{ "id": "RL30270", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL30270", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 101881, "date": "1999-07-30", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:43:24.408941", "title": "The World Trade Organization: Future Negotiations", "summary": "The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Ministerial Conference, to be held in Seattle from\nNovember 30 to December 3, 1999, will launch a new round of trade negotiations. President\nClinton, in his State of the Union Address on January 19, 1999, called for an ambitious round\nfocusing on agriculture, services, industrial tariffs, intellectual property, and government\nprocurement. He also proposed that negotiations should result in early agreements, and should be\nconcluded in far less time than the seven years that the Uruguay Round took.\n The United States and the other WTO countries are beginning the process of developing goals\nand procedures for the negotiations. If negotiations lead to multilateral agreements that require\nchanges in U.S. law, legislation will be needed for implementation. Foreign countries are often\nunwilling to negotiate unless the President has fast-track authority (which he currently does not\nhave). Should the Congress decide to act on fast-track legislation, it can influence the negotiations\nthrough specifying the negotiating objectives, and by consulting with the Administration before and\nduring the negotiations. A likely issue in any debate is the extent that labor and environmental\nquestions are addressed.\n As of July 1999, the scope of future negotiations is still to be decided. All that is known for\ncertain is that negotiations will include agriculture and services since the Uruguay Round Agreement\nclearly specified that negotiations on these issues must begin by the year 2000. Agriculture and\nservices are seen by many policymakers as important because of remaining trade barriers; only a\nrelatively small amount of trade liberalization occurred in the Uruguay Round. Moreover,\nagriculture and services trade is very important to the U.S. economy. For example, in 1997, about\n20% of the value of U.S. agricultural production was exported, and the United States is the largest\nexporter and second largest importer of services.\n WTO working groups are studying the relationship between trade and investment and between\ntrade and competition policy. Countries disagree considerably on whether or not these issues are\nripe for negotiation and on the possible benefits of negotiations. The European Union supports, and\nthe United States opposes, beginning negotiations on these issues. Developing countries generally\noppose WTO discussions on foreign direct investment rules and competition policy.\n Including labor and environmental issues in trade agreements is highly controversial, both\nwithin the United States and among the WTO members. For example, environmentalists and labor\nunions argue that labor and environmental standards should be a negotiating goal for humanitarian\nand environmental protection reasons. Many economists and the business community maintain that\na more effective way to increase standards abroad is through trade liberalization and increased\neconomic growth abroad. The Administration supports discussions of environment and labor in the\nWTO, while the Congress is divided on the issue. Some other industrial countries support WTO\ndiscussions, while the developing countries are strongly opposed.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30270", "sha1": "82d1a232d668fa1a346b2e06e6bc1b537a82b331", "filename": "files/19990730_RL30270_82d1a232d668fa1a346b2e06e6bc1b537a82b331.pdf", "images": null }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/19990730_RL30270_82d1a232d668fa1a346b2e06e6bc1b537a82b331.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Foreign Affairs", "Industry and Trade" ] }