57 



But overall this agreement is a positive and necessary step for our 

 agriculture and trade interests. It is a solution to, not the cause of, 

 many of the problems raised by opponents about the agreement. 



For example, if there is a problem for U.S. companies moving to 

 Mexico, NAFTA is not the reason. We don't have a NAFTA. In fact, 

 NAFTA can help address the problem. It opens the Mexican mar- 

 ket to our exports, thus allowing companies to stay home and still 

 supply products to Mexico. It eliminates the maquiladora program 

 and would help raise wage rates in Mexico. 



If there is a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, 

 NAFTA is not the reason. But NAFTA can help solve it by creating 

 more jobs throughout Mexico, not the maquiladora region just 

 there on the border. 



If there are problems in our trade with Canada, NAFTA is not 

 the reason. The cure that some propose — to reject NAFTA — would 

 be worse than the ailment. We could turn over even more of our 

 ag markets to Canada by killing NAFTA. 



Some say Mexico's pesticide rules are too lax, that Mexico still 

 allows DDT to be used. The GAO report that is often cited should 

 be read before you swallow this argument. GAO found the U.S. and 

 Mexican pesticide laws and violation rates to be close to equivalent, 

 and GAO found that Mexico's use of DDT was confined to govern- 

 ment applications in jungle areas to control mosquitoes that carry 

 malaria. Unfortunately, people are being convinced that NAFTA 

 should be rejected for that reason. 



The list of unfounded grievances about NAFTA goes on and on, 

 and I have addressed a number of other ones in my prepared text. 

 I expect to hear before you vote that it is also the cause of bunions 

 and bad breath. Everything that is wrong is caused by NAFTA, ap- 

 parently, or the perception that NAFTA will cause it. 



NAFTA, however, is probably the most thoroughly studied and 

 analyzed trade agreement ever written and almost all studies show 

 it will be a net plus for both countries. 



The Farm Bureau studied the impact it will have on U.S. agri- 

 culture and concluded it will be an overall plus. We recognize that 

 not every sector will be helped, and some will face increased com- 

 petition. But we believe that the transition periods under the 

 agreement will enable most producers to adjust. 



As I conclude, I will say the supplemental agreement on import 

 surges negotiated by President Clinton will also give us a little 

 extra warning of potential problems from imports. Currently, Mex- 

 ico has relatively free and easy access to our market for commod- 

 ities that they produce — we have heard that earlier today from a 

 number of witnesses — while we face more restrictive barriers when 

 we try to sell our products down there. NAFTA will level this play- 

 ing field to our favor, and we anticipate further growth in our trade 

 surplus with Mexico if NAFTA is approved. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear today, and 

 I will just conclude by saying that Ben Franklin said — I don't think 

 it was the cause of his death when he said, "No nation was ever 

 ruined by trade." 



Thank you. 



Senator Conrad. Thank you. 



