58 



Mr. Peterson. I hope you will because that is another area that 

 got botched. 



Ambassador K^ANTOR. This is important. End-use certificates are 

 important. We really have not been as resolute with the Canadians 

 on this problem as we should have been. I am going to try to be 

 as effective as I can, 



Mr. Peterson. We had a big rally in North Dakota, Congress- 

 man Pomeroy's State, where we had half Canadians and half 

 Americans protesting the free-trade agreement. Both sides of the 

 border think they have lost on this, which is an interesting point 

 of view. 



Ambassador Kantor. It is really interesting when we look at 

 these. We ought to call these "hopefully expanded trade agree- 

 ments" and "opening market agreements". Free trade really is not 

 a term that applies to any of these because they are not totally 

 free. But expanded trade is in our interest in agriculture as well 

 as industrial products. As long as we understand frankly who we 

 are representing here, which is American business and American 

 workers — if we always keep that in mind, I think we will make 

 some progress. 



It won't be perfect, but we will make some progress. 



Mr. Peterson. And one last thing. It is very hard for those of 

 us up on the border that have had this problem to support this 

 agreement or what you're doing if we're taking agriculture out of 

 this agreement and we can't negotiate to solve these problems. It 

 is very hard for us to understand why we should support the North 

 American Free-Trade Agreement when the Mexicans and the Cana- 

 dians want to do the agricultural agreement separately. 



What do we get out of that? 



Ambassador Kantor. I understand the wheat problem. In certain 

 ways, because we're lowering tariff and nontariff barriers and be- 

 cause the rules of origin are tough, there are some real benefits for 

 agriculture in here, frankly. We're not in a position right now to 

 come back and say that we're going to advocate for the NAFTA be- 

 cause we don't have these supplemental agreements. Therefore, I 

 might sound to be tremendously negative about the NAFTA itself. 



I am not. I believe it can have benefits. But we have to make the 

 situation substantially better with these supplemental agreements 

 than it is now to come back with those positive benefits of the 

 NAFTA itself. 



Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. English. Ms. Lambert. 



Ms. Lambert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, not only for being here today but 

 also for your hard work and diligence in taking on this issue. It is 

 a big one. 



I think you have heard from the committee today and from oth- 

 ers that there are some very big concerns, and a great deal of 

 them. I come from a district where I represent 25 extremely rural 

 counties, all very heavily dependent on agriculture and it is an im- 

 portant issue for us. 



