Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, March 25, 1991 TAG: 9103250244
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The stakes could hardly be bigger. At issue is the future of the global trading system and of President Bush's proposal for a free-trade zone encompassing the United States, Canada and Mexico.
As always, the protectionists are ready to fight for narrow interests, and stand to harm the national interest if they get their way.
The Bush administration wants so-called "fast track" authority, allowing negotiators to hammer out final trade agreements and bring them to Congress for a straight yes-no vote, without amendments.
Such authority would serve the nation well. The executive branch is better suited to negotiate complicated trade agreements. Congress is more vulnerable to protectionist pressures than is the White House, and would probably nibble to death a treaty if given the chance.
This is not to say that the fast track leaves no role for Congress. The president would still have to incorporate congressional concerns into any trade agreement, and adhere to consultative and notification requirements. And Congress still gets to vote on the treaty.
But first there must be an agreement. A new global pact under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is now a good possibility, after Europeans agreed to concessions on agricultural subsidies. It's a good possibility, that is, with an extension of fast-track authority. Progress in the GATT talks achieved over years of hard bargaining would have been impossible without such authority.
Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO has made defeat of fast-track for a Mexico free-trade agreement its No. 1 legislative priority this year. The union lobbyists have friends in Congress, including House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, a demagogue on trade matters, and other well-placed liberals.
They argue that, within a free-trade zone, low Mexican wages would cause more American plants to relocate south of the border, costing U.S. jobs.
In fact, open trading would be mutually profitable. The United States will benefit as surely as Mexico if both nations' economies become more open and dynamic.
If U.S. consumers can buy products at lower cost, and U.S. manufacturers can buy parts for their products less expensively, then our economy is made stronger and more competitive by free trade, not less so.
As the expert, Adam Smith, wrote in 1776:
"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage."
by CNB