My concerns are not how this agreement is going to affect cor- 

 porate America and agribusiness giants. They are going to take 

 care of themselves, and, in fact, some of our agribusiness giants 

 have become, in effect, taxpayer welfare cases when we underwrite 

 so much of their sales abroad to the extent that even this year 

 alone the American taxpayers are spending $1.9 billion in foreign 

 aid to Saddam Hussein. Why, you might ask? Because some of the 

 corporate giants in this country got us to co-sign notes for exports 

 to Saddam Hussein. He, not feeling too kindly to the United States 

 at the moment, decided not to pay the notes, and, of course, the 

 American taxpayers are. 



My concern, though, is how this agreement is going to affect real 

 Americans trying to deal with very real, day-to-day problems — un- 

 employment, low wages, health care, education costs, and the envi- 

 ronment. These are very legitimate concerns that jeopardize their 

 future and the future of their children. 



We want to make sure we are not going to compromise the safety 

 and integrity of our food supply simply to champion free trade. 



Last, but certainly not least, we need assurances that NAFTA 

 will promote not just free trade, but fair trade as well. Sometimes 

 free trade is not necessarily fair trade. We want both. And with the 

 end of the Cold War and the start of peace in the Middle East, we 

 enter a new venue of competition — one of economics. 



So these are unsettled questions. We want to know what it would 

 do. It is clear there is a lot to be said for a North American free 

 trade area. Such a market would be the largest in the world. It 

 could power the economy of the 21st century. And NAFTA does 

 promise this, and perhaps it can deliver. But we have to be sure. 

 There are unsettled questions, and we need straight answers before 

 we decide on the fate of NAFTA. 



Exports have been a key factor in the strength of our economy. 

 Today we want to learn if NAFTA is the best agreement to build 

 on that strength. It seems to me the greatest fear is that American 

 jobs will be lost, drawn to the lower wages of Mexico. 



Proponents say there is nothing to fear. There may be some dis- 

 location, but the projected millions of dollars from new exports 

 would translate into many new jobs in the United States. Oppo- 

 nents argue that the new jobs are a fairy tale. The only exports 

 they see are American factories relocating in Mexico. 



Some say that if the border to Mexico is open to trade, it will en- 

 courage illegal immigration and make it easier for drugs to be 

 smuggled into the country. Others argue that NAFTA will promote 

 cooperation between the United States and Mexico and create op- 

 portunities for workers in Mexico, making the border even more se- 

 cure. 



At present, we know the Mexican tariffs on American goods are 

 more than double American tariffs on Mexican goods, and Mexico 

 imposes trade barriers against many American products. Under 

 NAFTA, of course, these barriers and tariffs will be phased out en- 

 tirely. 



America has successfully maintained free trade with Canada 

 since 1989. But even with a country whose standard of living is so 

 close to our own, there have been problems, one in particular with 

 subsidized wheat. If free trade with Canada has resulted in dif- 



