{
  "id": "97-957",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-957",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105032,
      "date": "1998-09-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:51:34.948941",
      "title": "Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A Comparison of 105th Congress Legislative Proposals",
      "summary": "This report provides a side-by-side comparison of  H.R. 2621  and  S. 2400 ,\nas reported, 105th Congress bills that would provide the President with trade negotiating authority\nand accord certain resulting agreements and implementing bills expedited -- or \"fast-track\" -- \nlegislative consideration. In September 1997 the President requested that a new fast-track statute be\nenacted, given that authorities in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (OTCA) had\nexpired. OTCA provisions were last used to approve and implement the GATT Uruguay Round\nagreements.  H.R. 2621  was reported by the House Ways and Means Committee\nOctober 23, 1997 ( H.Rept. 105-341 , Part I). A planned House vote was postponed November 10,\nwith no further floor action taken. The Senate Finance Committee reported a fast-track bill\n( S. 1269 ) October 8, 1997 ( S.Rept. 105-102 ). It was debated in November and returned\nto the Senate calendar February 26, 1998. On July 31, the Committee reported  S. 2400 ,\nthe Trade and Tariff Act of 1998, an original bill containing fast-track provisions that are essentially\nthe same as those found in  S. 1269  ( S.Rept. 105-280 ). Floor action has been anticipated\nin both Houses.\n  The House and Senate bills contain the same basic elements contained in the OTCA: a list of\ngeneral and specific negotiating objectives; a temporary (but extendable) grant of authority to the\nPresident to enter into tariff and nontariff agreements and to implement tariff agreements by\nproclamation; a requirement that nontariff barrier agreements be approved and implemented by\nstatute; a provision that any such statute will be accorded expedited legislative treatment provided\nthe President abide by certain statutory notification and consultation requirements; procedural\nprovisions for extending the general availability of fast-track procedures to a given date, as well as\nfor prohibiting their use for specific trade agreements; incorporation of the fast-track procedures set\nforth in Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974; and a provision that the procedural provisions of the\nbill are an exercise of Congress' constitutional rulemaking authority and are subject to change by\nrule.\n  Differences from the OTCA include the addition of labor and environmental aims as either\nprincipal U.S. negotiating objectives or new \"international economic policy objectives,\" limitations\non what may be included in legislation for which fast-track procedures are available, and additional\nrequirements placed on the President to notify and consult with Congress during the trade\nagreements process. Among the ways in which the bills differ are: a greater number of negotiating\nobjectives in the Senate bill; additional attention to agriculture in the House bill; different emphases\nin each as to labor and environmental issues; committee pre-negotiation disapproval in the Senate\nbill; broader notification and consultation requirements in the Senate bill with respect to tariff\nagreements; and some differences in how provisions that may be contained in implementing\nlegislation are characterized. Each bill would extend current trade adjustment assistance (TAA)\nprograms for workers and firms and the NAFTA worker adjustment assistance program for two years\n( i.e. , until 2000), with the House bill mandating a GAO study on TAA programs.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-957",
          "sha1": "3111d49cc2db5d89c84f4dc8873a469e35bd9e81",
          "filename": "files/19980915_97-957_3111d49cc2db5d89c84f4dc8873a469e35bd9e81.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980915_97-957_3111d49cc2db5d89c84f4dc8873a469e35bd9e81.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc815728/",
      "id": "97-957_1998Jul02",
      "date": "1998-07-02",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A Comparison of 105th Congress Legislative Proposals",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/19980702_97-957_c7a704f1b60b7dc222429fe2a4763df1e060fd5c.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980702_97-957_c7a704f1b60b7dc222429fe2a4763df1e060fd5c.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}