Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A Comparison of 105th Congress Legislative Proposals

Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A Comparison of 105th Congress Legislative Proposals

97-957 A
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A
Comparison of 105th Congress Legislative
Proposals
Updated September 15, 1998
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of H.R. 2621 and S. 2400, as reported, 105th
Congress bills that would provide the President with trade negotiating authority and accord
certain resulting agreements and implementing bills expedited — or “fast-track” — legislative
consideration.

Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A Comparison of
105 Congress Legislative Proposals
th
Summary
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of H.R. 2621 and S. 2400, as
reported, 105 Congress bills that would
th
provide the President with trade negotiating
authority and accord certain resulting agreements and implementing bills expedited
— or “fast-track” — legislative consideration. In September 1997 the President
requested that a new fast-track statute be enacted, given that authorities in the
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (OTCA) had expired. OTCA
provisions were last used to approve and implement the GATT Uruguay Round
agreements. H.R. 2621 was reported by the House Ways and Means Committee
October 23, 1997 (H.Rept. 105-341, Part I). A planned House vote was postponed
November 10, with no further floor action taken. The Senate Finance Committee
reported a fast-track bill (S. 1269) October 8, 1997 (S.Rept. 105-102). It was
debated in November and returned to the Senate calendar February 26, 1998. On July
31, the Committee reported S. 2400, the Trade and Tariff Act of 1998, an original bill
containing fast-track provisions that are essentially the same as those found in S. 1269
(S.Rept. 105-280). Floor action has been anticipated in both Houses.
The House and Senate bills contain the same basic elements contained in the
OTCA: a list of general and specific negotiating objectives; a temporary (but
extendable) grant of authority to the President to enter into tariff and nontariff
agreements and to implement tariff agreements by proclamation; a requirement that
nontariff barrier agreements be approved and implemented by statute; a provision that
any such statute will be accorded expedited legislative treatment provided the
President abide by certain statutory notification and consultation requirements;
procedural provisions for extending the general availability of fast-track procedures
to a given date, as well as for prohibiting their use for specific trade agreements;
incorporation of the fast-track procedures set forth in § 151 of the Trade Act of 1974;
and a provision that the procedural provisions of the bill are an exercise of Congress’
constitutional rulemaking authority and are subject to change by rule.
Differences from the OTCA include the addition of labor and environmental aims
as either principal U.S. negotiating objectives or new “international economic policy
objectives,” limitations on what may be included in legislation for which fast-track
procedures are available, and additional requirements placed on the President to notify
and consult with Congress during the trade agreements process. Among the ways in
which the bills differ are: a greater number of negotiating objectives in the Senate bill;
additional attention to agriculture in the House bill; different emphases in each as to
labor and environmental issues; committee pre-negotiation disapproval in the Senate
bill; broader notification and consultation requirements in the Senate bill with respect
to tariff agreements; and some differences in how provisions that may be contained
in implementing legislation are characterized. Each bill would extend current trade
adjustment assistance (TAA) programs for workers and firms and the NAFTA worker
adjustment assistance program for two years (i.e., until 2000), with the House bill
mandating a GAO study on TAA programs.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 2621 and S. 2400 (Title II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A
Comparison of 105th Congress Legislative
Proposals
Introduction
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of H.R. 2621 and S. 2400, as
reported, 105 Congress bills that would
th
provide the President with trade negotiating
authority and accord certain resulting agreements and implementing bills expedited
— or “fast-track”— legislative consideration. The President requested in September
1997 that a new fast-track statute be enacted (and submitted his own bill on the
matter), given the expiration of authorities in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act of 1988 (OTCA), P.L. 101-418, Title I. The OTCA provisions were last used
to approve and implement the GATT Uruguay Round agreements in the Uruguay
Agreements Act of 1994, P.L. 103-465.
The House Ways and Means Committee reported H.R. 2621, the Reciprocal
Trade Agreements Authorities Act of 1997, with amendments, October 23, 1997
(H.Rept. 105-341, Part I). The bill was placed on the Union Calendar November 4,
but a planned House vote was postponed November 10.1 There has been no further
floor action on the bill to date. A Senate fast-track bill, S. 1269, was reported by the
Senate Finance Committee October 8, 1997 (S.Rept. 105-102). The bill was the
subject of several days of floor debate in November 1997 and was returned to the
Senate calendar February 26, 1998. In June, the Speaker of
2
the House stated that
fast-track trade legislation would be on the House agenda later in the year.3 On July
31, the Senate Finance Committee reported S. 2400, the Trade and Tariff Act of
1998, an original bill containing fast-track provisions essentially the same as those
found in S. 1269 (S.Rept. 105-280). S. 2400's fast-track provisions are contained
in Title II of the bill, which has the short title, “Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of
1998.” Floor action on fast-track legislation has been anticipated in both Houses.
The House and Senate bills contain the same basic elements contained in the
OTCA: a list of general and specific negotiating objectives; a temporary (but
extendable) grant of authority to the President to enter into tariff and nontariff
“House
1
puts off trade vote after Clinton seeks delay to corral votes,” AP, November 10,
1997, available in LEXIS, NEWS Library, CURNWS File.
144 Cong. Rec. D130 (daily ed. February 26, 1998).
2
“Gingrich
3
Says Fast Track, Funding for IMF on Fall Agenda,” National Journal’s Congress
Daily, June 25, 1998, available in LEXIS, NEWS Library, CURNWS File.

CRS-2
agreements and to implement tariff agreements by proclamation; a requirement that
nontariff barrier agreements be approved and implemented by statute; a provision that
any such statute will be accorded expedited legislative treatment provided the
President abide by certain statutory notification and consultation requirements;
procedural provisions for extending the general availability of fast-track procedures
to a given date, as well as for prohibiting their use for specific trade agreements;
incorporation by reference of the fast-track procedures contained in section 151 of the
Trade Act of 1974; and a provision that the procedural provisions of the bill are an
exercise of Congress’ constitutional rulemaking authority and are subject to change
by rule.
Within this basic structure, however, the bills differ from the OTCA in a variety
of ways, many of these restricting the availability of fast-track procedures. Among
these:
! they incorporate certain labor and environmental aims as principal negotiating
objectives, as separate “international economic policy objectives” that
complement the trade agreements process, or as both
! they limit the use of fast-track procedures to agreements meeting principal
negotiating objectives and prevent the use of these procedures to modify U.S.
law where international economic policy objective are implicated
! they further define (and limit) the elements of implementing legislation that
may be considered under fast-track procedures, refining the Trade Act’s
language allowing provisions in an implementing bill that are “necessary or
appropriate” to implement an agreement
! they require the President, between the time he notifies Congress of his intent
to enter into an agreement and his submission of an implementing bill, to
submit to Congress an assessment of which changes in U.S. law will be
required as a result of the agreement
! they prescribe additional Executive Branch consultations during the pre-
negotiating and negotiating phases of the trade agreements process.
The bills also differ from each other in a number of respects, including
negotiating objectives, pre-negotiation committee disapproval, their formulation of
provisions that may be included in implementing legislation, and other points. For
example:
! though the bills share negotiating objectives in a number of areas (e.g., trade
barriers, trade in services, foreign investment, intellectual property, agriculture,
and the use of foreign governmental regulations in certain trade-distorting
ways), the Senate bill contains most of the principal negotiating objectives set
forth in the OTCA (though updating some of them), while the House bill
contains fewer (though also updated) objectives
! the House bill contains guidance for negotiators regarding domestic policy
aims (e.g., health and safety) applicable to all principal negotiating objectives,

CRS-3
while the Senate bill contains similar language applicable only to negotiations
on services and investment and refers to these aims as being “legitimate” (the
latter limited approach was taken by the OTCA)
! the House pays additional attention to agriculture in requiring special pre-
negotiation consultations on the matter, placing concern over import-sensitive
items within negotiating objectives, and creating a Special Agricultural
Negotiator within the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)
! while each bill would seek, as a principal negotiating objective, to prevent
foreign governments from lowering regulatory standards to gain competitive
advantage, the breadth of foreign measures to be addressed in negotiations
differs: the House bill refers to the waiving of or derogation from existing
environmental, health, safety, or labor measures, while the Senate bill refers to
the use of foreign government regulations and other government measures
generally for this end and includes within this broad category the specific
actions and regulatory areas mentioned the House bill (each bill specifically
refers to child labor, however)(note also that House bill titles this section
“Labor, Environment and Other Matters,” while the Senate bill labels its similar
section, “Regulatory Competition”)
! each of the sections containing these regulatory objectives contains different
provisos, the House bill focusing on its meaning for foreign law, the Senate bill
on its meaning for U.S. law
! the bills differ in emphasis as to their “international economic policy
objectives,” with the Senate bill treating them as supportive of the trade
agreements process and the House bill providing that the President should
ensure that U.S. trade agreements “complement and reinforce” these other
policy goals
! with respect to U.S. worldwide advancement of labor standards as an
“international economic policy objective,” the Senate bill is more specific than
the House bill as to the U.S. mandate in the International Labor Organization
(ILO), a forum in which this global action may take place: the Senate bill
provides that the U.S. objective is to seek the establishment of an ILO
mechanism for the systematic examination and reporting on the promotion and
enforcement by ILO members with respect to specifically named worker rights,
while the House bill provides for working within the ILO to encourage the
observance and enforcement of core labor standards (each specifically refers,
however to a prohibition on exploitative child labor)
! only the Senate bill provides for two-committee disapproval of the use of fast-
track procedures for a specific nontariff barrier agreement, a procedure that
was available in the OTCA for free trade area negotiations authorized in the
Act
! the Senate bill contains additional provisions for notification of and
consultation with Congress with respect to tariff agreements

CRS-4
! while each bill requires that trade agreements addressing both tariff and
nontariff barriers must reduce, eliminate, or prohibit duties, trade barriers, or
other distortions, the bills differ in the negotiating objectives that must be met
in any such agreements: the House bill provides that the agreements may make
progress toward any of the negotiating objectives set forth in the bill, while the
Senate bill limits these agreements to those making progress toward meeting
principal negotiating objectives.4
! the bills differ somewhat in characterizing what may be included in an
implementing bill subject to fast-track procedures: the Senate bill requires that
the bill must approve a trade agreement that achieves one of the principal
negotiating objectives of the bill, while the House bill requires that the
agreement simply be one that is entered into under its authority for such
agreements; while each refers to implementing provisions as being
“necessary,” the House bill relates this requirement to provision that are
“directly related” to principal trade negotiating objectives; while the House bill
allows provisions that define and clarify, or provisions that are related to, the
operation or effect of the provisions of the trade agreement, the Senate bill
allows provisions that are “otherwise related to the enforcement, and
adjustment to the effects of such agreement and are directly related to trade”;
the House bill additionally allows provisions for adjustment assistance to
workers and firms adversely affected by trade in general (each allows for
provisions necessitated by budget law).
4It is unclear from the House bill whether agreements authorized under § 103 that met
“international economic policy objectives” set forth in § 102(c) could be approved under fast-
track procedures where no change in statute was necessary. Section 102(c) does not authorize
the use of fast-track procedures “to modify United States law.” Were mere approval of an
agreement to be considered such a modification, the use of fast track procedures to approve
such an agreement would seemingly be precluded. The House bill also provides that
provisions of law necessary for the operation or implementation of U.S. rights or obligations
under § 103(b) agreements generally may only be included in an implementing bill subject to
fast-track procedures if these provisions are directly related to the bill’s principal trade
negotiating objectives (see § 103(b)(3)(B)).
In the past, Congress made all changes to domestic law that it viewed were needed to
implement the agreements within the implementing legislation and included in it a provision
that denies domestic effect to provisions of agreements approved in the legislation that conflict
with federal law. See, e.g., Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), P.L. 103-465, §
102(a). As explained in the House Ways and Means Committee report on the URAA: “This
treatment is ... consistent with the Congressional view that necessary changes in Federal
statutes should be specifically enacted, not preempted by international agreements. Since the
Uruguay Round agreements as approved by the Congress, or any subsequent amendment to
those agreements, are not self-executing, any dispute settlement findings that a U.S. statute
is inconsistent, with an agreement also cannot be implemented except by legislation approved
by the Congress unless consistent implementation is permissible under the terms of the
statute.” H.Rept. 103-826, Pt. 1, at 25. Note also that S. 2400 requires the President, before
an agreement is entered into, to notify Congress as to whether the agreement includes subject
matter for which supplemental implementing legislation may be required which is not subject
to fast-track procedures (see § 2004(b)(2)(C)).

CRS-5
S. 2400 essentially restates the fast-track provisions of S. 1269, with the
following modifications: (1) it revises a provision regarding workers’ rights by naming
a specific Declaration of the International Labor Organization (ILO) that should be
effectively implemented within the ILO (§ 2002(c)(1)(C)(ii)); (2) it requires that the
International Trade Commission submit an assessment of the economic impact of any
resulting trade agreements no later than 90 days after they have been entered into (§
2004(e)); and (3) it adds agreements resulting from negotiations to achieve a free
trade area of the Americas to the list of trade agreements exempted from the pre-
negotiation notice and consultation requirements of the bill (§ 2006(a)(4)).
As this report is based on the text of the reported bills, it should be added that
legislative history may provide further interpretation and clarification of the bills’
provisions. The side-by-side comparison of the H.R. 2621 and Title II of S. 2400
begins on the following page.

CRS-6
Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 2621 and S. 2400 (Title II)
H.R. 2621, as reported (H.R. Rept. 105-341, Part I)
S. 2400, Title II, as reported (S.Rept. 105-280)
Short title
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Authorities Act of 1997
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1998
[§ 101]
[§ 2001]
Trade negotiating
States four “overall negotiating objectives” for agreements
Provides that the purposes of the Act are to achieve,
objectives
subject to § 103 of the bill:
through trade agreements affording mutual benefits, the
(general)

following:

! to obtain more open, equitable, and reciprocal
market access
! more open, equitable, and reciprocal market access

for U.S. goods, services, and investment

! to obtain the reduction or elimination of barriers and
distortions that are directly related to trade and that
! the reduction or elimination of barriers and other
decrease market opportunities for U.S. exports or
trade-distorting policies and practices
otherwise distort U.S. trade
! a more effective system of international trading

! to further strengthen the system of international
disciplines and procedures
trading disciplines and procedures, including dispute
settlement
! economic growth, higher living standards, and full
employment in the U.S., and economic growth and

! to foster economic growth, raise living standards,
development among U.S. trading partners
and promote full employment in the U.S. and to
[§ 2002(a)]
enhance the global economy [§ 102(a)]

CRS-7
Trade negotiating
Lists 8 principal trade negotiating objectives:
Lists 15 principal negotiating objectives for agreements
objectives (principal)
subject to provisions of sec. 3 of bill:
! trade barriers and distortions
! trade in services
! reduction of barriers to trade in goods
! foreign investment
! trade in services
! intellectual property
! foreign investment
! transparency
! intellectual property
! reciprocal trade in agriculture
! agriculture
! labor, the environment, and other matters
! unfair trade practices
! WTO extended negotiations [§ 102(b)]
! safeguards
! improvement of the WTO and multilateral trade
negotiation agreements
! dispute settlement
! transparency
! developing countries
! current account surpluses
! access to high technology
! border taxes
! regulatory competition [§ 2002(b)]
— Trade barriers
Objectives are:
Objective is to obtain competitive opportunities for U.S.
exports in foreign markets substantially equivalent to the
! to expand competitive market opportunities for U.S.
opportunities afforded foreign exports to U.S. markets,
exports and to obtain fairer and more open
including the reduction or elimination of tariff and
conditions of trade by reduction or eliminating tariff
nontariff trade barriers, including —
and nontariff barriers and policies and practices of
foreign governments directly related to trade that
! tariff and nontariff disparities remaining from
decrease market opportunities for U.S. exports or
previous rounds of multilateral tariff negotiations
otherwise distort U.S. trade
that have put U.S. exports at a competitive
disadvantage in world markets
! to obtain reciprocal tariff and nontariff barrier
elimination agreements, with particular attention to
! measures identified in USTR’s annual “National
those tariff categories covered in § 11(b) of the
Trade Estimate”
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)
! (i.e., products covered in certain extended Uruguay
! tariff elimination for those products identified in §
Round negotiations) [§ 102(b)(1)]
111(b) of URAA and accompanying Statement of
Administrative Action [§ 2002(b)(1)]

CRS-8
— Trade in services
Objective is to reduce or eliminate barriers to international
Objectives are:
trade in services, including regulatory and other barriers
that deny national treatment or unreasonably restrict the
! to reduce or eliminate barriers to, or other
establishment or operations of service suppliers
distortions of, international trade in services,
[§ 102(b)(2)]
including regulatory and other barriers that deny or
unreasonably restrict the establishment and
operation of service suppliers in foreign markets
! to develop internationally agreed rules, including
dispute settlement procedures, which are consistent
with U.S. commercial policies and will reduce or
eliminate such barriers, or other distortions, and
help ensure fair, equitable opportunities for foreign
markets [§ 2002(b)(2)(A)]
Compare guidance for negotiators in all principal
U.S. negotiators to take into account legitimate U.S.
negotiating areas set forth in § 102(d)(1)(below)
domestic objectives, including protection of legitimate
health, safety, essential security, environmental, consumer,
and employment opportunity interests [§ 2002(b)(2)(B)]
Above guidance “shall not be construed to authorize any
modification of United States law” [§ 2002(b)(2)(B)]

CRS-9
- Foreign investment
Objective is to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade-
Objectives are:
distorting barriers to trade related foreign investment by:
! to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade-distorting
! reducing or eliminating exceptions to the national
barriers to foreign investment
treatment principle
! to expand the principle of national treatment
! freeing the transfer of funds relating to investment
! to reduce unreasonable barriers to establishment
! reducing or eliminating performance requirements
and other unreasonable barriers to the establishment
! to develop internationally agreed rules through the
and operation of investments
negotiation of investment agreements, including
dispute settlement procedures, which will help
! seeking to establish standards for expropriation and
ensure a free flow of investment, and will reduce or
compensation for expropriation, consistent with U.S.
eliminate the trade distortive effects of certain
legal principals and practices
trade-related investment measures [§
2002(b)(3)(A)]
! providing meaningful procedures for resolving
investment disputes [§ 102(b)(3)]
Same negotiating guidance and statutory construction as
for negotiations on trade in services [§ 2002(b)(3)(B)]
Compare guidance for negotiators in all principal
negotiating areas set forth in § 102(d)(1)(below).

CRS-10
— Intellectual property Objectives for “trade-related” intellectual property are:
Objectives regarding intellectual property are:

(1) to further promote adequate and effective protection of
(1) to further promote adequate and effective protection of
intellectual property rights (IPR), including through:
IPR, by:
! [no provision regarding changes in foreign law]
! seeking enactment and effective enforcement of
foreign intellectual property laws
! ensuring accelerated and full implementation of
! accelerating and ensuring full implementation of
TRIPS Agreement (particularly regarding U.S.
TRIPS Agreement and achieving improvements in
industries whose products are subject to lengthiest
its standards
developing country transition periods) and ensuring
that any new multilateral or bilateral agreements
embody IP protections as strong as those in NAFTA
! new technologies: same as House bill
! providing strong protection for new and emerging
technologies and new methods of transmitting and
distributing products embodying intellectual property
! discrimination: same as House bill
! preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect
to matters affecting the availability, acquisition,
scope, maintenance, use and enforcement of IPR
! enforcement of IPR: same as House bill
! providing strong enforcement of IPR,
(2) to secure fair, equitable and non-discriminatory market
(2) to secure fair, equitable and non-discriminatory market
access opportunities for U.S. persons that rely upon IPR
access opportunities for U.S. persons that rely upon IPR
(no definition of “U.S. person” in bill)
(“U.S. person” defined in § 109 of bill)
[§ 102(b)(4)]
(3) to recognize that inclusion in WTO of IPR disciplines
and dispute settlement is without prejudice to other
No provision in House bill regarding recognition of other
complementary international initiatives [§ 2002(b)(4)]
international initiatives.
[Sec. 102(B)(4)][Sec. 102(b)(4)(C) No provision in House
bill regarding recognition of other international initiatives

CRS-11
—Transparency
Objective is to obtain broader application of principle of
Objective is to obtain broader application of principle of
transparency through:
transparency through:
! increased and more timely public access to
! increased public access to information regarding
information regarding trade issues and activities of
trade issues
international trade institutions
! clarification of costs and benefits of trade policy
! increased openness of dispute settlement
actions
proceedings, including under the WTO
[§ 102(b)(5)]
! observance of open and equitable procedures of
U.S. trading partners and within the WTO
No provision in House bill regarding transparency of costs
[§ 2002(b)(10)]
and benefits of trade policy actions.

CRS-12
— Agriculture
Objective is to obtain competitive opportunities for U.S.
Objectives, along with those in § 1123(b) of Food Security
exports in foreign markets substantially equivalent to those
Act of 1985 (7 USC § 1736r(b)), are to achieve, on
afforded by the U.S. and to achieve fairer and more open
expedited basis as feasible, more open and fair conditions
condition of trade in bulk and value-added commodities by:
of trade in agricultural commodities by:
! reducing or eliminating tariffs and charges that
! improving disciplines for agricultural trade,
decrease U.S. market opportunities (focus on high
including disciplines on restrictive or trade-
tariffs or subsidy regimes of major producing
distorting import and export practices such as those
countries; provide reasonable adjustment periods for
that would impact perishable or cyclical products
import-sensitive products; consult with Congress
before negotiating on import-sensitive items)
! increasing U.S. agricultural exports by eliminating
trade barriers and reducing or eliminating the
! reducing or eliminating subsidies that decrease U.S.
subsidization of agricultural production consistent
market opportunities or unfairly distort markets
with U.S. policy of agricultural stabilization in
cyclical and unpredictable markets
! improving disciplines and dispute settlement
mechanisms to eliminate practices that unfairly
! creating a free and more open agricultural trading
decrease U.S. market access opportunities or distort
system by resolving questions pertaining to export
markets, particularly with respect to import-sensitive
and other trade-distorting subsidies, market pricing,
products (specified practices listed below)
and market access
! improving import relief mechanisms to recognize the
! eliminating and reducing substantially other specific
unique characteristics of perishable agriculture
constraints to fair trade and more open market
access, such as tariff, quotas and other tariff
! taking into account whether a negotiating country
practices
has adhered to existing trade obligations owed the
U.S.
! improving disciplines that address practices that
unfairly decrease US. market access opportunities
! taking into account whether a product is subject to
or distort markets (specific practices listed below)
distortions because of failure of a major producing
[§ 2002(b)(5)]
country to adhere to existing trade obligations owed
the U.S.
!

CRS-13
— Agriculture (cont.)
! otherwise ensuring that WTO countries have made
meaningful market liberalization commitments in
agriculture [§ 102(b)(6)]
— Agriculture: foreign
Bill lists the following practices as those for which
Bill lists the following as practices for which improved
trade distorting
improved disciplines and dispute settlement are needed:
disciplines are needed:
practices to be
addressed in
! unfair or trade-distorting activities of state trading
! unfair or trade-distorting activities of state trading
negotiations
enterprises and other administrative mechanisms,
enterprises and other administrative mechanisms
with emphasis on requiring price transparency in the
including promoting price transparency
operation of state trading enterprises and such other
mechanisms
! unjustified trade restriction or commercial
! new technologies: same as House bill
requirements affecting new technologies, including
biotechnology
! unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary (S&P)
! unjustified S&P restrictions (no reference to
restrictions, including those not based on scientific
Uruguay Round as in House bill)
principles in contravention of Uruguay Round
agreements
! other unjustified technical barriers to trade (TBTs)
! TBTs: same as House bill
! restrictive rules in the administration of tariff-rate
! tariff-rate quotas: same as House bill
quotas [§ 102(b)(6)(C)(i)-(v)]
[§ 2002(b)(5)(F)(i)-(v)]

CRS-14
— Labor, environment,
Titled “Labor, the Environment, and Other Matters”
Titled “Regulatory Competition”
competition
Negotiating objective is to address following aspects of
Negotiating objectives regarding the use of government
foreign government policies and practices regarding the
regulation or other practices by foreign governments to
above-named topics “that are directly related to trade”:
obtain a competitive advantage to their domestic
producers, service providers, or investors, and thereby
reduce market access of U.S. goods, services, and
investment, are:
! to ensure that foreign labor, environmental, health or
safety policies and practices do not arbitrarily or
! to ensure that government regulation and other
unjustifiably discriminate or serve as disguised
government practices do not unfairly discriminate
barriers to trade
against U.S. goods, services, or investment
! to ensure that foreign governments do not derogate
from or waive existing domestic environmental,
! to prevent the use of foreign government regulation
health, safety or labor measures, including measures
and other government practices, including the
that deter exploitative child labor, as an
lowering of, or derogation from, existing labor
encouragement to gain competitive advantage in
(including child labor), health and safety, or
international trade or investment
environmental standards, for the purpose of
attracting investment or inhibiting U.S. exports
! Proviso for subparagraph addressing derogation
from existing foreign measures: “Nothing in this
! Proviso for subsection addressing prevention of
subparagraph is intended to address changes to a
regulatory incentives: “Nothing in subparagraph (b)
country’s laws that are consistent with sound
shall be construed to authorize inclusion in an
macroeconomic development” [§ 102(b)(7)]
implementing bill, or in an agreement subject to an
implementing bill, provisions that would restrict the
autonomy of the United States in these areas”
[§ 2002(b)(15)]
— WTO extended
WTO negotiations in financial services, civil aircraft and
No provision
negotiations
rules of origin to be guided by those listed in URAA for
these areas [§ 102(b)(8)]

CRS-15
International economic
President should take into account the relationship between
Provides that it is U.S. policy to reinforce the trade
policy objectives
trade agreements and other important priorities of the U.S.
agreements process by four means:
(IEPOS): environment,
and seek to ensure that U.S. trade agreements complement
labor, intellectual
and reinforce other policy goals; states four U.S. priorities:
! expanding the production of goods and trade in
property, currency
goods in services to ensure the optimal use of the
markets
! seeking to ensure that trade and environmental
world’s resources, while seeking to protect and
policies are mutually supportive [§ 102(c)(1)(A)]
preserve the environment and to enhance the
international means for doing so [§ 2002(c)(1)(D)]
! seeking to preserve the environment and enhance the
international means for doing so, while optimizing
! promoting respect for workers’ rights by: (i)
the use of the world’s resources [§ 102(c)(1)(B)]
reviewing the relationship between workers’ rights
and the operation of international trading systems
! promoting respect for worker rights and the rights
and specific trade arrangements; and (ii) seeking
of children and an understanding of the relationship
effective implementation in the ILO of the
between trade and worker rights; particularly by
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights
working with the International Labor Organization
at Work and its monitoring mechanism to ensure
(ILO) to encourage the observance of core labor
the systematic examination of and reporting on the
standards, including the prohibition on exploitative
extent to which ILO members promote and enforce
child labor [§ 102(c)(1)(C)]
the freedom of association, the right to organize
and bargain collectively, and prohibitions on the use
! supplementing and strengthening standards for
of forced labor, exploitative child labor, and
protection of intellectual property (IPR) under
discrimination in employment [§ 2002(c)(1)(C)]
conventions administered by international
organizations other than the WTO, expanding these
! expanding IPR protection (same language as House
conventions to cover new and emerging
bill) [§ 2002(c)(1)(B)]
technologies, and eliminating discrimination and
unreasonable exceptions or preconditions to such
! fostering stability in currency markets by developing
protection [§ 102(c)(1)(D)]
mechanisms to assure greater coordination and
cooperation between trade and monetary systems
House bill does not include provision on international
and institutions so as to protect against trade
currency markets contained in Senate bill.
consequences of dramatic and unanticipated
currency movements [§ 2002(c)(1)(A)]
Section 102(c) may not be construed to authorize the use
of sec. 103 trade authorities procedures (i.e., fast track
legislative procedures) to modify U.S. law
[Sec. 102 (c)(2)]

CRS-16
Restriction on use of
Nothing in subsection addressing international economic
Same as House bill [§ 2002(c)(2)]
fast track procedures to
policy objectives may be construed to authorize the use of
implement agreements
fast track legislative procedures to modify U.S. law
involving IEPOS
[§ 102(c)(2)]
Guidance for
In pursuing principal negotiating objectives, U.S.
Similar provision attached to principal negotiating
negotiators: preserving
negotiators shall take into account U.S. domestic
objectives in services and investment only (see above)
domestic objectives
objectives, including the protection of health and safety,
essential security, environmental, consumer, and
employment opportunity interests, and their related law and
regulations
[§ 102(d)(1)]
Guidance for
Requires USTR, during course of negotiations:
Similar provision regarding congressional trade advisors in
negotiators:
§ 2004(d), but excludes language on preservation of trade
consultations with
! to consult closely and regularly with congressional
laws, etc., and additionally specifies that consultation must
Congress/preserve
trade advisers on trade policy
take place immediately prior to initialing an agreement
rigorous enforcement of
trade laws/avoid
! to preserve ability of U.S. to enforce rigorously its
weakening of trade
trade laws (including antidumping and countervailing
disciplines
duty laws) and avoid agreements which lessen
effectiveness of international and domestic
disciplines on unfair trade, especially dumping and
subsidies, in order to ensure that U.S. workers,
agricultural producers, and firms can compete fully
on fair terms and enjoy benefits of reciprocal trade
concessions [§ 102(d)(2)]
Uruguay Round
In determining whether to enter into negotiations with a
No provision
performance
particular country, President must take into account extent
to which it has adhered to, or accelerated its
implementation of, Uruguay Round obligations [§ 102(e)]

CRS-17
Trade agreement
Whenever the President determines that one or more
Same as House bill, except for notification requirement
authority: tariff barrier
existing foreign or U.S. duties or other import restrictions
[§ 2003(a)]
agreements
are unduly burdening or restricting U.S. foreign trade and
that the purposes, policies, and objectives of the Act will be
Senate bill contains notification and consultation
promoted thereby, the President may enter into trade
provisions for tariff agreements in § 2004(a)-(b)(below),
agreements with foreign countries before October 1, 2001
both prior to negotiations and prior to entry into
(extendable to October 1, 2005) [§ 103(a)(1)(A)]
agreement
President must notify Congress of intent to enter into a
tariff agreement [§ 103(a)(1)]
Grants the President authority to proclaim tariffs he
determines are “required or appropriate” to carry out the
agreement, within a statutorily-defined range and subject to
certain other restrictions [§ 103(a)(1)(B), (2)-(4)] .

Duty reductions or increases that do not fall within the
President’s proclamation authority may only take effect if
they are enacted in an implementing bill [§ 103(a)(5)]

CRS-18
— Other tariff
Grants the President additional tariff proclamation authority
Grants the President additional proclamation authority,
proclamation authority
if the U.S. agrees to duty modifications or staged rate
with the following differences:
reductions in a negotiation for the reciprocal elimination or
harmonization of duties under WTO auspices or as part of
! regarding WTO negotiations, modification or
an interim agreement leading to the formation of a regional
staged rate reduction must be agreed to in
free-trade area; authority subject to statutory consultation
negotiations for the elimination or harmonization of
and layover requirements [§ 103(a)(6)]
duties on a reciprocal basis within the same tariff
categories
Note: This authority is similar to the additional
proclamation authority granted the President in § 111(b) of
! authority limited to dates for which trade agreement
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), but extends
authorities are provided in the bill (i.e., before
it to interim agreements leading to the formation of a
October 1, 2001, or, if extended, before October 1,
regional free-trade area. Both the House and Senate bills
2005)
provide that the tariff agreement and proclamation
authority contained in each does not affect the operation of
! President must notify and consult with Congress
§ 111(b) of the URAA (See H.R. 2621, § 103(a)(7); S.
under § 2004(a)
2400,
§ 2003(a)(7)).
! modifications or reductions may be proclaimed only
with respect to articles included in President’s
notification [§ 2003(a)(6)]
See note in adjoining column regarding similar authority in
Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

CRS-19
Trade agreement
Whenever the President determines that —
Generally same as House bill [§ 2003(b)(1)(A)]
authority: tariff and
non-tariff barrier
(1) one or more existing foreign or U.S. duties or any
agreements
other import restriction, or any other barrier to, or other
distortion of international trade, unduly burdens or restricts
U.S. foreign trade or adversely affects the U.S. economy,
or
(2) the imposition of any such barrier or distortion is likely
to have such an outcome,
and that the purposes, policies, and objectives of the Act
will be promoted,
the President may enter into trade agreements, as described
in the bill, before October 1, 2001 (extendable to October
1, 2005) [§ 103(b)(1)(A),(C)]
— Description of trade
Agreements entered into under the section must provide for
Same as House bill [§ 2003(b)(1)(B)]
agreements that may be

entered into under this
(1) the reduction or elimination of such a duty, restriction,
Note: Agreements covered by or governed by this section
authority
barrier, or other distortion, or
will subsequently be referred to in this table as “§ 2003(b)
agreements.”
(2) the prohibition of, or limitation of, such a barrier or
other distortion ) [§ 103(b)(1)(B)]
Note: Agreements covered by or governed by this section
will subsequently be referred to in this table as “§ 103(b)
agreements.”
— Conditions
Section 103(b) agreements may be entered into under this
Section 2003(b) agreements may be entered into only if:
section only if:
! they make progress in meeting the negotiating
! they make progress in meeting the negotiating
objectives set forth in § 2(b)(i.e. “principal
objectives set forth in § 102
negotiating objectives” only)
! the President notifies and consults with Congress as
! the President notifies and consults with Congress as
required under § 104 of the Act [§ 103(b)(2)]
required under § 2004 of the Act [§ 2003(b)(2)]

CRS-20
Bills qualifying for fast
Fast track procedures in § 151 of the Trade Act of 1974
Fast track procedures in § 151 of the Trade Act of 1974
track consideration
apply to implementing bills that consist only of:
apply to implementing bills that consist only of:

! a provision approving a § 103(b) agreement and
! provisions that approve a § 2003(b) agreement
approving the statement of administrative action (if
meeting one or more of the § 2002(b) principal
any) proposed to implement the agreement
negotiating objectives and approving the statement
of administrative action (if any) proposed to
! provisions directly related to principal negotiating
implement the agreement
objectives achieved in the agreement (see § 102(b)),
if the provisions are “necessary” for the operation or
! provisions that (1) are “necessary” to implement the
implementation of U.S. rights or obligations under
agreement or (2) are “otherwise related to the
the trade agreement
implementation, enforcement, and adjustment to the
effects of such agreement and are directly related to
! provisions that “define and clarify, or provisions that
trade”
are related to,” the operation or effect of the
agreement’s provisions (e.g., provide that U.S.
! provisions necessary for compliance with § 252 of
domestic law prevails over a conflicting agreement
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
provision)
Control Act of 1985 in implementing the agreement
[§ 2003(b)(3)]
! provisions to provide adjustment assistance to
workers and firms adversely affected by trade
Note: Procedures in § 151 of Trade Act of 1974 — i.e.,
fast-track legislative procedures — are referred to in the
! provisions necessary for compliance with § 252 of
Senate bill as “trade agreement approval procedures.”
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
These will subsequently be referred to in this table as
Act of 1985 in implementing the agreement
either “trade agreement approval procedures” or “fast-
[§ 103(b)(3)]
track procedures.”
Note: Procedures in § 151 of Trade Act of 1974 — i.e.,
fast-track legislative procedures — are referred to in the
House bill as “trade authorities procedures.” These will
subsequently be referred to in this table as either “trade
authorities procedures” or “fast-track procedures.”

CRS-21
Extending trade
Trade authorities procedures apply to implementing bills
Same as House bill, but specifies that portion of
agreement authorities:
submitted with § 103(b) agreements after September 30,
President’s report to Congress dealing with negotiating
congressional
2001 and before October 1, 2005, if, “and only if,” the
progress is to focus on progress made in negotiations
disapproval procedures
President requests an extension and neither House of
toward achieving items set forth in Act’s statement of
Congress adopts an extension disapproval resolution before
purposes and principal negotiating objectives only (House
October 1, 2001 [§ 103(c)]
bill specifies progress made toward purposes, policies and
objectives of the Act in general, thus including
Presidential request must include report to Congress by
international economic policy objectives) [§ 2003(c)]
July 1, 2001; President must also inform ACTPN, which
must also report to Congress; reports may be classified
[§ 103(c)(2)-(4)]
Notice and consultation
For § 103(b) agreements, President must (1) give Congress
Same as House bill, but requirements apply both to §
before negotiation
written notice at least 90 calendar days before initiating
2003(a) tariff agreements as well as to § 2003(b)
negotiations and (2) before and after submitting notice,
agreements [§ 2004(a)]
consult regarding negotiations with the Senate Finance
Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee and
such other congressional as the President deems
appropriate [§ 104(a)(1)]
— Pre-negotiation
Separate requirement to consult with House Ways and
No provision
consultations for
Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee and with
agreements involving
statutory advisory groups before initiating negotiations on
trade barriers and
matters directly related to § 102(b) negotiating objectives
distortions and labor,
involving “trade barriers and other distortions” and “labor,
environment and other
environment, and other matters” regarding the manner in
matters.
which the negotiations will address the reduction or
elimination of specific barriers or foreign government
policies or practices [§ 104(a)(2)]

CRS-22
— Pre-negotiation
Before initiating negotiations with a country on matters
No provision
consultation
directly related to “reciprocal trade in agriculture,”
requirement for
President must assess whether U.S. tariffs bound in
agreements on
Uruguay Round are lower than those bound by that
agriculture
country; must also consider worldwide bound tariffs
applied to U.S. products are higher than U.S. tariffs and
whether negotiations may address such disparity [§
104(a)(3)]
President must consult with House Ways and Means and
Agriculture Committees, and Senate Finance and
Agriculture Committees concerning results of assessment,
whether it is appropriate for U.S. to agree to further tariff
reductions, and how all negotiating objectives will be met
[§ 104(a)(3)]
Consultation with
Before entering into any § 103(b) agreement, the President
Generally same as House bill, but applies both to §
Congress before
must consult with House Ways and Means and Senate
2003(a) tariff agreements and § 2003(b) agreements; also
agreements entered into
Finance Committees and each other House and Senate
some differences and additions as to consultations: (1)
committee having jurisdiction over legislation involving
instead of the general effect of agreements on existing
matters affected by the agreement
laws, consultations on implementation must specifically
[§ 104(b)(1)]
address whether the agreement contains any subject matter
for which supplemental implementing legislation may be
Scope of consultations includes:
required which is not subject to fast-track procedures, and
! nature of agreement
(2) consultations must also include”any other agreement”
! how it meets statutory purposes, policies and
the President has entered into or intends to enter into with
objectives
the country or countries involved [§ 2004(b)-(c)]
! implementation of agreement under § 105, including
general effect of the agreement on existing laws
[§ 104(b)(2)]
Advisory committee reports must be provided to the
Same as House bill [§ 2004(c)]
President, Congress, and the USTR by 30 days after the
President notifies the Congress of negotiation or intent to
enter into an agreement [§ 104(c)]

CRS-23
Consultation before
No provision
Requires the USTR to consult closely and on timely basis
agreements initialed
during negotiations (including before agreement is
initialed) with congressional trade advisers appointed
under 19 U.S.C. § 2211, and with Senate Finance and
House Ways and Means Committees [§ 2004(d)]
International Trade
No provision
Requires the President, at least 90 days before entering
Commission (ITC)
into a § 2003(b) agreement, to provide the ITC with
assessment of
details of the agreement and to request it to provide an
agreements
assessment of its likely economic impact on the U.S.
economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors; the
ITC report is to be submitted to the President and
Congress no later than 90 days after President enters into
the agreement; in preparing the report, the ITC must
review and assess available empirical literature on the
agreement [§ 2004(e)]

CRS-24
Implementation of
Agreements entered into under § 103(b) shall enter into
Same as House bill [§ 2005(a)(1)]
trade agreements
force for the U.S. “if (and only if)”:
! the President, at least 90 calendar days before the
date of entry into the agreement, notifies the House
and Senate of his intention to enter into the
agreement, and promptly publishes notice in the
Federal Register
! within 60 calendar days after entry, the President
submits to the Congress a description of changes to
existing laws that the President considers would be
required in order to bring the U.S. into compliance
with the agreement
! after entering into the agreement, the President
submits a copy of the official legal text of the
agreement, a draft of an implementing bill, a
statement of any administrative action (SAA)
proposed to implement the trade agreement, and
statutorily required supporting information
! the implementing bill is enacted into law [§ 104(a)]
Note: Like the OTCA, the bill does not impose a time limit
on when an implementing bill must be submitted; however,
the bill would newly require the President to submit a
description of probable changes in law between the time he
notifies Congress of his intent to enter into the agreement
and the time he submits the bill.

CRS-25
Reciprocal benefits
To avoid free-rider problems, the bill must provide that
Provides that such reciprocity provisions be recommended
agreement benefits and obligations apply only to parties, it
to Congress by the President [§ 2005(a)(3)]
such treatment is consistent with the agreement; may also
provide that agreement does not apply uniformly to all
parties, if consistent with the agreement [§ 105(a)(3)]
Limitations on fast-
No provision
Fast-track procedures do not apply to any implementing
track procedures: pre-
bill approving an agreement entered into under § 2003(b)
negotiation committee
if the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and
disapproval
Means Committee disapprove of the negotiations before
the close of the 90-calendar day period beginning on the
date notice is provided under § 2004(a)(1) with respect to
its negotiation [§ 2005(b)(1)]
Limitations on fast-
Fast-track procedures will not apply to an implementing bill
Same as House, but specifies that each House separately
track procedures (lack
with respect to a trade agreement entered into under sec.
agree to the resolution within a 60-day period
of notice or
3(b) if, during the 60-day period beginning on the date that
[§ 2005(b)(2)]
consultation)
one House agrees to a procedural disapproval resolution
for lack of notice or consultations, the other House
separately agrees to the same [§ 105(b)]
Exercise of
Extension disapproval procedures and procedural
Same as House bill, but includes procedure for committee
congressional
disapproval resolution provisions are enacted as enacted as
disapproval [§ 2005(c)]
rulemaking
exercise of House and Senate rulemaking power and “with
full recognition of the constitutional right of either House
to change the rules ... at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as any other rule of that House”
[§ 105(c)]

CRS-26
Possible inapplicability
Notwithstanding conditions for § 03(b) agreements, the
Notwithstanding the bill’s provisions requiring notice to
of fast-track conditions
applicability of fast-track procedures to such agreements
Congress of negotiations falling within the scope of the
to certain agreements
resulting from negotiations begun before enactment of the
President’s added proclamation authority and the bill’s
bill is to be determined without regard to pre-negotiation
provisions placing conditions on agreements that may be
notification requirements in § 104(a); a procedural
entered into under § 2003(b), the bill’s notification
disapproval resolution on the basis of President’s failure or
requirements do not apply to certain agreements whose
refusal to comply with these requirements will not be in
negotiations began before enactment; the applicability of
order; President must consult with Congress as soon as
fast-track procedures is to be determined without regard
feasible after enactment [§ 106(b)]
to § 2004(a) consultation requirements; a procedural
disapproval resolution based on the President’s failure or
Provision applies to any of the following:
refusal to comply with these requirements will not be in
order [§ 2006(a)-(b)]
! a WTO information technology agreement entered
into under WTO auspices
Provision applies to agreements resulting from:
! a WTO financial services agreement entered into
! WTO negotiations on information technology
under extended WTO negotiations in this area

! negotiations or work programs initiated pursuant to
! a rules of origin agreement entered into under the
a Uruguay Round agreement
WTO work program in the area
! negotiations with Chile
! an agreement entered into with Chile [§ 106(a)]
! negotiations to achieve a free trade area of the
Americas [§ 2006(a)]
Chief agricultural
Establishes in the Office of the USTR a Chief Agricultural
No provision
negotiator
Negotiator (appointed by the President with advice and
consent of Senate, with rank of Ambassador and serving at
the pleasure of the President) having as her or his primary
function the conduct of trade negotiations relating to
agricultural commodities and other functions as the USTR
may direct [§ 107]

Conforming
Amends various provisions to insert language referring to
Same as House bill [§ 2007]
amendments
the RTAAA of 1997; makes certain sections of the Trade
Act of 1974 applicable to agreements entered into and
other actions under the RTAAA of 1997 [§ 108]
Definitions
Defines “United States person,” “Uruguay Round
Defines “distortion,” “trade,” “Uruguay Round
agreements,” “World Trade Organization,” and “WTO
Agreements,” “WTO Agreement,” “WTO.” and “WTO
Agreement” [§ 109]
member” (distortion “includes, but is not limited to a
subsidy”; trade “includes, but is not limited to ... trade in
both goods and services” and “foreign investment by
United States persons, especially if such investment has
implications for trade in goods and services) [§ 2008]”
Trade adjustment
Extends trade adjustment assistance programs (TAA) for
Same as House bill [§ 3001]
assistance
workers and firms and the NAFTA adjustment assistance
program for two years — i.e., to the year 2000
[§§ 201-202]
Requires the GAO to prepare a report evaluating TAA
No provision
programs by October 1, 1999 [§ 203]

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.