{ "id": "RL31445", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL31445", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 101273, "date": "2002-07-31", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:06:35.267941", "title": "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 \n( H.Rept. 107-624 ), which contains, among other things, authorization of presidential trade promotion\nauthority (TPA) . The Senate is expected to vote on the report during the week of July\n29. Under\nTPA, the President can negotiate trade agreements that would be considered by the Congress under\nexpedited legislative procedures that limit debate and permit no amendments. \n The conference report resulted from negotiations by Senate and House conferees over similar\nbut different versions of the TPA legislation. This report provides an overview highlighting the\nmost significant differences between the bills the House and Senate approved before the conference\nand the language the conference adopted in its report on H.R. 3009 . It contains a\nside-by-side analysis of the versions of the TPA legislation the House and Senate conferees brought\nto the conference. \n The Senate and House bills contained the same seven overall objectives, but the Senate bill\nadded an eighth on small businesses that was retained in the conference report. The two bills had\nthe same 13 principal objectives, but the Senate bill added four more on child labor, human rights,\nborder taxes, and textile trade. All, except the one on human rights, were retained in the conference\nreport. The conference added a principal objective on preserving and enforcing U.S. trade remedy\nlaws.\n The two bills and conference report have almost identical language on the President's authority\nto proclaim tariff changes and to negotiate trade agreements with expedited procedures for an\nimplementing bill. A major difference was a provision in the Senate bill, called the Dayton-Craig\namendment, which would allow any provision amending U.S. trade remedy laws to be stricken from\nan implementing bill. That language was in neither the House bill nor the conference report. \n Both bills and the conference report have similar language on notification and consultation\nbefore and during negotiations, with special provisions for textiles and agriculture (the Senate bill\nand conference report also include fish and shellfish). They all require consultation with Congress\nbefore entering into an agreement. They would establish a Congressional Oversight Group. They\nhave similar but not identical language allowing for withdrawal of expedited consideration of a trade\nagreement for lack of notice or consultation by the President. A major difference is the Senate bill\nand conference report would require notification by the President of proposed changes to trade\nremedy laws, although their provisions are different.\n The bills and conference report provide for adjustment to the pre-notification requirements\nwhere negotiations are underway and require a plan by the President to address enforcement. The\nSenate bill and conference report would require the ITC to report on past agreements implemented\nunder expedited procedures and would recognize a small business advocate in the USTR.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31445", "sha1": "d8e6ad67d3a695833a5b6e5c71c4a00a5d729839", "filename": "files/20020731_RL31445_d8e6ad67d3a695833a5b6e5c71c4a00a5d729839.pdf", "images": null }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20020731_RL31445_d8e6ad67d3a695833a5b6e5c71c4a00a5d729839.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Foreign Affairs", "Industry and Trade" ] }