{
  "id": "RL33162",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33162",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 311856,
      "date": "2006-01-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:18:01.488029",
      "title": "Trade Integration in the Americas",
      "summary": "Since the 1990s, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean have been a focus of United\nStates trade policy, as demonstrated by the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement\n(NAFTA), the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and, more recently, the Central\nAmerica-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). The Bush Administration has\nmade trade agreements important elements of U.S. trade policy. The United States currently is in\nthe process of completing trade negotiations with Andean countries for a free trade agreement (FTA)\nand on reactivating talks for a U.S.-Panama FTA and a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). \n The FTAA is an on-going regional trade initiative that was first discussed in 1994 and formally\nstarted in 1998. The last FTAA trade ministerial meeting was held in Miami in November 2003, but\nthe talks are currently stalled.\n The efforts of the United States in regional trade integration in the Americas are significant for\nCongress because U.S. entry into any free trade agreement may only be done with the legislative\napproval of the Congress. U.S. supporters of trade integration in the Americas believe it helps U.S.\neconomic and political interests in several ways. Proponents believe that the movement towards\ntrade integration of the Americas is beneficial for U.S. prosperity, and also serves to strengthen\ndemocratic regimes and support U.S. values and security. Forming closer economic relations with\ncountries in the region is seen by some as a means to improve cooperation on other issues such as\nthe environment and anti-drug efforts. U.S. opponents of trade integration proposals are mainly\nconcerned that hemispheric free trade would lead to a loss of jobs in the United States through\nincreased import competition or as a result of U.S. companies shifting production to lower-wage\ncountries with weak labor standards.\n The number of regional trade agreements in the Americas has been increasing since the 1990s. \nMajor trade arrangements include NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, the Southern Common Market (Mercosur)\nin South America , the Andean Community (CAN), the Caribbean Community and Common Market\n(CARICOM), the Central American Common Market (CACM), and the Latin American Integration\nAssociation (ALADI). With a total of 12 trade agreements involving over 40 countries, Mexico is\none of the countries with the highest number of agreements. Supporters note that if countries in the\nWestern Hemisphere ultimately establish an FTAA, it could have as many as 34 members and\nnearly 800 million people, nearly twice the population of the European Union. \n Trade integration in the Americas is of interest to policymakers because of the implications for\nthe United States. Issues under debate include the pros and cons of deepened trade relations with\nLatin America and the Caribbean, and whether the current focus on bilateral and regional FTAs is\nthe most appropriate trade policy. Some analysts do not believe that such a policy is a good idea\nbecause it is creating a complicated network of trade agreements throughout the region could slow\ndown the FTAA process. Others believe that regional trade agreements lead to the consolidation of\nregional trade areas into larger free trade areas, and although a slow process, may eventually lead to\na hemispheric free trade area.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33162",
          "sha1": "002371ca6d326b4cd464f153f25b2db5a0c0b271",
          "filename": "files/20060125_RL33162_002371ca6d326b4cd464f153f25b2db5a0c0b271.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33162",
          "sha1": "ba67997befbf832fe82545d2c5c6fd4b9b54a0f2",
          "filename": "files/20060125_RL33162_ba67997befbf832fe82545d2c5c6fd4b9b54a0f2.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7942/",
      "id": "RL33162 2005-11-22",
      "date": "2005-11-22",
      "retrieved": "2005-12-21T17:00:14",
      "title": "Trade Integration in the Americas",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20051122_RL33162_862df90422a11a2e843151d7b2e90e31302839da.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20051122_RL33162_862df90422a11a2e843151d7b2e90e31302839da.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "International affairs",
          "name": "International affairs"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade agreements - Americas",
          "name": "Trade agreements - Americas"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Agricultural Policy",
    "Economic Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}