146 



$500 million increase for soybeans, 8-percent rise in peanut exports, pom fruits 

 (peaches, apples, and pears) may nearly double, 20,000-ton increase in muk powder, 

 and increased exports of pork and hogs. 



We live in a global economy, and no sector of the U.S. economy can escape that 

 fact. The fastest growing sector of our economy is our exports, and. Mexico is an im- 

 portant part of that growth. The NAFTA will lock in the gains in exports we have 

 made with Mexico and open new opportunities for growth. 



New trade agreements will be more important to the restructured U.S. agricul- 

 tural sector and rural America than any new farm bill. U.S. agriculture heavily de- 

 pends on exports. About one-third of our production is sold to foreign customers. If 

 we are to just maintain the present agricultural productivity, let alone bring back 

 the millions of acres that are now being held out of production, help preserve family 

 farms, and enhance rural America, we have no choice but to expand agricultural ex- 

 ports. Otherwise, we must take resources out of agriculture in order to maintain a 

 balance between supply and demand at reasonable prices. That means even fewer 

 farms and fewer farmers. 



Mexico is just the beginning. Three-quarters of mankind lives in squalor. Our eco- 

 nomic future lies in using our Nation's productive capacity to relieve the awful suf- 

 fering of the great bulk of the world's people. No amount of foreign aid can accom- 

 plish this task. Only foreign trade holds the key to world prosperity. 



We strongly support the NAFTA, and urge its approval by the U.S. Congress. To 

 conclude that the United States stands to lose by eliminating trade barriers with 

 Mexico, a small economically depressed nation, takes some mighty creative reason- 

 ing. In the short run, we may have to restructure parts of our economy so that poor- 

 er nations can more robustly consume our farm and industrial goods and services 

 in the long run. The world had to restructure demand to bring about an end to the 

 Great Depression. World War II was the primary reason behind that restructuring. 

 Now we have a chance to accomplish it through peaceful means — trade expansion 

 through regional and international trade agreements. 



We respectfully urge approval of NAFTA by this committee and Congress. To do 

 otherwise will not only be detrimental to all of our economic sectors but would set 

 back our political and economic relations with our Latin American neighbors to the 

 point of nonrecovery. We urge you to vote "yes." 



Thank you for allowing the Grange to present its position on this matter. We 

 would like to request that this statement be made part of the hearing record on the 

 NAFTA. 



The National Family Farm Coalition 



The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) and other family farm groups were 

 repeatedly told that the side agreements to the North American Free Trade Agree- 

 ment (NAFTA) would address our concerns about its negative impact on family 

 farmers. The side agreements released on August 13th do not even mention agri- 

 culture and fall far short on environmental and labor concerns. It is imperative that 

 the NAFTA be renegotiated. 



NAFTA has nothing to do with trade, free or otherwise, between the people of 

 Canada, Mexico and the United States. Rather, it is a supra-legal device by well- 

 positioned transnational corporations in various economic sectors to drive the citi- 

 zens of these countries into senseless, self-destructive competition with each other 

 for the lowest farm prices, lowest wages, lowest standards of living, and the lowest 

 levels of food, environmental and consumer safety. 



The volume of the movement of goods and services between these three nations 

 is already nearly the greatest in the world and growing annually. The only "free- 

 dom" in NAFTA is that which is given to the transnational corporations and their 

 major investors to conduct their business free from any requirements of fair pricing 

 and wages for farmers and workers, of adherence to sound environmental and 

 consumer safety standards, and of respect for the rights of communities throughout 

 the proposed trade region to exercise their responsibilities of local self-government. 



In reality, NAFTA is not about free trade but rather about who controls capital 

 investments, labor and the supply of food. And opposition to NAFTA cannot be 

 called protectionist but rather represents the need for expanded economic oppor- 

 tunity and reward for all North American people, not just the giant corporations 

 and their major investors. 



NAFTA as it now stands must be rejected by Congress. The side agreements have 

 revealed nothing to fix an inadequate agreement. President Clinton must initiate 

 new negotiations for a truly fair, democratic, and workable trade agreement for the 

 entire hemisphere. 



