In a Congress that is likely this year to pass Trade Promotion Authority legislation, aimed at making trade agreements easier, you may ask why pro-free-trade legislators also proposing laws that would make trade agreements harder.

Yet that’s what Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has set out to do with his proposal to add a “chief innovation and intellectual property negotiator” to the Office of U.S. Trade Representative.

The proposed change is deep in the text of S. 1269, aka the “Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015,” but you can find it here. Hatch’s big changes are Sections 611 and 612 of this bill, which center on establishment of this new office. (Somewhat joltingly, Section 611 amends Section 605 of the act, which precedes it by a few pages in the same bill.) Here’s the key language:

(7) The principal functions of the Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator shall be 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 be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States innovation and intellectual property interests. The Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator shall perform such other functions as the United States Trade Representative may direct.

No one can dispute that the U.S. trade representative’s job is already hard. Advocating American interests in the global trade environment and negotiating bilateral and multilateral trade agreements is always going to be hard. In fact, that’s why so many lawmakers, including Hatch, have gone on record in support of Trade Promotion Authority, which simplifies the trade-agreement process. There’s a reason it’s commonly referred to as “fast track.”

In January, Hatch even argued that the legislation “actually enhances Congress’ role in trade negotiations by giving specific direction to the administration as to what they need to deliver to get an agreement through Congress.”

Creating a new, specialized intellectual-property czar in the USTR office (remember, the White House already has an “IP czar,” freshly approved by the Senate) likely will undercut the efficiencies Trade Promotion Authority supporters hope to advance. In effect, it would create one more layer of bureaucratic process to get a trade agreement finalized and sent to Congress.

Protecting U.S. intellectual-property interests, as well as other American interests, is something the USTR already does. In light of the pro-free-trade consensus in Congress, it’s hard to argue persuasively that what the office really needs is an additional Department of Redundancy Department.

Featured Publications