FAS Online logo Return to the FAS Home page
FAS Logo II

WTO Listening Session
St. Paul, Minnesota
June 7, 1999

 
Speaker: Dave Frederickson
Minnesota Farmers Union

index.gif (4318 bytes)
last.gif (4226 bytes)
next.gif (4261 bytes)
MS. KINNEY:

Good afternoon. We’ll try to start in two minutes. As we have our panel seated and I think our tapes are ready to go, let me introduce Dave Frederickson, the President of the Minnesota Farmers Union. And, again, I’ll cover the ground rules here for presenters that have joined us this afternoon. You have five minutes -- about five minutes, a little better, to make your presentation. We do have a light. It will be green up until you have a minute and then it will turn yellow. And as presenters this morning know, once you get to five minutes it’s a solid red and when it starts blinking red you seem to hurry up, and it’s really been working very well. We also give the panel an opportunity to ask questions or to clarify. We would ask that you stay at the podium at that time so that your responses are also put on the recording. And with that I look forward to a great afternoon. We’re ready to start this afternoon. President Frederickson, thank you for being with us.

MR. FREDERICKSON:

Thank you very much, Robin. With you as the moderator you can guarantee I won’t take more than five minutes. Robin and I have known one another for a long, long time and I appreciate you being here today. Again, thank you very much Robin for the introduction. I’m Dave Frederickson, President of the Minnesota Farmers Union and I want to thank the officials from USDA and the USTR office for being here together with my friends, Commissioners Roger and Gene. Thank you very much for your participation in this process.

Your point regarding complicated, I think Robin is right on, and I think producers need to have a better understanding and if there’s anything that USDA can do and the Office of the Trade Representative is to enhance producers’ opportunity to learn more and more and more about this upcoming round in Seattle and to provide information to them. Certainly, I just found your Web-site this morning, as a matter of fact, and my compliments on the site. It has much information. I think information is something that we as producers across the country, particularly here in Minnesota, need. I’ll just make a few brief points and I’m working on a draft, Mr. Schroeder, to submit to you in the next few days. But just some points. Going in negotiators must keep foremost in their minds that their work impacts all citizens, particularly all farmers of the world. So as you go through this process keep that foremost in your mind. Consequently, negotiators’ work should reflect the best interests of people. The Farmers Union urges U.S. negotiators to seek green box exemptions for coupled commodities, specific income support payments. Decoupled payments often lead to higher land values and cash rent. We’ve witnessed that over the last couple of years with land values moving upward and cash rent moving upward regardless of the value of the commodity that’s produced. Decoupled income supports are not necessarily trade distorting instruments and certainly are not proven as such. Theoretical whole farm ag policy scenarios rarely are realistic responses to or predictors of international trade variables. A free market framework is not always the most effective way to achieve conservation or protection of the world’s natural resources. I guess the example would be when Freedom to Farm and transition payments or AFTA payments are over, what’s the hook? What is the hook to keep producers in compliance with environmental issues that are so important to many, many people across the country? We certainly want you to provide a mechanism for family farmers and ranchers in the United States that protects them from commodity dumping on the American market and also from international currency fluctuations. Farmers Union suggests a mechanism such as the Trade Adjustment Act that we’ve advocated. 1974 the TAA was put in place to assist workers who lost wages or lost jobs because of trade practices, and we see no reason why producers ought not fall under that same scenario. So we’ve encouraged the President and members of Congress to take a look at the existing law, the 1974 law TAA, Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, and see if there’s some way that you can incorporate that act into the producer perspective. So if, in fact, we’ve lost wages because of -- of low commodity prices because of some trade practices, then ought not we be able to collect some kind of assistance under Trade Adjustment Act? We’d like certainly for you to consider that -- that as an option.

Make every effort to maintain and expand Congress ability and the ability of the governments of other nations to formulate U.S. ag policy and implement domestic price supports. This is critical in order to respond to the current agricultural crisis situation, such as the one gripping rural communities here in the United States. And, lastly, to seek country of origin labeling for all products. That’s what consumers are asking for, and I believe that’s what producers here in this country are asking for, and hopefully Congress and the administration can respond to that. So thank you very much for being here today.


Last modified: Friday, November 18, 2005