House OKs ‘Fast-Track’ Mexican Trade Talks : Legislation: Senate likely to concur. Bush is warned accord must not damage U.S. workers or environment.

WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday gave the Bush Administration the go-ahead to begin negotiations on a free-trade agreement with Mexico, and the Senate is expected to follow suit today.

The 231-192 House vote was a major victory for President Bush, who had lobbied hard to overcome a powerful coalition of opponents that included labor, environmental and consumer groups.

“I couldn’t be more pleased,” Bush told reporters. “The vote was, frankly, larger than I anticipated.”

At issue was the President’s request for a two-year extension of his existing “fast-track” authority, which is an arrangement under which Congress promises to consider all trade agreements intact, accepting or rejecting them without amendment.

Without that assurance, Bush had argued, it would be impossible for him even to begin talks with the Mexican government. Canada, which already has a free-trade agreement with the United States, also plans to participate in the negotiations, aimed at creating what is being billed as a North American free-trade zone.

However, the House warned that it expects Bush to live up to his assurances that any agreement will not damage U.S. workers or the environment. By an even greater majority, 329 to 85, the House adopted a separate resolution warning that, if it does not like the results of the negotiations, it will either defeat the trade pact or renege on its promise not to amend it. That resolution is non-binding.

“We’re going to be looking over the shoulders of our negotiators,” said Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), whose support for the trade negotiations had been seen as crucial. “What’s at stake are our jobs, our wages and our national destiny.”

The fast-track agreement will also apply to U.S. participation in current talks, known as the Uruguay Round, in which 107 nations are discussing lowering barriers to trade globally.

The Administration has argued that, with exports providing an increasing share of America’s overall growth, the United States must work to lower trade barriers wherever it can. It noted also that a North American free-trade zone offers the opportunity to create a regional force that could compete with the trading blocs that are forming in Europe and Asia.

A free-trade agreement would also further the efforts of Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari to clean up his country’s environment and to reform its political and economic systems, Bush has said repeatedly.

Opponents have warned that lowering trade barriers with Mexico will encourage U.S. businesses to move south in search of lower wages and laxer regulation. The inevitable result, they contend, would be the loss of thousands of well-paying jobs in this country and a further deterioration of the environment as Mexican pollution spills across the border.

“We cannot afford to send one more job to Mexico or to China or to some other place,” Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.) warned as Senate debate began. “The rest of the world is laughing at us.”

Supporters insisted that, with U.S. tariffs on Mexican goods already relatively low, there is nothing to stop businesses from moving to Mexico now. Freer trade, they said, would mean more economic growth and better lives for citizens on both sides of the border.

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), normally one of organized labor’s staunchest congressional allies, said that freer trade gives Mexico an opportunity for greater economic development that could relieve this country’s problems with illegal immigration. “So long as poor Mexican parents see little hope of supporting their families in Mexico . . . no laws, no fences or ditches are going to protect U.S. jobs from undocumented workers,” he said.

“Keeping Mexico poor is not in our best interest,” Rep. Ronald D. Coleman (D-Tex.) added.

Although its leadership had supported extending fast-track authority, almost two-thirds of the House Democratic membership did not.

Much of the opposition came from the industrial Midwest and Northeast, where union strength is greatest, and from textile- and grain-producing states, which fear their protection from imports would be weakened under the global agreement that might be worked out in the Uruguay Round.

Republicans supported the President by a 7-1 ratio and were joined by most border state and Latino Democrats.

California’s delegation was split almost evenly. Many of the state’s powerful fruit and vegetable growers are fighting against the Mexican trade agreement, fearing that it could mean a flood of cheap competition from across the border.

The lone California Republican to vote against fast-track authority was Rep. Duncan L. Hunter of Coronado, who warned that many businesses would feel the effects of job flight. “American consumers are defined as American workers with jobs and paychecks,” he said.

Opponents questioned whether U.S. Trade Representative Carla Anderson Hills really needs fast-track authority to bring the Mexican government to the negotiating table to hammer out an agreement that appears to be clearly in its own interest.

Arguing that Congress should have more ability to shape the agreement, Rep. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said: “I’m tired of seeing agreements with other countries that are unfair to our producers and our workers. . . . It’s our job as elected officials to stand up for the economic interests of our country.”

Added Rep. Esteban E. Torres (D-La Puente), one of the few Latino lawmakers to vote against the fast-track authority: “My constituents didn’t send me here to be a rubber stamp for Carla Hills.”

Vote on Trade Negotiations

Here is how members of the California delegation voted on giving President Bush “fast - track” authority to negotiate a U.S.-Mexico free-trade agreement.

Democrats voting to grant authority--Anderson, Beilenson, Berman, Dooley, Fazio, Matsui, Panetta, Pelosi, Roybal

Republicans voting to grant authority--Campbell, Cox, Cunningham, Dannemeyer, Doolittle, Dreier, Gallegly, Herger, Lagomarsino, Lewis, Lowery, McCandless, Moorhead, Packard, Riggs, Rohrabacher, Thomas

Democrats voting against--Boxer, Brown, Condit, Dellums, Dixon, Dymally, Edwards, Lantos, Lehman, Martinez, Miller, Mineta, Stark, Torres, Waters, Waxman

Republicans voting against--Hunter

Democrats not voting--Levine

Republicans not voting--Dornan