NAFTA AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The article "NAFTA Pact Jeopardized by Court" {news story, July 1} accurately describes the problems that U.S. District Judge Charles R. Richey's questionable ruling on violation of the National Environment Policy Act has crea-ted for the pact.

The North American Free Trade Agreement will not mean the flight of jobs south or the destruction of the environment. The maquiladora industry on the U.S. border seems to be the main concern of environmentalists. Many people fail to understand that even without the environmental side agreements, NAFTA will increase environmental regulation and force the industry to clean up its act, as well as pay higher wages and benefits to its workers. Environmental Vice President Al Gore will further ensure that the side agreements will adequately protect the environment without the interference of the U.S. judicial system.

NAFTA's defeat would devastate the Mexican economy as well as the future of all Latin America, whose hope lies in producing the goods in which they have a comparative advantage and in open and fair access to the huge U.S. market. DARIN L. MANEY Alexandria

The Post's July 1 editorial criticizing Judge Richey's decision requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to accompany NAFTA misses the point. Whether or not Judge Richey's decision is good policy, it is very good law. Courts have not previously required the preparation of EISes to accompany proposed trade legislation because the courts haven't been asked. Courts don't initiate litigation and can't enforce the law unless requested.

One reason that legislation generally has not been challenged for lack of an EIS is that executive branch legislative proposals generally are dealt with by Congress at the latter's discretion. If Congress wants an EIS for a particular bill, it can simply indicate that no action will be taken until an EIS is forthcoming, as it did for the proposal to allow drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

Fast-track trade deals are not, however, discretionary legislation. The nature of fast track (a bad idea in the first place) is to limit the discretion of Congress with respect to both amendments and timing. Because Congress authorized the executive branch to develop a trade bill (not a trade treaty) that Congress would not be able to amend and on which Congress would be forced to act within a legally specified time, the administration has no discretion with respect to preparing an EIS.

The Clinton administration has agreed that NAFTA cannot be approved without environmental side agreements acceptable to Congress and has agreed to negotiate those agreements. Americans are entitled to a full examination of the environmental implications of NAFTA. They are entitled to know whether NAFTA could be used to circumvent U.S. environmental standards, or whether it might result in American plants moving to Mexico to avoid pollution control -- thus increasing global pollution. An EIS would provide that information.

Preparation of an EIS does not create any legal impediments to NAFTA's approval. It provides an information base that would either reassure the public and its elected representatives of the agreement's environmental viability or provide sound reason for the legislation's rejection. An administration committed to the domestic and global environment would take resources it appears prepared to assign to litigation and prepare an adequate environmental analysis. LEON G. BILLINGS Silver Spring

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.