The problem with fast-track authority for trade agreements with Chile and other nations can be seen in the pact itself. A company caught pirating intellectual property — say, compact discs — faces stiff penalties and may be closed down under the agreement. A company caught busting unions and firing organizers faces — nothing. The trade agreement is a document designed to improve the global flow of products; trickle-down benefits could very well reach workers, but they are purely coincidental.

That is reason enough for Congress to retain its democratic right to debate and amend the trade agreement. Fast-track authority, which President Bill Clinton said is vital to the agreement, would allow members of Congress only to approve or reject the package but not alter it. The president asserts that without fast track other nations will not be willing to negotiate with the United States. Certainly, they’ll find another wealthy, 260 million-member nation whose credo is shop ’til you drop.

The experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement has shown that a U.S. trade deal with a much smaller economy is neither as good or bad as proponents and detractors describe. U.S.-Mexican trade currently represents only about 2 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product. Negatively, many of the jobs promised by the Clinton administration have yet to be substantiated and not enough has been done about labor and enviromental problems. On the other hand, globalization of economies is going to happen — is happening — with or without such pacts. With U.S. tariffs averaging just over 3 percent and many other nation’s tariffs between 10 percent and 30 percent, any new rounds of tariff decreases will favor the United States.

If NAFTA has taught the United States anything, it is that broad-ranging trade agreements require thorough discussion and debate. There is no reason to place it on a fast track, but there are good reasons to go slowly. One of them is a central theme of free trade: that a nation competes globally by emphasizing what it does best. One problem is that what America does best is not necessarily what Maine or other rural states do best.

Instead of hurrying jobs south of the U.S. border, the president would do better to work with Congress to find new ways of increasing worker safety and environmental protection. This is a slower, surer way of ensuring that his trade agreements will be valuable to all Americans.