[Senate Report 105-102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 198
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                    105-102
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT OF 1997

                                _______
                                

                October 8, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Roth, from the Committee on Finance, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1269]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

     The Committee on Finance, having considered legislation to 
renew the President's authority to proclaim changes in tariffs 
resulting from the negotiation of reciprocal trade agreements 
and to renew congressional procedures for implementing 
provisions of such agreements in United States law, reports 
favorably thereon and refers the bill to the full Senate with a 
recommendation that the bill do pass.

                             I. Background

     Article I, section 8, clause 2 of the Constitution 
delegates the power to regulate foreign commerce to Congress. 
Congress has historically exercised that power through 
legislation regulating imports of goods, services, and 
investment into the United States.
     Beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 
1934, however, Congress introduced a new means of addressing 
the changing needs of American trade policy. Congress delegated 
authority to the President to proclaim changes in U.S. tariffs, 
within prescribed limits, based on the results of mutually 
beneficial trade agreements concluded with our foreign trading 
partners. Congress set the overall objectives of the 
negotiation, but offered the President and our trading partners 
the assurance that, if the agreement reached was consistent 
with the objectives and conditions set by Congress, the 
agreement would be implemented in U.S. law.
     With the progress of the Trade Agreements Program 
initiated by Secretary of State Cordell Hull (a former member 
of the Finance Committee) under the authority of the 1934 Act 
and of later rounds of multilateral negotiations within the 
framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 
U.S. negotiators achieved significant reductions in tariffs 
abroad. Those agreements called for significant reductions in 
U.S. tariffs as well. As tariff levels fell, particularly after 
the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations concluded in 1967, it 
became clear that future rounds of trade talks would focus on 
the panoply of non-tariff measures that our trading partners 
used to bar or inhibit U.S. exports from reaching their 
markets.
     That, in turn, posed a problem in terms of the 
implementation of any agreement that called for a reciprocal 
reduction in U.S. non-tariff measures limiting imports of 
foreign goods, services, and investment. In this Committee's 
view then and now, Congress could not, consistent with its 
constitutional responsibilities, delegate authority to the 
President to revise U.S. domestic law by proclamation in the 
manner it had delegated the authority to proclaim changes in 
tariffs. At the same time, Congress recognized that the 
President, as a practical matter, might be unable to conclude 
future trade agreements unless he could assure our trading 
partners that the agreement would not be amended by Congress 
after the fact.
     In order to overcome that problem, Congress introduced 
what have become known as the ``fast track'' procedures for 
implementing trade agreements in the Trade Act of 1974. The 
procedures, referred to in the Committee's bill as the ``trade 
agreement approval procedures,'' were designed to preserve 
Congress' constitutional role in the regulation of foreign 
commerce, while offering the President and our trading partners 
the assurance that a trade agreement requiring changes in U.S. 
law would receive an up-or-down vote within a time certain when 
brought before Congress.
     Consistent with the approach of the Reciprocal Trade 
Agreements Act of 1934, Congress set the President's 
negotiating objectives. The President was then obliged to 
notify Congress prior to entry into any trade agreement, 
consult on the nature and scope of the accord, and submit the 
President's findings as to how the pact met the objectives set 
by Congress, together with legislation needed to implement the 
agreement in U.S. law.
     Congress has preserved that basic structure each time it 
has renewed the trade agreement approval procedures. The 
procedures were renewed once for eight years by the Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979, and a second time for five years in the 
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The authority 
granted by the 1988 Act was extended in 1993 for an additional 
six months in order to complete the Uruguay Round of 
multilateral trade negotiations. It has not been renewed since.
     The fast track authority has been used on five occasions. 
Congress used the fast track procedures to implement the Tokyo 
and Uruguay Rounds of GATT multilateral trade negotiations, in 
1979 and 1994 respectively. Congress also relied on the fast 
track to implement free trade accords with Israel in 1985 and 
Canada in 1988, and to implement the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993.
     The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 would retain 
the same basic structure and authority for the President 
contained in prior extensions of the trade agreement approval 
procedures. It would, however, make several important changes 
designed to reemphasize the original purpose of the authority--
the reduction of trade barriers and the expansion of market 
access for U.S. exports--as well as strengthen Congress' role 
in and oversight of the process.
     The motivation and intent behind those changes is to 
restore the trade agreement approval procedures to their 
intended role. Those procedures were not designed and were 
never intended to provide a means to revise the fundamental 
objectives and contours of U.S. domestic law. Rather, the 
procedures are designed to implement changes in U.S. law 
necessary to conform to our obligations under a trade 
agreement.
     Prior law allowed provisions in implementing legislation 
that were ``necessary or appropriate'' to the approval of the 
agreement or its implementation in U.S. law. The Committee's 
bill would clarify that the trade agreement approval procedures 
are available only to those measures necessary to approve and 
implement a trade agreement and those traded-related measures 
that are otherwise related to the implementation, enforcement, 
or adjustment to the effects of such agreement. Those measures 
would include such items as amendments to the unfair trade laws 
needed to ensure that U.S. goods and services do not face 
unfair competition from imports and implementation of the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance programs reauthorized with this 
legislation.
     The Committee is confident that the framework established 
by the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 lays the proper 
foundation for the limited purpose the trade agreement approval 
procedures were originally designed to serve. The Act sets out 
specific negotiating objectives that the Committee expects the 
President to pursue with our trading partners. The Act 
strengthens existing notice and consultation requirements by 
mandating comprehensive consultations at the outset and at 
every succeeding stage of the negotiations. The Act provides a 
process by which Congress may disapprove of new negotiations 
that might otherwise be eligible for implementation under the 
fast track procedures. Finally, the Act limits the application 
of the fast track procedures to agreements that achieve one or 
more of the negotiating objectives set by Congress and those 
provisions that are directly related to trade and otherwise 
related to the implementation, enforcement and adjustment to 
the effects of any such accord.
     The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 grants the 
President the authority he needs to offer the international 
leadership only America can provide on trade. At the same time, 
it assures that the trade agreement approval procedures will be 
used as originally intended--as a tool to assist in the 
reduction of barriers to U.S. trade.

                        II. Summary of the Bill

     The legislation is divided into ten sections. Apart from 
section 1, which provides a short title for the bill, the 
provisions fall into three categories.
     Sections 2 and 3 address the nature, purpose, and scope of 
the authority granted in this bill. Section 2 sets out the 
purposes for which the implementing procedures in section 3 are 
provided, specifies the principal trade negotiating objectives 
on which Congress expects the President to focus in future 
trade negotiations for which such procedures may be used, and 
identifies complementary international economic objectives that 
would reinforce the trade negotiations process. Section 3 
includes two separate implementing procedures, one allowing the 
President to proclaim changes in U.S. tariffs resulting from 
trade agreements reached with our foreign trading partners, and 
another establishing a set of trade agreement approval 
procedures for congressional review of implementing legislation 
needed to make changes in U.S. law other than tariff changes 
(i.e., the fast track). Section 3 also defines what types of 
measures would qualify for expedited congressional review.
     Sections 4 and 5 contain the procedural aspects of the 
measure, including those provisions intended to strengthen 
Congress' role in and oversight of the trade negotiations 
process. Section 4 sets out the notice and consultation 
requirements, which require the President to notify the 
Congress of the initiation of negotiations and the potential 
entry into an agreement and obligate the President to consult 
at every stage of the process. Section 5 sets out the 
implementing procedures themselves, including provisions 
allowing for congressional disapproval of negotiations under 
certain circumstances.
     Sections 6 through 10 set out various provisions that are 
integral to the operation of the legislation or reinforce the 
principal purpose of the bill. Those include the waiver of 
notice requirements for negotiations already under way, 
reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance programs, as 
well as definitions, conforming amendments, and provisions 
needed to comply with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985.

                  III. General Description of the Bill

     What follows is a section-by-section description of the 
bill.
 A. Section 1: Short Title
     Section 1 provides that, if enacted, the measure would be 
cited as the ``Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997.''
 B. Section 2: Trade Negotiating Objectives of the United States
     Section 2 of the Act, which sets out the trade negotiating 
objectives of the United States, is divided into three parts--a 
statement of purposes, the trade negotiating objectives 
themselves, and a complementary set of economic policy 
objectives designed to reinforce the trade agreements process.
             1. Statement of Purposes
     Subsection 2(a), the Statement of Purposes, provides the 
underlying rationale for which Congress grants access to the 
trade agreement approval procedures--expanding U.S. access to 
foreign markets, reducing barriers to trade, creating more 
effective international trade rules, and promoting economic 
growth, higher living standards and full employment in the 
United States, as well as economic growth and development among 
our trading partners that will lead to expanding markets for 
U.S. goods, services, and investments.
             2. Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives
     Subsection 2(b), the Principal Trade Negotiating 
Objectives, identifies the specific sectors and practices on 
which Congress expects U.S. negotiators to focus in their use 
of the authority provided to the President. The provision links 
access to the trade agreement approval procedures to agreements 
fulfilling one or more of the enumerated objectives.
     While the Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives are 
largely self-explanatory, several deserve some additional 
comment. They include--
     Trade in Goods: The provision clarifies that the principal 
objective of the United States with respect to trade in goods 
is reducing barriers to U.S. exports. The provision cites three 
specific examples: (1) the elimination of disparities between 
higher foreign and lower U.S. tariffs left over from previous 
rounds of multilateral tariff negotiations, (2) the elimination 
of those tariff and nontariff measures identified in the United 
States Trade Representative's (USTR) annual trade barriers 
study produced under section 181 of the Trade Act of 1974, and 
(3) the elimination of tariffs on those items specifically 
identified in section 111(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act and the related Statement of Administrative Action as 
targets for the reciprocal elimination of tariffs on a tariff 
category-by-tariff category basis.
     By specifying those examples, the Committee intends to 
provide particular focus to the President's efforts. They are 
not meant as a limit on the products or sectors covered by the 
negotiating objective. Rather, the Committee expects that the 
President will use the authority broadly to address all 
barriers that inhibit U.S. merchandise exports, including the 
barriers to be addressed in extended negotiations under World 
Trade Organization (WTO) auspices called for by section 135 of 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and the related Statement of 
Administrative Action on trade in civil aircraft.
     Trade in Services: The principal negotiating objective on 
trade in services reinforces the Congress' direction to the 
President contained in prior law to expand access to foreign 
markets for U.S. service providers. The provision extends 
guidance for negotiators from prior law regarding U.S. domestic 
policy objectives in various areas, including health, safety, 
national security, environmental protection, consumer 
protection, and employment, but makes clear that the guidance 
should not be construed as authority to modify U.S. law related 
to those domestic policy objectives.
     The Committee recognizes that the Uruguay Round represents 
a significant step toward achieving the goals set out both here 
and in prior law. The Committee retained the objective in order 
to underscore the need to expand the coverage of and 
participation in agreements reached in the Uruguay Round, to 
complete the negotiations called for in those agreements, and 
to encourage continuing bilateral efforts to eliminate barriers 
to U.S. service providers. With respect to future services 
agreements under the WTO, the Committee reemphasizes its 
expectation that the President shall agree solely to those 
arrangements benefiting U.S. interests on a mutual and 
reciprocal basis.
     Investment: The principal negotiating objective with 
respect to foreign investment is the reduction of barriers to 
U.S. investment and the establishment of effective means for 
the equitable resolution of investment disputes. The guidance 
from prior law with respect to domestic policy objectives is 
extended here as well, along with the proviso noted above that 
the guidance should not be construed as authority to modify 
U.S. law.
     Intellectual Property: The Committee intends to ensure 
that intellectual property protection, given its importance to 
the future of the U.S. economy and the ability of American 
firms to compete globally, remains a trade policy priority. As 
a consequence, the principal negotiating objective of the 
United States with respect to intellectual property protection 
continues to focus on the enactment and enforcement of adequate 
intellectual property protections abroad.
     The surest route to that goal is the full implementation 
of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property (TRIPS). The full benefit of the TRIPS 
agreement has been delayed by the lengthy transition periods 
allowed for under that accord. The Committee expects that the 
President will use both the WTO and trade negotiations in other 
fora to accelerate the full implementation of those rules.
     The Committee views Chapter 17 of the NAFTA as the 
baseline for future negotiations on intellectual property 
protection. The Committee expects future agreements, whether 
concluded in the WTO or in other contexts, to contain 
intellectual property protection at least as strong as that of 
NAFTA.
     Along with the rights themselves, holders of intellectual 
property rights need access to effective enforcement mechanisms 
to ensure that other private parties do not violate the rights 
that accrue under domestic law. The provisions of the bill with 
respect to enforcement mechanisms are not intended to prejudge 
the nature of the those mechanisms or the sanctions, whether 
civil or criminal, that might apply as a result of an 
infringement. The objective is to ensure that the means are 
available, however designed, to ensure that U.S. holders of 
intellectual property rights can enforce those rights against 
infringing parties.
     The objective reflected in the Act is designed to ensure 
the fullest possible protection for U.S. holders of 
intellectual property rights as those rights relate to 
international trade in goods and services and to international 
investment. Nothing in the Act should be construed to imply 
endorsement of agreements or conventions arising in contexts 
other than international trade which may serve to limit such 
rights through compulsory licensing or other methods.
     Agriculture: Despite the accomplishments of the Uruguay 
Round Agreement on Agriculture, the agricultural sector remains 
blighted by the trade distorting policies of foreign 
governments. The overarching goal of U.S. negotiators should 
continue to be achieving more open and fair conditions of trade 
by reducing barriers to trade in agricultural products. In the 
Committee's view, that means such actions as eliminating trade 
distorting practices of state trading enterprises (particularly 
those that limit price transparency) and addressing a variety 
of other market distorting practices that unfairly decrease 
U.S. market access opportunities.
     The Committee also expects that the President will address 
the proliferation of regulatory and commercial practices 
affecting new technologies. In practical terms, that means 
eliminating discriminatory standards or labeling requirements 
that unfairly bar access of U.S. farm products to particular 
markets.
     While the primary objective should be expanding the scope 
of international disciplines over trade distorting practices in 
agricultural markets, the Committee expects that the President 
will focus on improving existing arrangements as well. That 
means ensuring the enforcement of the rules that do exist and 
addressing particular issues, such as the lack of adequate 
safeguards under existing rules for domestic producers of 
seasonal and perishable agricultural products due to the nature 
of their product.
     Unfair Trade Practices: The principal objective of the 
United States with respect to unfair trade practices is 
intentionally outward-looking. The Committee intends the focus 
of U.S. negotiators to be the elimination of the unfair trade 
practices abroad, not changes in or weakening of U.S. law at 
home. The goal should be to enhance existing international 
disciplines against unfair trade practices such as dumping and 
trade-distorting subsidies and ensuring the aggressive 
enforcement of those disciplines through the WTO agreements or 
any other trade agreement the President may conclude under the 
authority granted by this legislation.
     Over the nearly six decades in which the Trade Agreements 
Program has been in place, the United States has seen a 
dramatic expansion of trade and a larger than ever percentage 
of the U.S. economy is affected by imports and exports. The 
core purpose of the unfair trade laws is to ensure that, in the 
process of liberalizing trade between the United States and its 
trading partners, the United States retains the ability to 
deter unfair import competition in its home market. As a 
consequence, the Committee does not intend that the authority 
granted in this Act be used to weaken the ability of U.S. 
unfair trade laws to deter such practices. The Committee 
expects the President to consult closely on the issue of the 
review of administrative determinations under the unfair trade 
laws in future trade agreements.
     Improvement of the WTO and Multilateral Trade Agreements: 
In the Committee's view, the work within the WTO is far from 
complete despite the progress made in the Uruguay Round. 
Expanding the coverage of and participation in the WTO 
agreements is of paramount importance. The Committee expects 
further attention to compliance with existing agreements in 
order to ensure that the United States receives the full 
benefit of the underlying bargain it struck in supporting the 
creation of the WTO and in negotiating the various WTO 
agreements.
     The Committee wants to ensure that U.S. negotiators adopt 
a similar approach to any other existing multilateral accords 
or any they may negotiate in the future. It is just as 
important to seek constant improvement in the existing 
framework of our trading arrangements as it is to negotiate new 
ones. Support for future trade-liberalizing agreements depends 
on adequately addressing problems with the function of existing 
arrangements.
     Dispute Settlement: The basic objective of the United 
States in the area of dispute settlement remains the same--
ensuring the effectiveness of trade dispute settlement 
procedures for the enforcement of U.S. rights, particularly 
within the WTO. Absent the effective enforcement of U.S. 
rights, international trade agreements are meaningless. The 
Committee encourages the President to consult closely on the 
means for enforcing U.S. trade agreements, whether in regard to 
changes in existing law or the resources dedicated to 
enforcement and compliance.
     Transparency: The Committee recognizes that, absent access 
to foreign trade laws, regulations, and administrative 
proceedings, U.S. exporters, service providers, or investors 
have no means of ensuring that they are receiving the market 
access that the letter of our trade agreements provide. 
Similarly, absent an understanding of the processes of 
international institutions like the WTO, it is difficult for 
the public to see how U.S. interests are being protected (e.g., 
whether the United States has received a fair hearing on its 
trade complaints and the benefit of its bargain in the 
implementation of any trade agreement). Accordingly, the 
Committee expects the President to ensure that trade laws, 
regulations, and processes among our trading partners, and 
dispute settlement processes within international institutions 
like the WTO, provide for appropriate public access.
     Regulatory Competition: Successive rounds of multilateral 
trade negotiations and bilateral accords with Israel, Canada, 
and Mexico have gradually reduced or eliminated tariffs and 
other border measures used by governments to deter competition 
and international trade. That raises the risk (already evident 
in certain sectors such as agriculture) that governments will 
increasingly rely on government regulation as a means of 
discriminating against U.S. goods, services, and investment.
     Such practices can take the form of direct limits on 
commerce, such as limits on distribution and retail sales, or 
the toleration of anticompetitive practices which otherwise 
hinder the sale of U.S. exports in particular markets. Such 
practices can also involve less direct means by foreign 
governments to afford a commercial advantage to their domestic 
producers, service providers, or investors, such as the use of 
health, safety, labor and environmental standards to 
discriminate in favor of domestically produced goods or 
lowering of or derogating from such standards in order to 
attract investment or inhibit U.S. exports.
     Like the Act's treatment of unfair trade practices 
discussed above, the negotiating objective in this context is 
consciously outward-looking. The Committee intends that the 
provisions be used to address foreign government practices that 
discriminate against U.S. goods, services, and investment 
abroad or lower or derogate from existing health, safety, 
labor, environmental or other regulatory standards to attract 
investment or inhibit exports.
     With respect to foreign government practices designed to 
attract investment or inhibit U.S. exports through the lowering 
of or derogating from such standards, the Committee emphasizes 
that the negotiating objective should not be construed to 
permit the inclusion of any provision in an implementing bill 
submitted under the trade agreement approval procedures set out 
in subsection 3(b) of the Act, or in any agreement that would 
be the subject of an implementing bill submitted under those 
procedures, that would restrict the autonomy of the United 
States in those areas. Such provision should not be construed 
to call for negotiation of agreements providing for 
international enforcement of or changes to U.S. health, safety, 
labor or environmental standards. Nor would that provision 
authorize the imposition of any limit on the sovereign right of 
individual U.S. states to establish their own levels of health, 
safety, labor, environmental, land use, tax, or other 
regulatory standards as they deem appropriate.
            3. International Economic Policy Objectives Designed to 
                    Reinforce the Trade Agreements Process
     Recent events have underscored the fact that trade 
negotiations and trade agreements do not operate in a vacuum. 
Subsection 2(c) of the Act introduces a new subsection relating 
to international economic policy objectives that would 
reinforce the trade negotiations process. Those objectives 
would, for example, include--(1) work within international 
monetary institutions to encourage currency stability and 
coordination between trade and monetary institutions, (2) 
efforts in international contexts other than the WTO TRIPS 
agreement to strengthen standards for protection of 
intellectual property rights, (3) the promotion of respect for 
workers' rights, such as use of the ILO to monitor its members 
adherence to certain accepted labor standards (e.g., the 
prohibition on exploitative child labor), and (4) expanding 
trade to ensure the optimal use of the world's resources, while 
seeking to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance 
the international means for doing so. The provision makes 
clear, however, that subsection 2(c) does not authorize the use 
of the trade agreement approval procedures (i.e., the fast 
track) to modify U.S. law.
     As the Committee has in prior law, the Act highlights the 
link between international trade and monetary policies. Recent 
events have underscored the need to promote policies among our 
trading partners that encourage stability in international 
currency markets. The Committee recognizes that significant 
shifts in exchange rates result from domestic economic 
policies, not trade agreements negotiated under authority of 
the sort granted in this Act. Nonetheless, such shifts can have 
a dramatic impact on the trade opportunities available to U.S. 
producers, service providers, and investors that trade 
agreements are otherwise designed to provide. The purpose of 
the provisions on currency stability reported by the Committee 
is simply to encourage U.S. efforts bilaterally and 
multilaterally through the appropriate international monetary 
institutions to help protect against the adverse consequences 
of excessive currency movements. It is the Committee's 
expectation that the President will consult on an ongoing basis 
regarding such matters as they relate to trade.
     The Committee also wants to emphasize its recognition of 
the fact that, in the context of intellectual property 
protection, the WTO TRIPS agreement is not the only 
international forum in which the United States should pursue 
its goal of providing adequate and effective protection for 
U.S. holders of intellectual property rights. The Committee 
wants to encourage progress in other contexts, such as the 
World Intellectual Property Organization, the Paris, Rome, and 
Berne Conventions, and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in 
Respect of Integrated Circuits, that would complement the 
efforts of the United States within the WTO, the TRIPS 
agreement, and the intellectual property provisions of other 
international trade agreements.
     As held true for the specific negotiating objective on 
intellectual property rights contained in subsection 2(b) 
discussed above, the goal should be to afford the broadest 
protection possible for U.S. holders of intellectual property 
rights. Accordingly, nothing in the broader economic objective 
of subsection 2(c) on intellectual property should be construed 
to imply endorsement of any accord reached in other contexts 
that would limit such rights by compulsory licensing 
requirements or other means.
     The provisions on worker rights and the environment are 
intended to encourage the President, outside of the context of 
trade agreements subject to fast track approval, to develop 
initiatives that would complement the agenda that the 
Committee's bill would establish for future trade negotiations. 
The examples cited with respect to worker rights are not 
intended to be exhaustive; rather, they are intended to 
identify two means by which the President might pursue 
complementary policies in the context of worker rights. The 
provision on the environment acknowledges the role that 
appropriate agreements between governments on the environment 
can play in protecting against environmental damage or 
encouraging conservation, such as agreements on international 
trade in endangered species, while at the same time ensuring 
that due weight is given to the valuable role trade can play in 
conservation efforts by ensuring the optimal use of the world's 
resources.
C. Section 3: Trade Agreement Negotiating Authority
     Section 3 of the Act contains two different procedures for 
implementing trade agreements--one for implementing the results 
of tariff negotiations and one for implementing the results of 
trade agreements that require other changes in U.S. law.
     The first of those two, commonly referred to as ``tariff 
proclamation authority,'' permits the President to ``proclaim'' 
the results of tariff negotiations directly into U.S. law 
without further review by Congress. The second set of 
procedures, designed for changes in U.S. law not covered by 
tariff proclamation authority, represents what are referred to 
in the Act as the ``trade agreement approval procedures,'' but 
are commonly referred to as the ``fast track.'' Those 
procedures apply to all changes in U.S. law required to 
implement the agreement other than the tariff modifications 
proclaimed by the President.
            1. Agreements Regarding Tariff Barriers
     Tariff negotiating authority contained in subsection 3(a) 
of the Act tracks prior grants of negotiating authority 
contained in every extension of tariff negotiating authority 
since the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. It 
authorizes the President to modify U.S. duties resulting from 
any trade agreement reached with our foreign trading partners 
before October 1, 2001. The Act would allow for a single 
extension until October 1, 2005 under the procedures set out in 
subsection 3(c).
     Subsection 3(a) imposes various limits on the President's 
tariff proclamation authority. It limits the maximum amount by 
which the President can cut any individual tariff (for U.S. 
tariffs over 5 percent, the President can cut the tariff by no 
more than half) and the aggregate reduction that can go into 
effect in any given year. Tariff cuts may be ``staged'' or 
phased-in over a maximum ten-year period. The provision 
includes rules on rounding to ensure the administrability of 
the staged tariff cuts provided for under subsection 3(a).
     Subsection 3(a) also provides a new grant of tariff 
proclamation authority that would, notwithstanding the 
limitations noted above, authorize the President to eliminate 
or harmonize all tariffs on certain articles for which members 
of the affected U.S. industry have requested so-called ``zero-
for-zero'' negotiations or tariff harmonization. Under 
subsection 3(a), such negotiations must result in the 
reciprocal elimination or harmonization of duties within the 
same tariff categories.
     The new tariff authority would be subject to the notice 
and consultation requirements applicable to agreements that 
would normally be subject to consideration under the separate 
trade agreement approval procedures of subsection 3(b) (i.e., 
the fast track). In particular, the President could use the 
authority to proclaim changes only in those tariff categories 
for which the President had provided notice to Congress before 
initiating the negotiations or those that are authorized by 
section 6 of the Committee's bill.
     Any tariff agreement negotiated under paragraph (6) of 
subsection 3(a) would also be subject to the consultation and 
layover requirements set out in section 115 of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act, which ensure additional congressional and 
private sector input and review by the United States 
International Trade Commission (ITC) before the changes go into 
effect. The authority is, in addition, circumscribed by the 
requirements that all such negotiations take place in the 
context of the WTO or as an interim step toward a free trade 
agreement.
     The Committee underscores its understanding that the new 
authority granted in paragraph (6) of subsection 3(a) will only 
be used to the extent requested by industry. The President 
shall take into account the ongoing competitive conditions 
facing particular domestic products, the extent to which they 
have faced or continue to face foreign unfair or trade 
distorting practices, and the extent to which sectors producing 
such products are currently adjusting to changes in competitive 
conditions resulting from prior tariff or non-tariff agreements 
(e.g., agricultural products, particularly perishables, citrus 
fruit, and fruit juices).
            2. Agreements Regarding Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers
     The Act provides a single track for implementing any 
changes in U.S. law (other than those subject to the 
President's tariff proclamation authority) required by a trade 
agreement negotiated by the President pursuant to the 
conditions set out in the Committee's bill, and then applies a 
common set of implementing procedures to all such agreements. 
The Act provides for an initial grant of authority through 
October 1, 2001, with the possibility of an extension of the 
procedures until October 1, 2005, as provided for in subsection 
3(c).
     The Act imposes several conditions on access to the trade 
agreement approval procedures. First, consistent with every 
grant of trade negotiating authority since 1974, the agreement 
must be one that reduces foreign trade barriers. Agreements 
that do not fulfill that basic condition, such as arrangements 
in other areas that might refer to trade incidentally as an 
enforcement mechanism, would not qualify under this provision 
because their only potential impact would be trade restrictive.
     Second, access to the fast track is tied directly to 
fulfillment of the principal trade negotiating objectives set 
out in subsection 2(b). An agreement, and its implementing 
legislation, would qualify for fast track only when it made 
progress toward fulfilling one or more of the principal 
negotiating objectives set out in that subsection.
     Third, before an agreement and its implementing 
legislation would qualify for the trade agreement approval 
procedures, the President would have to have satisfied the 
notice and consultation provision of section 4 of the Act. 
Thus, the President would have had to have provided notice and 
consulted with Congress and the appropriate industry sector 
advisory groups prior to initiating the talks as to their 
scope, and have consulted with Congress at every stage of the 
negotiations (including immediately prior to initialing any 
accord) in order to gain access to the trade agreement approval 
procedures.
     Fourth, subsection 3(a) would limit access to the trade 
agreement approval procedures solely to those provisions of the 
implementing legislation that are (1) required to approve an 
agreement that achieves one or more of the principal 
negotiating objectives and any related statement of 
administrative action; (2) necessary to implement such 
agreement; (3) otherwise related to the implementation, 
enforcement, or adjustment to the effects of such trade 
agreement and are directly related to trade; or (4) needed to 
comply with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985.
     In that regard, the Committee intends that the language 
allow solely for those trade-related items that have 
traditionally been a part of the implementation, enforcement or 
adjustment to new competitive conditions created by trade 
agreements. Those include, for example, trade adjustment 
assistance, provisions of the U.S. unfair trade laws (including 
the antidumping and countervailing duty laws and the provisions 
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930), and congressional 
guidance on future negotiations. The language would also cover 
those items necessary to define or clarify the relationship 
between the agreement and U.S. law, such as provisions defining 
the relationship between federal and state law, preclusion of 
private rights of action based on the agreement itself, 
judicial procedures, or the establishment of administrative, 
consulting, or reporting mechanisms to carry out U.S. 
obligations under the agreement.
            3. Extension Procedures
     Subsection 3(c) of the Act provides a process for 
extending both the tariff proclamation authority of subsection 
3(a) and the trade agreement approval procedures of subsection 
3(b) that is consistent with prior law. The President must 
request the extension, provide his reasons for that request, 
along with an explanation of the trade agreements for which he 
expects to need fast track authority, and a description of the 
progress he has made to date toward achieving the principal 
negotiating objectives set out in subsection 2(b). The 
President must also notify the Advisory Committee for Trade 
Policy and Negotiations established under section 135 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, which then must file its own report with 
Congress.
     The authority would be extended unless either House of 
Congress approves a ``resolution of disapproval.'' Any member 
of Congress could introduce such a resolution in his or her 
respective House of Congress. Such resolutions would be 
referred, in the Senate, to the Committee on Finance, and in 
the House, jointly to the Committees on Rules and Ways and 
Means. Floor action on such resolutions would be out of order 
unless the resolution had been reported by the aforementioned 
committees.
 D. Section 4: Notice and Consultations
     Section 4 revises and strengthens the notice and 
consultation requirements that had been included in the 1988 
Act. The Committee acknowledges that the Executive Branch, over 
the course of the negotiations that were covered by the 
previous authority, frequently briefed the Committee on the 
status of trade negotiations. Although the Committee continues 
to believe that its Members and staff should be briefed 
frequently as trade negotiations progress, it is the 
Committee's view that regular briefings alone are not 
sufficient to ensure the type of consultation that will 
guarantee Congress a meaningful role in the trade agreements 
process.
     Accordingly, in addition to the notice and consultation 
provisions that had been included in the 1988 Act, section 4 
adds a number of new requirements to help ensure close 
coordination and consultation at every stage of the 
negotiations. The 1988 Act required the President to provide 
written notice to this Committee and the House Ways and Means 
Committee of bilateral trade agreement negotiations at least 60 
days before providing the required 90-day notice to the House 
of Representatives and the Senate of his intention to enter 
into a resulting agreement, and to consult with the two 
committees regarding such negotiations. Subsection 4(a) 
requires the President to provide written notice to the 
Congress as a whole of his intention to begin multilateral as 
well as bilateral trade negotiations, at least 90 days before 
so doing. The notice must specify the date the President 
intends to begin such negotiations, the specific objectives for 
the negotiations, and whether the President intends to 
negotiate a new agreement or modify an existing agreement. 
Failure to provide such notice may trigger the introduction and 
consideration of a ``procedural disapproval resolution'' under 
the provisions of subsection 5(b) of this bill, which, if 
approved, would deny the use of the trade agreement approval 
procedures (i.e., the fast track) for legislation implementing 
such an agreement.
     Subsection 4(a) also requires the President to consult 
with the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees, as 
well with other committees the President deems appropriate, 
before and promptly after providing notice of his intention to 
begin negotiations. The Committee believes that the broadest 
possible consultation is desirable and that other committees 
that have an interest in the subject matter of a negotiation 
are entitled to be heard. As a consequence, the Committee's 
bill also requires the President to consult with any other 
committees that request such consultations in writing. The bill 
includes as well the requirement that the President must 
consult with appropriate private sector advisory committees 
established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 before 
beginning negotiations. In the view of the Committee, a mandate 
for broad consultations will help ensure that all interested 
parties are kept fully apprised of proposed negotiations.
     Under subsection 4(b), before entering into a trade 
agreement, the President is required to consult with the Senate 
Finance and House Ways and Means Committees, as well as with 
other committees that have jurisdiction over legislation 
involving subject matters that would be affected by the trade 
agreement under negotiation. In addition to the requirements 
stemming from the 1988 Act--that the consultations must include 
discussions as to the nature of the agreement and a detailed 
assessment of how and to what extent the agreement meets the 
purposes, policies and objectives set forth in section 2 of 
this bill--the consultations must include a discussion of all 
matters related to the implementation of the agreement. These 
include an assessment as to whether the agreement includes 
subject matters that will require implementing legislation that 
does not qualify for the fast track procedures authorized by 
this bill.
     To provide an adequate understanding of the context in 
which the negotiations will take place, the Committee expects 
that, with respect to free trade agreement negotiations, the 
consultations required in section 4 will include an overview of 
the macroeconomic situations of the countries with which the 
United States is proposing to negotiate and any implications 
for relevant exchange rates. The Committee expects the 
President to keep it apprised of developments in this area as 
negotiations progress.
     In addition, because the Committee is aware that a number 
of separate agreements on specific topics were concluded in 
conjunction with the implementing legislation for the three 
agreements most recently considered under the fast track 
procedures--the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA, 
and the Uruguay Round Agreements--the Committee has added a new 
consultation requirement. The President must consult with 
respect to any other agreement he has entered into or intends 
to enter into with the country or countries in question.
     The Committee believes that the Congress and the American 
public are entitled to know the full range of understandings 
and agreements that accompany the formal text of a trade 
agreement. The Committee intends that the term ``agreement,'' 
as used in this context, be broadly construed to encompass all 
kinds of agreements, ranging from formal side agreements 
entered into pursuant to the President's executive power, to 
exchanges of letters (with the country or countries in question 
and with Members of Congress and other interested parties), to 
any agreed interpretations of the provisions of a trade 
agreement or any other agreement entered into in conjunction 
with a trade agreement.
     Section 135(e) of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended in 
sections 4 and 7 of this bill to require the Advisory Committee 
for Trade Policy and Negotiations, appropriate policy advisory 
committees, and each sectoral or functional advisory committee 
affected by such negotiations to submit a report to the 
President, the Congress and the United States Trade 
Representative on any trade agreement entered into under the 
authority provided in subsections 3(a) or (b) of this bill. 
Such reports are to include an advisory opinion on whether and 
the extent to which an agreement promotes the economic 
interests of the United States and achieves the applicable 
purposes and principal negotiating objectives set forth in 
section 2 of this bill. The sectoral and functional advisory 
committees are to provide advisory opinions as to whether the 
agreement provides for equity and reciprocity within the sector 
or within the functional area.
     Under the 1988 Act, the advisory committee reports were 
required to be submitted no later than the date on which the 
President notified the Congress of his intention to enter into 
an agreement. In recognition of the fact that important terms 
of trade agreements often are not determined before the final 
hours of the negotiations, the Committee's six-month extension 
of the trade agreement approval procedures for purposes of 
concluding the Uruguay Round negotiations allowed the private 
sector advisory committees to file their reports 30 days after 
the President transmitted his notification. In the view of the 
Committee, the 30-day delay was helpful in that it allowed the 
advisory committees to factor in the final terms of the trade 
agreements in their analysis of the results. The Committee has 
adopted that approach in this bill. Advisory committees will be 
required to submit their reports not more than 30 days after 
the President notifies Congress of his intention to enter into 
a trade agreement.
     Subsection 4(d) requires the USTR to consult regularly, 
promptly, and closely with the congressional advisers for trade 
policy and negotiations appointed pursuant to section 161 of 
the Trade Act of 1974, as well as with the Senate Finance and 
House Ways and Means Committees as a whole, and keep the 
advisers and committees fully apprised of the negotiations. As 
noted above, consultations should afford Congress a meaningful 
opportunity to evaluate the negotiations at their final 
stages--the point at which key, and often controversial, 
matters are resolved. It is the Committee's view that 
comprehensive, detailed consultations are required particularly 
at that point.
     In that connection, the Committee expects that the USTR 
will enter into a formal arrangement, in the form of procedures 
similar to that agreed to by the Executive Branch in 1975, that 
will implement this section and section 161 of the Trade Act of 
1974 in a manner that will ensure that the advice of the trade 
advisers and Committee members will be taken fully into account 
so that they may play a meaningful role once negotiations 
begin, and, in particular, as they reach a conclusion. In 
addition, the Committee expects that the trade advisers, as 
required by section 161, will be fully accredited advisers to 
United States delegations to international conferences, 
meetings, and negotiating sessions relating to all trade 
agreements.
     The Committee expects that the USTR will, consistent with 
past practice, commit to a set of procedures for supplying 
Members and properly cleared staff with the following 
documents, whether classified or unclassified: relevant 
incoming and outgoing cables, statements of Executive Branch 
position, and formal submissions from the other countries 
engaged in the negotiations.
     In addition, the Committee believes strongly that 
consultations must be improved in particular as trade 
negotiations enter their final stages. The Committee is aware 
that, in many cases, important and controversial issues often 
are not settled until the final hour of negotiations. Although 
the Committee recognizes that this is the nature of 
negotiations, the Committee nonetheless believes that there 
should be a mechanism in place for more formalized consultation 
with Committee Members at this critical stage.
     Accordingly, it is the Committee's expectation that the 
USTR will work with Committee Members to develop a set of 
procedures whereby the USTR or appropriate staff will brief 
Committee Members and staff on the state of negotiations as 
they enter their final days. Committee Members will then have 
the opportunity to provide the USTR with their views as to any 
potential concerns regarding the status of the negotiations at 
that time and possible trade-offs that are likely to occur in 
the waning hours.
     The Committee recognizes that both the Executive Branch 
and the Congress bear the responsibility for ensuring that 
these consultations are meaningful. Executive Branch 
negotiators must offer detailed information in a timely manner; 
Congressional trade advisers and Committee Members must make 
themselves available when the negotiations enter their final 
stage, and the requirement to consult is contingent upon such 
availability.
 E. Section 5: Implementation of Trade Agreements
     Subsection 5(a) establishes the basic requirements 
regarding notification and submission of the agreement and 
implementing legislation that must be met before a trade 
agreement subject to the trade agreement approval procedures of 
this bill (i.e., the fast track procedures) enters into force 
for the United States. As was the case in the 1988 Act, the 
President is required to notify the House of Representatives 
and the Senate of his intention to enter into a trade agreement 
at least 90 days before doing so, and to publish promptly in 
the Federal Register notice of his intention. The purpose of 
this advance notification is to give the Congress an 
opportunity to review the outcome of the negotiations and 
assess, before the agreement becomes final, whether the 
objectives set forth in this Act have been met. The 90-day 
advance notification is intended to allow sufficient time for 
the Congress to make its views known and, if necessary, for the 
Executive Branch to seek modifications to the agreement before 
the negotiations are formally concluded.
     As in the past, the fast track procedures established in 
this bill do not require the President to submit the agreement 
and implementing legislation to the Congress within a time 
certain. The Committee is of the view, however, that the 
Congress ought to be apprised soon after the agreement is 
entered into of the changes to U.S. law that will be required 
in order to implement it. Accordingly, the Committee has added 
a new provision: within 60 days after entering into an 
agreement, the President must submit to the Congress a 
description of the changes to U.S. laws that he considers 
necessary for the United States to comply with the agreement.
     Once the President is ready to send the agreement and 
proposed implementing legislation to the Congress, subsection 
5(a) requires, as did the 1988 Act, that the President submit 
the final legal text of the agreement, together with a draft of 
the implementing bill, a statement of the administrative 
actions that will be proposed to implement the agreement, and 
additional supporting information. The supporting information 
must include: (1) an explanation as to how the implementing 
bill and proposed administrative action will modify U.S. law; 
and (2) an assertion that the agreement makes progress in 
achieving the objectives of this Act, setting forth specific 
reasons as to how and the extent to which such objectives are 
met and why and to what extent other objectives are not, how 
the agreement serves the interests of U.S. commerce, why the 
implementing bill qualifies for fast track procedures, and the 
reasons for any proposed administrative action. In addition, 
the Committee has added a requirement that the President 
identify whether and how the agreement changes provisions of a 
previously-negotiated agreement.
     It is the Committee's expectation that the supporting 
information as to how the agreement serves the interests of 
U.S. commerce will include a report prepared by the ITC, to be 
requested by the President pursuant to the authority provided 
under section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or section 131 of 
the Trade Act of 1974, that will assess the probable economic 
impact of the concluded agreement on United States' interests 
relating to specific industries and sectors. The Committee 
believes that such a report, completed after the negotiations 
have concluded, should allow for an objective assessment of the 
final results of the negotiations. It is the Committee's 
expectation that adequate time will be provided after 
conclusion of the negotiations for the ITC to complete its 
report. The Committee further expects that the President will 
provide, at the time he transmits the ITC's report to the 
Congress, recommendations with respect to the operation and 
effects of the agreement.
     Subsection 5(a) carries over a provision from the 1988 Act 
a requirement that the President recommend that the benefits 
and obligations of any trade agreement eligible for the 
procedures authorized by this bill be applied solely to the 
parties to the agreement, in order to minimize the ``free 
rider'' problem that arises when the benefits of trade 
agreements are extended even to those countries that are not 
parties to the agreement and that have not themselves made 
binding commitments. This provision also authorizes the 
President to recommend that the benefits and obligations of an 
agreement not apply uniformly to all parties to an agreement, 
if such a distinction is permissible under the terms of the 
agreement.
     Subsection 5(b) establishes important checks on the use of 
the trade agreement approval procedures, prior to the 
commencement of negotiations, as well as during the course of 
such negotiations. Paragraph (1) expands upon a provision 
included in the 1988 Act that disallowed the use of such 
procedures with respect to implementing legislation for 
bilateral trade agreements if either this Committee or the 
House Ways and Means Committee disapproved of the negotiation 
of such an agreement within 60 days of the President's 
notification of his intention to begin negotiations. Under the 
Committee's bill, the Committees' oversight of the commencement 
of negotiations would extend to all trade agreements, and not 
merely bilateral trade agreements. However, as disallowing the 
use of the trade agreement approval procedures is a serious 
step, the Committee has provided that both the Senate Finance 
and Ways and Means Committees must disapprove of their use.
     Subsection 5(b) also incorporates the ``procedural 
disapproval resolution'' included in the 1988 Act, which 
provides for consideration, under expedited procedures, of a 
resolution denying the use of the trade agreement approval 
procedures to implement the results of any trade agreement with 
respect to which the President has failed or refused to consult 
with the Congress. The Committee's bill expands this provision 
to apply as well where the President has failed to notify the 
Congress in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this 
bill. The Committee anticipates that the mere availability of 
this procedure will provide a further incentive for close and 
continuing consultations with the Congress.
     The process for Congressional consideration of procedural 
disapproval resolutions remains unchanged from the 1988 Act. In 
the event that both Houses of Congress pass resolutions of 
disapproval within 60 session days of each other, the use of 
the trade agreement approval procedures to implement the 
results of the trade negotiation at issue will be denied. There 
is no limitation on when the resolution may be introduced or 
acted upon. These procedures are intended as a check on the 
Executive Branch throughout the course of the negotiations. 
Both the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee 
would be privileged to report a resolution of their respective 
House at any time the trade agreement approval procedures are 
in effect. The resolution may originate only with the 
appropriate Committee in each House of Congress. Once reported 
by the Finance or Ways and Means Committee, each resolution 
would itself be considered under expedited procedures analogous 
to the trade agreement approval procedures potentially 
applicable to trade agreements, i.e., it would be a privileged 
matter and could not be amended or delayed. The resolution 
would be effective only if reported in exactly the form set out 
in the bill and subject to the time limits noted above.
 F. Section 6: Treatment of Certain Trade Agreements
     Section 4(a) of this bill requires the President to notify 
the Congress 90 days before commencing negotiations on a trade 
agreement the implementation of which would be eligible for the 
fast track approval procedures provided by this Act. Section 6 
waives this requirement for three sets of negotiations: 1) 
those negotiations under the auspices of the WTO regarding 
trade in information technology products that will have 
commenced before the enactment of this bill; (2) negotiations 
or work programs that have commenced pursuant to the ``built-
in'' agenda of the agreements administered by the WTO; and 3) 
an agreement with Chile, completing the negotiations that had 
begun in 1995.
     Because these negotiations have either been initiated or 
will have commenced by the time this bill is enacted, it is the 
view of the Committee that no practical purpose would be served 
by requiring the President to notify the Congress of his 
intention to begin such negotiations. With respect to the 
second category of negotiations--those that form part of the 
WTO's ``built-in'' agenda, it is the Committee's understanding 
that those that have commenced (and for which notice is, 
therefore, not required) are the work program on rules of 
origin and the negotiations on financial services.
     The Committee wishes to emphasize that all of the other 
notice and consultation requirements of this bill, as well as 
the procedural disapproval resolution procedures of section 5, 
will apply to each of the negotiations covered by section 6.
 G. Section 7: Conforming Amendments
     Section 7 makes conforming changes to a number of 
provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, to ensure that 
the provisions applicable to past extensions of fast track 
procedures continue to apply. These changes provide, for 
example, that the usual requirements for advice from the ITC 
and the private sector advisory committees will continue to 
apply to agreements negotiated pursuant to the authority 
provided in this bill.
 H. Section 8: Trade Adjustment Assistance
     Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs have been an 
integral part of American trade policy since they were first 
established in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Premised on the 
belief that trade agreements for the reciprocal reduction of 
trade barriers benefit the economy as a whole, the TAA programs 
seek to provide assistance to those individual workers and 
firms that might be adversely affected by the consequences of 
import competition. The two programs first established in the 
1962 Act--the TAA program for workers and the TAA program for 
firms--as well as the NAFTA worker adjustment assistance 
program established in the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act--are authorized through September 30, 1998. 
In the view of the Committee, it is vital to ensure that these 
programs continue beyond their current expiration dates, and 
thus maintain their role as a key element of our national trade 
policy. Accordingly, the Committee has included in this bill a 
two-year extension of the three programs, through September 30, 
2000.
 I. Section 9: Fees for Certain Customs Services
     Section 13031(a) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) establishes a $5 fee on 
passengers arriving in the United States from abroad on 
commercial vessels or aircraft. COBRA section 13031(b), as 
initially enacted, provided that passengers arriving from 
Mexico, Canada, Caribbean nations and U.S. territories (other 
than Puerto Rico) were exempt from the fee. Section 521 of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 
temporarily increased the fee to $6.50 and applied it as well 
to passengers previously exempt from the fee. These 
modifications terminated on September 30, 1997. Section 9 
provides that the current fee (which reverted to $5 on October 
1, 1997) will apply to passengers arriving from Mexico, Canada, 
the Caribbean and the territories through August 31, 1998. The 
revenue thus generated is sufficient to offset the costs of the 
extension of the TAA programs under section 8 of this bill.
     The Committee notes that the amendments to COBRA section 
13031 by section 38 of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-295, 110 Stat. 3514, 
3539, continue to apply. Specifically, these amendments 
provided that the Customs Service may collect passenger 
processing fees only one time for each passenger aboard a 
commercial vessel in the course of a single voyage involving 
two or more United States ports.
 J. Section 10: Definitions
     Section 10 defines a number of the terms used in this 
bill. Definitions are provided for the following: 
``distortion,'' ``trade,'' ``Uruguay Round Agreements,'' 
``World Trade Organization,'' ``WTO agreement,'' and ``WTO and 
WTO member.''

                        IV. Congressional Action

     On June 3, 1997, the Committee held a hearing on the 
renewal of trade agreement approval procedures. On September 
17, 1997, the Committee held a hearing on the September 16 
proposal of the President for renewal of those procedures. On 
October 1, the Committee considered and approved an original 
bill proposed by Mr. Roth.

                        V. Vote of the Committee

     In compliance with section 133 of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, the Committee states that the 
legislation was ordered favorably reported by a voice vote on 
October 1, 1997.

                          VI. Budgetary Impact

     In compliance with sections 308 and 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and paragraph 11(a) of Rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following letter 
has been received from the Congressional Budget Office on the 
budgetary impact of the bill:
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, October 7, 1997
Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the Reciprocal Trade 
Agreements Act of 1997, as ordered reported by the Senate 
Committee on Finance on October 1, 1997.
            Sincerely,
                                 June E. O'Neill, Director.

                                SUMMARY

    This bill would restore the President's authority to enter 
into multilateral and bilateral trade agreements with 
Congressional approval or rejection of, but not amendment to, 
those agreements. In addition, the bill would extend the trade 
adjustment assistance (TAA) program, which will expire on 
September 30, 1998. The bill would also extend the customs user 
fees established by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). CBO estimates that enacting 
this bill would reduce direct spending by $8 million over the 
1998-2002 period. Because enacting the bill would affect direct 
spending pay-as-you-go procedure would apply.
    The bill contains no new private-sector or 
intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and would not impose any costs on 
state, local, or tribal governments.

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of the bill is shown in the 
following table.

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    REVENUES                                                    
Restoration of Fast Track Authority...........................         0         0         0         0         0
                                                     OUTLAYS                                                    
Extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance......................         0        39        48        12         3
Extension of COBRA Customs User Fee...........................       -87       -23         0         0         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

Revenues

    Before their expiration on June 1, 1993, sections 1102 and 
1103 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 
granted the President the authority to enter into multilateral 
and bilateral trade agreements. The President could reduce 
certain tariffs by proclamation within specified bounds 
prescribed by the law. For provisions subject to Congressional 
approval, Congress could not amend implementing legislation 
once it was introduced. Furthermore, as long as the President 
met statutory requirements concerning Congressional 
consultation during the negotiation process, Congress was 
required to act on the legislation following a strict 
timetable. This consideration process was known as the ``fast 
track'' procedure. P.L. 103-40 temporarily extended these 
provisions through April 16, 1994, for any trade agreement 
resulting from the Uruguay Round negotiations taking place 
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 would restore 
the President's authority to implement certain tariff changes. 
The bill would have no direct effect on revenues, because 
future trade agreements would require implementing legislation. 
The effect of any changes implemented by the President would be 
attributed to the legislation implementing the agreement.

Outlays

    The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, which was 
established by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and was most 
recently extended until September 30, 1998, by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, provides transitional 
adjustment assistance for workers and firms dislocated as a 
result of a federal policy of reducing barriers to foreign 
trade. The bill would extend the program through fiscal year 
2000 at a cost of $102 million over the 1998-2002 period. This 
figure reflects only the cost of assistance under the North 
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The other 
costs of extending TAA are included in the baseline, as 
provided by the Balanced Budget Act of 1985.
    Section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) established a schedule of 
flat fees for processing conveyances and passengers entering 
the United States. This bill would direct the Customs Service 
to collect a passenger processing fee of $5 from persons 
arriving by commercial vessel or aircraft from Mexico, Canada, 
and certain other areas. These fees would be collected through 
August 31, 1998. CBO estimates that this provision would result 
in additional offsetting receipts of about $87 million in 
fiscal year 1998 and $23 million in fiscal year 1999.

                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

    Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for 
legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The 
projected changes in direct spending through 2007 are shown in 
the following table. For purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go 
procedures, however, only the effects in the budget year and 
the succeeding four years are counted.

                                                              PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS                                                              
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007   1998-07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in Outlays.............................................     -87      16      48      12       3       0       0       0       0       0       -8
Changes in Receipts............................................       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0        0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              intergovernmental and private-sector impact

    The bill contains no new private-sector or 
intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and would not 
impose any costs on state, tribal, or local governments.

                         VII. Regulatory Impact

     In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
bill will not significantly regulate any individuals or 
businesses, will not impact on the personal privacy of 
individuals, and will result in no significant additional 
paperwork.
          VIII. Additional Views of Senator Frank H. Murkowski

     I am compelled to file this partial dissent to the portion 
of the legislation we have reported which deals with extending 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs. While I am a very 
strong supporter of the TAA program, I believe that the way the 
Committee funded this program is inappropriate. Under section 8 
of this bill, passengers arriving from Mexico, Canada, 
Caribbean nations and U.S. territories aboard commercial 
vessels or aircraft are once again being forced to pick up the 
tab for this program unrelated to customs or any other service 
associated with their travel. Furthermore, these Americans (of 
the four million cruise passengers last year, over 90 percent 
were Americans) are being asked to pay again for customs 
services for which they already pay, both directly and 
indirectly, through income taxes, and other customs fees.
     I believe that the Committee should have turned to 
spending cuts, not new user fees or taxes to pay for extension 
of a program related to expansion of trade agreements.
     In 1985, Congress specifically did not impose a fee on 
passengers arriving from Mexico, Canada, Caribbean nations and 
U.S. territories aboard commercial vessels or aircraft as part 
of Section 13031(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). To offset the costs of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), however, Section 
521 of the NAFTA Implementation Act imposed a fee on these 
previously exempt passengers. This fee was intended to be 
temporary, and, in fact, did terminate on September 30, 1997. 
But the very next day, October 1, 1997, the Committee reimposed 
the fee to pay for TAA.
     I find it especially ironic that to pay for a program 
(TAA) that is designed to help workers who lose their jobs as a 
result of trade-related changes, the Committee would impose a 
burden on an industry that supports five hundred thousand U.S. 
jobs, and already pays over $8 billion in the form of 64 
different taxes and fees to 12 different government agencies.
     I do note my satisfaction that the Committee makes clear 
that the amendment I offered to COBRA section 13031 by section 
38 of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 
1996 continues to apply. This section directs that the Customs 
Service may collect passenger processing fees only one time for 
each passenger aboard a commercial vessel in the course of a 
single voyage involving two or more United States ports. This 
will prevent the unfortunate interpretation by the Customs 
Service that a fee could be extracted, for example, at every 
Alaskan port of call when the vessel simply sailed outside the 
customs territory of the United States on its voyage, without 
stopping at a foreign port.
                      IX. Changes in Existing Law

     In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                           TRADE ACT OF 1974

         CHAPTER 3--HEARINGS AND ADVICE CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS

SEC. 131. ADVICE FROM INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.

    (a) Lists of Articles Which May Be Considered for Action.--
            (1) In connection with any proposed trade agreement 
        under [section 123 of this Act or section 1102 (a) or 
        (c) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
        1988,] section 123 of this Act or section 3 (a) or (b) 
        of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997, the 
        President shall from time to time publish and furnish 
        the International Trade Commission (hereafter in this 
        section referred to as the ``Commission'') with lists 
        of articles which may be considered for modification or 
        continuance of United States duties, continuance of 
        United States duty-free or excise treatment, or 
        additional duties. In the case of any article with 
        respect to which consideration may be given to reducing 
        or increasing the rate of duty, the list shall specify 
        the provision of this subchapter under which such 
        consideration may be given.
            (2) In connection with any proposed trade agreement 
        under [section 1102 (b) or (c) of the Omnibus Trade and 
        Competitiveness Act of 1988] section 3(b) of the 
        Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997, the President 
        may from time to time publish and furnish the 
        Commission with lists of nontariff matters which may be 
        considered for modification.
    (b) Advice to President by Commission.--Within 6 months 
after receipt of a list under subsection (a) or, in the case of 
a list submitted in connection with a trade agreement, within 
90 days after receipt of such list, the Commission shall advise 
the President, with respect to each article or nontariff 
matter, of its judgment as to the probable economic effect of 
modification of the tariff or nontariff measure on industries 
producing like or directly competitive articles and on 
consumers, so as to assist the President in making an informed 
judgment as to the impact which might be caused by such 
modifications on United States interests, such as sectors 
involved in manufacturing, agriculture, mining, fishing, 
services, intellectual property, investment, labor, and 
consumers. Such advice may include in the case of any article 
the advice of the Commission as to whether any reduction in the 
rate of duty should take place over a longer period of time 
than the minimum period provided for in section [1102(a)(3)(A)] 
section 3(a)(3)(A) of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 
1997.
    (c) Additional Investigations and Reports Requested by the 
President or the Trade Representative.--In addition, in order 
to assist the President in his determination whether to enter 
into any agreement under section 123 of this Act or [section 
1102 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,] 
section 3 of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997, or 
how to develop trade policy, priorities or other matters (such 
as priorities for actions to improve opportunities in foreign 
markets), the Commission shall make such investigations and 
reports as may be requested by the President or the United 
States Trade Representative on matters such as effects of 
modification of any barrier to (or other distortion of) 
international trade on domestic workers, industries or sectors, 
purchasers, prices and quantities of articles in the United 
States.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 132. ADVICE FROM EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER SOURCES.

    Before any trade agreement is entered into under section 
123 of this Act or [section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988,] section 3 of the Reciprocal Trade 
Agreements Act of 1997, the President shall seek information 
and advice with respect to such agreement from the Departments 
of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, Labor, State and 
the Treasury, from the United States Trade Representative, and 
from such other sources as he may deem appropriate. Such advice 
shall be prepared and presented consistent with the provisions 
of Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1979, Executive Order Number 
12188 and section 141(c).

    (19 U.S.C. 2152)

SEC. 133. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

    (a) Opportunity for Presentation of Views.--In connection 
with any proposed trade agreement under section 123 of this Act 
or [section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 
of 1988,] section 3 of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 
1997, the President shall afford an opportunity for any 
interested person to present his views concerning any article 
on a list published under section 131, any matter or article 
which should be so listed, any concession which should be 
sought by the United States, or any other matter relevant to 
such proposed trade agreement. For this purpose, the President 
shall designate an agency or an interagency committee which 
shall, after reasonable notice, hold public hearings and 
prescribe regulations governing the conduct of such hearings. 
When appropriate, such procedures shall apply to the 
development of trade policy and priorities.
    (b) Summary of Hearings.--The organization holding such 
hearing shall furnish the President with a summary thereof.

    (19 U.S.C. 2153)

SEC. 134. PREREQUISITES FOR OFFERS.

    (a) In any negotiation seeking an agreement under section 
123 of this Act or [section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988,] section 3 of the Reciprocal Trade 
Agreements Act of 1997, the President may make a formal offer 
for the modification or continuance of any United States duty, 
import restrictions, or barriers to (or other distortions of) 
international trade, the continuance of United States duty-free 
or excise treatment, or the imposition of additional duties, 
import restrictions, or other barrier to (or other distortion 
of) international trade including trade in services, foreign 
direct investment and intellectual property as covered by this 
title, with respect to any article or matter only after he has 
received a summary of the hearings at which an opportunity to 
be heard with respect to such article has been afforded under 
section 133. In addition, the President may make an offer for 
the modification or continuance of any United States duty, the 
continuance of United States duty-free or excise treatment, or 
the imposition of additional duties, with respect to any 
article included in a list published and furnished under 
section 131(a), only after he has received advice concerning 
such article from the Commission under section 131(b), or after 
the expiration of the 6-month or 90-day period provided for in 
that section, as appropriate, whichever first occurs.
    (b) In determining whether to make offers described in 
subsection (a) in the course of negotiating any trade agreement 
under [section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 
Act of 1988] section 3 of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act 
of 1997, and in determining the nature and scope of such 
offers, the President shall take into account any advice or 
information provided, or reports submitted, by--
            (1) the Commission;
            (2) any advisory committee established under 
        section 135; or
            (3) any organization that holds public hearings 
        under section 133;
with respect to any article, or domestic industry, that is 
sensitive, or potentially sensitive, to imports.

    (19 U.S.C. 2154)

SEC. 135. INFORMATION AND ADVICE FROM PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) The President shall seek information and advice 
        from representative elements of the private sector and 
        the non-Federal governmental sector with respect to--
                    (A) negotiating objectives and bargaining 
                positions before entering into a trade 
                agreement under this title or [section 1102 of 
                the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
                1988] section 3 of the Reciprocal Trade 
                Agreements Act of 1997;
                    (B) the operation of any trade agreement 
                once entered into, including preparation for 
                dispute settlement panel proceedings to which 
                the United States is a party; and
                    (C) other matters arising in connection 
                with the development, implementation, and 
                administration of the trade policy of the 
                United States, including those matters referred 
                to in Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1979 and 
                Executive Order Numbered 12188, and the 
                priorities for actions thereunder.
        To the maximum extent feasible, such information and 
        advice on negotiating objectives shall be sought and 
        considered before the commencement of negotiations.
            (2) The President shall consult with representative 
        elements of the private sector and the non-Federal 
        governmental sector on the overall current trade policy 
        of the United States. The consultations shall include, 
        but are not limited to, the following elements of such 
        policy:
                    (A) The principal multilateral and 
                bilateral trade negotiating objectives and the 
                progress being made toward their achievement.
                    (B) The implementation, operation, and 
                effectiveness of recently concluded 
                multilateral and bilateral trade agreements and 
                resolution of trade disputes.
                    (C) The actions taken under the trade laws 
                of the United States and the effectiveness of 
                such actions in achieving trade policy 
                objectives.
                    (D) Important developments in other areas 
                of trade for which there must be developed a 
                proper policy response.
            (3) The President shall take the advice received 
        through consultation under paragraph (2) into account 
        in determining the importance which should be placed on 
        each major objective and negotiating position that 
        should be adopted in order to achieve the overall trade 
        policy of the United States.
    (b) Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.--
            (1) The President shall establish an Advisory 
        Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations to provide 
        overall policy advice on matters referred to in 
        subsection (a). The committee shall be composed of not 
        more than 45 individuals and shall include 
        representatives of non-Federal governments, labor, 
        industry, agriculture, small business, service 
        industries, retailers, nongovernmental environmental 
        and conservation organizations, and consumer interests. 
        The committee shall be broadly representative of the 
        key sectors and groups of the economy, particularly 
        with respect to those sectors and groups which are 
        affected by trade. Members of the committee shall be 
        recommended by the United States Trade Representative 
        and appointed by the President for a term of 2 years. 
        An individual may be reappointed to committee for any 
        number of terms. Appointments to the Committee shall be 
        made without regard to political affiliation.
            (2) The committee shall meet as needed at the call 
        of the United States Trade Representative or at the 
        call of two-thirds of the members of the committee. The 
        chairman of the committee shall be elected by the 
        committee from among its members.
            (3) The United States Trade Representative shall 
        make available to the committee such staff, 
        information, personnel, and administrative services and 
        assistance as it may reasonably require to carry out 
        its activities.
    (c) General Policy, Sectoral, or Functional Advisory 
Committees.--
            (1) The President may establish individual general 
        policy advisory committees for industry, labor, 
        agriculture, services, investment, defense, and other 
        interests, as appropriate, to provide general policy 
        advice on matters referred to in subsection (a). Such 
        committees shall, insofar as is practicable, be 
        representative of all industry, labor, agricultural, 
        service, investment, defense, and other interests, 
        respectively, including small business interests, and 
        shall be organized by the United States Trade 
        Representative and the Secretaries of Commerce, 
        Defense, Labor, Agriculture, the Treasury, or other 
        executive departments, as appropriate. The members of 
        such committees shall be appointed by the United States 
        Trade Representative in consultation with such 
        Secretaries.
            (2) The President shall establish such sectoral or 
        functional advisory committees as may be appropriate. 
        Such committees shall, insofar as is practicable, be 
        representative of all industry, labor, agricultural, or 
        service interests (including small business interests) 
        in the sector or functional areas concerned. In 
        organizing such committees, the United States Trade 
        Representative and the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, 
        Agriculture, the Treasury, or other executive 
        departments, as appropriate, shall--
                    (A) consult with interested private 
                organizations; and
                    (B) take into account such factors as--
                            (i) patterns of actual and 
                        potential competition between United 
                        States industry and agriculture and 
                        foreign enterprise in international 
                        trade,
                            (ii) the character of the nontariff 
                        barriers and other distortions 
                        affecting such competition,
                            (iii) the necessity for reasonable 
                        limits on the number of such advisory 
                        committees,
                            (iv) the necessity that each 
                        committee be reasonably limited in 
                        size, and
                            (v) in the case of each sectoral 
                        committee, that the product lines 
                        covered by each committee be reasonably 
                        related.
            (3) The President--
                    (A) may, if necessary, establish policy 
                advisory committees representing non-Federal 
                governmental interests to provide policy 
                advice--
                            (i) on matters referred to in 
                        subsection (a), and
                            (ii) with respect to implementation 
                        of trade agreements, and
                    (B) shall include as members of committees 
                established under subparagraph (A) 
                representatives of non-Federal governmental 
                interests if he finds such inclusion 
                appropriate after consultation by the United 
                States Trade Representative with such 
                representatives.
            (4) Appointments to each committee established 
        under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall be made without 
        regard to political affiliation.
    (d) Policy, Technical, and Other Advice and Information.--
Committees established under subsection (c) shall meet at the 
call of the United States Trade Representative and the 
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Defense, or other 
executive departments, as appropriate, to provide policy 
advice, technical advice and information, and advice on other 
factors relevant to the matters referred to in subsection (a).
    (e) Meeting of Advisory Committees at Conclusion of 
Negotiations.--
            (1) The Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and 
        Negotiations, each appropriate policy advisory 
        committee, and each sectoral or functional advisory 
        committee, if the sector or area which such committee 
        represents is affected, shall meet at the conclusion of 
        negotiations for each trade agreement entered into 
        under [section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and 
        Competitiveness Act of 1988] section 3 of the 
        Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997, to provide to 
        the President, to Congress, and to the United States 
        Trade Representative a report on such agreement. Each 
        report that applies to a trade agreement entered into 
        under [section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and 
        Competitiveness Act of 1988] section 3 of the 
        Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 shall be 
        provided under the preceding sentence not later than 
        the date on which the President notifies the Congress 
        under [section 1103(a)(1)(A) of such Act of 1988] 
        section 5(a)(1)(A) of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements 
        Act of 1997 of his intention to enter into that 
        agreement.
            (2) The report of the Advisory Committee for Trade 
        Policy and Negotiations and each appropriate policy 
        advisory committee shall include an advisory opinion as 
        to whether and to what extent the agreement promotes 
        the economic interests of the United States and 
        achieves [the applicable overall and principal 
        negotiating objectives set forth in section 1101 of the 
        Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988] the 
        purposes, policies, and objectives set forth in section 
        2 (a) (b) of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 
        1997, as appropriate.
            (3) The report of the appropriate sectoral or 
        functional committee under paragraph (1) shall include 
        an advisory opinion as to whether the agreement 
        provides for equity and reciprocity within the sector 
        or within the functional area.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 151. BILLS IMPLEMENTING TRADE AGREEMENTS ON NONTARIFF BARRIERS AND 
                    RESOLUTIONS APPROVING COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS WITH 
                    COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

    (a) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
section and sections 152 and 153 are enacted by the Congress--
            (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the 
        House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, 
        and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each 
        House, respectively, but applicable only with respect 
        to the procedure to be followed in that House in the 
        case of implementing bills described in subsection 
        (b)(1), implementing revenue bills described in 
        subsection (b)(2), approval resolutions described in 
        subsection (b)(3), and resolutions described in 
        subsections 152(a) and 153(a); and they supersede other 
        rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent 
        therewith; and
            (2) with full recognition of the constitutional 
        right of either House to change the rules (so far as 
        relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, 
        in the same manner and to the same extent as in the 
        case of any other rule of that House.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
    (1) The term ``implementing bill'' means only a bill of 
either House of Congress which is introduced as provided in 
subsection (c) with respect to one or more trade agreements, or 
with respect to an extension described in section 282(c)(3) of 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, submitted to the House of 
Representatives and the Senate under section 102 of this Act, 
[section 1103(a)(1) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 
Act of 1988, or section 282 of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act] section 282 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, or 
section 5(a)(1) of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 
and which contains--
          (A) a provision approving such trade agreement or 
        agreements or such extension,
          (B) a provision approving the statement of 
        administrative action (if any) proposed to implement 
        such trade agreement or agreements, and
          (C) if changes in existing laws or new statutory 
        authority is required to implement such trade agreement 
        or agreements or such extension, provisions, necessary 
        or appropriate to implement such trade agreement or 
        agreements or such extension, either repealing or 
        amending existing laws or providing new statutory 
        authority.

For purposes of applying this paragraph to implementing bills 
submitted with respect to trade agreements entered into under 
section 3(b) of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997, 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 3(b)(3) of such act 
shall be substituted for subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of 
this paragraph.
    (2) The term ``implementing revenue bill'' or resolution 
means an implementing bill or approval resolution which 
contains one or more revenue measures by reason of which it 
must originate in the House of Representatives.
    (3) The term ``approval resolution'' means only a joint 
resolution of the two Houses of the Congress, the matter after 
the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That the 
Congress approves the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 
with respect to the products of ---------- transmitted by the 
President to the Congress on ----------.,'' the first blank 
space being filled with the name of the country involved and 
the second blank space being filled with the appropriate date.
    (c) Introduction and Referral.--
    (1) On the day on which a trade agreement or extension is 
submitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate under 
section 102 [or section 282 of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act] , section 282 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, or 
section 5(a)(1) of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997, 
the implementing bill submitted by the President with respect 
to such trade agreement or extension shall be introduced (by 
request) in the House by the majority leader of the House, for 
himself and the minority leader of the House, or by Members of 
the House designated by the majority leader and minority leader 
of the House; and shall be introduced (by request) in the 
Senate by the majority leader of the Senate, for himself the 
minority leader of the Senate, or by Members of the Senate 
designated by the majority leader and minority leader of the 
Senate. If either House is not in session on the day on which 
such a trade agreement or extension is submitted, the 
implementing bill shall be introduced in that House as provided 
in the preceding sentence, on the first day thereafter on which 
the House is in session. Such bills shall be referred by the 
Presiding Officers of the respective Houses to the appropriate 
committee or, in the case of a bill containing provisions 
within the jurisdiction of two or more committees, jointly to 
such committees for consideration of those provisions within 
their respective jurisdictions.
          * * * * * * *

              CHAPTER 6--CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON AND REPORTS

SEC. 162. TRANSMISSION OF AGREEMENTS TO CONGRESS.

    (a) As soon as practicable after a trade agreement entered 
into under section 123 or 124 [or under section 1102 of the 
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988] or under section 
3 of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 has entered 
into force with respect to the United States, the President 
shall, if he has not previously done so, transmit a copy of 
such trade agreement to each House of the Congress together 
with a statement, in the light of the advice of the 
International Trade Commission under section 131(b), if any, 
and of other relevant considerations, of his reasons for 
entering into the agreement.
          * * * * * * *

                    Subchapter C--General Provisions

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 245. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Department of Labor, for each of the fiscal years [1993, 
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and] 1998, 1999, and 2000, such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, 
other than subchapter D.
    (b) Subchapter D.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
to the Department of Labor, for each of fiscal years [1994, 
1995, 1996, 1997, and] 1998, 1999, and 2000, such sums as may 
be necessary to carry out the purposes of subchapter D of this 
chapter.

    (19 U.S.C. 2317)

          * * * * * * *

               CHAPTER 3--ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS

SEC. 256. DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS TO SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; 
                    AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In the case of any firm which is small (within the 
meaning of the Small Business Act and regulations promulgated 
thereunder), the Secretary may delegate all of his functions 
under this chapter (other than the functions under sections 251 
and 252(d) with respect to the certification of eligibility and 
section 264) to the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration.
    (b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary for fiscal years [1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and] 
1998, 1999, and 2000,  such sums as may be necessary to carry 
out his functions under this chapter in connection with 
furnishing adjustment assistance to firms (including, but not 
limited to, the payment of principal, interest, and reasonable 
costs incident to default on loans guaranteed by the Secretary 
under the authority of this chapter), which sums are authorized 
to be appropriated to remain available until expended.
          * * * * * * *

                  CHAPTER 5--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 285. TERMINATION.

    (a) Chapter 4 shall terminate on September 30, 1982.
    (b) No duty shall be imposed under section 287, after 
September 30, 1993.
    (c)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), no assistance, 
vouchers, allowances, or other payments may be provided under 
chapter 2, and no technical assistance may be provided under 
chapter 3, after September 30, [1998] 2000.
    (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no 
assistance, vouchers, allowances, or other payments may be 
provided under subchapter D of chapter 2 after [the day that is 
the earlier of--
            [(i) September 30, 1998, or
            [(ii) the date on which legislation, establishing a 
        program providing dislocated workers with comprehensive 
        assistance substantially similar to the assistance 
        provided by such subchapter D, becomes effective] 
        September 30, 2000.
    (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if, on or before the 
day described in subparagraph (A), a worker--
            (i) is certified as eligible to apply for 
        assistance, under subchapter D of chapter 2; and
            (ii) is otherwise eligible to receive assistance in 
        accordance with section 250,
such worker shall continue to be eligible to receive such 
assistance for any week for which the worker meets the 
eligibility requirements of such section.

    (19 U.S.C. 2271 note)

          * * * * * * *

        CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1985-

          * * * * * * *-

SEC.13031. FEES FOR CERTAIN CUSTOMS SERVICES.

    (a) Schedule of Fees.--In addition to any other fee 
authorized by law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall charge 
and collect the following fees for the provision of customs 
services in connection with the following:
          * * * * * * *
    (b) Limitations on Fees.--(1)(A) No fee may be charged 
under subsection (a) of this section for customs services 
provided in connection with--
          (i) the arrival of any passenger whose journey--
                  (I) originated in--
                          (aa) Canada,
                          (bb) Mexico,
                          (cc) a territory or possession of the 
                        United States, or
                          (dd) any adjacent island (within the 
                        meaning of section 101(b)(5) of the 
                        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
                        U.S.C. 1101(b)(5))), or
                  (II) originated in the United States and was 
                limited to--
                          (aa) Canada,
                          (bb) Mexico,
                          (cc) territories and possessions of 
                        the United States, and
                          (dd) such adjacent islands;
          (ii) the arrival of any railroad car the journey of 
        which originates and terminates in the same country, 
        but only if no passengers board or disembark from the 
        train and no cargo is loaded or unloaded from such car 
        while the car is within any country other than the 
        country in which such car originates and terminates;
          (iii) the arrival of any ferry; or
          (iv) the arrival of any passenger on board a 
        commercial vessel traveling only between ports which 
        are within the customs territory of the United States.
    (B) The exemption provided for in subparagraph (A) shall 
not apply in the case of the arrival of any passenger on board 
a commercial vessel whose journey originates and terminates at 
the same place in the United States if there are no intervening 
stops.
    (C) The exemption provided for in subparagraph (A)(i) shall 
not apply [to fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997] before 
September 1, 1998.
          * * * * * * *

                                 

