49–010 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

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 tradeparticipating 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

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-stopshops’’ 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; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

• 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 negVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:51 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR045.XXX SR045

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

ative 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

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), 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

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 dutyfree 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

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 sumVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:51 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR045.XXX SR045

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

mary 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

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 adVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:51 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR045.XXX SR045

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

dressed 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

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) 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

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. CusVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:51 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR045.XXX SR045

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

toms 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

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). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

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 enforceVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:51 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR045.XXX SR045

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

ment 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

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-incompromise, 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; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

• 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

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 SPENDING a

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

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. a On 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

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 selfsustaining 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

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 in- crease 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

• 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 nonresident 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

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 estiVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:51 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR045.XXX SR045

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

mate 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-asyou-go procedures are shown in the following table. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

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 privatesector 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

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— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(71) 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

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). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS