Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, along with my Florida colleagues, I have worked during the past months to improve a treaty, side agreements, and the enabling legislation for NAFTA. Wh ile the Florida delegation has been successful in securing some improvements in NAFTA, I can not in good conscience support NAFTA today.

As this treaty and bill are presented to Congress, we are forced to unfairly choose between winners and losers. Based on my recent work and experience in international trade, today I must reject this unfair approach. ?For example, in Florida, citrus concentrate and sugar will be saved. However, much of the remainder of Florida's agriculture industry will not survive the next decade.

Just look at the facts: Mexico has 6 million agricultural workers, all earning at or below the 50-cent-per-hour minimum wage. This is equal to the entire work force of my State who earn at least our U.S. minimum wage.

Florida agricultural workers are regulated by the Department of Labor, USDA, HHS, EPA, INS, FDA, and numerous other regulatory agencies. Mexico ignores even the most basic labor standards and working conditions.

While several Florida agricultural concerns have been satisfied, is it fair to abandon the others? Still opposed today is a majority of the agricultural associations, not to mention what is now estimated to be 95 percent of the independent growers in my State.

I cannot vote today to cast aside one worker or one business in favor of another. Unfortunately, agriculture is not the only industry that will be unfairly impacted. ?As another example, the president of an Orlando manufacturing company has written and said, `In order to compete, we would be obliged to move the labor intensive portions of our production from Florida to Mexico.' While some U.S. manufacturers under this treaty would be winners, others clearly would be losers.?   I fear that to benefit a few, we will undermine many. Truly, the Mexican market for American goods has been overstated.

Their economy is only the size of Luxembourg, and their buying capacity is clearly limited by a work force where only 1 in 26 earns a United States minimum wage.

Under this treaty, where would any business person choose to locate their new or expanded manufacturing facilities In any of the 50 States with tough local, State, and Federal regulations? Or would they in fact choose to locate in a place where regulations and laws are ignored, and then freely moved goods across the border on roads and bridges improved by U.S. taxpayers?

This is a good treaty between the United States and Canada. It would be a good treaty just as Europeans have formed between equal trading partners with nearly equal wages, judicial systems, and regulatory standards. ?But this is not a good treaty with a Third World nation who has none of those important mechanisms in place.

Finally, I cannot in good conscious support this treaty or this legislation because I have seen firsthand the blatant disregard Mexico has shown for its environment. Nowhere in the Western Hemisphere or the world is there such complete disregard and contempt for the environment.
And to add insult to injury, American taxpayers are now asked to pay the tab for years of environmental destruction and neglect.
It is because of these concerns today that I will vote in opposition to NAFTA. I urg e my colleagues to vote against NAFTA.