Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority: A Comparison of H.R. 3005 as Approved by the House and by the Senate Finance Committee

Publication Date: April 2002

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Trade

Type:

Abstract:

This report compares H.R. 3005, the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001, as approved by the House on December 6, 2001, and as ordered reported by the Senate Finance Committee on December 18, 2001 (S.Rept. 107-139).

The trade negotiating objectives in both versions are similar but not identical. Both versions have the same seven overall objectives, but the Senate Finance Committee version has an eighth on small businesses. They have the same 13 principal objectives, with some language differences for three foreign investment, agriculture, and dispute settlement and the Senate Finance Committee adds a 14th principal objective on border taxes. Both versions call for the President to take almost the same 12 actions to maintain U.S. competitiveness.

The two versions have almost identical language on the President's authority to proclaim tariff changes and to negotiate trade agreements with expedited legislative procedures for an implementing bill. They have the same deadline for negotiating agreements and almost the same requirements for extending the deadline. They both state that a trade agreement must "make progress in meeting" negotiating objectives and describe similar kinds of provisions that an implementing bill may have.

Both versions have identical language regarding notification and consultation before and during negotiations. They both have special provisions on negotiations on textiles and agriculture (the Senate Finance Committee version includes fish and shellfish with agriculture). They both require reports by private sector advisors and the International Trade Commission (ITC). They have the same language on consultation with Congress before entering into an agreement, but the Senate Finance Committee version adds requirements for any changes to trade remedy laws.

Both versions have similar provisions on the President's submission of the trade agreement and other documents to Congress. The Senate Finance Committee version adds language on reporting changes to the trade remedy laws, procedural action in the Senate, and disclosure of oral or written agreements with foreign governments. It also adds that expedited procedures will not apply, if the Commerce Secretary does not submit a report on a U.S. strategy toward certain dispute actions in the World Trade Organization in a timely manner.

Both versions are almost identical on establishing a Congressional Oversight Group. They both provide for adjustment to the pre-notification requirements where negotiations are underway, require a plan by the President to address enforcement, and state that congressional trade-related activities should increase. Additional sections in the Senate Finance Committee version would require the ITC to report on agreements implemented under expedited procedures in the past, and would direct the USTR to seek an advocate in the WTO for small- or medium-sized businesses.