Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority: A Comparison of Bills Approved by the House and by the Senate with Notes on the Conference Report (H.R. 3009)

Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority: A Comparison of Bills Approved by the House and by the Senate with Notes on the Conference Report (H.R. 3009)

Order Code RL31445
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority:
A Comparison of Bills Approved by the House and
by the Senate with Notes on the Conference
Report (H.R. 3009)
Updated July 31, 2002
(name redacted)
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
(name redacted)
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority: A Comparison
of Bills Approved by the House and by the Senate with
Notes on the Conference Report (H.R. 3009)
Summary
On July 27, 2002, the House passed (215-212) the conference report on H.R.
3009 (H.Rept. 107-624), which contains, among other things, authorization of
presidential trade promotion authority (TPA). The Senate is expected to vote on the
report during the week of July 29. Under TPA, the President can negotiate trade
agreements that would be considered by the Congress under expedited legislative
procedures that limit debate and permit no amendments.
The conference report resulted from negotiations by Senate and House conferees
over similar but different versions of the TPA legislation. This report provides an
overview highlighting the most significant differences between the bills the House
and Senate approved before the conference and the language the conference adopted
in its report on H.R. 3009. It contains a side-by-side analysis of the versions of the
TPA legislation the House and Senate conferees brought to the conference.
The Senate and House bills contained the same seven overall objectives, but the
Senate bill added an eighth on small businesses that was retained in the conference
report. The two bills had the same 13 principal objectives, but the Senate bill added
four more on child labor, human rights, border taxes, and textile trade. All, except the
one on human rights, were retained in the conference report. The conference added
a principal objective on preserving and enforcing U.S. trade remedy laws.
The two bills and conference report have almost identical language on the
President’s authority to proclaim tariff changes and to negotiate trade agreements
with expedited procedures for an implementing bill. A major difference was a
provision in the Senate bill, called the Dayton-Craig amendment, which would allow
any provision amending U.S. trade remedy laws to be stricken from an implementing
bill. That language was in neither the House bill nor the conference report.
Both bills and the conference report have similar language on notification and
consultation before and during negotiations, with special provisions for textiles and
agriculture (the Senate bill and conference report also include fish and shellfish).
They all require consultation with Congress before entering into an agreement. They
would establish a Congressional Oversight Group. They have similar but not
identical language allowing for withdrawal of expedited consideration of a trade
agreement for lack of notice or consultation by the President. A major difference is
the Senate bill and conference report would require notification by the President of
proposed changes to trade remedy laws, although their provisions are different.
The bills and conference report provide for adjustment to the pre-notification
requirements where negotiations are underway and require a plan by the President to
address enforcement. The Senate bill and conference report would require the ITC
to report on past agreements implemented under expedited procedures and would
recognize a small business advocate in the USTR.

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Short Title and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Trade Negotiating Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overall Trade Negotiating Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Promotion of Certain Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Adherence to Obligations Under Uruguay Round Agreements . . . . . . . 4
Trade Agreements Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Consultations and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Implementation of Trade Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Treatment of Certain Trade Agreements for Which Negotiations Have Already
Begun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congressional Oversight Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Short Title and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Trade Negotiating Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Trade Agreements Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Consultations and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Implementation of Trade Agreements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Treatment of Certain Trade Agreements for Which Negotiations Have Already
Begun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Congressional Oversight Group (COG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Additional Implementation and Enforcement Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Committee Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Conforming Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Report on Impact of Trade Promotion Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Identification of Small Business Advocate at WTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority: A
Comparison of Bills Approved by the House
and by the Senate with Notes on the
Conference Report (H.R. 3009)
Overview
On July 27, 2002, the House passed (215-212) the conference report on H.R.
3009 (H.Rept. 107-624), which contains, among other things, authorization of
presidential trade promotion authority (TPA). The Senate is expected to vote on the
report during the week of July 29. Under TPA the President can negotiate trade
agreements that would be considered by the Congress under expedited legislative
procedures that limit debate and permit no amendments.
The conference report resulted from negotiations by Senate and House conferees
over similar but different versions of the TPA legislation. The Senate version was
contained in Title XXI, The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, of
the omnibus trade bill H.R. 3009, The Trade Act of 2002 (hereafter referred to as the
Senate bill).1
The House version of the TPA was originally contained in a stand-alone bill,
H.R. 3005, The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001, which was
passed on December 6, 2001. However, on June 26, 2002, the House, in preparation
for the conference with the Senate, passed H.Res. 450, a motion to concur with the
Senate in the form of a substitute to the Senate bill. H.Res. 450 (hereafter referred
to as the House conference version or the House bill) contained the House version
of the trade legislation with provisions set in parallel with the Senate bill’s
provisions. The TPA provisions of the House conference version were contained in
Title XXI, The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, and were virtually
identical to provisions contained in H.R. 3005, as passed by the House in December
2001.
This report begins with an overview of the major provisions, highlighting the
most significant differences between the bills that the House and Senate conferees
brought to the conference and highlighting the language the conference adopted in
1 In addition to TPA, H.R. 3009 contains provisions authorizing the Andean Trade
Preferences Act (ATPA) program, the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, and
the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program. This report only focuses on the TPA
portion of the bill. For a list of CRS products on these and other issues in H.R. 3009, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10084, Trade Promotion Authority (Fast-Track Authority for Trade
Agreements): Background and Developments in the 107th Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS-2
its report on H.R. 3009. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the conference
report was eliminating the so-called Dayton-Craig amendment of the Senate bill that
pertained to U.S. trade remedy laws. Instead, the conferees added other provisions
regarding U.S. trade remedy laws. Following the overview, the report provides a
side-by-side analysis of the House and Senate bills.
Short Title and Findings
Both bills have the same short title–Bipartisan Trade and Promotion Authority
Act of 2002. The two bills contain two identical findings that relate national security
and trade. Each bill contains a third finding on WTO dispute settlement procedures
which are similar but not identical. The third finding was not contained in the
original H.R. 3005, as passed by the House in December 2001, but was added as part
of the House Conference version by H.Res. 450. The conference report includes the
first two findings, which are identical in the House and Senate bills, and includes a
third finding that combines language from both bills.
Trade Negotiating Objectives
The legislation sets down what the Congress considers to be the goals the
President must accomplish in negotiating trade agreements in order for those
agreements to receive expedited treatment under the Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA). This section is divided into subsections on “Overall Trade Negotiating
Objectives,” “Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives,” “Promotion of Certain
Priorities,” “Consultations,” and “Adherence to Obligations Under Uruguay Round
Agreements.” The language in the two original bills in this section was similar,
although the Senate bill added several trade negotiating objectives. In the conference
report, the Conference adopted the House version in some cases, the Senate language
in some cases, or new language in others cases.
Overall Trade Negotiating Objectives. Using identical language, the two
bills contain seven objectives regarding the use of trade agreements to promote U.S.
and world economic growth and living standards and to promote such social goals
as respect for the environment and for workers’ and children’s rights. The Senate bill
included an eighth objective to ensure equal treatment for small business. The
conference report adopted the eighth objective and added a ninth, to promote
universal ratification and full compliance with the International Labor Organization’s
(ILO) convention no. 182 prohibiting and acting against the worst forms of child
labor.
Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives. The original Senate and House
bills contained 13 specific objectives, with similar wording, that pertain to:
eliminating barriers in manufactured and agricultural goods trade and in services
trade, in foreign investment, and in electronic commerce; the establishment of rules
and standards regarding anti-corruption, intellectual property rights (IPR) protection
and labor and environment protection; and the operation of the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The Senate bill added language regarding trade in autos and
auto parts (which was dropped in the conference report). The Senate bill also
expanded the objective regarding foreign investment to include language requiring

CRS-3
that foreign investors be accorded rights in the United States no greater than those
accorded U.S. investors in the United States and language regarding the settlement
of investor-government disputes in foreign investment, including the discouragement
of frivolous claims (all of which was adopted in the conference report). Regarding
IPR, the Senate bill added language requiring respect for the declaration on public
health adopted at the November 2001 WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar (which was
included in the conference report). In addition, the Senate bill strengthened language
on export subsidies contained in the objective regarding agriculture. (The Conference
adopted the House version.) The Senate bill also added language regarding settling
disputes within the WTO by ensuring that WTO bodies adhere to established
standards when adjudicating disputes, which the Conference adopted with slight
modifications.
The most extensive differences between the House and Senate bills in this
subsection were the four objectives that the Senate bill added. They included:
! a lengthy objective on discouraging the use of the worst forms of child labor
practices (adopted in the conference report by in a compressed form);
! an objective for promoting human rights and democracy (dropped by the
Conference);
! an objective to seek revision of WTO rules regarding border taxes (adopted
by the Conference), and
! an objective to promote trade opportunities for U.S. textile producers (adopted
by the Conference but in compressed form).
The House-Senate conference added a principal objective not contained in either
the Senate or House bill that requires negotiators to ensure the U.S. ability to enforce
its trade remedy laws and to address and remedy market distortions that lead to unfair
trade practices.
Promotion of Certain Priorities. Using similar language, the two bills
listed 12 Presidential actions that the Congress considers necessary in order to
maintain U.S. competitiveness. They relate to the protection of labor rights and the
environment and preserving the ability of the United States to implement its trade
remedy laws. The House-Senate conference eliminated objective (9) pertaining to
trade remedy laws (which was added in the conference report to the “Principal
Negotiating Objectives” section) and substituted a requirement that the President
submit a report on the extent to which the country or countries that are parties to an
agreement reached under the TPA authority have laws against the exploitation of
child labor.
Consultations. The Senate and House bills contained identical language
requiring the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consult with congressional
revenue committees and other committees with jurisdiction, with the Congressional
Oversight Group, and with congressional trade advisors. The consultation
requirements are also addressed later in the bill. The Conference adopted the
language of the two bills.

CRS-4
Adherence to Obligations Under Uruguay Round Agreements.
Identical language in both bills required the President to take into account the degree
to which trading partners adhere to obligations under the Uruguay Round
Agreements. The conference report adopted the language contained in the two bills.
Trade Agreements Authority
The two bills and the conference report have almost identical language (except
with regard to import sensitive agricultural products) on the President’s authority to
negotiate tariff agreements where changes in tariff levels would go into effect by
proclamation. They would set the same limits on allowed tariff changes. They
would require that such agreements be entered into before June 1, 2005, or by June
1, 2007 if expedited procedures for an implementing bill are extended (see below).
Under the provisions of the two bills and the conference report, the President
would have to enter into other tariff and nontariff trade agreements by the same
deadlines as above. These agreements would have to make progress in meeting the
negotiating objectives, and the President would have to satisfy the outlined
consultation and assessment requirements. Legislation to implement these trade
agreements would be considered under expedited procedures (“trade authorities
procedures”), if provisions of the legislation: (1) approved the trade agreement and
any statement of administrative action; and (2) were necessary or appropriate to
implement the trade agreement, if statutory changes are required to implement the
trade agreement. Such legislation is called an “implementing bill.”
Under both bills and the conference report, trade authorities procedures would
apply to an implementing bill for trade agreements entered into by June 1, 2005, or
by June 1, 2007 if: (1) the President requests the extension (request and other
information due by March 1, 2005); and (2) neither house of Congress adopts an
extension disapproval resolution before June 1, 2005. The bills would require a
report by private sector advisors on the President’s request for extension; the Senate
bill also would require a related report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC). Both bills would allow the President to commence negotiations where
determined to be feasible, timely, and beneficial.
An important difference between the bills, however, was a highly controversial
provision, commonly called the Dayton-Craig amendment. This amendment was in
the Senate bill (Section 2103(b)(4)) and not in the House bill. The Dayton-Craig
amendment states that trade authorities procedures would not apply to any provision
in an implementing bill that modifies or amends any U.S. law that provides remedies
from unfair foreign trade practices (e.g., U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, and
safeguard laws). Such a provision would be stricken from the implementing bill if:
(1) any Senator makes a point of order against the provision; and (2) the point of
order is sustained by the Presiding Officer. The point of order may be waived or
appealed (before or after action by the Presiding Officer, respectively) with the
support of a majority of Senators. Because the Dayton-Craig amendment could
increase the uncertainty of implementing any negotiated change to trade remedy laws,
and therefore might reduce the Administration’s flexibility in negotiations, the
Administration was forcefully opposed to the provision. Supporters, however,
argued that the amendment was necessary to protect the U.S. ability to address unfair

CRS-5
foreign trade practices that hurt U.S. firms and U.S. workers. The conference report
does not include the Dayton-Craig amendment.
Consultations and Assessment
The bills and the conference report have virtually identical language on notice
and consultation before negotiation. For some tariff agreements and for nontariff
agreements, the President, at least 90 days before starting negotiations, would be
required to provide notice of intent to enter into negotiations and other information.
Before and after giving notice, the President would have to consult with the revenue
committees and such other committees the President deems appropriate, and the
newly established Congressional Oversight Group (COG, described later).
The bills have similar, but not identical, language on sector-specific
negotiations. For agriculture negotiations, both bills would require the President to
assess how U.S. tariffs on agricultural products compare to foreign tariffs on similar
products and decide whether negotiations will address any disparity. Both bills
require the President to consult with the revenue committees and the agriculture
committees. They both would establish special consultation and assessment
procedures for import sensitive agricultural products, but the Senate bill adds for
these products that the USTR consult on foreign export subsidy programs, and the
Senate bill has a broader definition of import sensitive agricultural products. The
Senate bill, but not the House bill, has a provision requiring the President to consult
with specified committees on negotiations directly related to fish or shellfish trade
and to keep the committees informed of negotiations on an ongoing basis. Both bills
have identical language requiring the President to assess U.S. and foreign tariffs on
textiles and apparel and to consult with the revenue committees on tariffs and
negotiating objectives. The conference report follows the language in the Senate bill,
including the requirement that the President consult on negotiations related to fish or
shellfish trade.
Both bills and the conference report require that, before entering into some tariff
agreements and nontariff agreements, the President must consult with the revenue
committees, other committees of jurisdiction, and the COG. They specify what the
consultation should cover.
A major difference among the bills and the conference report concerns
notification by the President of proposed changes to trade remedy laws. The House
bill has no provision for these specific types of changes. The Senate bill provides
that at least 90 days before entering into a trade agreement, the President must notify
the revenue committees of any such proposed change. It requires the President to
report why the amendments are seen as necessary and why they are consistent with
a related trade negotiating objective. The Senate bill would require that within 60
days of the President’s notification, the chairman and ranking member of the revenue
committees in each house would report to their respective houses on the proposed
amendments.
The conference report provides that at least 180 days before entering into a trade
agreement, the President must report to the revenue committees on: (1) the range of
proposals advanced in the negotiations with respect to that agreement, that may be

CRS-6
in the final agreement, and that could require amendments to the laws covering
antidumping and countervailing duties and safeguards: and (2) how these proposals
relate to objectives described in section 2102(b)(14) [the principal negotiating
objective on trade remedy laws]. With respect to a trade agreement with Chile or
with Singapore, the President must report at least 90 days before entering into the
trade agreement. The conference report provides that a resolution may be introduced
with respect to the President’s report. This resolution would state that the proposed
changes in the President’s report were inconsistent with the negotiating objectives
described in section 2102(b)(14). Special legislative procedures would apply to the
resolution as long as the revenue committee of that chamber has not reported out
another resolution with respect to the President’s report and the committee has not
reported out a disapproval resolution under section 2105(b) [lack of notice or
consultations].
The two bills and the conference report have virtually identical language
requiring private sector advisors to submit a report on trade agreements not later than
30 days after the President notifies Congress of the intent to enter into a trade
agreement. They also have almost identical language requiring the President to give
details of the agreement to the ITC before entering into the agreement, and requiring
the ITC to submit an economic assessment to Congress within 90 days after the
President enters into the agreement.
Implementation of Trade Agreements
The House and Senate bills set down procedures for Presidential notification
of Congress and submission to Congress of legislation to implement trade agreements
negotiated under the trade promotion authority. The procedures include deadlines
and required supporting information. The Senate bill prohibited any part of a trade
agreement, not previously disclosed to Congress, from being considered for the
expedited legislative procedures under the trade promotion authority. The conference
report retained the Senate language.
In addition, the two bills set down limitations of trade authorities procedures
which stipulate that an implementing bill will not receive expedited treatment if,
within a 60-day period, both Houses of Congress agree to a procedural disapproval
resolution regarding the trade agreement because of the lack of notification or
consultation with Congress on the part of the President. The bills set down
procedures for considering procedural disapproval resolutions. The Senate bill added
a provision requiring the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report on U.S. strategy
to address what the bill refers to as instances where WTO dispute settlement panels
and the WTO Appellate Body have added to U.S. obligations through their decisions
on U.S. trade practices. If the report is not provided, the TPA would not apply to the
implementing bill. The conference report adopted the Senate language but added that
the Secretary of Commerce must consult with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the USTR.

CRS-7
Treatment of Certain Trade Agreements for Which
Negotiations Have Already Begun
The Senate and House bills and the conference report are identical in allowing
an exemption from pre-notification requirements for certain trade agreements. This
exemption would apply to a trade agreement that: (1) is entered into under the WTO,
entered into with Chile, entered into with Singapore, or establishes a Free Trade Area
for the America; and (2) results from negotiations that started before enactment of the
TPA bill. The Conference adopted the language contained in the two bills.
Congressional Oversight Group
The two bills and the conference report have essentially the same provisions on
the establishment of a new congressional advisory body called the Congressional
Oversight Group (COG). Members of COG would be the chairman and ranking
member of the revenue committees, three other members from each of those
committees (no more than two from the same party), and the chairman and ranking
member from any other committees with jurisdiction. COG members would be
official advisers to the U.S. delegation in trade negotiations. They would consult
with and provide advice to the USTR on the formulation of objectives, negotiating
strategies, and other trade matters.
Both bills and the conference report would require the USTR, in consultation
with the chairman and ranking member of the revenue committees, to develop
guidelines for the exchange of information between the COG and the USTR. The
guidelines would provide for, among other things: regular, detailed briefings on
negotiating objectives, access to documents, coordination during negotiations, and
consultation on compliance and enforcement. The only difference of note between
the House and Senate bills is that the Senate bill would require the USTR to include
in the guidelines a time-frame for submitting a labor rights report. The conference
report includes this Senate provision.
Other Provisions
Both bills and the conference report have identical language requiring the
President to submit, along with the final text of the trade agreement, a plan for
implementing and enforcing the trade agreement. The plan would have to include
(along with cost analyses) descriptions of additional border personal needed,
additional personnel for monitoring and implementing the trade agreement,
additional U.S. Customs Service equipment, and the impact on State and local
governments.
The bills and conference report also have identical language stating that trade
promotion authority is likely to increase the trade activities of the primary
committees of jurisdiction and Members (through the creation of COG), and that the
primary committees of jurisdiction should have adequate staff for these increased
activities.

CRS-8
The Senate bill (not the House bill) would require the ITC to report on the five
agreements implemented under expedited procedures in the past. The conference
report includes this provision.
The Senate bill (not the House bill) includes provisions on a small business
advocate. It would direct the USTR to seek an advocate in the WTO for small- or
medium-sized businesses and to report annually to the revenue committees on these
efforts. It also states that the Assistant USTR for Industry and Telecommunications
shall be responsible for ensuring that small business interests are considered in trade
negotiations. The conference report includes only the provision on the Assistant
USTR for Industry and Telecommunications.

CRS-9
Short Title and Findings
Section 2101 of House Conference Version
Section 2101 of Senate Bill
The title of the legislation is the “Bipartisan
Identical, except the year is “2002.” Section
Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002.”
2101(a)
Section 2101(a)
Lists the two findings in House-passed H.R.
Includes the two findings from House-passed
3005 that (1) expansion of international trade
H.R. 3005 and adds: (3) support for
is vital to U.S. security; and (2) national
continued trade expansion requires that
security depends on economic security, which
dispute settlement procedures not add to or
is founded on a vibrant and growing U.S.
diminish the rights and obligations under such
industrial base. Adds: (3) recent pattern of
agreements (includes reference to problems
decisions by dispute settlement panels and the
with actions by dispute settlement panels and
Appellate Body of the WTO have imposed
the World Trade Organization (WTO)
obligations and restrictions o the use of
Appellate Body. Section 2101(b)
antidumping and countervailing measures.
Section 2101(b)

CRS-10
Trade Negotiating Objectives
Section 2102 of House Conference Version
Section 2102 of Senate Bill
Overall Negotiating Objectives
Includes identical House-passed provisions
and adds:
Lists 7 overall objectives: (1) obtain more
open, equitable, and reciprocal market access;
(8) to ensure fair and equal treatment for
(2) obtain reduction in or elimination of trade
small businesses. Section 2102(a)(8)
barriers and distortions; (3)promote stronger
international trading disciplines, including
dispute settlement; (4) promote U.S. and world
economic growth, living standards, and
employment; (5) ensure mutually supportive
trade and environmental policies; (6) promote
respect for rights of workers and children; and
(7) seek provisions to discourage weakening
environmental or labor laws to encourage
trade. Section 2102(a)
Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives
Identical, with the following exceptions:
Section 2102 (b) lists 13 principal
trade barriers and distortions.
negotiating objectives to (1) expand market
opportunities for U.S. exports by reducing or
Adds that specifies that the U.S. exports
eliminating trade barriers and distortions to
referred to include motor vehicles and
trade; (2) reduce or eliminate barriers to
vehicle parts. Section 2102(b)(1)(A)
international trade in services; (3) reduce or
eliminate barriers to trade-related foreign
foreign investment.
investment and secure for investors rights
comparable to those available in the United
Adds language that negotiators should
States; (4) further promote protection of
ensure that in the United States, foreign
intellectual property rights (IPR) and secure
investors are not accorded greater rights than
market access opportunities for U.S. persons
U.S. investors; and a section on seeking to
that rely on IPR protection; (5) obtain wider
establish standards for fair and equitable
and broader application of transparency
treatment consistent with U.S. legal
through greater public access to information
principles and practice, including the
and more openness at the WTO; (6) obtain
principle of due process. Sections 2102(b)(3)
anti-corruption standards that prohibit attempts
and 2102(b)(3)(E)
to influence government actions affecting
trade; (7) seek improvement of the WTO and
Adds to provision on investor-government
multilateral trade agreements by expanding
disputes: mechanisms to deter the filing of
coverage and expanding country participation;
frivolous claims; procedures to enhance
(8) establish disincentives for governments to
public input into the formulation of
use regulatory practices to give a competitive
government positions; and establishment of a
advantage to domestic interests; (9) attempt to
single appellate body to provide coherence to
ensure open and nondiscriminatory rules
the interpretations of investment provisions
covering electronic commerce; (10) obtain
in trade agreements. Section 2102(b)(3)(G)
reciprocal trade in agriculture so opportunities
are substantially equivalent in U.S. and foreign
Does not include House language (in
markets, and achieve fairer and more open
section 2(b)(3)(G)) on an appellate or similar
conditions for commodities; (11) ensure
review mechanism to correct manifestly
protections for labor and the environment, such
erroneous interpretations of law.
as assurance that parties will not fail to enforce
their own environmental and labor laws; (12)
intellectual property rights.
strengthen dispute settlement and enforcement
of trade agreements; and (13) achieve specified
Adds language that it should be an
objectives in WTO extended negotiations on
objective to respect the Declaration on the

CRS-11
Section 2102 of House Conference Version
Section 2102 of Senate Bill
civil aircraft and rules of origin. Section
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health
2102(b)
adopted at the November 2001 WTO
Ministerial. Section 2102(b)(4)(C)
agriculture.
Stronger language on export subsidies calls
for elimination of all export subsidies (House
includes reduction), while maintaining food
aid and market development and export
credit programs (not in House). Adds goals
of completion of a WTO round by 1/1/05,
and broad market access in multiple sets of
negotiations with attention to effect on
import-sensitive commodities. Section
2102(b)(10)(A)
human rights and democracy.

Adds as principal objective (12) the
objective to obtain provisions in trade
agreements that require parties to adhere to
internationally recognized civil, political, and
human rights. Section 2102(b)12
dispute settlement.
Adds improved adherence by WTO dispute
panels and by the WTO Appellate Body to
the standard of review applicable under the
relevant WTO Agreement, including greater
deference to the fact finding and technical
expertise of national investigating
authorities. Section 2102(b)(13)(C)
border taxes.
Adds as objective (14): obtain a revision of
WTO rules on the treatment of border
adjustments to redress the disadvantage to
countries that depend on direct taxes for
revenue rather than indirect taxes. Section
2102(b)(14)
textile negotiations.
Adds as principal objective (16) provision
regarding textile and apparel negotiations:
that in general, it should be an objective to
obtain competitive opportunities for U.S.
exporters substantially equivalent to those
afforded foreign producers in the U.S.
market. Section 2102(b)16
worst forms of child labor.

Adds as principal objective (17) provisions
regarding the treatment of trade in products

CRS-12
Section 2102 of House Conference Version
Section 2102 of Senate Bill
resulting from the use of the worst forms of
child labor by trading partners. Section
2102(b)17
Promotion of Certain Priorities
Identical, except:
The President must take certain actions in
Adds language in (5) that the review
order to address and maintain U.S.
should take into account the impact on job
competitiveness in the global economy. These
security, on the level of compensation of new
12 actions (1) seek greater WTO-ILO
jobs and existing jobs, on the displacement
cooperation; (2) seek consultative mechanisms
of employment, and on regional distribution
among parties to promote respect for core labor
of employment and that the resulting report
standards; (3) seek consultative mechanisms
must be made public. Section 2102(c)(5)
among parties to develop and implement
standards for protection of the environment; (4)
Replaces (8) in House bill with a related
conduct environmental reviews of future trade
provision that requires the President to
agreements; (5) review the impact of future
submit to the revenue committees a
trade agreements on employment; (6) take into
meaningful labor rights report on parties to a
account other domestic objectives such as
prospective agreement. Section 2102(c)(8)
health and safety, security, and consumer
interests; (7) have the Secretary of Labor
Language in (9)(B)differs from language in
consult with other countries regarding their
House bill by specifically including
labor laws; (8) report to Congress on child
safeguards under trade remedy laws, and
labor laws in parties to prospective agreements;
adding that the President address and remedy
(9) (A) preserve the ability of the United States
market distortions that lead to dumping and
to enforce rigorously its trade laws, including
subsidization, including overcapacity,
antidumping and countervailing duty laws; (B)
cartelization, and market-access barriers.
ensure that United States exports are not
Section 2102(c)(9)
subject to the abusive use of trade laws,
including antidumping and countervailing duty
laws by other countries [added by H.Res. 450];
(10) continue to promote consideration of
multilateral environmental agreements; (11)
report to the revenue committees on the
effectiveness of a trade remedy permitted by a
trade agreement; and (12) seek a consultative
mechanism with other parties to examine how
currency movements or manipulation affect
trade. Sections 2102(c)(1)-2102(c)(12)
Consultations
Identical. Section 2102(d)
During negotiations, the USTR shall consult
closely and on a timely basis (including in most
cases immediately before initialing an
agreement) with, and keep fully apprized of the
negotiations, the Congressional Oversight
Group (COG), committees of jurisdiction,
current congressional trade advisors, the
revenue committees, and (with regard to
negotiations relating to agricultural trade) the
agriculture committees. Section 2102(d)
Adherence to Obligations Under Uruguay
Identical. Section 2102(e)
Round Agreements
In determining whether to negotiate with
another country, the President shall consider

CRS-13
Section 2102 of House Conference Version
Section 2102 of Senate Bill
the other country’s adherence to its obligations
under the Uruguay Round Agreements. Section
2102(e)

CRS-14
Trade Agreements Authority
Section 2103 of House Conference Version
Section 2103 of Senate Bill
Agreements Regarding Tariff Barriers:
Almost identical. Section 2103(a)
The President may proclaim tariff cuts for
(The only notable difference regards “import
agreements entered into before June 1, 2005,
sensitive agricultural products.” The House
or before June 1, 2007 if expedited
bill describes such products under Section
procedures are extended. Section 2103(a)(1)
3(a)(2)(B), whereas the Senate bill defines
them under “Definitions” [Section 2113(5)].
Tariffs over 5% ad valorem may not be
The terms are similar but not identical in the
reduced by more than half, nor may tariffs be
two bills.)
increased. A special rule applies for certain
agricultural products. Section 2103(a)(2)
Other rules are stipulated (e.g., rounding,
exemption of reductions from staging).
Sections 2103(a)(3)-(7)
Agreements Regarding Tariff and Nontariff
Includes almost identical House-passed
Barriers
provisions and adds:
The President may enter into a trade
(4) Expedited procedures shall not apply to
agreement on duties or other import
any provision in an implementing bill that
restrictions before June 1, 2005 or before June
modifies or amends any U.S. law that
1, 2007, if expedited procedures are extended.
provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade
Section 2103(b)(1)
practices. Such a provision shall be stricken
from the implementing bill, if any Senator
A trade agreement may be entered into only
makes a point of order against the provision,
if such agreement makes progress in meeting
and the point of order is sustained by the
the overall and principal negotiating
Presiding Officer. Before the Presiding
objectives and the President satisfies the
Officer rules on a point of order, any Senator
conditions for consultation and assessment.
may move to waive the point of order, and the
Section 2103(b)(2)
point of order will be waived by an
affirmative vote of a majority of Senators.
Expedited procedures, called “trade
After the Presiding Officer rules on a point of
authorities procedures,” apply to a bill which
order, the ruling is sustained unless, on appeal
contains (1) a provision approving the trade
by any Senator, a majority of Senators vote
agreement and the statement of administrative
not to sustain the ruling. Rules are given for
action if any; and (2) provisions that are
debate on a motion to waive or on an appeal.
necessary or appropriate to implement the
Section 2103(b)
trade agreement, if changes in existing laws or
new statutory authority are required to
implement the trade agreement. This type of
bill is called an “implementing bill.” Section
2103(b)(3)

CRS-15
Section 2103 of House Conference Version
Section 2103 the Senate Bill
Extension Disapproval Process for
Almost identical but also includes:
Congressional Trade Authorities Procedures
The President must promptly inform the ITC
Trade authorities procedures shall apply to
of the President’s decision to submit the
an implementing bill for trade agreements that
report under Section 2103(c)(2) requesting an
were entered into by June 1, 2005, or by June
extension of trade authorities procedures. The
1, 2007 if two conditions are met: (1) the
ITC must report to Congress no later than
President requests such extension; and (2)
May 1, 2005, on the economic impact on the
neither House of Congress adopts an
United States of all trade agreements
extension disapproval resolution before June
implemented between enactment of this Act
1, 2005. Section 2103(c)(1)
and the date on which the President decides to
seek the extension. Section 2103(c)(3)(B)
If the President decides that trade authorities
procedures should be extended, the President
must submit to Congress, not later than March
1, 2005, a written report containing a request
for such extension, together with specified
information. Section 2103(c)(2)
The President must promptly report to the
private sector Advisory Committee for Trade
Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN) on the
intent to pursue the 2-year extension in trade
authorities procedures. ACTPN must report
to Congress no later than May 1, 2005, on
progress in the negotiations and whether the
extension should be granted. Section
2103(c)(3)
The reports by the President and by ACTPN
on the extension will be classified. Section
2103(c)(4)
The language and procedure for
consideration of the extension disapproval
resolution are described. Section 2103(c)(5)
Commencement of Negotiations
Identical. Section 2103(d)
In cases where the President determines that
certain negotiations are feasible and timely
and could benefit the United States, the
President shall commence negotiations
covering tariff and nontariff barriers affecting
any industry, product, or service sector, and
expand existing sectoral agreements to
countries that are not already parties. The list
of such sectors includes agriculture, industrial
and capital goods, environmental technology
and services, civil aircraft, and other
mentioned sectors. Section 2103(d)

CRS-16
Consultations and Assessment
Section 2104 of House Conference Version
Section 2104 of Senate Bill
Notice and Consultation Before Negotiation
Virtually identical. Section 2104(a)
With regard to trade agreements negotiated under
Section 2103(b), the President shall: (1) provide, at
least 90 calendar days before starting negotiations,
written notice of intent to enter into negotiations
and set forth the intended starting date, specific
objectives, and whether the President will seek an
agreement or changes to an existing agreement; (2)
before and after the above notice, consult with the
revenue committees, such other committees as the
President deems appropriate, and the COG. Section
2104(a)
Negotiations Regarding Agriculture
Identical, except subsection title reads
“...Agriculture and Fishing Industry”
Before undertaking negotiations related to section
and:
2102(b)(10)(A)(i) [foreign tariffs and other charges
on U.S. agricultural exports], the President shall
Expands import-sensitive agricultural
assess whether U.S. tariffs bound on these products
products to include agricultural products
are lower than tariffs bound on U.S. exports in the
subject to tariff-rate quotas. Section
other country or worldwide, and whether the
2104(b)(2)(A)(i)
negotiation gives an opportunity to address any
disparity. The President shall consult with the
Adds that for import-sensitive
revenue committees and agriculture committees on
agricultural products, the USTR shall
the results of the assessment, tariff reductions, and
consult with the revenue and agriculture
negotiating objectives. Section 2104(b)(1)
committees also on whether negotiating
partners maintain trade-distorting export
The USTR shall identify certain import sensitive
subsidy programs and the impact of such
agricultural products and consult with the revenue
programs on U.S. producers. Section
and agriculture committees on any further tariff cuts
2104(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III)
and whether the products face unjustified sanitary
or phytosanitary restrictions. The USTR shall
Adds that before starting or continuing
request an ITC assessment of the economic effects
negotiations directly related to fish or
of any tariff reductions, and notify the revenue and
shellfish trade, the President must
agriculture committees of any intent to seek tariff
consult with the Ways and Means
cuts currently or in the future. Section 2104(b)(2)
Committee and the Resources
Committee in the House and with the
Finance Committee and the Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee
of the Senate, and keep the committees
informed of negotiations on an ongoing
and timely basis. Section 2104(b)(3)
Negotiations Regarding Textiles
Identical. Section 2104(c)
Before undertaking negotiations on textiles and
apparel products with another country, the President
shall assess whether U.S. tariffs bound on such
products are lower than the other country’s bound
tariffs and whether the negotiation gives an
opportunity to address any disparity. The President
shall consult with the revenue committees on the
results of the assessment, tariff reductions, and

CRS-17
Section 2104 of House Conference Version
Section 2104 of Senate Bill
applicable negotiating objectives. Section 2104(c)
Consultation with Congress Before Agreements
Contains virtually identical House
Entered Into
language but adds:
Before entering into an agreement under Section
At least 90 calendar days before
2103(b), the President shall consult with the
entering into a trade agreement, the
revenue committees, other committees with
President shall notify the revenue
jurisdiction, and the COG. Section 2104(d)(1)
committees of any amendments to Title
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 or Chapter
The consultation shall cover the nature of the
1 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974
agreement, how the agreement will achieve
[laws covering antidumping and
applicable policies and objectives,
countervailing duties and safeguards] to
and implementation of the agreement (including the
be proposed in an implementing bill.
effect on existing laws). Section 2104(d)(2)
Section 2104(d)(3)(A)
On the date of the above notification,
the President must report to the
committees the reasons the amendments
are necessary and why they are
consistent with the purposes, policies,
and objectives of Section 2102(c)(9)
[the President shall preserve the ability
to rigorously enforce U.S. trade laws].
Section 2104(d)(3)(B)
Within 60 days of above notification,
the chairman and ranking member of the
revenue committees in each house,
based on consultations with their
committee members, shall report to their
respective houses on whether the
proposed amendments are consistent
with the purposes, policies, and
objectives of Section 2102(c)(9). The
reports shall contain any differences in
views of the chairmen and ranking
members. Sections 2104(d)(3)(C)-(D)
Advisory Committee Reports
Virtually identical. Section 2104(e)
Private sector advisors shall submit reports on
Section 2103(a) and Section 2103(b) trade
agreements to the President, Congress, and USTR,
not later than 30 days after the President notifies
Congress of the intent to enter into the trade
agreement (as required under Section 2105(a)(1)).
Section 2104(e)
ITC Assessment
Virtually identical. Section 2104(f)
The President, at least 90 calendar days before
entering into an agreement under Section 3(b), shall
give the ITC details of the agreement and request
that the ITC prepare and submit an assessment of
the agreement. Not later than 90 calendar days
after the President enters into the agreement, the
ITC shall submit to the President and to Congress a

CRS-18
Section 2104 of House Conference Version
Section 2104 of Senate Bill
report assessing various economic impacts of the
agreement. The ITC shall review and assess
empirical literature regarding the agreement.
Section 2104(f)

CRS-19
Implementation of Trade Agreements
Section 2105 of House Conference Version
Section 2105 of Senate Bill
In General
Contains virtually identical House
language and adds:
Any agreement under Section 2103(b) shall enter
into force if, and only if: (1) the President, at least
The President must also transmit the
90 calendar days before entering into an agreement,
notification and report on trade remedy
notifies the House and the Senate of the intention to
laws required under Section
enter into the agreement, and publishes notice in
2104(d)(3)(A) and (B) to the revenue
the Federal Register; (2) within 60 days of entering
committees when he makes his
into the agreement, the President submits to
notification before entering into an
Congress a description of legal changes required
agreement. Section 2105(a)(1)(A)(ii)
for compliance with the agreement; (3) after
entering into the agreement, the President submits
The following additional supporting
to Congress the text of the agreement, together with
information must be submitted along
a draft implementing bill, a statement of
with the text of the agreement and other
administrative action, and other supporting
documents: in the event that the
information; and (4) the implementing bill is
congressional reports in Sections
enacted. Section 2105(a)(1)
2104(d)(3)(C) and (D) find that proposed
amendments to trade remedy laws are
Supporting information to be submitted along
inconsistent with the purposes, policies,
with the text of the agreement and the draft
and objectives of Section 2102(c)(9), the
implementing bill consists of an explanation of how
President must explain why those
the implementing bill and administrative action
findings are incorrect. Section
might change existing law, a statement of how the
2105(a)(2)(B)(ii)(VI)
agreement makes progress in achieving the
objectives, and other information as described.
Any agreement or other understanding
Section 2105(a)(2)
with a foreign government (whether oral
or in writing) that relates to a trade
The implementing bill shall provide that the
agreement enacted under trade
benefits and obligations under the agreement apply
authorities procedures and not disclosed
only to the parties to the agreement. The
to Congress before introduction of
implementing bill may provide that the benefits and
implementing legislation, shall not be
obligations do not apply uniformly to all parties.
considered part of the agreement
Section 2105(a)(3)
approved by Congress and shall have no
force under U.S. law or in any dispute
settlement body. Section 2105(a)(4)

CRS-20
Section 2105 of House Conference Version
Section 2105 of Senate Bill
Limitations of Trade Authorities Procedures
Identical (with some changes in numbering),
except for the following:
Trade authorities procedures shall not
apply to any implementing bill for a Section
Adds that a procedural disapproval resolution
2103(b) trade agreement if, during the 60-
shall be referred to the Finance Committee and
day period beginning on the date that a
may not be amended, and it is not in order for
house agrees to a procedural disapproval
the Senate to consider a procedural disapproval
resolution for lack of notice or
resolution not reported by the Finance
consultations, the other house separately
Committee. [Similar language referring to the
agrees to a procedural resolution with
Ways and Means Committee and Rules
regard to the same trade agreement. The
Committee is in the House-passed bill.]
term “procedural disapproval resolution” is
Sections2105(b)(1)(C)(i)(bb) and (cc) and
defined. Section 2105(b)(1)
(ii)(iv)
The procedures for considering
Adds a section requiring that, prior to
procedural disapproval resolutions are
December 31, 2002, the Secretary of Commerce
given. Section 2105(b)(2)
transmit to Congress a report with the U.S.
strategy for correcting instances in which WTO
Provisions covering procedural
dispute settlement panels and Appellate Body
disapproval resolutions (Section 5(b)) and
have added to obligations or diminished rights
extension disapproval resolutions (Section
as described in Section 2101(b)(3). Trade
3(c)) are enacted by Congress as an exercise
authorities procedures shall not apply to an
of the rulemaking power of the House and
implementing bill with regard to an agreement
the Senate and with full recognition of the
negotiated under the WTO unless the Commerce
constitutional right of either house to
Secretary has issued the report in a timely
change the rules. Section 2105(c)
manner. Section 2105(b)(2)

CRS-21
Treatment of Certain Trade Agreements for Which
Negotiations Have Already Begun
Section 2106 House Conference Version
Section 2106 of Senate Bill
If a trade agreement under Section 2103(b)
Virtually Identical. Section 2106(a)
is entered into under the WTO, is entered into
with Chile or with Singapore, or establishes a
Free Trade Area for the Americas, and (2)
results from negotiations that started before
enactment, then different treatment would
apply. Section 2106(a)
Under that treatment, the applicability of the
Virtually Identical. Section 2106(b)
trade authorities procedures to implementing
bill shall be determined without regard to
certain requirements regarding notification
before initiating negotiations. Also, the
President would be required to notify the
Congress of the negotiations and consult
regarding the negotiations with the revenue
committees, other committees as the President
deems appropriate, and the COG. Section
2106(b)

CRS-22
Congressional Oversight Group (COG)
Section 2107 of House Conference Version
Section 2107 of Senate Bill
Members and Functions
Virtually Identical. Section 2107(a)
Within 60 days of enactment (and within 30 days
of convening of each Congress), the chairmen of the
revenue committees shall convene the COG.
Section 2107(a)(1)
Membership will be the chairman and ranking
member of the revenue committees, 3 other
members from each of those committees (no more
than 2 of the same party), and the chairman and
ranking member from any other committees with
jurisdiction. Sections 2107(a)(2)-(3)
Members of the COG shall be official advisers to
the U.S. delegation in trade negotiations. The COG
shall consult with and provide advice to the USTR
on formulation of objectives, negotiating strategies
and positions, development of the trade agreement,
and compliance and enforcement. Section
2107(a)(4)
The COG shall be chaired by the chairmen of the
revenue committees. Section 2107(a)(5)
Guidelines
Virtually Identical, except:
Within 120 days of enactment, the USTR, in
Adds that the guidelines developed by
consultation with the chairmen and ranking
the USTR shall also provide for the time
members of the revenue committees, shall develop
frame for submitting the labor rights
guidelines for the exchange of information between
report under Section 2102(c)(8). Section
the USTR and the COG, and make revisions as
2107(b)(2)(E)
necessary. Section 2107(b)(1)
The guidelines developed by the USTR shall
provide for, among other things: regular, detailed
briefings of the COG on negotiating objectives;
access by COG members and staff to pertinent
documents; the closest practicable coordination
between the USTR and the COG at all critical
periods of the negotiations; and after the agreement
is concluded, consultation on compliance and
enforcement. Section 2107(b)(2)
Request for Meeting
Identical
Upon the request of a majority of the COG, the
President shall meet with the COG before starting
negotiations or at any other time. Section 2107(c)

CRS-23
Additional Implementation and Enforcement
Requirements
Section 2108 of House Conference Version
Section 2108 of Senate Bill
At the time the President submits to Congress the final text of
Identical. Section 2108
the trade agreement, the President shall also submit a plan for
implementing and enforcing the agreement. The plan shall
include (along with an analysis of the costs associated with
each): (1) a description of additional personnel required at
border entry points; (2) a description of additional personnel
required by Federal agencies for monitoring and implementing
the trade agreement; and (3) a description of the additional
equipment and facilities needed by the U.S. Customs Service;
and a description of the impact of the agreement on State and
local governments. Section 2108(a)
In the first budget after the above plan is submitted, the
President shall request the resources necessary to support the
plan. Section 2108(b)
Committee Staff
Section 2109 of House Conference Version
Section 2109 of Senate Bill
The grant of trade promotion authority is likely to increase the
Identical
activities of the primary committees of jurisdiction in
international trade. Further, more Members will participate in
the formulation of U.S. trade policy and oversight of the trade
agenda through the creation of the Congressional Oversight
Group. The primary committees of jurisdiction should have
adequate staff to accommodate these increased activities.
Conforming Amendments
Section 2110 of House Conference Version
Section 2110 of Senate Bill

CRS-24
Report on Impact of Trade Promotion Authority
House Conference Version
Section 2111 of H.R. 3009 (Senate)
No provision
Requires the ITC, within 1 year of enactment, to report to
the revenue committees on the economic impact on the
United States of: (1) the U.S.-Israel Free Trade
Agreement (FTA); (2) the U.S.-Canada FTA; (3) the
North American Free Trade Agreement; (4) the Uruguay
Round Agreements; and (5) the Tokyo Round of
Multilateral Trade Negotiations.
Identification of Small Business Advocate at WTO
House Conference Version
Section 2112 of H.R. 3009 (Senate)
No provision.
Requires the USTR to pursue identification of a small
business advocate at the WTO Secretariat to examine the
impact of WTO agreements on small- and medium-sized
enterprises, address their concerns, and recommend ways
to address their interests. Section 2112(a)
States that the Assistant USTR for Industry and
Telecommunications shall be responsible for ensuring
small business interests are considered in trade
negotiations in accordance with the overall objective on
small businesses (described in section 2102(a)(8)).
Expresses the sense of Congress that the small business
functions be reflected in the title of the Assistant USTR
assigned such responsibility. Section 2112(b)
Requires that within 1 year of enactment and annually
thereafter, the USTR report to the revenue committees on
steps taken to pursue the identification of a small business
advocate at the WTO. Section 2112(c)
Definitions
Section 2111 of House Conference
Section 2113 of H.R. 3009 (Senate)
Version
The two bills are identical except the Senate bill defines “import sensitive agricultural product”
here [Section 2113(5)], whereas the House bill defines the term under the section on Trade
Agreements Authority [Section 2103(a)(2)(B)]. The two definitions are similar but not identical
In addition House Conference version defines “WTO member” [Section 2111(9)], “Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures” [Section 2111 (10)(A)], and “Antidumping Agreement”
[Section (10)(B)].

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.