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 July 2, 1998
Jeanne J. Grimmett
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A Comparison of
105 Congress Legislative Proposals
th
Summary
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of the reported versions of H.R.
2621 and S. 1269, 105 Congress bills that would provide
th
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 fast-
track bill), 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), and
was placed on the Union Calendar November 4. A planned House vote was
postponed November 10 and there has been no further floor action. 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 action in November 1997, and returned
to the Senate calendar February 26, 1998. The Speaker of the House recently stated
that fast-track trade legislation would be on the House agenda later this year.
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 from each other 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 the characterization of provisions that may be contained in
implementing legislation. Each bill would extend current trade adjustment assistance
(TAA) programs for workers and firms and the NAFTA worker adjustment
assistance program for two years -- that is, until the year 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. 1269 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Fast-Track Trade Negotiating Authority: A
Comparison of 105th Congress Legislative
Proposals
Introduction
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of the reported versions of H.R.
2621 and S. 1269, 105 Congress bills that would provide
th
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), Pub. L. No. 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, Pub. L. No. 103-465.
The House Ways and Means Committee reported H.R. 2621 to the House,
amended, 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 action on the 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 action in November 1997 and was returned to the Senate
calendar February 26, 1998.2 Recently, the Speaker of the House stated that fast-
track trade legislation would be on the House agenda later this year.3
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;
1 "House puts off trade vote after Clinton seeks delay to corral votes," AP, November
10, 1997, available in LEXIS, NEWS Library, CURNWS File.
2 144 Cong. Rec. D130 (daily ed. February 26, 1998).
3 "Gingrich 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
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 ways, 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,
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

CRS-3
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
! 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

CRS-4
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).
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 S. 1269 begins on the
following page.
4 It is unclear from the House bill whether agreements authorized under sec. 103 that
met “international economic policy objectives” set forth in sec. 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 sec. 103(b) agreements generally may only be included in an
implementing bill subject to fast-track procedures if these provisions are directly related to
principal trade negotiating objectives
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), Pub. L. No.
103-465, sec. 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.R. Rep. No. 103-826, Pt. 1, at 25. Note also
that S. 1269 requires the President, before an agreement is entered into, to notify Congress
of whether the agreement includes subject matter for which supplemental implementing
legislation may be required which is not subject to fast-track procedures.

CRS-5
Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 2621 and S. 1269

H.R. 2621
S. 1269
Short title
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Authorities Act of 1997
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997
[Sec. 101]
[Sec. 1]
Trade negotiating
States four “overall negotiating objectives” for agreements
Provides that the purposes of the Act are to achieve,
objectives
subject to sec. 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, and
development among U.S. trading partners [Sec.
promote full employment in the U.S. and to enhance
2(a)].
the global economy [Sec. 102(a)]

CRS-6
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 [Sec. 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 [Sec. 2(b)]

CRS-7
-- 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 conditions
including the reduction or elimination of tariff and
of trade by reduction or eliminating tariff and
nontariff trade barriers, including --
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 sec. 111(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) [Sec. 102(b)(1)]
sec. 111(b) of URAA and accompanying Statement
of Administrative Action [Sec. 2(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 [Sec.
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 [Sec. 2(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 sec. 102(d)(1)(below)
domestic objectives, including protection of legitimate
health, safety, essential security, environmental, consumer,
and employment opportunity interests [Sec. 2(b)(2(B)]
Above guidance “shall not be construed to authorize any
modification of United States law” [Sec. 2(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 trade-
legal principals and practices
related investment measures [Sec. 2(b)(3)(A)]
! providing meaningful procedures for resolving
Same negotiating guidance and statutory construction as
investment disputes [Sec. 102(b)(3)]
for negotiations on trade in services [Sec. 2(b)(3)(B)]
Compare guidance for negotiators in all principal
negotiating areas set forth in sec. 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
! providing strong protection for new and emerging
! new technologies: same as House bill
technologies and new methods of transmitting and
distributing products embodying intellectual property
! preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect
! discrimination: same as House bill
to matters affecting the availability, acquisition,
scope, maintenance, use and enforcement of IPR
! providing strong enforcement of IPR,
! enforcement of IPR: same as House bill
(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
(“U.S. person” defined in sec. 109 of bill)
(no definition of “U.S. person” in bill)
[Sec. 102(b)(4)]
(3) to recognize that inclusion in WTO of IPR disciplines
No provision in House bill regarding recognition of other
and dispute settlement is without prejudice to other
international initiatives
complementary international initiatives [Sec. 2(b)(4)] .

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
[Sec. 102(b)(5)]
! observance of open and equitable procedures of
U.S. trading partners and within the WTO [Sec.
No provision in House bill regarding transparency of costs
2(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 sec. 1123(b) of Food
exports in foreign markets substantially equivalent to those
Security Act of 1985 (7 USC sec. 1736r(b)), are to achieve,
afforded by the U.S. and to achieve fairer and more open
on expedited basis as feasible, more open and fair
condition of trade in bulk and value-added commodities by:
conditions 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 has
practices
adhered to existing trade obligations owed the U.S.
! improving disciplines that address practices that
! taking into account whether a product is subject to
unfairly decrease US. market access opportunities or
distortions because of failure of a major producing
distort markets (specific practices listed below)
country to adhere to existing trade obligations owed
[Sec. 2(b)(5)]
the U.S.

CRS-13
-- Agriculture (cont.)
! otherwise ensuring that WTO countries have made
meaningful market liberalization commitments in
agriculture [Sec. 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 practices
improved disciplines and dispute settlement are needed:
disciplines are needed:
to be addressed in
negotiations
! unfair or trade-distorting activities of state trading
! unfair or trade-distorting activities of state trading
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 [Sec. 102(b)(6)(C)(i)-(v)]
[Sec. 2(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 barriers
government practices do not unfairly discriminate
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” [Sec. 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”
[Sec. 2(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 [Sec. 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 in four ways:
(IEPOS): environment,
and seek to ensure that U.S. trade agreements complement
labor, intellectual
and reinforce other policy goals; states four U.S. priorities:
! by 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 [Sec. 102(c)(1)(A)];
preserve the environment and to enhance the
international means for doing so [Sec. 2(c)(1)(D)]
! seeking to preserve the environment and enhance the
international means for doing so, while optimizing
! by promoting respect for workers’ rights by -- (i)
the use of the world’s resources [Sec. 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 of
and specific trading arrangements; and (ii) seeking
children and an understanding of the relationship
to establish within the ILO a mechanism for the
between trade and worker rights; particularly by
systematic examination of and reporting on the
working with the International Labor Organization
extent to which ILO members promote and force the
(ILO) to encourage the observance of core labor
freedom of association, the right to organize and
standards, including the prohibition on exploitative
bargain collectively, a prohibition on the use of
child labor [Sec. 102(c)(1)(C)]
forced labor, a prohibition on exploitative child
labor, and a prohibition on discrimination in
! supplementing and strengthening standards for
employment [Sec. 2(c)(1)(C)]
protection of intellectual property (IPR) under
conventions administered by international
! by expanding IPR protection (same language as
organizations other than the WTO, expanding these
House bill) [Sec. 2(c)(1)(B)]
conventions to cover new and emerging
technologies, and eliminating discrimination and
! by fostering stability in international currency
unreasonable exceptions or preconditions to such
markets by developing mechanisms to assure greater
protection [Sec. 102(c)(1)(D)]
coordination, consistency, and cooperation between
international trade and monetary systems and
House bill does not include provision on currency markets
institutions in order to protect against the trade
included in Senate bill
consequences of dramatic and unanticipated
currency movements [Sec. 2(c)(1)(A)]

CRS-16
Restriction on use of
Nothing in subsection addressing international economic
Same as House bill [Sec. 2(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
[Sec. 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,
objectives in services and investment only (see above)
domestic objectives
including the protection of health and safety, essential
security, environmental, consumer, and employment
opportunity interests, and their related law and regulations
[Sec. 102(d)(1)]
Guidance for
Requires USTR, during course of negotiations:
Similar provision regarding congressional trade advisors in
negotiators:
sec. 4(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 [Sec. 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 [Sec. 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
[Sec. 3(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 contain notification and consultation provisions
promoted thereby, the President may enter into trade
for tariff agreements in sec. 4(a)-(b)(below), both prior to
agreements with foreign countries before October 1, 2001
negotiations and prior to entry into agreement
(extendable to October 1, 2005) [Sec. 103(a)(1)(A)]
President must notify Congress of intent to enter into a tariff
agreement [Sec. 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 [Sec. 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 [Sec. 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 staged
an interim agreement leading to the formation of a regional
rate reduction must be agreed to in negotiations for
free-trade area; authority subject to statutory consultation
the elimination or harmonization of duties on a
and layover requirements [Sec. 103(a)(6)]
reciprocal basis within the same tariff categories
Note: This authority is similar to the additional
! authority limited to dates for which trade agreement
proclamation authority granted the President in sec. 111(b)
authorities are provided in the bill (i.e., before
of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), but
October 1, 2001, or, if extended, before October 1,
extends it to interim agreements leading to the formation of
2005)
a regional free-trade area. Both the House and Senate bills
provide that the tariff agreement and proclamation authority
! President must notify and consult with Congress
contained in each does not affect the operation of sec.
under sec. 4(a)
111(b) of the URAA (See H.R. 2621, sec. 103(a)(7); S.
1269, sec. 3(a)(7)).
! modifications or reductions may be proclaimed only
with respect to articles included in President’s
notification [Sec. 3(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 [Sec. 3(b)(1)(A)]
authority: tariff and non-
tariff barrier agreements
(1) one or more existing foreign or U.S. duties or any 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) [Sec. 103(b)(1)(A),(C)]
-- Description of trade
Agreements entered into under the section must provide for
Same as House bill [Sec. 3(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 “sec. 3(b)
agreements.”
(2) the prohibition of, or limitation of, such a barrier or
other distortion ) [Sec. 103(b)(1)(B)]
Note: Agreements covered by or governed by this section
will subsequently be referred to in this table as “sec. 103(b)
agreements.”

CRS-20
-- Conditions
Sec. 103(b) agreements may be entered into under this
Section 3(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 sec. 2(b)(i.e. “principal
objectives set forth in sec. 102
negotiating objectives” only)
! the President notifies and consults with Congress as
! the President notifies and consults with Congress as
required under sec. 104 of the Act [Sec. 103(b)(2)]
required under sec. 4 of the Act [Sec. 3(b)(2)]

CRS-21
Bills qualifying for fast
Fast track procedures in sec. 151 of the Trade Act of 1974
Fast track procedures in sec. 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 sec. 103(b) agreement and
! provisions that approve a sec. 3(b) agreement
approving the statement of administrative action (if
meeting one or more of the sec. 2(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 sec.
102(b)), if the provisions are “necessary” for the
! provisions that (1) are “necessary” to implement the
operation or implementation of U.S. rights or
agreement or (2) are “otherwise related to the
obligations under 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 sec. 252
domestic law prevails over a conflicting agreement
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
provision)
Control Act of 1985 in implementing the agreement
[Sec. 3(b)(3)]
! provisions to provide adjustment assistance to
workers and firms adversely affected by trade
Note: Procedures in sec.151 of Trade Act of 1974 -- i.e.,
fast-track legislative procedures -- are referred to in the
! provisions necessary for compliance with sec. 252 of
Senate bill as “trade authorities procedures.” These will
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
subsequently be referred to in this table as either “trade
Act of 1985 in implementing the agreement
authorities procedures” or “fast-track procedures.”
[Sec. 103(b)(3)]
Note: Procedures in sec.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-22
Extending trade
Trade authorities procedures apply to implementing bills
Same as House bill, but specifies that portion of
agreement authorities:
submitted with sec. 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 [Sec. 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 July
international economic policy objectives) [Sec. 3(c)]
1, 2001; President must also inform ACTPN, which must
also report to Congress; reports may be classified [Sec.
103(c)(2)-(4)]
Notice and consultation
For sec. 103(b) agreements, President must (1) give
Same as House bill, but requirements apply both to sec.
before negotiation
Congress written notice at least 90 calendar days before
3(a) tariff agreements as well as to sec. 3(b) agreements
initiating negotiations and (2) before and after submitting
[Sec. 4(a)]
notice, consult regarding negotiations with the Senate
Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means
Committee and such other congressional as the President
deems appropriate [Sec. 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 sec. 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 [Sec. 104(a)(2)]

CRS-23
-- 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 country;
agriculture
must also consider worldwide bound tariffs applied to U.S.
products are higher than U.S. tariffs and whether
negotiations may address such disparity [Sec. 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
[Sec. 104(a)(3)]

CRS-24
Consultation with
Before entering into any sec. 103(b) agreement, the
Generally same as House bill, but applies both to sec. 3(a)
Congress before
President must consult with House Ways and Means and
tariff agreements and sec. 3(b) agreements; also some
agreements entered into
Senate Finance Committees and each other House and
differences and additions as to consultations: (1) instead of
Senate committee having jurisdiction over legislation
the general effect of agreements on existing laws,
involving matters affected by the agreement
consultations on implementation must specifically address
[Sec. 104(b)(1)]
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
(2) consultations must also include“any other agreement”
! nature of agreement
the President has entered into or intends to enter into with
the country or countries involved [Sec. 4(b)-(c)]
! how it meets statutory purposes, policies and
objectives
! implementation of agreement under sec. 105,
including general effect of the agreement on existing
laws
[Sec. 104(b)(2)]
Advisory committee reports must be provided to the
Same as House bill [Sec. 4(c)]
President, Congress, and the USTR by 30 days after the
President notifies the Congress of negotiation or intent to
enter into an agreement [Sec. 104(c)]

CRS-25
Implementation of
Agreements entered into under sec. 103(b) shall enter into
Same as House bill [Sec. 5(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 [Sec.
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-26
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 [Sec. 5(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 [Sec. 105(a)(3)]
Limitations on fast-track
No provision
Fast-track procedures do not apply to any implementing
procedures: pre-
bill approving an agreement entered into under sec. 3(b) if
negotiation committee
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 sec. 4(a)(1) with respect to its
negotiation [Sec. 5(b)(1)]
Limitations on fast-track
Fast-track procedures will not apply to an implementing bill
Same as House, but specifies that each House separately
procedures (lack of
with respect to a trade agreement entered into under sec.
agree to the resolution within a 60-day period [Sec.
notice or consultation)
3(b) if, during the 60-day period beginning on the date that
5(b)(2)]
one House agrees to a procedural disapproval resolution for
lack of notice or consultations, the other House separately
agrees to the same [Sec. 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 [Sec. 5(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”
[Sec. 105(c)]

CRS-27
Possible inapplicability
Notwithstanding conditions for sec. 103(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 sec. 104(a); a procedural
entered into under sec. 3(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 to
feasible after enactment [Sec.106(b)]
sec. 4(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 [Sec. 6(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 [Sec. 6(a)]
! an agreement entered into with Chile [Sec. 106(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 [Sec. 107]

CRS-28
Conforming
Amends various provisions to insert language referring to
Same as House bill [Sec. 7]
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 [Sec. 108]
Trade adjustment
Extends trade adjustment assistance programs (TAA) for
Same as House bill [Sec. 8(a)]
assistance
workers and firms and the NAFTA adjustment assistance
program for two years -- i.e., to the year 2000
[Secs. 201-202]
Requires the GAO to prepare a report evaluating TAA
No provision
programs by October 1, 1999 [Sec. 203]