44 



I would like to address the issue of how we can be certain, as 

 part of the agreement and the supplemental agreements, that the 

 types of regulatory burdens that are faced by Ajnerican agriculture 

 are also going to be faced by the agricultural producers in Mexico. 



I understand that in terms of the nitty-gritty of this and the spe- 

 cifics, the Department of Agriculture may actually have to make 

 the final determinations. I need to know what we will see in sup- 

 plemental agreements and what we will see in the NAFTA itself 

 that will ensure us that those mechanisms will be in place because 

 otherwise I think we have a legitimate concern that there is going 

 to be very much an un-level plajdng field. 



Ambassador Kantor. Let me address that in two or three ways. 



First of all, in the NAFTA itself right now it is given rules of ori- 

 gin and reductions of nontariff barriers and tariff barriers that will 

 help agriculture not only in the rest of the Nation but in Florida 

 as well. 



I understand your concerns and certainly the letter I received 

 from the Florida delegation indicates a number of those, but let me 

 play off that, in a sense. 



We agree that we must harmonize up environmental standards. 

 That has two points to it, as you well know. One is that it protects 

 American consumers, but more importantly than that, it also be- 

 gins to harmonize the cost of doing business in agriculture in Mex- 

 ico with the United States. Obviously, right now it is frankly 

 cheaper to do business in agriculture in Mexico than it is here. 



So we agree with that approach. These supplemental agree- 

 ments, if done correctly, will do that. We also have to look at Mexi- 

 can occupational safety and other standards which will do the same 

 thing. That is the second point in your letter and it is something 

 that we agree with. 



When we look at other points in your letter — a data base of 

 Mexican and United States agricultural trade protection and com- 

 merce — we are looking at that. These commissions will have the fa- 

 cilities to do that. 



So many of the points you make in your letter we are addressing 

 in these supplemental agreements. And we will continue to do so. 



Let me emphasize that we will not come back to the Congress 

 with something without teeth in it. We just won't do it. This Presi- 

 dent has insisted upon it. That is something of which you may be 

 sure. 



The last protection that you have as a Member of Congress and 

 all your colleagues is that we are going to work with you as we go 

 along. We're not going to wait until June or July and come back 

 and say, "Here it is." We will keep you informed as we go along. 

 We will keep you informed in both executive session — which some- 

 times we need to do because we are negotiating, in effect, with two 

 other countries — and we will keep you involved at the staff level as 

 well, as we have tried to do. 



I think that also gives you an ability to continue to advocate with 

 us ideas that might be helpfuL 



Mr. Canady. I understand that and I appreciate that. I appre- 

 ciate the approach you're taking on that. 



The critical thing for us is not simply a harmonization of stand- 

 ards, but having an effective enforcement mechanism in place be- 



