133 



Dean Kleckner 



My name is Dean Kleckner and I am president of the American Farm Bureau 

 Federation. I also raise corn, soybeans and hogs on my farm in Rudd, Iowa. 



The American Farm Bureau Federation, the Nation's largest organization of farm- 

 ers and ranchers, appreciates this opportunity to present its views in support of the 

 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 



NAFTA will be good for American farmers and workers. It will expand exports 

 and bring about higher farm income and a net increase in U.S. jobs. Rejection of 

 NAFTA could actually reduce U.S. exports and cause job losses. 



With NAFTA, we also have the means to improve the environment and reduce 

 illegal immigration. Without it, these problems will only persist and worsen. 



Mexico is the third largest single country market for U.S. farm products and is 

 certain to become better under NAFTA. Mexico's agriculture, with its limited re- 

 sources, is not now keeping pace with domestic demand for food. That is why we 

 have a $1.5 billion farm trade surplus. With its rapidly growing population and a 

 strong desire for improved diets, Mexico will continue to require substantial and 

 growing levels of imports. NAFTA will ensure that these imports are produced in 

 the United States by American farmers and ranchers. 



If we reject NAFTA, however, other countries will no doubt take advantage of the 

 growing Mexican market at our expense. Mexico does not need to buy pork from the 

 United States; it can get it from Canada or Denmark. Mexico does not need to buy 

 wheat from the United States; it can get it from Canada, France, Argentina or Aus- 

 tralia. Mexico does not need to buy soybeans, nonfat dry milk, dry edible beans, 

 corn, sorghum, rice, beef, poultry, apples, pears, and a whole host of other products 

 from U.S. producers; it can get them elsewhere — and probably will — if we reject 

 NAFTA. 



American agriculture must continue to open foreign markets. Our domestic mar- 

 ket is basically limited to our population growth, which is almost flat, and to new 

 uses for farm commodities. But 95 percent of the world's population is outside our 

 borders. We must tear down the trade barriers to these people. They will be some 

 of our best customers in the future. Increased sales into foreign markets help us 

 avoid domestic surpluses that drive down farm prices, raise farm program costs and 

 force farmers off their farms. This is what happened in the early '80s when our agri- 

 cultural exports fell from $44 billion to $26 billion. Our Nation cannot afford to see 

 this reoccur. 



Our failure to approve NAFTA would have to be viewed with a mixture of sur- 

 prise and gratification by our foreign competitors. Who would be the big winners 

 in agriculture if NAFTA is rejected? Probably the biggest winners would be Cana- 

 dian farmers followed in short order by farmers in Europe and elsewhere. The big- 

 gest losers would be our farmers. 



Virtually all impartial studies have shown NAFTA to be a net job creator for our 

 Nation and good for our overall economy. More than 280 noted U.S. economists, in- 

 cluding all 12 living Nobel Laureates, have told President Clinton that they all 

 agree that NAFTA will, in varying degrees, be a net positive for the United States 

 in both job creation and economic growth. 



Without defensible counter-arguments, some opponents have resorted to emotion 

 and exaggeration to convince Americans it is a bad deal. As a result, NAFTA is 

 being blamed for many things: for failing to do enough, or for doing too much, some- 

 times both on the very same issue. 



NAFTA is not perfect. No trade agreement can be. We would have preferred 

 longer transitions for some sensitive commodities and shorter ones for some of our 

 key exports. But overall this agreement is a positive and necessary step for U.S. for- 

 eign policy 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 of U.S. companies moving to Mexico, NAFTA 

 is not the reason. In fact, NAFTA can help address the problem. It opens the Mexi- 

 can market to U.S. exports, thus allowing companies to stay home and still supply 

 products to Mexico; it eliminates the maquiladora program; and it will help raise 

 wage rates in Mexico. 



If there is a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, NAFTA is not the rea- 

 son. But NAFTA can help solve it by creating more jobs throughout Mexico. 



If there are problems in our trade with Canada, NAFTA is not the reason. The 

 cure some propose — to reject NAFTA — would be worse than the ailment. We could 

 turn over even more agricultural markets to Canada by killing NAFTA. 



Some say Mexicans are too poor to buy our products. The fact is, they already 

 buy a lot from us, and one of NAFTA's principal objectives is to increase income 

 levels and expand the middle class in Mexico. If we ignore markets around the 



