11 



their restrictions and will continue to do so to see their own econ- 

 omy improve. 



In the long term, yes, I agree that NAFTA, properly adminis- 

 tered, can produce results. But in the short term, farmers damaged 

 are farmers lost. The tragedy of the Canadian Free Trade Agree- 

 ment, as my colleagues from Montana and North Dakota have ex- 

 pressed so clearly, is that you have to show damage. In the busi- 

 ness of agriculture, that means going out of business before you 

 can appeal to the Government in a way that will get a response. 



Barley is pouring into the State of Idaho right now at a time 

 when grain markets are moving up because of the Midwestern 

 problems. It is pouring in because of the Canadian Free Trade 

 Agreement and our Government being less than responsive. And 

 the story goes on and on. 



Now, I can't afford to lose a farmer, and you, Mr. Secretary, but 

 more importantly you, Mr. Ambassador, know I have appealed to 

 you and to the Mexican Government to establish proof positive, if 

 at all possible, that any sugar agreement is one that our domestic 

 producers can live with. You knock the sugar beet industry out of 

 my State, and you badly damage the agriculture economy of my 

 State. I have yet to be convinced that this is an effort worth sup- 

 porting in lieu of the damage that can result. 



I have also taken the time to read in detail and to try to gain 

 a broader explanation and understanding of the environmental side 

 agreement; what it will mean and how it will be enforced, who the 

 enforcers will be, what kind of power they will have. It concerns 

 me that while this Nation leads the world with environmental pol- 

 icy and environmental concern, we might choose someone else to be 

 our environmental enforcer. That is a legitimate concern, and my 

 constituents, once they have read the fine print, are beginning to 

 ask questions. The answers are not yet forthcoming. It will be in 

 those issues that your ability to respond and your ability to clarify 

 and to get the devil out of the detail will go a long way toward con- 

 vincing me that I ought to support, on behalf of Idahoans and 

 Idaho agriculture, this particular trade agreement. 



I did not support the Canadian Free Trade Agreement because 

 I tried to cajole my own administration into cleaning up the details. 

 They didn't clean up the details. You now hear testimony from the 

 Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Montana and 

 you are hearing it from me: domestic farmers are hurting when 

 they shouldn't be. That shouldn't happen with NAFTA, but it prob- 

 ably will unless the details are clarified, put in writing, and made 

 enforceable. Once that happens, there must be the will to enforce 

 it. So I am anxious to hear your testimony. 



Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



The Chairman. Senator Pryor of Arkansas. 



STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID PRYOR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 



ARKANSAS 



Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, you were so persuasive a moment 

 ago when you talked about limiting our statements and letting our 

 witnesses go forward. I am putting my statement in the record, and 

 I thank you, sir. 



