[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 50 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4148-S4149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 577. A bill to establish the negotiating objectives and fast-track 
procedures for future trade agreements; to the Committee on Finance.


             THE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION REFORM ACT

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as the United States enters the 21st 
century, we must expand our economic opportunities. It is with this 
goal in mind that I introduce the Trade Agreement Implementation Reform 
Act.
  During the recent Uruguay round debate, I pointed out the 
shortcomings of existing fast-track procedures. These flaws 
unnecessarily fed public suspicion and mistrust of trade agreements. 
These agreements should not be burdened by unrelated legislative 
provisions.
  The Senate adopted the fast-track procedure in 1974. This important 
tool has allowed us to enter free-trade agreements with Canada, Israel, 
and Mexico. It has also been used to reduce trade barriers worldwide in 
the Uruguay round; as well as the earlier Tokyo round. Nations must be 
assured that once they reach an agreement with the United States, it 
will not be undermined by amendments that violate its provisions.
  I believe that the basic arguments for a fast-track process are 
solid. Hence, my bill does not drastically change it except for two 
major provisions.
  First, legislation submitted under fast track should contain only 
provisions absolutely necessary to implement an agreement. Prior law 
allowed provisions ``necessary and appropriate'' and encouraged deals 
with special interests in exchange
 for support. I believe that the integrity of the fast-track process 
during the Uruguay 
[[Page S4149]] round was called into question by amendments not 
relevant to the agreement itself.
  Second, although past fast-track legislation has not been amendable, 
we should make one exception for future trade legislation. Senators 
should be able to amend or delete provisions which merely serve to 
offset revenue losses from tariff changes. Such provisions in the 
recent Uruguay round legislation included the controversial pioneer 
preference and pension reform titles. Under the pay/go rules, Congress 
must find offsets for revenue losses. Since these measures are not 
related to the agreement itself, we should be able to amend them, 
subject to overall time limits.
  My State of Indiana is more dependent on exports, on a per-capita 
basis, than all but two other States. As Indiana exports increase, so 
do job opportunities. Indeed, incomes and job security of all Americans 
depend on maintaining and expanding U.S. exports. With our first-rate 
labor force and business climate, the United States can meet global 
economic competition head-on and create jobs.
  The bottom line is that increased exports create jobs. Studies have 
shown that every $1 billion in exports supports 20,000 jobs. Our 
farmers, manufacturers, and service companies can compete in countries 
from which they would otherwise have been shut out. Therefore, we must 
continue to reduce trade barriers that have kept the United States from 
realizing its full potential and insist that other countries open their 
markets to our products.
  Mr. President, I believe that the changes I am proposing to existing 
law are modest but essential to our cooperation with the administration 
on trade agreements. That cooperation, which aims to strengthen 
America's economic performance, has been a good example of bipartisan 
leadership in Congress. It is in that spirit that I propose the Trade 
Agreement Implementation Reform Act.


                          ____________________