A 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.

Bill: 119-sconres-5
Sponsor: full_name: Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]
Introduced: 2025-01-15
Policy area: International Affairs
Latest action: action_date: 2025-01-15
text: Referred to the Committee on Finance. (text: CR S187)

Summaries:
action_date: 2025-01-15
action_desc: Introduced in Senate
text: <p>This concurrent resolution states that, unless it is approved by Congress, the proposed joint interpretation of Annex 14-C of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) prepared by Ambassador Katherine Tai (1) is of no legal effect with respect to the United States or any U.S. person, and (2) cannot be invoked by any federal agency in any legal proceeding nor may a federal agency assert that it has any legal consequences for claims made by a U.S. person.&nbsp;(Annex 14-C of the USMCA concerns certain investment claims under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the agreement which preceded USMCA.)</p>

tv_txt: III 119th CONGRESS 1st Session S. CON. RES. 5 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

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.