) defines key terms.

Section 712--Advisory Committee on International Exchange Rate Policy

    Section 712(a) establishes the Advisory Committee on 
International Exchange Rate Policy (Committee). The Committee 
shall be responsible for advising the Secretary of the Treasury 
with respect to the impact of international exchange rates and 
financial policies on the economy of the United States.
    Section 712(b) requires the Committee to be comprised of 9 
members, none of whom shall be employees of the Federal 
government, provides that three members shall be appointed by 
each chamber of Congress and the President, and defines the 
qualifications for membership on the Committee.
    Section 712(c) requires the Committee to be terminated two 
years after the enactment of this Act unless renewed by the 
President for a subsequent two-year period. The President may 
continue to renew the Committee in two-year periods.
    Section 712(d) requires the Committee to meet not less than 
two times each calendar year.
    Section 712(e) provides procedures for establishing a 
Committee chairperson.
    Section 712(f) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
make available to the Committee such staff, information, 
personnel, administrative services, and assistance as the 
Committee may reasonably require.
    Section 712(g) defines the application of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    Section 712(h) authorizes the appropriations of $1,000,000 
each fiscal year for the Committee.
    In the view of the Committee, the tools currently available 
to the Federal government to address currency manipulation are 
inadequate. The provisions in this title enhance the ability of 
the United States to deal with and counteract the effects of 
currency manipulation.

TITLE VIII--PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPENSIONS AND 
                               REDUCTIONS

Section 801--Short title

    This section sets forth the short title of this title as 
the American Manufacturing Competiveness Act of 2015.

Section 802--Sense of Congress on the need for a miscellaneous tariff 
        bill

    Section 802(a) lists the following Congressional findings: 
(1) as of the enactment of this bill, the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) imposes duties on 
imported goods for which there is no domestic availability or 
insufficient domestic availability; (2) the imposition of 
duties on such goods creates artificial distortions in the 
economy of the United States that negatively affect United 
States manufacturers and consumers; (3) it is in the interests 
of the United States to update the HTSUS every 3 years to 
eliminate such artificial distortions by suspending or reducing 
duties on such goods; (4) the manufacturing competitiveness of 
the United States around the world will be enhanced if Congress 
regularly and predictably updates the HTSUS to suspend or 
reduce duties on such goods.
    Section 802(b) describes the sense of Congress that 
Congress should consider a miscellaneous tariff bill not later 
than 180 days after the United States International Trade 
Commission (USITC) and the Department of Commerce issue reports 
on proposed duty suspensions and reductions under this title in 
order to remove a comparative disadvantage to United States 
manufacturers and consumers.

Section 803--Process for consideration of duty suspensions and 
        reductions

    Section 803(a) defines the purpose of this section as a 
process by which the appropriate congressional committees, in 
conjunction with the Commission pursuant to its authorities 
under 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332), for the 
submission and consideration of proposed duty suspensions and 
reductions.
    Section 803(b) requires that not later than October 15, 
2015, and October 15, 2018, the appropriate congressional 
committees shall establish and, on the same day, publish on 
their respective publically available Internet websites a 
process that (1) provides for the submission and consideration 
of legislation containing proposed duty suspensions and 
reductions in a manner that, to the maximum extent practicable, 
is consistent with the requirements described in subsection (c) 
and (2) includes in a miscellaneous tariff bill those duty 
suspensions and reductions that meet the requirements of this 
title.
    Section 803(c) requires that, not later than October 15, 
2015 and October 15 2018, the USITC to publish a notice (in the 
Federal Register and on the Internet) announcing a 60-day 
period during which the public could, following agency-
specified requirements, submit proposed duty suspensions and 
reductions and required disclosure forms directly to the USITC. 
No later than 15 days after the expiration of the 60-day 
period, the USITC is required to provide to the appropriate 
congressional committees and publish on a publicly available 
website the proposed duty suspensions and reductions and the 
required disclosure forms. Further, not later than 90 days 
after publishing the proposed duty suspensions and reductions, 
the USITC shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
committees a report on each duty suspension and reduction 
submitted specifying: (1) whether or not domestic production of 
the product exists, and if so, whether the domestic producer 
objects to the duty suspension; (2) any technical changes 
necessary to the article description necessary for 
administration of the suspension; (3) the amount of foregone 
tariff revenue if the suspension is enacted; and (4) whether or 
not the duty suspension or reduction would be available to any 
person that imports the product.
    Section 803(d) requires that not later than the end of the 
90-day period beginning on the date of the publication of the 
proposed duty suspensions and reductions on the USITC's 
website, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with CBP 
and other relevant Federal agencies, shall submit a report on 
each proposed duty suspension and reduction, submitted by 
either the appropriate congressional committees or the 
responses from the public pursuant to the notice in the Federal 
Register, to the appropriate congressional committees that 
includes (1) a determination of whether or not domestic 
production of the article that is the subject of the proposed 
duty suspension or reduction exists and, if such production 
exists, whether or not a domestic producer of the article 
objects to the proposed duty suspension or reduction and (2) 
any technical changes to the article description that are 
necessary for purposes of administration when articles are 
presented for importation.
    Section 803(e) sets out a rule of construction that 
requires a proposed duty suspension or reduction submitted 
under this title by a Member of Congress shall receive 
treatment no more favorable than the treatment received by a 
proposed duty suspension or reduction submitted under this 
title by a member of the public.

Section 804--Report on effects of duty suspensions and reductions on 
        United States economy

    Section 804(a) requires that not later than May 1, 2018 and 
May 1, 2022, the USITC shall submit to the appropriate 
congressional committees a report on the effects on the United 
States economy on temporary duty suspensions and reductions 
pursuant to this title.
    Section 804(b) requires the Commission to solicit and 
append to the report required under section 804(a) 
recommendations with respect to those domestic industry sectors 
or specific domestic industries that might benefit from 
permanent duty suspensions and reductions or elimination of 
duties.
    Section 804(c) requires that each report be submitted in 
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

Section 805--Judicial review precluded

    Section 805 prescribes that the exercise of functions under 
this title shall not be subject to judicial review.

Section 806--Definitions

    Section 806 defines key terms.

                   TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 901--De minimis value

    Section 901(a) sets out the findings of Congress that 
modernizing international customs is critical for United States 
businesses of all sizes, as well as consumers and the economic 
growth of the United States and that higher thresholds for the 
value of articles that may be entered informally and free of 
duty provide significant economic benefits to the United 
States.
    Section 901(b) sets out a sense of Congress that the United 
States Trade Representative should encourage other countries to 
establish commercially meaningful de minimis values for express 
and postal shipments that are exempt from customs duties and 
taxes and from certain entry document requirements.
    Section 901(c) amends section 321(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 to raise the de minimis threshold for the Secretary 
of the Treasury to permit the admission of articles duty free 
from $200 to $800.
    Section 901(d) provides that the amendments shall apply 
with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse 
for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the enactment 
of this Act.
    The changes made in section 901 reflect the view of the 
Committee that U.S. custom rules should not impose an undue 
burden on small businesses, including those operating in the 
digital economy.

Section 902--Consultation on trade and customs revenue functions

    Section 902 amends section 401(c) of the SAFE Port Act to 
require the Secretary to consult with the business community at 
least 30 days after proposing and 30 days before finalizing any 
policies, initiatives, or actions that will have an impact on 
CBP's trade and customs revenue functions. The Commissioner 
must also notify Committees at least 60 days before proposing 
and 60 days before finalizing any policies, initiatives, 
negotiating positions, or actions that will have an impact on 
CBP's trade and customs revenue functions or negotiating 
positions.

Section 903--Penalties for customs brokers

    Section 903(a) amends section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
to add a new section that allows the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to impose fines, or revoke or suspend a customs broker 
license, if a broker has been convicted of committing or 
conspiring to commit an act of terrorism.
    Section 903(b) makes technical and conforming amendments to 
section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Section 904--Amendments to Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
        of the United States

    Section 904(a) amends subchapter II of chapter 98 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States by adding at 
the end of U.S. Note 3 (relating to articles repaired, altered, 
processed or otherwise changed in condition abroad) that for 
the purposes of 9802.00.40 and 9802.00.50, fungible articles 
exported from the United States may be commingled, and the 
origin, value and classification of such articles may be 
accounted for using an inventory management method. The section 
also defines fungible and inventory management method for 
purposes of the section.
    Section 904(b) amends the article description for 
subheading 9801.00.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States relating to products of the United States 
returned after having been exported by inserting after the term 
``exported'' the following, ``, or any other products when 
returned within 3 years after having been exported''.
    Section 904(c) amends subchapter I of chapter 98 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States by inserting a 
new subheading and providing duty-free treatment for certain 
U.S. government property returned to the United States.

Section 905--Exemption from duty of residue of bulk cargo contained in 
        instruments of international traffic previously exported from 
        the United States

    Section 905(a) amends General Note 3(e) of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States by adding a new 
subparagraph (vii) that adds ``residue of bulk cargo contained 
in instruments of international traffic previously exported 
from the United States'' to the list of items exempt from duty 
payment. It also adds to language defining residue as not 
exceeding seven percent by weight of the bulk cargo and with no 
or de minimis value and defines other key terms.
    Section 905(b) provides that the amendments in this section 
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act with 
respect to residue of bulk cargo instruments of international 
traffic that are imported on or after the date of enactment of 
this Act and that were previously exported from the United 
States.
    This section reflects the view of the Committee that 
residue of bulk cargo contained in instruments of international 
traffic previously exported from the United States should be 
exempt from duty payment.

Section 906--Drawback and refunds

    Section 906(a) amends section 313(a) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(a)) to provide that the amount of drawback 
claimed must be calculated pursuant to subsection (l).
    Section 906(b) amends section 313(b) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(b)) by allowing substitution drawback for 
imported merchandise or merchandise classifiable under the same 
8-digit HTS used in the manufacture or production of articles. 
This section also prescribes the amount of drawback claimed 
must be calculated pursuant to subsection (l) and such claim 
must be filed within 5 years of the importation of the 
merchandise. This section also sets out requirements related to 
the transfer of merchandise subject to a claim of drawback, and 
allows records kept in the normal course of business to be used 
to demonstrate the transfer of merchandise. Lastly, this 
section also requires a drawback claimant to submit a bill of 
materials to demonstrate the merchandise was incorporated into 
an article and provides a special rule for sought chemical 
elements.
    Section 906(c) amends section 313(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(c)) by extending the filing deadline for 
drawback claims to 5 years from the date of importation. This 
section also prescribes the amount of drawback claimed must be 
calculated pursuant to subsection (l). Lastly this paragraph is 
amended to allow records kept in the normal course of business 
to be used to demonstrate the transfer of merchandise.
    Section 906(d) strikes section 313(i) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(i)) and replaces it with new subsection 
entitled ``Proof of Exportation.'' This subsection provides 
that the proof of exportation shall establish fully the date 
and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter. This 
may be demonstrated either by records kept in the normal course 
of business or through the Automated Export System (AES) after 
CBP has certified AES to be a system of records.
    Section 906(e) amends section 313(j) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(j)) to allow unused drawback claims for 
merchandise that are exported or destroyed and are classifiable 
under the same 8-digit HTS subheading number as such imported 
merchandise. Merchandise may not be substituted for imported 
merchandise for drawback purposes based on the 8-digit HTS if 
the article description for the 8-digit HTS begins with the 
term ``other.'' In those instances, merchandise may be 
substituted for imported merchandise if such imported 
merchandise are classifiable under the same 10-digit HTS. If 
the 10-digit HTS begins with the term ``other,'' then 
substitution drawback is not permissible. Additionally, for the 
purposes unused merchandise that is either exported or 
destroyed, the 10-digit Department of Commerce Schedule B 
number may be used to demonstrate that an article and 
merchandise are classifiable under the same 8-digit HTS without 
regard to whether or not the Schedule B number corresponds to 
more than one 8-digit HTS number. Furthermore, this section 
also amends the filing deadline for drawback claims to be 5 
years from the date of importation and prescribes the amount of 
drawback claimed must be calculated pursuant to section (l).
    Section 906(f) amends section 313(k) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(k)) by providing that any person making a 
drawback claim is liable for the full amount of the drawback 
claimed and providing for the liability of importers with 
respect to claims made by another person. Any person claiming 
drawback and importers shall be jointly and severally liable 
with the importer for the lesser of the amount of drawback 
claimed or the amount the importer authorized the other person 
to claim.
    Section 906(g) amends section 313(l) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(l)) to require the Secretary of the 
Treasury to prescribe regulations for the calculation of 
drawback that cannot exceed 99 percent of the lesser of the 
amount of duties, taxes, and fees paid with respect to the 
imported merchandise or the amount of duties, taxes, and fees 
that would apply to the exported article if the exported 
article were imported. This section requires the promulgation 
of the necessary regulations within 2 years. Additionally, one 
year after the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter 
until the regulations required under this subsection are 
promulgated, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
the status of the regulations.
    Section 906(h) amends section 313(p) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(p)) to require evidence of transfer to be 
demonstrated with records kept in the normal course of 
business.
    Section 906(i) amends section 313(q) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(q)) to require the amount of drawback 
shall be calculated pursuant to section (j).
    Section 906(j) amends section 313(r) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(r)) to require the filing of drawback 
claims to 5 years from the date of importation. This section 
also requires drawback claims to be filed electronically 2 
years after the date of the enactment of this Act or later if 
the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is not ready.
    Section 906(k) amends section 313(s) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(s)) to allow a drawback successor to, 
subject to the requirements set out in section 313(j), as 
amended designate unused imported merchandise, other 
merchandise classifiable under the same 8-digit HTS subheading 
number as such imported merchandise, or any combination of such 
imported merchandise and such other merchandise, that the 
predecessor received, before the date of succession, from the 
person who imported and paid any duties, taxes, and fees due on 
the imported merchandise, as the basis for drawback on 
merchandise possessed by the drawback successor after the date 
of succession.
    Section 906(l) strikes section 313(t) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(t)).
    Section 906(m) amends section 313(x) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(x)) to require the amount of drawback 
claimed pursuant to subsection (j) to be reduced by the value 
of any materials reclaimed from the destruction of unused 
merchandise.
    Section 906(n) amends Section 313(z) to define key terms.
    Section 906(o) amends section 508(c)(3) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1508(c)(3)) to require records for drawback 
claims to be maintained for 5 years after the date of 
liquidation.
    Section 906(p) requires the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to provide the Senate Finance and House Ways and 
Means Committees with a report not later than one year after 
the issuance of regulations provided for in subsection 
313(l)(2), as amended, that consists of: (1) an assessment of 
the modernization of drawback and refunds; (2) a description of 
drawback claims that were permissible before the effective date 
of these amendments, and are not after, and an identification 
of industries most affected; and (3) a description of drawback 
claims that were not permissible before the effective date of 
these amendments, and are after, and an identification of 
industries most affected.
    Section 906(q) provides that the amendments made by this 
section shall generally take effect on the enactment of this 
Act. This section also provides for a one year transition for 
filing drawback claims once CBP promulgates regulations and 
requires a report on the operability of ACE with respect to 
processing drawback claims.
    Drawback is currently a paper-based labor intensive process 
for both the government and private sector. This section 
reflects the view of this Committee that drawback needs to be 
simplified and automated by (1) allowing drawback claimants to 
generally use the 8-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States number in lieu of obtaining a ruling prior to 
submitting a drawback claim with CBP; (2) allowing claims to be 
submitted in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE); and 
(3) standardizing the timeframe to file a drawback claim to 5 
years after the date of importation.

Section 907--Inclusion of certain information in submission of 
        nomination for appointment as Deputy United States Trade 
        Representative

    This section requires that, when the President submits to 
the Senate for its advice and consent a nomination of an 
individual for appointment as a Deputy United States Trade 
Representative, the President shall include in that submission 
information on the country, regional offices, and functions of 
the Office of the United States Trade Representative with 
respect to which that individual will have responsibility.
    The Office of U.S. Trade Representative has failed in the 
past to fully inform the Committee about the duties and 
functions of the nominee under consideration for a position as 
a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative prior to confirmation. This 
section is intended to ensure that such information is 
forthcoming prior to consideration of any future nominee.

Section 908--Biennial reports regarding competitiveness issues facing 
        the United States economy and competitive conditions for 
        certain key United States industries

    Section 908(a) requires the United States International 
Trade Commission to conduct a series of investigations, and 
submit a report on each such investigation, regarding the 
competiveness issues facing the economy of the United States 
and competitive conditions for certain key United States 
industries.
    Section 908(b) provides that the content of the reports 
that shall include (1) a detailed assessment of competiveness 
issues facing the economy of the United States over the 10-year 
period beginning on the date on which the report is submitted 
and (2) a detailed assessment of a key United States industry 
or industries. In selecting key United States industries, the 
Commission shall consult with the Committee on Finance of the 
Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives. Furthermore, to the extent possible, the same 
key United States industry or industries should not analyzed in 
multiple reports.
    Section 908(c) requires the reports to be submitted to the 
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
and Means of the House of Representatives no later than May 15, 
2017 and every 2 years thereafter.
    Section 908(d) defines ``key United States industry''.
    The Committee believes that a forward-looking analysis of 
the competitive challenges and opportunities faced by the U.S. 
economy and key industries will better enable the Committee and 
Federal government agencies to more effectively plan and 
allocate resources devoted to trade negotiations and trade 
enforcement.

Section 909--Report on certain U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
        Agreements

    Section 909(a) The Act requires the Commissioner to submit 
to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on 
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a detailed 
annual report on each reimbursable agreement and public-private 
partnership agreement CBP enters into. Each report must 
include: (1) A description of the development of the program; 
(2) A description of the type of entity with which CBP entered 
into the agreement and the amount that entity reimbursed CBP 
under the agreement; (3) An identification of the type of port 
of entry to which the agreement relates and an assessment of 
how the agreement provides economic benefits at the port of 
entry; (4) A description of the services provided CBP under the 
agreement during the year preceding the submission of the 
report; (5) The amount of fees collected under the agreement 
during that year; (6) A detailed accounting of how the fees 
collected under the agreement have been spent during that year; 
(7) A summary of any complaints or criticism received by CBP 
during that year regarding the agreement; (8) An assessment of 
the compliance with the terms of the agreement of the entity 
that entered into an agreement with CBP; (9) Recommendations 
with respect to how activities conducted pursuant to the 
agreement could function more effectively or better produce 
economic benefits; (10) A summary of the benefits to and 
challenges faced by CBP and the entity that entered into an 
agreement with CBP.
    Section 909(b) specifies that the programs that CBP must 
produce a detailed assessment of include programs under Section 
560 of the department of Homeland Security Appropriations, 2013 
(division D of Public Law 113-6; 127 Stat. 378) and Section 559 
of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014 
(division F of Public Law 113-76; 6 U.S.C. 211 Note).
    The Committee is concerned that CBP is not fully informing 
appropriate committees of jurisdiction on revenue and outlays 
associated with section 560 and section 559 programs. It is the 
view of this Committee that the reports required under this 
section will provide Congress with sufficient information to 
determine if the revenue raised under these programs is being 
spent in accordance with the program requirements in the most 
efficient manner.

Section 910--Charter flights

    This section amends current law to permit CBP employees to 
provide customs services for passengers and baggage on charter 
flights that arrive at U.S. ports of entry after normal 
operating hours, if the air carrier specifically requests the 
services at least four hours before the flight arrives and pays 
any overtime fees.

Section 911--Amendment to Tariff Act of 1930 to require country of 
        origin marking of certain castings

    Section 911(a) amends section 304(e) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304(e)) to include inlet frames, tree and 
trench grates, lampposts, lamppost bases, cast utility poles, 
bollards, hydrants, and utility boxes in the list of products 
which must always have a country of origin marking. This 
section also amends current law by requiring the aforementioned 
marking to be in a location such that it will remain visible 
after installation.
    Section 911(b) prescribes that the amendments made by this 
section shall apply with respect to the importation of castings 
on or after the date that is 180 days after the enactment of 
this Act.

Section 912--Elimination of consumptive demand exception to prohibition 
        on importation of goods made with convict labor, forced labor, 
        or indentured labor; Report

    Section 912(a) eliminates the consumptive demand exemption 
by striking ``The provisions of this section'' and all that 
follows through ``of the United States'' in section 307 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307). The effective date of this 
subsection is 15 days after the enactment of this Act.
    Section 912(b) requires the Commissioner to submit not 
later than 180 after the enactment of this Act, and annually 
thereafter, to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the 
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a 
report on compliance with section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(19 U.S.C. 1307), as amended by this bill, that includes (1) 
the number of instances in which merchandise was denied entry 
pursuant to that section during the 1-year period preceding the 
submission of the report; (2) a description of the merchandise 
denied entry pursuant to section 307; and (3) such other 
information as the Commissioner considers appropriate with 
respect to monitoring and enforcing compliance with section 
307.

Section 913--Collection of occupational data in employer filings for 
        unemployment insurance

    Section 913 amends section 1137 of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1320b-7) by expanding the nationwide collection of 
labor statistics by (1) requiring each quarterly wage report 
required to be filed after January 1, 2016 to include 
occupational information with respect to each employee of the 
employer that permits the classification of such employees into 
occupational categories found in the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) system; (2) requiring the state agency 
receiving the aforementioned information shall make it 
available to the Secretary of Labor; and (3) requiring the 
Secretary of Labor to make occupational information submitted 
available to other State and Federal agencies.

Section 914--Statements of policy with respect to Israel

    Section 914 states that Congress (1) supports the 
strengthening of United States-Israel economic cooperation and 
recognizes the tremendous strategic, economic, and 
technological value of cooperation with Israel; (2) recognizes 
the benefit of cooperation with Israel to United States 
companies, including by improving American competitiveness in 
global markets; (3) recognizes the importance of trade and 
commercial relations to the pursuit and sustainability of 
peace, and supports efforts to bring together the United 
States, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and others in 
enhanced commerce; (4) opposes politically motivated actions 
that penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations 
specifically with Israel such as boycotts, divestment or 
sanctions; (5) notes that the boycott, divestment, and 
sanctioning of Israel by governments, governmental bodies, 
quasi-governmental bodies, international organizations, and 
other such entities is contrary to the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) principle of non-discrimination; (6) 
encourages the inclusion of politically motivated actions that 
penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically 
with Israel such as boycotts, divestment from, or sanctions 
against Israel as a topic of discussion at the U.S.-Israel 
Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG) and other areas to 
support the strengthening of the United States-Israel 
commercial relationship and combat any commercial 
discrimination against Israel; (7) supports efforts to prevent 
investigations or prosecutions by governments or international 
organizations of United States persons on the sole basis of 
such persons doing business with Israel, with Israeli entities, 
or in Israeli-controlled territories; and (8) supports American 
States examining a company's promotion or compliance with 
unsanctioned boycotts, divestment from, or sanctions against 
Israel as part of its consideration in awarding grants and 
contracts and supports the divestment of State assets from 
companies that support or promote actions to boycott, divest 
from, or sanction Israel.
    The Committee included section 914 as an expression of the 
Committee's continued support for the nation of Israel, which 
was our first bilateral free trade partner and one of our 
strongest allies in the Middle East. The Committee believes it 
is important to demonstrate our steadfast commitment so that 
Israel can continue to thrive through international trade. 
Inclusion of these provisions will help fight efforts by other 
nations to discriminate against Israel.

                            TITLE X--OFFSETS

Section 1001--Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain 
        unpaid taxes

                              PRESENT LAW

    The administration of passports is the responsibility of 
the Department of State. The Secretary of State may refuse to 
issue or renew a passport if the applicant owes child support 
in excess of $2,500 or owes certain types of Federal debts, 
such as expenses incurred in providing assistance to an 
applicant to return to the United States. The scope of this 
authority does not extend to rejection or revocation of a 
passport on the basis of delinquent Federal taxes. Although 
issuance of a passport does not require a social security 
number or taxpayer identification number (``TIN''), the 
applicant is required to provide such number. Failure to 
provide a TIN is reported by the State Department to the IRS 
and may result in a $500 fine.
    Returns and return information are confidential and may not 
be disclosed by the IRS, other Federal employees, State 
employees, and certain others having access to such information 
except as provided in the Internal Revenue Code. There are a 
number of exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure that 
authorize disclosure in specifically identified circumstances, 
including disclosure of information about federal tax debts for 
purposes of reviewing an application for a Federal loan and for 
purposes of enhancing the integrity of the Medicare program.

                           REASONS FOR CHANGE

    The Committee is aware that the amount of unpaid Federal 
tax debts continues to present a challenge to the IRS. The 
Committee is also aware that a significant amount of unpaid 
Federal tax debt is owed by persons to whom passports have been 
issued. In 2011, for example, the Government Accountability 
Office reported that approximately 224,000 persons issued U.S. 
passports in 2008 owed in aggregate $5.8 billion. Federal law 
currently permits the Department of State to refuse an 
application for a passport or revoke a passport based on the 
existence of certain debts, including delinquent child support, 
but does not have authority to consider the existence of tax 
debt. In addition, the IRS is not authorized to provide 
information to the Department of State about persons who owe 
tax debts. The Committee believes that tax compliance will 
increase if issuance of a passport is linked to payment of 
one's tax debts.

                        EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

    Under this provision, the Secretary of State is required to 
deny a passport (or renewal of a passport) to a seriously 
delinquent taxpayer and is permitted to revoke any passport 
previously issued to such person. In addition to the revocation 
or denial of passports to delinquent taxpayers, the Secretary 
of State is authorized to deny an application for a passport if 
the applicant fails to provide a social security number or 
provides an incorrect or invalid social security number. With 
respect to an incorrect or invalid number, the inclusion of an 
erroneous number is a basis for rejection of the application 
only if the erroneous number was provided willfully, 
intentionally, recklessly or negligently. Exceptions to these 
rules are permitted for emergency or humanitarian 
circumstances, including issuance of a passport for short-term 
use to return travel to the United States by the delinquent 
taxpayer.
    The provision authorizes limited sharing of information 
between the Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury. If 
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue certifies to the Secretary 
of the Treasury the identity of persons who have seriously 
delinquent Federal taxes as defined in this provision, the 
Secretary of Treasury or his delegate is authorized to transmit 
such certification to the Secretary of State for use in 
determining whether to issue, renew, or revoke a passport. 
Applicants whose names are included on the certifications 
provided to the Secretary of State are ineligible for a 
passport. The Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury are 
held harmless with respect to any certification issued pursuant 
to this provision.
    A seriously delinquent tax debt generally includes any 
outstanding debt for Federal tax in excess of $50,000, 
including interest and any penalties, for which a notice of 
lien or a notice of levy has been filed. This amount is to be 
adjusted for inflation annually, using calendar year 2013, and 
a cost-of-living adjustment. Even if a tax debt otherwise meets 
the statutory threshold, it may not be considered seriously 
delinquent if (1) the debt is being paid in a timely manner 
pursuant to an installment agreement or offer-in-compromise, or 
(2) collection action with respect to the debt is suspended 
because a collection due process hearing or innocent spouse 
relief has been requested or is pending.

                             EFFECTIVE DATE

    The provision is effective on January 1, 2016.

Section 1002--Customs user fees

    Section 601(a) amends Section 13031(j)(3)(A) of the 
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 
U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) to extend the period that the Secretary of 
the Treasury may charge for certain customs services for 
imported goods from July 8, 2025 to July 28, 2025.
    Section 601(b) extends the ad valorem rate for the 
Merchandise Processing Fee collected by Customs and Border 
Protection that offsets the costs incurred in processing and 
inspecting imports, from July 1, 2025 to July 14, 2025.

                   III. BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE BILL

                                                      May 12, 2015.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the Trade Facilitation 
and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

S. 1269--Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015

    Summary: The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act 
of 2015 would amend various trade statutes with the goal of 
strengthening agency enforcement efforts and improving the 
efficiency of the regulatory process. The bill would:
           Establish the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund 
        to, among other things, support countries that are 
        parties to a free trade agreement with the United 
        States in implementing commitments under those 
        agreements;
           Increase the funds available for 
        distribution to eligible parties under the Continued 
        Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA);
           Extend the authority to collect and increase 
        the rate of certain customs user fees;
           Improve the claims process for refunds on 
        duties paid for certain imported merchandise and 
        increase the minimum value of goods for which duties 
        must be paid;
           Deny passport applications, and allow 
        existing passports to be revoked, for individuals with 
        certain tax debt;
           Authorize the appropriation of $154 million 
        annually over the 2016-2018 period for the Automated 
        Commercial Environment program in Customs and Border 
        Protection (CBP);
           Require CBP to improve and expand several 
        trade regulation programs; and
           Require employers to report on the 
        occupational classification of employees on a quarterly 
        basis and require the Department of Labor to make that 
        information available to state and federal agencies.
    CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 
estimate that enacting the bill would increase direct spending 
by $146 million over the 2015-2025 period and increase revenues 
by $193 million over the same period, resulting in a net 
decrease in deficits over the 11-year period of $48 million.
    Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the 
legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. In 
addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing the bill would cost about $1.2 
billion over the 2016-2020 period.
    CBO has determined that the nontax provisions of the bill 
would impose a mandate, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA), on public and private-sector employers by 
requiring those entities, when submitting quarterly wage 
reports to state agencies, to include additional occupational 
information that permits classification of their employees. The 
bill also would impose mandates on users of customs services 
and on importers.
    CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate on state, local, 
and tribal governments would fall below the intergovernmental 
threshold established in UMRA ($77 million in 2015, adjusted 
annually for inflation). CBO estimates that the aggregate cost 
of the mandates on private entities would exceed the private-
sector threshold ($154 million in 2015, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    JCT has determined that the tax provisions of the bill 
contain no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of the bill is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 370 
(advancement of commerce), 500 (education, training, 
employment, and social services), 750 (administration of 
justice), and 800 (general government).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bill will be enacted by July 1, 2015.

Direct spending

    CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 
spending by $146 million over the 2015-2025 period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015      2016      2017      2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023      2024      2025    2015-2020  2015-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGa
 
Trade Enforcement Trust Fund:
    Estimated Budget Authority..............................         0        15        15        15        15        15        15        15        15        15        15         75        150
    Estimated Outlays.......................................         0        15        15        15        15        15        15        15        15        15        15         75        150
Payment of Interest on Certain Distributions Under CDSOA:
    Estimated Budget Authority..............................         0        20        21        22        23        25        27        21        17        13        11        111        200
    Estimated Outlays.......................................         0        20        21        22        23        25        27        21        17        13        11        111        200
Customs User Fees:
    Estimated Budget Authority..............................         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0      -204          0       -204
    Estimated Outlays.......................................         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0      -204          0       -204
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Budget Authority..........................         0        35        36        37        38        40        42        36        32        28      -178        186        146
        Estimated Outlays...................................         0        35        36        37        38        40        42        36        32        28      -178        186        146
 
                                                                                       CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Change in De Minimis Value..................................        -3       -14       -15       -15       -16       -17       -17       -18       -19       -20       -22        -80       -179
Revocation of Passports.....................................         0        24        60        62        46        39        34        32        33        34        35        231        398
Drawback Procedures.........................................         0         0        -2        -3        -3        -3        -3        -3        -3        -3        -4        -11         -7
    Total Changes...........................................        -3        10        43        44        27        19        14        11        11        11         9        140        193
 
                                                    NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
 
Impact on Deficit...........................................         3        25        -7        -7        11        21        28        25        21        17      -187         46        -48
 
                                                                          CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Automated Commercial Environment:
    Authorization Level.....................................         0       154       154       154         0         0         0         0         0         0         0        461        461
    Estimated Outlays.......................................         0       108       154       154        46         0         0         0         0         0         0        461        461
CBP Trade Programs:
    Estimated Authorization Level...........................         0        48        95        98       101       104       107       110       113       116       120        445      1,010
    Estimated Outlays.......................................         0        43        90        97       100       103       106       109       113       116       119        435        998
Department of Labor:
    Estimated Authorization Level...........................         0       100        56        58        59        61        62        64        65        67        68        334        660
    Estimated Outlays.......................................         0        20        72        66        58        59        61        62        64        65        67        274        594
Other Programs:
    Estimated Authorization Level...........................         0        13         9         9        14         9        10        10        10        10        10         54        104
    Estimated Outlays.......................................         0        11         9         9        14        10        10        10        10        10        10         52        102
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Authorization Level.......................         0       314       314       319       174       174       178       184       188       193       198      1,294      2,235
        Estimated Outlays...................................         0       182       325       326       218       172       177       181       186       191       196      1,222     2,154
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: This estimate assumes the bill is enacted by July 1, 2015; * = between zero and $500,000. For direct spending, negative numbers indicate a decrease in outlays; for revenues, negative
  numbers indicate a reduction in revenues. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
CDSOA = Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act; CBP = Customs and Border Protection.
aOn April 22, 2015, the Senate Committee on Finance approved multiple trade bills: Each of those bills would extend the authority to collect merchandise processing fees for a specific period
  of time. Because of interactions among the provisions in those bills, and for the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the three bills will be enacted in the order that would extend
  those fees chronologically. If the bills are enacted in a different order, the estimated costs would be different.

    Trade Enforcement Trust Fund. Section 607 would establish 
the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund to provide funding to several 
agencies, including the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative and the Departments of State and Labor, to 
enhance the capabilities of foreign countries' efforts to 
enforce the conditions of trade agreements with the United 
States. The bill would appropriate $15 million per year to, 
among other things, support self-sustaining activities in 
eligible countries to prioritize implementation of intellectual 
property, labor, and environmental commitments and to promote 
locally-owned businesses. CBO estimates that enacting this 
provision would increase direct spending by $150 million over 
the 2015-2025 period.
    Payment of Interest on Certain Distributions Under the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. Section 609 would 
increase the amount available for distribution to eligible 
parties under CDSOA. Under current law, CBP distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (ADCV) duties that were assessed 
on or after October 1, 2000, on goods that entered the United 
States before October 1, 2007, to domestic parties that meet 
the program's eligibility requirements. Based on information 
from CBP, CBO estimates that enacting this provision would 
increase direct spending by $200 million over the 2015-2025 
period.
    This section would direct CBP to include in the amount 
distributed to eligible parties interest earned on certain 
delinquent accounts. Specifically, in cases where CBP pursues 
payment of ADCV duties through litigation with sureties that 
provided customs bonds to guarantee payment, court-ordered 
interest received above the bond amount would be added to the 
distribution. This additional amount would apply only to cases 
where distributions are made on or after enactment of the bill, 
from court-ordered payments received from sureties after 
October 1, 2014.
    Under current law, upon receipt of a court-ordered 
settlement in CDSOA cases, CBP first deposits into the Treasury 
any interest that accrued during the period of delinquency and 
litigation; the remaining amounts are available for 
distribution to eligible parties. Under the bill, those 
interest amounts currently deposited in the Treasury would 
instead be spent.
    The CBP has 30 cases currently in litigation for delinquent 
ADCV duties due from sureties, dating as far back as 2009; 
based on the agency's experience with similar litigation, we 
expect it will take about six years for all of those cases to 
conclude. Further, we expect that CBP will bring an additional 
15 cases against sureties for payment of delinquent duties over 
the next five years and that CBP will receive payment for those 
additional cases by the end of 2025.
    Based on the average amount of delinquent ADCV duties and 
the average amount of bond coverage associated with those 30 
cases, CBO estimates that CBP will collect about $250 million 
from sureties over the 2015-2025 period from court-ordered 
awards. Further, based on the length of time that typically 
elapses between the point when duties become delinquent until 
completion of the judicial proceedings, we estimate that about 
80 percent of that amount, $200 million, will represent accrued 
interest that will be deposited into the Treasury. By making 
interest collections payable to entities that are eligible to 
receive distributions, CBO estimates that enacting the bill 
would increase direct spending by that amount.
    Customs User Fees. Under current law, the authority to 
charge merchandise processing fees collected by CBP will expire 
after September 30, 2024. The bill would permit those fees to 
be collected during the period beginning July 8, 2025, and 
ending July 28, 2025. The bill also would raise the rate of the 
merchandise processing fee from 0.21 percent to 0.3464 percent 
of the value of goods entering the U.S. for the period 
beginning July 1, 2025, and ending July 14, 2025. CBO estimates 
those actions would increase offsetting receipts (certain 
collections that are treated as reductions in direct spending) 
by $204 million in fiscal year 2025. To project collections of 
merchandise processing fees, CBO assumes that the fees 
collected in future years will grow at the same rate seen in 
recent years' about 5 percent. In 2014 collections from the 
merchandise processing fee totaled $2.3 billion. By 2024 CBO 
estimates those collections will total about $2.7 billion under 
current law. CBO expects that the proposed increase in the fee 
rate would have a very minor effect on the value of goods 
entering the U.S.

Revenues

    CBO and staff of JCT estimate that enacting the bill would 
increase revenues by $140 million over the 2015-2020 period and 
by $193 million over the 2015-2025 period.
    Change in De Minimis Value. Under current law, importers 
are not required to pay duties on shipments with a total value 
of $200 or less. The bill would increase that de minimis value 
to $800. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, in 
recent years duties collected on goods where each shipment was 
valued between $200 and $800, averaged $17 million a year. 
Considering that history and including anticipated growth in 
the value of imported goods, CBO estimates that raising the de 
minimis level to $800 would result in a revenue loss of $179 
million over the 2015-2025 period, net of income and payroll 
tax offsets.
    Revocation of Passport. Under Section 1001, the Secretary 
of State would be required to deny a passport application, with 
certain exceptions, from an individual with seriously 
delinquent tax debt in excess of $50,000 (indexed for 
inflation). Among other changes, the Secretary would also be 
permitted to revoke passports previously issued for such 
individuals. JCT estimates that the provisions would increase 
revenues by about $400 million over the 2016-2025 period.
    Drawback Procedures. When goods imported into the country 
are later exported or destroyed, the import duties originally 
paid for those goods may be refunded. In addition, the 
exporting or destroying of substitute goods--goods that are 
comparable to such importsmay also qualify for such refunds. 
The bill would modify the claims process for such refunds--
which are known as ``drawbacks''--with the goal of simplifying 
the process. The most notable changes to the claims process 
include the following:
           Requiring the use of existing category codes 
        to identify which goods may qualify as substitutes for 
        the purposes of drawbacks,
           Standardizing and, in some cases, extending 
        the period during which drawback claims may be filed, 
        and
           Eliminating the requirement for paper 
        documentation in certain drawback claims.
    In 2014, roughly $470 million in duties on imported 
merchandise were refunded in cases where substitutable goods 
were later exported. Based on information from CBP, and 
allowing for an initial period to write new regulations, CBO 
estimates that enacting the bill would increase refunds, and 
therefore decrease revenues, by $27 million over the 2015-2025 
period.
    Penalties. The bill would require customs brokers to 
maintain records of the identity of their clients. It would 
also require non-resident importers to designate an agent in 
the United States with the power of attorney. The bill would 
prescribe monetary penalties for violations of those 
requirements. Under current law, CBP has broad authority to 
regulate the activities of customs brokers and importers, as 
well as assess monetary penalties for statutory or regulatory 
violations. Based on information from CBP, CBO expects that any 
additional monetary penalties resulting from enforcement of the 
new requirements would be insignificant. Similarly, CBO 
estimates that any change in customs duties that could result 
from those requirements would also be insignificant.
    Prohibition on Imports of Certain Goods. Section 912 would 
prohibit the import of all goods manufactured by forced or 
indentured labor. Currently, such goods are prohibited from 
entering the U.S., with certain exceptions. This section would 
eliminate those exceptions, thereby resulting in fewer imported 
goods and a loss of tariff revenue, CBO estimates. According to 
CBP, most of the prohibited items came from China, a country 
with which we do not have a trade agreement. Based on this 
information, CBO believes there would be an additional loss of 
revenue as some goods that are currently imported from high-
tariff countries like China, would instead be imported from 
countries subject to lower duty rates. On net, CBO estimates 
this provision would lead to a loss of revenue; however, 
because there is limited information available, we are unable 
to provide an estimate of the revenue effect at this time.

Spending subject to appropriation

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the necessary 
appropriations will be provided each year and that spending 
will follow historical patterns for these programs. Under those 
assumptions we estimate that implementing the bill would cost 
about $1.2 billion over the 2015-2020 period.
    Automated Commercial Environment. The bill would authorize 
the appropriation of $154 million annually over the 2016-2018 
period for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a trade 
management system operated by CBP. For fiscal year 2014, $141 
million was appropriated for ACE. CBO estimates that 
implementing this provision would cost $461 million over the 
2016-2019 period.
    CBP Trade Programs. The bill would direct CBP to improve 
and expand several trade enforcement and facilitation programs, 
including validation of new importers, protection of copyrights 
and intellectual property rights, and investigation of 
allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion. 
Based on preliminary information from CBP, we estimate that the 
additional programs would cost $435 million over the 2015-2020 
period, mostly to hire new employees.
    Department of Labor. The bill would require employers to 
report on the occupational classification of employees when 
filing quarterly wage reports. Assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts, CBO estimates that in total, this provision 
would cost $274 million over the 2016-2020 period. Because 
those data are not currently collected, employers, states, and 
DOL would need to develop systems for reporting and collecting 
that information. Based on preliminary information from the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, developing those federal systems 
would cost $208 million over the 2016-2020 period, CBO 
estimates.
    In addition, states would incur costs to adapt their wage 
reporting systems to comply with the bill's requirements. Under 
the Federal-State unemployment compensation system, states 
receive federal grants for their administrative costs. CBO 
estimates that additional federal grants to states would cost 
$66 million over the 2016-2020 period, to offset the cost of 
state compliance with the new requirements.
    Other Programs. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 
would cost about $50 million over the 2016-2020 period for 
additional activities by the International Trade 
Administration, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative, and for 
additional reports to the Congress.
    International Trade Administration (ITA). Section 702 would 
broaden the authority of the ITA to investigate allegations 
that foreign governments are unfairly subsidizing their 
producers and exporters. The legislation would direct the ITA 
to investigate undervalued currency as a possible 
countervailable subsidy, if an allegation is made by a domestic 
party and is supported by evidence. (A countervailable subsidy 
is financial assistance foreign governments provide to their 
domestic industries to benefit production, manufacture, or 
exportation of goods.)
    Based on information from the agency, CBO estimates that 
implementing this provision would cost $22 million over the 
2016-2020 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts. That cost would cover salaries, benefits, and overhead 
for 19 additional staff positions (a one percent increase over 
fiscal year 2014 staffing levels) to handle the additional 
caseloads that would arise under the bill.
    U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Title VIII 
would establish a process for the Congress to consider 
miscellaneous tarriff bills (MTBs) and would require USITC to 
review each bill and report to the Congress. Based on 
information from the USITC about the increase in their workload 
for previous MTBs, CBO estimates that this provision would cost 
$10 million over the 2016-2020 period.
    Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). 
The bill would require new activities and reports, as well as 
establish new positions at USTR and would direct that office to 
establish a program to improve the enforcement of intellectual 
property rights in certain countries. Many of the requirements 
would codify existing policies and practices of the USTR. 
However, based on information from USTR and the cost of similar 
activities and programs, we estimate that implementing the 
legislation would cost about $10 million over the 2016-2020 
period.
    Reports. The bill also would require about a dozen new 
reports from agencies relating to trade issues, mostly from CBP 
and the Government Accountability Office. Based on the costs of 
similar activities, CBO estimates that it would cost about $10 
million over the 2016-2020 period to complete the reports 
required by the bill.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in outlays and revenues that are 
subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the 
following table.

          CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR THE TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON APRIL 22, 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015      2016      2017      2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023      2024      2025    2015-2020  2015-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact..............................         3        25        -7        -7        11        21        28        25        21        17      -187         46        -48
Memorandum:
    Changes in Outlays......................................         0        35        36        37        38        40        42        36        32        28      -178        186        146
    Changes in Revenues.....................................        -3        10        43        44        27        19        14        11        11        11         9        140        193
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: CBO has 
determined that the nontax provisions of the bill would impose 
a mandate, as defined in UMRA, on public and private-sector 
employers by requiring them to include information related to 
the occupational classifications of their employees when 
submitting quarterly wage reports to state agencies. The bill 
also would impose private-sector mandates on users of customs 
services and on importers. CBO estimates that the cost of the 
mandate on state, local, and tribal governments would fall 
below the intergovernmental threshold established in UMRA ($77 
million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation). CBO 
estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandates on private 
entities would exceed the private-sector threshold ($154 
million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation).
    JCT has determined that the tax provisions of the bill 
contain no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.

Mandate that applies to both public and private entities

    The bill would require public and private-sector employers, 
when submitting quarterly wage reports to state agencies, to 
include additional occupational information that permits 
classification of their employees. Employers would incur new 
administrative costs to add the information to wage reports 
submitted on paper or electronically. Based on information on 
the cost to employers of complying with current wage reporting 
requirements and feedback from public employers about the 
marginal cost of including occupational information, CBO 
estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandates on public 
employers would fall below the annual threshold established in 
UMRA for intergovernmental mandates. According to Department of 
Labor data, the new reporting requirement could apply to more 
than 5.5 million employers in the private sector. Because of 
the large number of private employers affected by the 
requirement, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate could 
amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in the first year the 
mandate is in effect. The total cost would depend on the type 
of additional information employers would be required to 
provide.

Mandates affecting only private-sector entities

    The bill also would impose private-sector mandates, as 
defined in UMRA, on entities required to pay merchandise 
processing fees. The bill would extend those fees for the July 
8, 2025, through July 28, 2025 period, and raise the fee rate 
beginning July 1, 2025, and ending July 14, 2025. CBO estimates 
that the incremental cost of the fees would amount to $204 
million in 2025.
    Finally, the bill would impose mandates on importers by 
requiring imported castings of such items as lampposts and 
utility poles to have the country-of-origin markings visible 
after installation and by prohibiting any imports of goods 
determined to be made with forced or indentured labor. Based on 
information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding 
the value of such goods currently received by importers, CBO 
estimates that the cost for importers to comply with those 
mandates would be small.

Effect on State agencies administering unemployment insurance programs

    The bill also would result in significant new 
administrative costs to state agencies administering 
unemployment insurance (UI) compensation programs because those 
agencies would need to increase administrative staff to 
collect, code, maintain, and report on new occupational data, 
as well as to educate affected employers about the changes. 
Many state agencies, especially those using older UI systems, 
would likely need to invest in new software systems or 
undertake major redesigns, as well as invest in additional data 
storage capacity. Depending on the extent to which state 
agencies would need to undertake those activities, CBO 
estimates that the new administrative costs to states could 
exceed $50 million over the 2016-2025 period, with most of 
those costs in the early years as systems are adapted. Those 
costs, however, would result from participation in a voluntary 
federal program and thus would not be an intergovernmental 
mandate as defined in UMRA. In addition, states receive federal 
funding for administrative costs relating to the UI system, and 
the net costs to states from complying with these provisions 
would be reduced if those grants to states were to increase.
    Previous CBO estimate: On May 4, 2015, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for H.R. 1907, the Trade Facilitation and Trade 
Enforcement Act of 2015, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Ways and Means on April 23, 2015. CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 1907 would reduce revenues by $203 million 
over the 2015-2015 period and reduce direct spending by $4 
million over the same period, resulting in a net increase in 
deficits over the 11-year period of $199 million. We also 
estimate that implementing H.R. 1907 would increase spending 
subject to appropriation by $944 million over the 2016-2020 
period.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz, Susan 
Willie, and Christi Hawley Anthony; Federal Revenues: Ann 
Futrell, Nathaniel Frentz, and staff of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Jon 
Sperl; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo; Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                      IV. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE 

    In compliance with paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following statements are made 
concerning the roll call votes in the Committee's consideration 
of S. 1269.

                      A. MOTION TO REPORT THE BILL

    S. 1269 as amended by the Chairman's modified mark and as 
further amended was ordered favorably reported by voice vote 
with a quorum present on April 22, 2015.

                         B. VOTES ON AMENDMENTS

    (1) An amendment to include the Currency Undervaluation Act 
in the bill was agreed to by roll call vote. The vote was 
reported as--
    Ayes: Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Burr, Isakson, Portman, 
Scott, Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Nelson, Menendez, Carper 
(proxy), Cardin, Browm, Bennet, Casey, Warner (proxy)
    Nays: Hatch, Enzi, Cornyn, Thune (proxy), Toomey, Coats, 
Heller, Cantwell
    (2) An amendment to enhance engagement on currency exchange 
rate policies and other economic policies of certain major 
trading partners of the United States, to improve trade 
enforcement measures and priorities, and for other purposes was 
agreed to by roll call vote.
    Ayes: Hatch, Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Enzi, Cornyn, Thune 
(proxy), Burr, Isakson, Portman, Toomey, Coats, Heller, Scott, 
Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson, Menendez, Carper, 
Cardin, Brown, Bennet, Casey, Warner
    (3) An amendment to end the importation of goods made with 
forced labor was agreed to by roll call vote.
    Ayes: Grassley, Crapo (proxy), Roberts, Cornyn, Thune 
(proxy), Portman, Toomey, Coats, Heller, Wyden, Schumer 
(proxy), Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson, Menendez, Carper, Cardin, 
Brown, Bennet, Casey, Warner
    Nays: Hatch, Enzi, Burr (proxy), Isakson, Scott
    (4) An amendment to establish an Interagency Enforcement 
Center in the Office of the United States Trade Representative 
was agreed to by voice vote.
    (5) An amendment to include the American Manufacturing 
Competitiveness Act was agreed to by voice vote.
    (6) An amendment for the purposes of establishing a Trade 
Enforcement Trust Fund was agreed to by voice vote.
    (7) An amendment to authorize discretionary action against 
a foreign country engaging in unreasonable acts, policies, or 
practices relating to the environment was agreed to by voice 
vote.

                    V. REGULATORY IMPACT OF THE BILL

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states 
that the resolution will not significantly regulate any 
individuals or businesses, will not affect the personal privacy 
of individuals, and will result in no significant additional 
paperwork.

                          VI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR TIM SCOTT

    I would like to thank Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Wyden, 
and the committee staff for their extraordinary efforts in 
crafting the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 
2015, for their consideration of numerous amendments offered by 
Members of the Finance committee, and, particularly, for their 
acceptance and inclusion of my amendments in the final bill 
relating to Customs and Border Protections' (CBP) enforcement 
activities.
    CBP is responsible for enforcement of eligibility 
requirements for imports of goods, including those claiming 
preferential duties under U.S. free trade agreements and 
preference programs. Compliance with these requirements, and 
with other U.S. laws, such as those involving consumer safety 
and intellectual property, is imperative to ensure a level 
playing field for U.S. businesses, including those in my home 
state of South Carolina. Responsible U.S. importers often bear 
higher costs to ensure their compliance with U.S. law. A lack 
of effective enforcement would only hurt American companies 
that play by the rules, and benefit companies that don't. My 
amendments expand the annual reporting requirements to include 
reviewers' recommendations for improvements to CBP's 
enforcement activities and methodologies, and the status of 
implementation of past recommendations. Increasing 
opportunities for U.S. businesses that benefit from trade helps 
to strengthen and grow our economy, but effective enforcement 
by CBP reinforces the rules we establish to ensure that our 
businesses aren't disadvantaged.
       VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    In the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary in order 
to expedite the business of the Senate, to dispense with the 
requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
of the Senate (relating to the showing of changes in existing 
law made by the bill as reported to the Committee).

                                  [all]
```