```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 5 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 5

      Expressing the sense of Congress that the proposed ``joint 
   interpretation'' of Annex 14-C of the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement prepared by United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai 
 is of no legal effect with respect to the United States or any United 
            States person unless it is approved by Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 15, 2025

  Mrs. Britt (for herself and Mr. Tuberville) submitted the following 
 concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
      Expressing the sense of Congress that the proposed ``joint 
   interpretation'' of Annex 14-C of the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement prepared by United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai 
 is of no legal effect with respect to the United States or any United 
            States person unless it is approved by Congress.

Whereas section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States vests 
        Congress with authority over international trade and Congress has 
        accordingly and unanimously found that the executive branch lacks 
        authority to enter into binding trade agreements absent the approval of 
        Congress;
Whereas Congress has delegated some of its authority to negotiate international 
        trade matters to the executive branch provided the executive branch 
        consults closely with Congress and Congress has final authority over the 
        United States entering any binding international trade agreements;
Whereas the USMCA (as defined in section 3 of the United States-Mexico-Canada 
        Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 4502)) is an international trade 
        agreement that was approved by Congress with significant bipartisan 
        support and replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (commonly 
        known as ``NAFTA'');
Whereas Annex 14-C of the USMCA ensures that United States persons who make 
        investments in Canada or Mexico have appropriate recourse for arbitrary 
        or discriminatory treatment or expropriation of certain investments made 
        when NAFTA was in force and for 3 years thereafter;
Whereas the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Katherine Tai, is 
        attempting to secure a ``joint interpretation'' with the governments of 
        Canada and Mexico that could limit and curtail the rights of certain 
        United States persons under Annex 14-C of the USMCA;
Whereas Ambassador Katherine Tai has failed to consult with Congress 
        appropriately regarding the proposed ``joint interpretation'' of Annex 
        14-C, including by applying unreasonable procedures that have inhibited 
        Members of Congress from viewing the text of the proposed ``joint 
        interpretation''; and
Whereas the approval of Congress is a necessary prerequisite for Ambassador 
        Katherine Tai to agree to a ``joint interpretation'' with the 
        governments of Canada and Mexico under the USMCA: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the proposed ``joint interpretation'' of Annex 14-C of 
        the USMCA (as defined in section 3 of the United States-Mexico-
        Canada Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 4502)) prepared 
        by Ambassador Katherine Tai is of no legal effect with respect 
        to the United States or any United States person, unless it is 
        approved by Congress; and
            (2) the Office of the United States Trade Representative, 
        the Department of State, or any other agency of the United 
        States cannot invoke the ``joint interpretation'' in any legal 
        proceeding or assert that it has any legal consequence for any 
        claims made by a United States person, unless and until the 
        ``joint interpretation'' is formally approved by Congress.
                                 <all>
```