	Introduction

On January 13, 2012, President Obama asked Congress for authority to reorganize and consolidate into one department the business- and trade-related functions and programs of six federal entities: Department of Commerce; Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank); Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC); Small Business Administration (SBA); Trade and Development Agency (TDA); and Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). U.S. policy interest in the organizational structure of U.S. government trade functions has grown in recent years, stimulated by congressional and federal efforts to promote U.S. exports and employment, including through the National Export Initiative (NEI), in response to the global and U.S. economic downturn; concerns about the international competitive position of U.S. industries vis-à-vis emerging markets, such as China, Brazil, and India; efforts to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of government service by reducing duplication of functions and improving coordination; national debates on reducing federal spending and the size of the U.S. government; and concerns about the size of the U.S. trade balance. Members of Congress would play a significant role in a trade reorganization debate through their legislative and oversight responsibilities. Congress could conduct oversight, engage in consultations with the Administration, hold hearings, grant reorganizational authority to the President, introduce and enact trade reorganization legislation separate from the President's plan, and/or consider other policy alternatives. He may resubmit his request for reorganizational authority in the 113 th Congress. The President's FY2014 budget request for the six agencies in the proposed reorganization reflects the current organizational structure of U.S. trade functions. Previous Legislative Proposals Related to Trade Reorganization23

Trade reorganization has been a recurring theme in various Administrations and Congresses. Legislation introduced focused largely on creating some form of a "Department of Trade" that included consolidation of the USTR and the trade-related functions of the Department of Commerce and other agencies. These proposals were motivated by efforts to reduce federal spending and eliminate institutions and functions deemed to be unnecessary or duplicative or considered to be subsidies for U.S. businesses. Rationales for Trade Reorganization

Rationales for the reorganization of U.S. trade functions tend to be derived from the assumption that the structure of the U.S. trade policy apparatus constrains the effectiveness of U.S. trade policy. Some opponents of trade reorganization contend that, while changes in trade policy—and by extension the policymaking structure—may benefit individual U.S. businesses and workers in the short-run, they have little influence in the long-run on U.S. export and employment levels and trade balances. Some General Pros and Cons of Trade Reorganization

Public policy debate about trade reorganization generally is rooted in a central question of whether trade reorganization would enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. trade policy and administration structure or merely result in a superficial exercise of bureaucratic reshuffling. In addition, opponents assert that the diffusion of trade functions across the government helps to advance the diverse range of interest in U.S. trade policy by providing specialized support, such as for small businesses and agricultural exporters. Some also express concern that the federal government's capacity to negotiate trade policy could be constrained under the proposed reorganization. Maintain Status Quo

Congress could consider maintaining the current trade policy structure. Privatize or Terminate Certain Trade Functions

Policy debate about the arrangement of trade functions in the U.S. trade policy apparatus has been related to questions about whether the federal government should even be involved in carrying out certain functions. One option could be to strengthen existing coordinating bodies for trade functions.
On January 13, 2012, President Obama asked Congress for authority to reorganize and consolidate, into one department, the business- and trade-related functions of six federal entities: Department of Commerce; Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank); Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC); Small Business Administration (SBA); Trade and Development Agency (TDA); and Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Bills based on the proposal were introduced in the 112th Congress. The President reiterated the proposal in his FY2014 budget request, and he may resubmit his request for reorganizational authority in the 113th Congress. U.S. policymakers' interest in the organizational structure of U.S. government trade functions has grown in recent years, stimulated by federal efforts to promote U.S. exports and employment, as well as national debates on reducing federal spending and the size of the U.S. government.
Reorganization has been a recurring theme in U.S. trade policy. Over the past several decades, Congress, successive Administrations, and other stakeholders have crafted and debated proposals to reorganize the trade functions and structure of the federal government in order to enhance the effectiveness of U.S. trade policy and promotion efforts; improve U.S. trade policy coordination; avoid duplication of functions and activities; boost the international competitiveness of U.S. industries; and for other reasons. Previous proposals have called for a range of actions, including consolidation of all U.S. export- or trade-related programs under one federal agency (such as a "Department of Trade") to provide a "one-stop-shop" for the trade community; termination or transfer of functions of departments and agencies considered to be duplicative or unnecessary to U.S. trade policy priorities; and strengthening coordination of federal trade-related agencies.
Debates about the U.S. trade policy structure raise the question of whether reorganization would enhance the effectiveness of U.S. trade policy or merely result in bureaucratic reshuffling. On one hand, proponents of reorganization proposals believe that they may eliminate duplication of federal trade functions, provide a more streamlined organizational structure for U.S. trade-related activities and policy based on more clearly defined goals and priorities, and reduce overall government costs. They argue that federal trade policy efforts could be enhanced through a more centralized government body. On the other hand, critics contend that such proposals could result in the creation of a large, costly federal bureaucracy, possibly making certain trade functions and agencies less effective if they are subsumed in a larger bureaucracy. They also assert that the diffusion of trade functions across the federal government helps to advance various aspects of U.S. trade policy, and express concern that a "one-stop" federal source may not be responsive to the unique needs of certain types of exporters. Furthermore, some contend that, while changes to U.S. trade policy—and by extension the policymaking structure—may benefit individual U.S. businesses and workers in the short-run, they have little influence in the long-run on U.S. export and employment levels and trade balances, which relate more closely to macroeconomic factors.
Congress would play a significant role in a trade reorganization debate through its legislative and oversight responsibilities; it could engage in consultations with the Administration, hold hearings, grant reorganizational authority to the President, and/or introduce and enact trade reorganization legislation separate from the President's plan. In addition to considering possible reorganizational authority for the executive branch, Congress could consider policy alternatives such as to maintain the current trade organizational structure, privatize or terminate certain trade functions, strengthen or revise existing coordination of trade functions, or create a trade reorganization commission to examine the issue further.