The Cincinnati Enquirer from Cincinnati, Ohio • Page 81

EDITIOR: PETER BRONSON 768-8301 THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1993 SECTION o) Beaupre Bronson on boycottG2 EditorialsG2 on rumorsG3 The fierce debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement offers starkly differing visions of America's economic future. Here is a collection of opinions on NAFTA which will be voted on Wednesday in the House rm a a TWn in rAn 1 rfTv Tn 7tTyv frrnx Rob Portman When American workers are given the opportunity to compete on a level fwSNAFTA playing field, they can win. The North American Free Trade Agreement gives us the opportunity to level mat playing tield and change an Ted Strickland I feel that the North American Free Trade Agreement is an issue that has been presented in an extreme manner by those who are for the treaty, as well as those who are against it. That's unfortunate, because as this issue has become polarized, the public has been led to believe that NAFTA is either a totally bad idea, or a perfect idea. In my judgment, NAFTA is one of those issues where legitimate arguments can be made on both sides.

I see this as a 55-45 issue, perhaps even a 53-47 issue. What it comes down to is a matter of judgment. unacceptable status quo with Mexico, it mwJ i it vw a a i i i a i bringing jobs and economic growth to the nation and the Greater Cincinnati area. It is under that status quo that the U.S. has lost jobs to Mexico.

This is in large part because U.S. businesses that jobs Environment Taxes Agriculture Immigration want sell their products in Mexico, our fastest growing export market, have f.mm uii i-n strong incen tives to pro duce there 'nit rather than I 11 1 i I This NAFTA has far reaching implications. It would not only dictate our economic relationship with Mexico in the very near future, but it would also serve as a model for future trade negotia here at home. Mexico playing field and, yes, it at least opens the door to involvement with Mexican industry to protect the environment and their workers. Mexican air and water is charges 2V2 times as much in tariffs on a goods as we do them.

For me, then, NAFTA comes down to a few simple questions: Do we want more jobs in America? Do we still believe in ourselves? Do we still believe that free and fair trade is the best deal for America? Do we want to reduce the massive illegal immigration of Mexicans into our country? If the answers are "yes," the last thing we should do is defeat NAFTA. With NAFTA, I strongly believe we will see more and more jobs right here at home, particularly in Cincinnati. Strickland Portman David Mann I will vote "yes" on NAFTA because "yes" is best for American jobs. Forget the exaggerations you've heard about NAFTA. Strip away all the shouting and what's left is the following: Mexico's tariffs are much higher than ours.

The result? Some American businesses uproot and move across the border to sell there. Then they ship the rest back here to sell. NAFTA eliminates the tariffs and a number of other barriers. The more we can make here and sell there, the more jobs we keep here. NAFTA isn't perfect nothing like this ever is.

But NAFTA levels the Mann on Mexican imports, and Mexico's non- tariff trade barriers keep certain U.S. goods and services out of Mexico en tirely. Yet we permit over 50 of Mexican goods to come into the United States fouler, and Mexican factories are much less safe than ours, but NAFTA begins to give us standing to do something about it. American workers can outwork, outhustle, outthink, and outmarket the rest of the world. But they can't do it when the deck is stacked against duty-free.

By bringing trade barriers down, NAFTA levels the playing field tions with other countries. This makes it even more imperative that this NAFTA be a solid, well-reasoned agreement, one that will stand the test of time and be a legitimate model for the future. Although we need a trade agreement with Mexico, quite frankly, I like the argument I am hearing more and more from the anti-NAFTA forces; we should not support this NAFTA. I firmly believe that in the near future we will have a trade agreement with Mexico and Central and South America, but there are legitimate questions about this NAFTA which have not been answered to my satisfaction. and eliminates an incentive for U.S, companies to move to Mexico.

Rep. David Mann is Democratic congressman for Ohio's First District. By expanding U.S. exports, NAFTA will create jobs in this country. Not satisfied by the data I was getting from either side, on this subject, I conducted exports and more exports means more my owfi 'survey of a cross section of JonnA.i5oenner American jobs; that a fact.

We need businesses over 400 small and large companies here in southwest Ohio. I to allow our economy to grow and to create more jobs good paying found that, by a 10-to-l margin, they manufacturing jobs. If the NAFTA I will vote for the NAFTA. Why? Because beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's a good deal for Ohio and the nation. expect NAFTA to result in increased export sales and increased jobs in the United States.

fails, we could lose the entire Latin What I want is a treaty that does not have the effect of pulling our wage scale down. American imports. This reduction in tariffs gives less incentive, not more, to American companies thinking about moving to Mexico. Why? Because without American consumer market. And los ing markets means losing jobs.

It is a question of vision. By the world's most powerful trading Passage of NAFTA will allow us to create the world's biggest market. Boehner bloc we can become the most domi nant economic force for the 21st cen NAFTA means one thing: reducing trade barriers that today prevent the products made in this country from reaching consumers in Mexico our fastest growing export market and third largest trading partner. It's that simple. Mexico has tariffs on imports that are 2V2 times higher than America's.

What the NAFTA does is eliminate almost every trade restriction that protects the Mexican economy from tury. The alternative is to succumb to the voices of demagogues who don't have the courage to allow America to compete. Do we give in to fear or do the NAFTA not only will American manufactured products still have a hard time getting into Mexico, the Mexican government will continue to demand American firms build in Mexico in order to sell to Mexico. The NAFTA will increase American we move boldly into the future? Rep. John Boehner is Republican con gressman for Ohio's Eighth District.

Mexican goods generally receiving protection longer than U.S. goods. And, of course, there is the overrid ing concern about the potential loss of jobs which, at least initially, will result from the agreement. I think we are not sufficiently pre I 1 accompany the treaty, I also started developing some very real concerns. Among the problems I have with the treaty, as it stands, is the huge interna pared to cope with the magnitude of Jim Bunning I have not made a final decision on NAFTA but I am leaning strongly towards a "no" vote.

I will make a final decision early next week. My initial reaction to NAFTA was that it would be in the best long-term interests of the nation, and I was generally supportive. However, after listening to many of the people throughout the district who contacted me and voiced reservations or objections to the treaty, I started to reconsider. As more information became available on the side agreements which the job displacements which could occur. The basic premise of NAFTA is sound.

Reducing trade barriers is still a worthy goal. I am just not convinced that this particular NAFTA is the right way to do it. Bunning Some of those questions concern potential job loss. There are other questions related to what I perceive will be a downward pressure on wages in this country if this NAFTA passes. I believe the effects of NAFTA will be uneven in different regions of the United States as well as across our different industries.

There are also other issues that have been addressed by Democrats and Republicans alike that I think are legitimate and have not been addressed by this administration. What I want is a treaty that does not have the effect of pulling our wage scale down in order for American workers to be able to compete with Mexican workers. It is my thinking that all legitimate questions should be answered before enacting an agreement, rather than, as some have suggested, passing NAFTA now and then choosing to withdraw later if the treaty is determined to have an unjustifiably adverse effect on our economy. The responsible thing to do is to negotiate and enact a treaty that will work and is not open to attack from' so many different interests here, in Mexico or in Canada. Obviously, the country is divided over NAFTA.

The people in my district are certainly divided about it. We, in turn, have a divided Congress that is involved in a debate over a treaty that is hundreds and hundreds of pages long and yet still leaves dozens of questions unanswered. If I tried to say that there aren't certain aspects of the American economy that will benefit from this NAFTA, I would be misrepresenting the situation. There are certainly some segments of the economy that will be helped or strengthened by NAFTA. But there are other parts of the economy that will be damaged certainly in the short term under this NAFTA.

I think NAFTA needs to be studied from a comprehensive perspective that weighs both its pluses and minuses. That's what I've tried to do. After a great deal of listening to both sides of the argument and personal reflection on this issue, I have decided that as far as this NAFTA is concerned, the reasons for rejecting it are more compelling than are the reasons for supporting it. Therefore, I will vote no. tional bureaucracy which the treaty creates to monitor and enforce the agreement.

They create a potential infringement on our sovereignty. There are serious inequities in the schedule for reducing tariffs, with Rep. Jim Bunning is Republican congressman for Kentucky's Fourth NAFTA will provide badly needed economic stimulation by opening new markets previously closed to U.S. goods and services. Over the past four years, 70 of economic growth in the United States has resulted from exports.

Our best hope for economic expansion is to compete in the global marketplace. Our best hope for creating more jobs in this country is to sell more U.S. products to the rest of the world, not to hide behind protectionist walls. Looking ahead to the year 2000, global economic competition will consist of trading blocs, not individual countries. In this environment, the biggest threat to American jobs comes not from Mexico but from Europe and Asia.

Japan has been quietly developing its own trading bloc with lesser developed, lower-wage countries in Southeast Asia (without lowering its own wages or standard of living). More developed countries in Europe have formed their own trading blocs within the European Community and are reaching out to Eastern Europe. These regions are poised to take advantage of the opportunities of the future. In fact, a defeat of NAFTA would give these very regions the opportunity to wrest the growing Mexican market from the United States. Trade preferences we would otherwise be given would be offered to all countries.

Worse yet, new free trade deals will be negotiated with more willing partners. Passage of NAFTA, on the other hand, will allow us to create the world's biggest market consisting of $6.5 trillion and 370 million people and will be a gateway into the emerging markets of Latin America. Let's not get left behind as we enter the 21st century. We are ready to compete and we can win. Rep.

Rob Portman is Republican congressman from Ohio's Second District. What Enquirer columnists say about NAFTA, G4 NAFTA overview, Business, E1 Lee Hamilton I support NAFTA because I am convinced it will benefit our economy, our environment, and our foreign policy. NAFTA has been endorsed by every former president, several dozen environment by giving us the ability to investigate and do something about environmental prob--lems in Mexico by ending reckless development in the border region former cabinet secretaries and every Nobel Prize-winning U.S. economist. own.

A more prosperous Mexico would produce fewer illegal immigrants and offer a larger market for U.S. exports. NAFTA will encourage our key trading partners to make concessions in global trade talks by reminding them that we have trade-expansion alternatives close to home. Defeating NAFTA would not solve any of our economic problems, and it could make some worse. Rejecting NAFTA would limit our export potential, undermine our competitiveness, weaken our environmental leverage with Mexico, reduce cooperation on bilateral problems, and harm our international stature.

Rep. Lee Hamilton is Democratic congressman for Indiana's Ninth It is striking that 19 of 20 major Hamilton studies have concluded that NAFTA will create many more U.S. jobs than it costs and raise wages. We will earmark $90 million in assistance for Americans who lose their jobs due to NAFTA. and creating institutions that will clean up its pollution; and by maintaining high U.S.

environmental and health standards. NAFTA will strengthen our relations with Mexico. That will improve cooperation on issues like illegal immigration, narcotics and the environment, which we cannot address on our It will strengthen our ability to compete with Europe and Japan, which are already building regional economic alliances. NAFTA will improve the Rep. Ted Strickland is Democratic congressman for Ohio's Sixth District.

.1.