134 



world because the people there are "too poor," we will relinquish to other countries 

 nearly all of the demand growth for food and fiber in the years to come. 



Some opponents argue that agricultural products will be transshipped from other 

 countries through Mexico. NAFTA's rules against this are tighter than any other 

 trade agreement we have ever entered into. But, in any case, Mexico's import bar- 

 riers on products from other countries are generally very restrictive, so, in most 

 cases, it would make little sense for products to be shipped through Mexico and face 

 tariffs that are on average 2.5 times higher than U.S. tariffs. 



Some say Mexico's pesticide rules are too lax and that Mexico still allows DDT 

 to be used. The oft-cited GAO report should be read before this argument is swal- 

 lowed. 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 gov- 

 ernment applications in jungle areas to control mosquitoes that carry malaria. Un- 

 fortunately, people are being convinced that NAFTA should be rejected for that rea- 

 son. 



There are those who express concern for the Mexican farmer under NAFTA. Mex- 

 ico is in the process of reforming its agricultural sector and will do so regardless 

 of whether NAFTA is adopted. The Mexican Government recognizes that its socialist 

 land ownership policy of the past has failed and is moving toward full private own- 

 ership of farm holdings. As a result of this domestic policy change, many Mexican 

 farmers will be looking for jobs in industry. With NAFTA, there is greater likelihood 

 that they will find them in Mexico. Without NAFTA, many may be encouraged to 

 come to the United States for work. As Mexico reforms its agricultural system, it 

 will continue to require imports to feed its growing population. Mexico's clear pref- 

 erence is that those imports come from the United States and Canada. That could 

 change if the United States rejects NAFTA. 



Opponents also complain that U.S. courts could not be used to petition against 

 unfair imports, even though U.S. courts are not used now. Others claim the U.S. 

 livestock industry would shift to Mexico, although there is no study that suggests 

 this, and every major meat industry group rejects the notion. 



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

 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 Mexico and the United 

 States. 



Farm Bureau has studied the impact it will have on U.S. agriculture and has con- 

 cluded that it will be an overall plus. We recognize that not every sector will be 

 helped and some will face increased competition. However, we believe that the tran- 

 sition periods under the agreement will enable most producers to adjust. The sup- 

 plemental agreement on import surges negotiated by President Clinton will also 

 give us a little extra warning of potential problems from imports. 



Currently, Mexico has relatively free and easy access to our market for agricul- 

 tural commodities it produces, while we face more restrictive barriers when we try 

 to sell our products in Mexico. NAFTA will level this playing field to our favor, and 

 we anticipate further growth in our trade surplus with Mexico if NAFTA is ap- 

 proved. 



I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I congratulate you for 

 holding this hearing and look forward to working with you in the coming weeks on 

 the development of the implementing legislation. 



Andrea Durbin 



Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Good morning. I am Andrea 

 Durbin, Policy Analyst with Friends of the Earth. Friends of the Earth is a national, 

 nonprofit environmental organization with 50,000 members and supporters. We 

 have affiliated organizations in 51 countries and work on a wide range of national 

 and international environmental issues. 



We appreciate this opportunity to share our views on the North American Free 

 Trade Agreement (NAFTA). After long and careful review of the text of the NAFTA, 

 as well as the text of the Side Agreement on Environment, we have concluded that 

 the NAFTA, as currently written, is not in the environmental interest of the three 

 countries that are parties to the agreement. 



We believe that it is possible to structure a trade agreement that will directly link 

 economic growth and the improved social and environmental conditions of the three 

 countries, but this agreement does not achieve these ends. We urge the members 

 of the subcommittee to vote against this agreement and put your full energies be- 

 hind its renegotiation. 



