.70 



Kansas agriculture will especially benefit from this agreement. U.S. corn and sor- 

 ghum sales are expected to increase by about $400 million to $450 million due to 

 NAFTA. At the end of the transition period, U.S. exports of corn to Mexico are ex- 

 pected to be about 6 million metric tons, which is 50 percent more than would have 

 been expected without NAFTA. U.S. exports of sorghum are expected to increase to 

 about 6 million metric tons by the year 2000, which is about 15 percent more than 

 would be expected without NAFTA. 



NAFTA is also expected to increase U.S.-Mexico trade in live cattle and beef. U.S. 

 exports of cattle to Mexico could grow to over 1 million head per year, according 

 to the Department of Agriculture. 



NAFTA will also add approximately ( $30 million to wheat industry revenues by 

 the end of the transition period. U.S. wheat exports to Mexico should grow by 40 

 percent, according to the Department. 



Kansas companies that manufacture food and commodity processing equipment 

 should also benefit from NAFTA, as well as farm equipment, agricultural chemical 

 and fertilizer manufacturers who find opportunity to supply the growing Mexican 

 market. 



So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses 

 on this trade agreement which will benefit not only my State of Kansas, but the 

 country, and our entire hemisphere. 



Senator Harkin 



Mr. Chairman, I commend you for convening this hearing today to examine the 

 ramifications of the North American Free Trade Agreement for agriculture and 

 rural America. I am looking forward to the opportunity tb try to get accurate infor- 

 mation on the table about the agreement and its effects. 



For someone like me, who is undecided on the agreement, getting more informa- 

 tion is critical to making a responsible judgment and deciding how to vote. The 

 NAFTA is a very important matter, and I intend to make a decision based on the 

 facts — not on some preconceived ideological position. Far too many have rushed to 

 embrace or condemn the agreement based on abstractions and rhetoric without con- 

 sidering the facts involved. 



Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric has mushroomed on both sides of this issue, and it 

 is now time for some rational discourse. Many of the proponents of NAFTA have 

 overstated its benefits and the necessity of this particular agreement. The prospect 

 of new markets in Mexico is very encouraging. But remember, the Mexican economy 

 is only about one-twentieth the size of the U.S. economy and Mexican wages and 

 benefits average only about $2.35 an hour, versus $16.17 an hour in the U.S. With 

 disparities of that kind, it is just not realistic to think that NAFTA is going to 

 unleash a huge buying binge by Mexican consumers. 



But I also believe that the rhetoric of at least some of the opponents of the agree- 

 ment has become far wilder than that of its supporters. Plainly, this is exactly the 

 kind of issue where it is much harder \p persuade the public and Congress to sup- 

 port something than it is to tear it down. 



I'm ready to cut through the rhetoric and make my decision based on whether the 

 agreement is in the best interests of my State of Iowa and the Nation. And I will 

 say that Iowans and Americans are coming down on both sides in good conscience. 

 A third or more do not know enough yet to have an opinion. I have serious questions 

 about the range of impacts on agriculture and on the U.S. manufacturing sector. I 

 will have questions about whether the environmental and labor provisions in the 

 side agreements are really enforceable and effective. So Mr. Chairman, I look for- 

 ward to today's hearing. 



Secretary Espy 



Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss 

 the North American Free Trade Agreement as it relates to U.S. agriculture. I am 

 delighted to be joined by my colleague, Ambassador Mickey Kantor, who did a fan- 

 tastic job in negotiating supplemental accords that grdatly improve NAFTA and 

 make it a good deal for the United States "and a good deal for the American worker. 



With NAFTA, the facts are sometimes shrouded in misconception. There are, I am 

 quite sure, many in this room with questions about NAFTA and what it means for 

 America. So let me present the facts about NAFTA, to the extent that I can, and 

 try to set the record straight on why we believe that the NAFTA package, and it 

 is a package, is good for America, and is good for America's farmers and ranchers. 



