{
  "id": "RL31450",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31450",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101278,
      "date": "2002-06-27",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:07:45.688941",
      "title": "The Andean Trade Preference Act: A Comparison of House and Senate Versions of H.R. 3009",
      "summary": "In 1991, the 102nd Congress passed the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), which provided\nfor\npreferential treatment of selected U.S. imports from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru as part\nof an incentive system to encourage legal trade as an alternative to illicit drug production. ATPA\nexpired in December 2001 and reauthorization legislation is being considered in the 107th Congress. \nThis report compares two versions of  H.R. 3009 , the House-passed  Andean Trade\nPromotion and Drug Eradication Act  and the  Andean Trade Preference Expansion\nAct , which was\npassed by the Senate as Title XXXI of the Trade Act of 2002. The Senate action was controversial\nbecause it adopted the ATPA provisions by agreeing to  S.Amdt. 3401 , a substitute\namendment for  H.R. 3009 , which also included a broader trade legislation package\ncovering trade promotion authority (TPA), trade adjustment assistance (TAA), and the Generalized\nSystem of Preferences (GSP), among others. On June 26, 2002, following a heated debate, the\nHouse voted 216 to 215 to agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment incorporating House\nversions of the broader provisions added in the Senate, and requested a conference.\n  Although broadly similar, Andean trade provisions of the two bills differ in how they would\namend ATPA. Proposed changes in tariff treatment address eight categories of goods that were\nexcepted from preferential treatment under the original act. To summarize: 1) duty-free treatment\nis extended to carefully defined groups of apparel articles in both bills; 2) footwear (not eligible\nunder the GSP preferences) is given duty-free treatment under the House and equal treatment under\nthe Senate, but with a few specific exceptions; 3) tuna shipped in airtight containers would enter duty\nfree under the House, but the amount would be capped under the Senate; 4) petroleum products\nwould enter duty free under both bills; 5) watches that do not include material from HTS column two\ncountries would enter duty free under both bills; 6) selected leather goods would enter duty free\nunder the House and given reduced-duty treatment under the Senate; 7) sugars, syrups, and sugar\nproducts would be excepted from preferential treatment under both bills; and 8) rum and tafia would\nenter duty-free under the Senate bill, but would be excepted from duty-free treatment under the\nHouse bill.\n  With the House passage of H.Res 450, the rule sending the ATPA reauthorization legislation\nto conference, new language affecting textile provisions was included. It changed the House bill to\nclarify that all ATPA apparel imports using U.S. fabric should have the dyeing and finishing of all\nsuch fabric done in the United States. At issue for the textile debate is that caps on U.S. imports of\nATPA apparel articles using regional fabrics may exceed total exports from the region, making the\nprovision requiring \"dyeing and finishing\" of U.S. fabric inoperative.\n  For a detailed side-by-side comparison of the Trade Promotion Authority bills, see:  CRS Report RL31445(pdf) ,  Trade Promotion (Fast-Track)Authority: A Comparison of Bills Approved by the\nHouse\n(H.R.  3005) and the Senate (Title XXI of H.R.  3009),  by Lenore Sek and\nWilliam H. Cooper.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31450",
          "sha1": "0500ea9ee774813be180feb203f7fe29b1518408",
          "filename": "files/20020627_RL31450_0500ea9ee774813be180feb203f7fe29b1518408.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020627_RL31450_0500ea9ee774813be180feb203f7fe29b1518408.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3548/",
      "id": "RL31450 2002-06-12",
      "date": "2002-06-12",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-12T12:12:07",
      "title": "The Andean Trade Preference Act: A Comparison of House and Senate Versions of H.R. 3009",
      "summary": "In 1991, the 102nd Congress passed the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), which provided for preferential treatment of selected U.S. imports from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru as part of an incentive system to encourage legal trade as an alternative to illicit drug production. This brief report provides a side-by-side comparison of House- and Senate-passed bills that would reauthorize the ATPA.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20020612_RL31450_c846e275db63680d387e38807f9d27a97273d781.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020612_RL31450_c846e275db63680d387e38807f9d27a97273d781.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Tariff preferences - Law and legislation",
          "name": "Tariff preferences - Law and legislation"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Industry and Trade"
  ]
}