es in Mexico and litters the two countries' border towns with industrial pollution. "It's staggering how far NAFTA has fallen short of the promises of its proponents," says Chris McGinn, deputy director of global trade for Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer group. "It has failed to improve the environment and public health along the Mexican border. It has failed to create the jobs it promised. It has turned a trade surplus into a massive deficit." He joins the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters Union in an anti-NAFTA chorus. Opposition also comes from the American Coalition for Competitive Trade, which claims 500,000 members and wants NAFTA dispute panels declared unconstitutional. Outspoken among those who say it's time to measure NAFTA's performance against its promises is Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, who with 40 cosponsors has reintroduced a bill called the NAFTA Accountability Act. The bill, which stalled in committee last year, argues that NAFTA was passed on promises it would increase the standard of living in both Mexico and the United States, reduce illegal immigration, improve environmental and health conditions on the border and slow the drug trade. Now, says Kaptur, it's time to evaluate the results. The bill would require the Clinton administration to certify that these goals have been achieved. If not, the United States would be forced to renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA. NAFTA supporters, chief among them the Clinton administration, counter with claims of successes. U.S.-Mexico trade has gone up, jobs were created and Mexico's economy is growing again, they say. While gains in U.S. exports to Mexico, particularly in agricultural products, have lagged, the delays are temporary and caused by economic conditions beyond NAFTA's control, they say. "The expectation of long-term benefits from NAFTA for the United States remains," said a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publication last April titled "NAFTA: Year Two and...
