Now are you making an argument against Fast Track authority?
I certainly agree that there ought to be a rational, informed debate over trade agreements. I frankly don't see how an objective person, after such a debate, could conclude that trade agreements are bad things. After all, what have been the objections on here? Objections over things that are clearly addressed in the document! Someone actually said that Mexico could legally import contaminated food under the NAFTA. Are you kidding? A rational, informed debate would disspell untruths such as this.
Remember, the NAFTA, as with any other trade agreement, is the product of a negotiation. Each country agrees to do (or not to do) certain things. Everything in the NAFTA was a production of an agreement between the US, Mexico, and Canada. That's all it is. An agreement not to do things. An agreement to follow certain enforcement measures. An agreement to certain penalities. Assuming, arguendo, that the NAFTA requires the US to give up its sovereignty, are you arguing that a government has no power to do so? After all, in some respects, any treaty is an aborgation of sovereignty.
I'm glad you want to press this point. It's an area I have had much personal experience with. I worked in the institutional food distribution industry for about 15 years, serving both wholesale and retail establishments.
Every winter we rely heavily on imported fresh produce from Mexico. Every winter our warehouse staffs developed respiratory illnesses that persisted and lingered until crops in the US could be harvested. The problem is known, as is the cause. Mexico does not have the stringent bans on pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals the US has. While debates have flourished over the effects of minimal exposure to these agents, there is no debate exposure in concentrated amounts is harmful.
The only debate left to be tackled is in what amounts do minimal exposures become harmful if the body cannot properly dispose of these agents over time? All the health data in our country points to steady increases of respiratory illnesses throughout our nation. While proponents of air control regulations have been pointing to automobiles and factory discharges as the primary culprit, the occasional exposure to harmful agents, such as those used on fresh produce imported from Mexico, has not been addressed. They should be. If for no other reason but to know with certainty, it should be addressed.
Once again, the FTAA should be discussed openly by those duly elected, and seeking elective office.
"Now are you making an argument against Fast Track authority?"
Yeah, I'm against that too. While some may argue this would be a good tool in the hands of President Bush, reality says GW will not be president forever. This same tool in the hands of another president could wreck havoc. Leave the Senate to do their job as outlined in the constitution.
And once again, the FTAA should be discussed openly by those duly elected, and those seeking elective office. An open discussion cannot harm the public. I agree with you the debates should be rational and informed.