Trade Promotion (Fast-Track) Authority: Summary and Analysis of Selected Major Provisions of H.R. 3005 and Title XXI of H.R. 3009

Publication Date: June 2002

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Government; Trade

Type:

Abstract:

A major trade issue in the 107th Congress is whether or not Congress will approve authority for the President to negotiate trade agreements and submit the agreements for implementation under expedited legislative procedures. The House approved its version of a fast-track/Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, H.R. 3005, on December 6, 2001. The Senate approved its version on May 23, 2002, as Title XXI of an omnibus trade bill, H.R. 3009. Along with TPA, H.R. 3009 contains reauthorizations of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Differences between the bills must now b resolved by a conference committee.

H.R. 3005 (House) and Title XXI of H.R. 3009 (Senate) are similar in their basic structure and in most provisions. The latter bill, however, gives more attention to small businesses, trade remedy laws, and trade disputes. The Senate bill also contains the highly controversial Craig-Dayton amendment regarding provisions of trade agreements that would amend U.S. trade remedy laws. The two bills have many similarities to prior fast-track law, but they depart by giving more importance to labor, the environment, and other non-traditional priorities as part of U.S. trade policy. Also, for the first time, they would establish a Congressional Oversight Group to monitor trade negotiations more closely than before. Both bills include more detailed requirements on labor than under prior law. They are similar to each other with the exception of a required labor rights report and whether to attach a trade adjustment bill to TPA legislation.

Both versions bills give greater attention to environmental matters than previously. One shared negotiating objective is to ensure that parties do not fail to effectively enforce environmental laws and to make such trade-related failures subject to dispute settlement. The bills also seek language in trade agreements to discourage parties from weakening environmental laws to encourage trade.

With regard to agriculture, both versions state that the principal negotiating objective is to obtain competitive, fairer, and more open market opportunities for U.S. agricultural exports. In addition to consultation requirements for importsensitive products, both bills establish additional requirements for consultation with the agriculture committees.

Current proposals would permit either house to limit the deadline for trade agreements eligible for expedited implementation by adopting an extension disapproval resolution. Also, if required consultations do not occur, or if an agreement fails to promote required objectives, Congress could withdraw expedited implementation through procedural disapproval resolutions. These and other restrictions might also be enforced through other procedures available under general rules in each House.