68 



culture — demonstrating the significance of agriculture markets in the United States, 

 Mexico, and Canada that trade that connects them. 



The rhetoric on both sides of the issue has been heated — and the cold facts and 

 hard truths have been obscured by passion, prejudice and preconceived notions. One 

 side argues doom-and-gloom if NAFTA is passed; the other side predicts the same 

 if it fails. Many don't know what to believe. 



In my view, however, two truths remain certain. 



First, 95 percent of the world lives outside our borders. In light of a static domes- 

 tic demand and limited industrial uses, we must continue to find more markets out- 

 side our borders for our agricultural products. This is particularly true of States like 

 Iowa where agriculture is so important. Iowa is second only to California as an ex- 

 porter of agricultural products in the United States. Thirty-eight percent of Iowa's 

 corn and 41 percent of our soybeans finds its way into overseas markets. Moreover, 

 Mexico is our third largest market, behind Canada and Japan. Dale Cochran, Iowa's 

 Secretary of Agriculture, today informed me that he, along with 47 other State sec- 

 retaries of agriculture have signed on in support of NAFTA. Iowa's trade has ex- 

 panded annually since Mexico opened their markets in 1987 despite their relatively 

 high tariffs. A reduction of barriers under NAFTA would clearly be a boon to Iowas 

 agricultural sector. With the Asian and European Countries closing ranks — and 21 

 other regional trading areas established — do we turn inward and regress toward the 

 protectionist policies of earlier this decade — or do we rise to meet the challenges of 

 the future? 



Second, for the first time we have in President Carlos Salinas a reform-minded 

 President of a country which has previously shunned foreign capital, which has sub- 

 sidized its industry and protected them with high tariffs; a country known for its 

 bloated state enterprises and an agricultural sector that has been perpetually weak 

 and poverty stricken. President Salinas' bold moves to reform the country is, at the 

 very least, an endorsement of the free market economics which we as a country 

 have labored to instill in nations around the world. Rejecting NAFTA would cut 

 Mexico off at the knees economically — and would imperil the reforms of which we 

 have been so supportive. 



Though my primary interest under NAFTA, first and foremost, is to expand mar- 

 kets and create jobs, I do not believe we can ignore the benefits it may bestow on 

 an important neighbor. 



In closing — a divided House leadership; a litmus-test issue for labor and business; 

 and a Texas businessman bombarding the public with info-mercials and ghost-writ- 

 ten books will ensure that NAFTA will be political drama of the first order. 



Last year, Bill Clinton ran his campaign oto the mantra of "jobs and the economy." 

 Many congressional candidates echoed the s&me sentiment. Yet, I find it ironic that 

 those who last November predicted the end of gridlock — and preach the sermon of 

 "jobs and the economy" — are now those opposing President Clinton on a watershed 

 issue of his presidency. When a Republican opposes the President it is "gridlock"; 

 when a Democrat does so, it is "leadership." 



I look forward to today's testimony, and thank our distinguished guests for joining 

 us. 



Senator Pryor 



Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling this hearing on the North 

 American Free Trade Agreement. Our witnesses, Secretary Espy and Ambassador 

 Kantor, do not need to be told that agriculture has too often gotten the short end 

 of past trade agreements. One of our goals in this committee should be to ensure 

 that it does not occur again. 



A number of my agriculture constituents in Arkansas have taken a stand for or 

 against NAFTA, but many others believe they do not yet completely understand its 

 impact. They need and deserve straight information. 



To help them and to address my own concerns, I intend to get answers to specific 

 questions about the impact of NAFTA in Arkansas, such as the effect it will have 

 on Arkansas farmers and related agriculture industries. 



Mr. Chairman, Americans are being whipsawed by contradictory and confusing in- 

 formation on what NAFTA will mean. The TV airwaves are beginning to fill with 

 flashy advertising on both sides of the debate. 



I believe that it should be the primary goal of these hearings to set the record 

 straight and give the public honest, understandable, and straightforward informa- 

 tion on the impact of NAFTA on U.S. jobs, the environment, business and certainly 

 agriculture. 



