faculties, we have to look long and hard at Mexico for similar prob- 

 lems, as well as new ones. 



There is more at issue than economics. Even though Mexico has 

 environmental laws comparable to ours, their lax enforcement of 

 those laws has created many environmental disaster areas. It does 

 not do any good to say that their laws are the same if they are not 

 being enforced. And Mexico has been cited in the past by the Unit- 

 ed Nations and others as a flagrant abuser of human rights and 

 labor rights. We must ask if we are condoning this behavior with 

 NAFTA or do we see NAFTA as a way of bringing freedom and 

 hope into Mexico. 



Each side has cited many facts and figures to support its argu- 

 ments. The bottom line has to be what is best for the United States 

 and all U.S. citizens. It is our responsibility to sort through these 

 figures, and see if NAFTA is what America needs. 



Again, let me say that before this is voted on in the Senate, I 

 would hope that the debate would start by stating relevant facts 

 and making claims that can be supported. Some of the proponents 

 and some of the opponents have done precisely that. But when I 

 think of some of the mail and some of the calls I get in my office, 

 with some of the wildest claims for it and some of the wildest 

 claims against it, it is no wonder the American people are confused. 

 And certainly those of us who are going to have to vote on it are 

 going to be confused. 



We are going to hear from other Senators, but I should note, 

 though, that I do not include the Secretary of Agriculture in those 

 making the wild claims. He and I have had many discussions of 

 this, and he has been very careful and has stuck to things that can 

 be supported. 



Senator Lugar. 



STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR 



FROM INDIANA 



Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join 

 you in greeting the distinguished Secretary of Agriculture, and we 

 look forward to hearing from his associates and the Trade Rep- 

 resentative and other distinguished Americans. 



I agree with you completely that it is time to demystify the sub- 

 ject, to push emotion aside, and get to the facts. And as each one 

 of us has been doing in our particular States, I have taken a strong 

 look at steel, at automobiles, and at agriculture. These are the 

 three basic industries for Indiana, a very diverse State. I am happy 

 to report, Mr. Chairman, that if NAFTA passes, steel exports from 

 Indiana will increase substantially; so will auto parts and auto as- 

 semblies, and so will corn. And all three are important to me, and 

 they mean more jobs for Indiana. 



Now, this may come as a startling conclusion to some of my con- 

 stituents as well as to other Americans. Let me just say that I have 

 analyzed carefully plants in Indiana that have operations in Mexico 

 and Canada, or plants in Indiana that went to Mexico and that 

 came back. 



The reason people are going to Mexico and coming back is that 

 the manufacturing costs are less in Indiana than they are in Mex- 

 ico because, even given a large wage differential, the productivity 



