GOVERNMENT
Congressional
Outlook '95 Lois R. Ember, David J. Hanson, Bette Hileman, Janice R. Long, Wil Lepkowski, and Pamela S. Zurer, C&EN ouse Republicans have a battle plan for the first days of the 104th Congress, which convened on .Jan. 4. The plan is laid out in a document called ''Contract with America/' signed by more than 300 Republican House candidates before the Nov. 8 elections. Its details can be found in 10 bills that were introduced Jan. 4. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has promised House votes on these bills within 100 days. Enactment of just two of these House bills—the Job Creation & Wage Enhancement Act and the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act—would have a major impact on the way the chemical community operates. It would mean big tax breaks for the chemical industry, major changes in product liability laws, elimination of "junk science" from U.S. courts, and revolutionary changes in the setting and enforcement of environmental and safety and health regulations. Paying for the entire contract while balancing the federal budget, as both House and Senate Republicans have pledged to do, would also have a major impact on the chemical community. It could change both the way the federal government funds chemical research and the amount of that funding. For example, suggestions for cutting the federal government put forth by House Republicans include replacing existing science-funding agencies with a single Department of Science and eliminating the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Biological Survey. And both House and Senate leaders have indicated they intend to take a close look at the already approved fiscal 1995 budgets to see if money can be trimmed this year from various programs, such as the fast-growing Advanced Technology Program (ATP) of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST). However, it must be remembered that the House is not in and of itself a lawmaking body. Whatever bills it passes must also pass through the filter of the Senate. And that body will be much more deliberate—it will not be rushed into action. Its leaders do not necessarily agree with all that the House lead-
H
16
JANUARY 9, 1995 C&EN
Washington
ers have proposed. In addition, any bill that Congress passes must still be signed by the President before it becomes law, and President Clinton has the power to veto any bill that he does not agree with, a power that was used quite effectively by Presidents Reagan and Bush when the Democrats were in power in Congress. In this year's annual congressional outlook, C&EN focuses on legislative initiatives to implement the Republican contract and other issues Congress will be considering this year that will affect the chemical community. Job creation act. The Job Creation & Wage Enhancement Act would require new major regulations to surmount a long series of hurdles before they could become final. The legisla tion applies to regulations issued by all agencies, including independent ones. For every major regulation, the bill requires that agencies conduct a risk assessment and compare both the cost of the regulation to the economy and the cost of compliance with the likely benefits to human health and the environment. These assessmtfs must be si ipported by the best available scientific da ta, and the benefits of the rule mui st justify the costs. The rule also must "substantially advance" public protection compared with the risk. Benefits other than those to human health and the environment cannot be con sidered. Both the risk assess ment and the cost-benefit
^/Μ*$ίίψ1-1ί*
• :'*".ί Elu i^..j ^vwv.v\.\
analysis must be peer reviewed by a panel of outside experts that can include scientists with a financial interest in the issue. In addition, an agency issuing a major rule must complete a regulatory impact analysis, which comprises 23 items, in cluding the scientific basis for the rule, the economic impact of the rule, and a determination of whether the agency has suffi cient funds to implement the rule. Originally, the bill defined as "major" any rule that affect ed 100 people or more or imposed a compliance cost of $1 million on any individual or business. This definition would have covered virtually every regulation issued by the federal government. However, the latest version of the bill, according to congressional staff, retains the current definition of a major regulation as one that has an impact of $100 million or more on the economy. Furthermore, for all rules, major or not, the agency must analyze the impact of the rule on business and governments, considering direct and indirect effects. The Small Business Administration then must review this analysis. Another of the bill's restrictions on regulation is that their total cost would be capped at 8% of the gross domestic prod uct—5% for private sector regulations and 3% for public sec tor rules. To allocate costs of regulations, each committee in Congress would be given a two-year specified dollar amount for the regulations and mandates under its ju risdiction. When the committee uses up its "budget," which covers both exist ing laws and new ones, it could no longer bring a bill to the floor. This restriction could be waived only by a three-fifths vote of the House. Another component of the job creation act changes the way the Oc cupational Safety & Health Adminis tration may conduct inspections of chemical plants or other businesses. Currently, OSHA may conduct such inspections unannounced, but Ti tle VIII of the act bars govern\ ment agencies from conducting unannounced inspections of these facilities. Also, under the
JANUARY 9, 1995 C&EN
17
GOVERNMENT new act, the owner of a business is entitled to have a lawyer and/or an accountant present during any inspection. The only exception to the owner's right to be notified is if such notification would substantially delay response to an immi nent danger. Title IX, the so-called takings provision of the job creation act, could also have major effects on environmental regula tions. It requires agencies to compensate property owners for any final agency actions—including regulations, permit deci sions, licenses, or other types of orders or sanctions—that re duce the value of a property by 10% or more. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency orders unsuspecting owners to clean up a newly discovered Superfund site on their properties. Theoretically, the owners could seek to recoup their costs from EPA. Mort Mullins, the Chem ical Manufacturers Association's (CMA) vice president for regulatory affairs, contends that isn't likely. He says the intent of the bill is to deal with extreme situations in which a property owner is likely to be financially wiped out by a regulation. For his part, David Hawkins, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, is concerned that the bill will ap ply to existing rules as well as to new ones. For example, if a polluter seeks an exemption from an existing regulation and EPA turns down the request, that agency action could prompt a request for compensation from the property owner. "Agen cies would be very cautious in taking any action affecting property owners for fear that they will have caused a budgetbusting decision," says an analysis entitled "Eye of the Newt," prepared by the Washington, D.C.-based public inter est group OMB Watch. Some experts, such as Robert H. Socolow, director of the Center for Energy & Environmental Studies at Princeton Uni versity, suggest that if a takings provision is enacted it should be symmetrical. Thus, if a property's value is enhanced as a result of a government action, the owner should pay some of the increase in value to the government. If the property's value is depressed, the owner should receive partial com pensation. The job creation bill also provides a 50% cut in the tax rate on capital gains and prospectively indexes capital gains to ac count for inflation. It also allows small businesses to deduct the first $25,000 worth of investment each year and, for all businesses, increases the value of investment depreciation to equal the full value of the original investment. EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics (OPPT) has analyzed the potential effect of the job creation bill on its ac tivities. OPPT says the legislation's requirement for risk as sessments and cost-benefit analyses could delay rules, threaten environmental protection goals, and increase costs to industry. "The job creation bill requires risk assessments and costbenefit analyses for all major rules even where all parties have reached closure through a consensus process," OPPT writes. These requirements "could deter potentially interested parties from even engaging in these types of discussions." OPPT also concludes that the bill would encourage corporations to use pollution control rather than pollution prevention, because prevention actions involve multimedia approaches whose costs and risks are difficult to assess. Unfunded mandates. A separate bill, originally part of the Job Creation & Wage Enhancement Act, would prohibit the 18
JANUARY 9, 1995 C&EN
imposition of unfunded mandates on state and local govern ments. Before an agency can implement a federal mandate— new or old—the head of the agency must determine that Con gress has provided state and local governments with resourc es equal to the cost of implementing the mandate. The initial impetus for the unfunded mandates bill came from state and local governments. They complained that the federal government requires them to meet certain environ mental and other standards but, in many cases, does not pro vide enough money for compliance. George V. Voinovich, governor of Ohio and ^^R^. president of the National Governors'
.-αν -
RISK Ass
^E*r
Association, says unfunded mandates should be permitted under some circum stances. However, he wants Congress to clearly state which in dividual mandates are unfunded. What governors especially want Congress to give them is the freedom to meet environ mental standards without being told exactly how to reach those goals, Voinovich says. Environmental groups say the unfunded mandates legisla tion could undermine environmental protection in several ways. For example, a municipality could refuse to install fed erally required emission controls on an incinerator unless the federal government paid for it. If the municipality went ahead and operated the incinerator without controls, it could lead private sector incinerator owners to seek their own compli ance exemptions or compensation for installing controls, on the grounds that the municipal incinerator is competing unfairly. The unfunded mandates bill probably will also require the federal government to pay all the costs of preparing imple mentation plans to carry out various programs that are under the overall supervision of the federal government, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, says Hawkins. In the past, the states and the federal government have shared these costs. Liability reforms. Under another new bill, the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act, House Republicans intend to push
*WuMDID MANDATES
PRlVATf
^opfftTv
^HT$ through product liability law reforms that nave ^^JW^Ë^^^V^^SM^^^'^::' stalled in the ; l'-KiO)':P:| ffftif| "Îïfff"'* past several Congresses. \f - ' " The legislation creates a uniform product liability law, covering state and federal actions in three areas: punitive damages, joint and several liability, and fault-based liability for product sellers. CMA is "really excited about product liability reform" because it recognizes that product liability is an impediment to competitiveness, Mullins says. Another provision of the bill would force a citizen activist group that sues a corporation to pay the corporation's lawyers if it loses the lawsuit. Likewise, the corporation would have to pay the citizens' lawyers if it fails to prevail. Chemical industry spokesmen applaud this provision, saying it will prevent frivolous lawsuits. Environmental groups don't quite see it that way. They contend that because many corporations have much deeper pockets than citizen groups, the product liability provisions would have a chilling effect on lawsuits. "This legislation would mean it isn't enough to have a sound case and the resources to hire a lawyer," says Hawkins. "You have to have an absolute certainty of winning or you have to have an insurance policy that would potentially cover huge risks." The legal reform bill also amends Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on admissibility of expert testimony. Bill proponents agree with chemical industry lawyers that some experts often base their opinions on questionable science to justify controversial injuries. The bill states that, to be admissible in federal court, expert testimony must be based on "scientifically valid reasoning." Such evidence is inadmissible if the expert presenting it is to receive a contingency fee.
Paying for the contract. Just how House Republicans intend to carry out their "Contract with America," including its myriad tax revenue cuts, while striving to balance the federal budget over the next five years isn't exactly clear. However, a number of cuts in science and technology programs have been mentioned in various Republican budget-balancing plans advanced over the past few years, so some sweeping conclusions may be made about the threats to certain programs. Facing the most direct threat are USGS and the National Biological Survey, both now divisions in the Department of Interior. It's pretty clear that Republicans in Congress plan to eliminate them. The Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP), a group of 60 presidents of U.S. societies, including the American Chemical Society, has written to Congress, stressing that USGS and the National Biological Survey are crucial to the nation's future success in managing its resources. "The nation must not lose our source of independent inventories of national mineral, water, and biological and energy resources, as well as our growing ability to assess earthquake potential," CSSP says. Also threatened are: • The ATP of NIST. Few Republicans think of the program as anything other than another industrial policy gimmick of the government picking "winners and losers." • NIST's Manufacturing Extension Centers. These are mainly state-based, or close to the country's grass roots. So. with the right defense, they could escape the axe. • Applied programs at the National Science Foundation. This is a vaguely defined category because NSF has refined the skill of making basic research sound applied and applied research sound basic as the political needs arise. • Interagency research programs such as global change, manufacturing technology, high-performance computing and communication, and biotechnology. • Dual-use technology supported by the Department of Defense (DOD). This is mainly the Clinton Administration's Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) of grants to companies for developing technologies with both civilian and defense applications. Republicans see the projects as financing industrial policy with funds that could be going to defense readiness. • Basic research supported by the DOD. This funding could be reduced for the same reason. • The Department of Energy's national laboratories. DOE's labs are under constant threat and have always managed to survive. Much may hinge on two reports nearing completion—one by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy on the labs themselves and the other by a DOE advisory committee studying the future of DOE research. • Congress' Office of Technology Assessment. OTA was slated for elimination when Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980. Today, Senate Republicans, with an eye toward cutting Congress' budget, see OTA as a prime target. Republicans also have expressed an interest in slashing the budget of DOE dramatically. In an attempt to gain control over where some of the cuts are made, the Clinton Administration has proposed its own large budget cuts at DOE. One very sizable proposed change is to cut the budget for the Environment, Safety & Health Division by $4.4 billion over the next five years. To make these savings, DOE will ask Congress to rewrite the rules on the cleanup of nuJANUARY 9,1995 C&EN 19
GOVERNMENT clear arms factories. The cleanup goals would have to be changed so that DOE would concentrate first on cleaning up the sites where health and safety risks are the greatest. This would involve wide use of risk assessment to set clean up priorities. But if such legislation is passed, all the existing agreements over cleanup that DOE has made with the states would have to be renegotiated. Daryl Kimball, associate director of policy at Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington, D.C.-based organization of 20,000 health professionals, is worried that the cutbacks would not only hinder the cleanup of radioactive wastes, such as those stored in large tanks at Hanford, Wash., but would also hamper DOE's efforts to improve the conditions of plu tonium storage at 13 DOE sites across the country. "Congress needs to take seriously the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and fund it accordingly," he says. In a similar vein, DOD is proposing a voluntary cut of sev eral hundred million dollars over the next three years in its environmental cleanup program. Chemical weapons treaty. High among other legislative concerns of the chemical community are issues surrounding chemical weapons control. The hopes of arms control advo cates and the chemical industry were dashed last year when the Senate failed to ratify the chemical weapons treaty. The is sues that stalled action in the Foreign Relations Committee concerned Russia's ability to meet its obligations under the treaty and an obscure, fairly minor treaty provision on riot control agents. Most interested observers thought that these issues could have been overcome—and the treaty ratified—had the Clin ton Administration addressed them expeditiously and at a fairly high level. Dliring this Congress, the committee is chaired by ~ Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C). Lastxyear, he opposed ^Λ ratification, citing Russia's alleged binary ^W0^ y weapons program and that country's " lackluster efforts to develop a chemi cal weapons destruction program. Helms's concerns may, in part, have been placated. Shortly after last year's election, his key defense aide along with several other congressional staffers traveled to Moscow. Since that trip, the thinking is that Helms may use the treaty as a lever to prod Rus sia to be more forthcoming about its chemical weapons development program and to move more rapidly in developing a destruction program. Treaty supporters both inside and outside Congress contend they can work with Helms. 'The worries of those concerned about Russia's destruction program as well as the allegation of the existence of a binary production pro gram can best be addressed through the treaty," says Amy E. Smithson, senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a public policy research organization based in Washington, D.C / As a Clinton Administration analyst tells C&EN, the altered political landscape "just re quires us to work harder. The chemical in dustry still supports the treaty." Says Michael P. Walls, a CMA attorney and an expert on the treaty: "We hope to be able to /
20
JANUARY 9, 1995 C&EN
•
reassure the new Republican majority that the treaty's poten tial impact on the chemical industry is no reason to oppose the convention. And we hope to encourage them to act quick ly to ratify and implement the convention." Walls predicts the Senate will ratify the treaty by midyear. Dingell's demise. Some of the most far-reaching changes in the House are in the Commerce Committee, formerly known as the Energy & Commerce Committee. No longer will "Big John" D. Dingell (D-Mich.) glower down from the chairman's seat, presiding over the broadest jurisdiction of any congres sional committee. Instead, mild-mannered Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.) will be in charge of the renamed committee that has lost a small but significant chunk of its authority. During his long tenure as chairman, Dingell greatly expand ed the bailiwick of the Energy & Commerce Committee. For years, political junkies have joked that the committee had juris diction over "anything that is bought, sold, moves, or lights up." Irked by Dingell's consolidation of power, the new Repub lican leadership in the House initially sought to gut the com mittee. But incoming chairman Bliley successfully argued to maintain much of the existing structure. In the end, the new Commerce Committee lost authority over DOE's R&D pro grams, the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, and some banking and securities functions. It retains control over legislation concern ing interstate and foreign commerce, national energy policy, power generation and transmission, public health, biomedical research, and much more. To scientists, Dingell may be best known for his heated confrontations with academia. During his tenure as its chair man, the Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations fo cused on scientific misconduct and indirect cost issues, facing off with such notables as Nobel Laureate David Baltimore and former Stanford University President Donald Kennedy. The subcommittee staff subjected university •3 records to the same unforgiving scrutiny they regularly focused on defense contractors, the pharmaceutical in dustry, and government regulators. Such confrontations are unlikely to continue. Only one, or at most two, of the seasoned investigators on the subcommittee staff are being retained by the new Republican majority. The likely new subcommittee chairman, Joe Barton (R-Texas), appears not to have the same zeal for calling the executive branch and its contractors and grantees on the carpet. Another major change of emphasis will be at the Subcommittee on Health & the Environment. During the past year, its chairman, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), put the spotlight on the tobacco in dustry's manipulation of the nicotine content of ciga rettes, encouraging the Food & Drug Administration to step in. But Bliley, from a tobacco-growing state and a believer in less regulation rather than more, has already signaled the end of that effort. Environment. After the bills written under the Republican contract are dealt with, Superfund and safe drinking water bills likely will be next on Congress's environmental agenda. Congressional staff expect the legislation in\ troduced by the Republicans this year to S be substantially different from that con sidered in 1994. But they offer little detail
f$&
Republicans' 'Contract with America' is embodied in 10 bills Republican House members have drafted 10 pieces of legislation that implement the "Contract with America"—the preelection pledge signed by more than 300 Republican candidates for House seats. The bills and their provisions are as follows: • The American Dream Restoration Act Provides a tax credit for families, reforms the so-called marriage penalty, and establishes a new and improved Individual Retirement Account. • The Citizens Legislature Act. Limits Senators to two terms in office and House member to six terms. • The Common Sense Legal Reforms Act. Makes a number of legal reforms that, among other things, make sure that expert testimony is based on scientifically sound evidence, that product liability laws are uniformly applied, and that abusive securities lawsuits are limited. • The Family Reinforcement Act. Among other things, protects parents'
rights to supervise their children's participation in any federally funded program and shield them from federally sponsored surveys that involve intrusive questioning. • The Fiscal Responsibility Act. Provides for a Constitutional balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto of appropriations for individual programs. • The Job Creation & Wage Enhancement Act. Includes a variety of tax law changes and federal bureaucratic reforms designed to enhance private property rights and economic liberty and make government more accountable for the burdens it imposes on American workers. • The National Security Restoration Act. Reforms the Department of Defense to ensure that U.S. troops are deployed only to support missions in the U.S.'s national security interests, to reinvigorate a national missile defense, and to restore defense spending "fire-
on how the bills will differ. In Superfund, two changes they do predict are that considerations of risk in the remedy selection process likely will be changed and that retroactive liability is likely to be eliminated. "But with retroactive liability, funding is the key issue," CMA's Mullins says. "When you eliminate retroactive liability, you go to a no-fault system. And the important question is: Who will pay for cleanup and how? How we get to where we want to be is probably a really difficult question to answer." Overall, Mullins says, in all the new environmental legislation the Republicans will introduce, a lot of emphasis will be put on prioritizing risks—on giving attention to the worst problems—and on reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and simplifying regulations. Labor. It's a sure bet the Republican Congress will make OSHA a target during budget hearings this year. Already, the incoming chairman of the newly named House Committee on Economic & Educational Opportunities, Rep. William F. Goodling (R-Pa.), has announced plans for broad-based hearings early this year to answer the question, "What is the proper federal role in education and workplace policy?" The issue of regulatory reform, making sure that new regulations will follow prescribed risk-benefit calculations and that industry has some say in its regulations, will be part of Goodling's early hearings. There will be more emphasis on voluntary compliance with OSHA rules and trying to put more faith into the employer-employee relationship. Early-January hearings in the Senate on job training are planned by Labor & Human Resources Committee chairwoman Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-Kan.). She is expected to draft legislation that will unify and coordinate the more than 110 federal job training programs. The importance of OSHA in these deliberations is highlighted by the elimination of the Senate Labor Subcommittee altogether.
walls" that prohibit transfer of DOD funds to other departments and agencies to fund social spending programs unrelated to military readiness. • The Personal Responsibility Act. Overhauls the American welfare system to reduce dependence on government, attack illegitimacy, require welfare recipients to enter work programs, and cap total welfare spending. • The Senior Citizens' Equity Act. Increases the Social Security earnings limit threshold, repeals the Social Security benefits tax, and provides tax incentives to encourage individuals to buy private long-term-care insurance. • The Taking Back Our Streets Act. Sets mandatory sentences for crimes involving the use of firearms, authorizes $10.5 billion for state prison construction grants, establishes truth-insentencing guidelines, and authorizes $10 billion for local law enforcement spending.
Science and technology. Like other federal agencies that support scientific research, NIH will be caught in the squeeze caused by severe limits on funds for discretionary spending. But NIH may fare better than most, given the elevation to power of some strong NIH supporters among Republicans. "We're actually pretty pleased with the way things look," says Peter Farnham of the American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology. For example, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) is the new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last year, he joined with the Democratic chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NIH, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), to propose a trust fund for medical research at NIH to be funded with a portion of health insurance premiums. The HarkinHatfield idea died with the Clinton Administration's health care reform effort, but Hatfield's support bodes well for the future. In the House, the new chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds NIH is another long-time friend of NIH, Rep. James E. Porter (R-Ill.). In a recent letter published in Science [266,1305 (1994)], Porter wrote: "Count me among those who wholeheartedly agree that basic biomedical research is vital to health care reform and that funding this research is an important responsibility of the federal government." However, the individual to watch most closely on Capitol Hill—other than Gingrich himself—when it comes to science and technology issues will be Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), the new chairman of what has been called the Science, Space & Technology Committee. Walker has changed the committee's name to the Committee on Science and has reduced the number of subcommittees from five to four by eliminating the Oversight Subcommittee. The new lineup, with their chairpersons—all Republicans—includes the Subcommittees on Space & Aeronautics, JANUARY 9, 1995 C&EN
21
GOVERNMENT
James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.); Basic Research, Steve H. Schiff (N.M.); Technology, Constance A. Morella (Md.); and Energy & Environment, Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.). Walker will be a more powerful chairman than his Demo cratic predecessor, George E. Brown (D-Calif.), owing to his vice chairmanship of the House Budget Committee and, probably even more important, to his friendship with Ging rich. Walker said in his first press conference that both he and Gingrich are "technology freaks/' so one can look forward to some spirited policy dialogues in his committee. One factor both Democrats and Republicans find positive in the Republican victory and Gingrich's aim of reforming Congress is a return to harmony of the authorization and ap propriations processes. When Brown was committee chair man, he was constantly complaining about the tendency of the Appropriations Committee to ignore the priorities put on programs by the authorization process and add priorities of its own. Walker is optimistic that authorization will once more take its place as a process to be respected. Walker, a space technology buff and supporter of the space station, says he is a strong supporter of basic science and aims to ensure that NSF returns to its basic mission of supporting pure science, whatever that means in today's high-tech world. He says he is an enemy of NIST's ATP and aims to kill it. But ATP has its supporters within the country's industrial com munity, and that community can be expected to make a spir ited case for its continued support when NIST's authorization hearings are held. Walker says he hopes to forge "new approaches to positive macroeconomic and political environments to empower peo ple to invent their way out of problems." As an example of that, Walker says he plans to move fast in supporting legisla tion on expanding research on hydrogen energy technology. He will also be working with the Ways & Means Committee to establish new tax incentives for industrial work on crucial technologies. Also, he wants to see more government research 22
JANUARY 9, 1995 C&EN
centers become part of the university research system. He says he will work as hard as his predecessor, Brown, to end earmarking of research funds. And certain to be revived, according to Walker, is the idea of a separate Department of Science. Walker sees the head of that department as sort of "a secretary of the future." He is "waiting to see what the Administration comes up with along these lines." He wants to be sure science has strong represen tation at the Cabinet level. The bottom line, says Walker, is that he wants to see his committee "regain control of policy." There will be more cooperation between us and appropria tions in deauthorizing programs, to defund programs we don't want." Trade. Congress' suspenseful passage late last year of the trade bill resulting from the General Agreement on Tar iffs & Trade (GATT) Uruguay round of negotiations does not mean there is no important trade legislation left. At least two issues will be taken up early this year. The first is likely to be a trade bill extending presi dential fast-track negotiat ing authority for future trade agreements. This authority per mits the President to submit a trade bill to Congress that must be voted on without amendment within a short period. Past authority to do this expired at the end of 1994. Although everyone agree ; such negotiating authority is ap propriate, arguments are likely about trying to link trade pacts with specific labor and environmental provisions. Re publicans have pressed for prohibitions to such language but may soften that stance because Democrats may be needed to pass any fast-track bill. The trade bill, which will probably be acted on within the first six months, will contain other provisions. These in clude extension of Super 310 authority (which allows sanc tions against nations that violate intellectual property agree ments), renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences (a program under which the U.S. allows duty-free entry of selected items from 144 developing countries and territo ries), and implementation of the mechanism proposed last year by Senate majority leader Robert Dole (R-Kan.) to monitor dispute settlement decisions of the new World Trade Organization, which was established as part of the GATT treaty. A second trade bill is expected to come out of the House in 1995 on granting Caribbean Basin Initiative countries trade parity with the conditions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This builds on the Interim Trade Pro gram reducing tariffs on textiles and apparel to NAFTA lev els, which was supported by Clinton last year and passed by the House Ways & Means Committee but eventually dropped from the bill approving the GATT treaty. Because of the tariff losses, the Senate may not be as inclined as the House to pass such a measure. Still, no one is sure how any of these issues will turn out in the new Congress. One just has to wait and see how the in teractions among the House, the Senate, Congress, and the White House fall out. Π
