PRINT THIS PAGE | E-MAIL THIS PAGE

Wednesday, May 28, 1997

With fast-track looming, NAFTA's progress will be revisited

By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT / Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Now that the White House has signaled its intent to ask Congress for the authority to negotiate new trade agreements, NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is in for a heightened round of scrutiny.

Before the Clinton administration can begin negotiations to expand NAFTA to Latin America - or start talks on other trade alliances - it requires permission from Congress.

Restless lawmakers from both political parties had been assailing the White House in recent weeks for failing to ask Congress for the so-called "fast-track" authority.

Under fast track, lawmakers agree not to rewrite trade agreements, limiting themselves to an up-or-down vote. Without fast track, the administration essentially is powerless to engage in talks with other countries because any commitment made at the bargaining table could be undone by Congress.

After months of inaction, the White House announced last week that it would submit fast-track legislation to Congress in September.

The congressional battle promises to be a reprise of the bruising fight in 1993 to ratify NAFTA. The alliance of labor unions, environmental groups and liberal Democrats that fought NAFTA's passage already is gearing up to block fast track.

"It's going to be a really ugly debate," said Lori Wallach, head of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, which worked vigorously to derail NAFTA and opposes its expansion.

That in mind, administration officials are seeking to distance fast track from NAFTA. "I believe that fast track and NAFTA ought to be de-linked because fast track is about considerably more," Ira Shapiro, senior counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, told the Congressional Border Caucus last week.

"The question of our global trade policy goes beyond Mexico," he said.

But NAFTA's first 40 months loom over the debate of expanded trade, with both sides claiming widely divergent results.

Boosters say NAFTA has prompted major increases in U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico, stimulated domestic industrial production, and helped cushion the blow of Mexico's 1995 economic collapse.

Critics contend NAFTA has caused huge U.S. trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs, depressed wages, and a flight of industry and investment capital to Mexico.

The difficulty in assessing NAFTA is that countless economic indicators can be used to measure its impact.

Opponents note that the United States went from a $1.7 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 to a record $16.2 billion deficit last year. At the same time, the imbalance with Canada hit $22.8 billion last year, the worst showing since 1986.

But supporters point out that despite the deficits, U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada hit record highs last year, rising by 37 percent and 33 percent respectively above 1993 levels.

"We're going to be debating our relationship with Mexico for years," Shapiro acknowledged.

Selling NAFTA as a winner for American workers and industry, the administration now is pushing fast track as vital to U.S. interests around the world.

Without fast track, the United States cannot move toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas, expand free trade into Latin America and the Caribbean or contemplate other pacts, Shapiro said.

"The world isn't waiting for us," he said. "The danger of inaction is quite high at this point." Send a Letter to the Editor about This Story | Start or Join A Discussion about This Story
Send the URL (Address) of This Story to A Friend: