86 



Leland Swenson 



Thank you for the opportunity to present the position of the 250,000 farm ranch 

 and rural families of the NFU on the proposed NAFTA. Last week approximately 

 250 of our members traveled to Washington DC, at their own expense, to discuss 

 their concerns on NAFTA with all the members of Congress. Our farm delegates 

 were surprised when some Members of Congress stated that they were unaware of 

 farm opposition to NAFTA. 



Today, I wish to emphasize our message— NOT THIS NAFTA! 



A question often asked is whether organizations who oppose the current agree- 

 ment could support any trade agreement. The answer is yes. National Farmers 

 Union is a strong advocate of trade. We support the establishment of international 

 rules and regulations which enable the fair trade of goods and services in a manner 

 that provides a fair return to the producer and promotes environmentally sound pro- 

 duction methods. 



However, we believe it is neither necessary nor beneficial to accept an agreement 

 which trashes the social, economic and environmental gains we have achieved, all 

 in the name of free trade. 



In previous testimony, we have gone on record in support of the resolutions 

 passed by Congress which set forth certain guiding principles that must be met by 

 U.S. trade agreements. Last fall, NAFTA was announced and many, including Ma- 

 jority Leader Gephardt, pointed out that it did not meet the standards, and must 

 be renegotiated. Others, including President Clinton, took the position that there 

 were problems, but that points of concern could be addressed with the addition of 

 side agreements. 



Now we have read the side agreements and our earlier concerns remain valid. 

 Our analysis of the proposed agreement shows that NAFTA will be a giant step 

 backward, not only for our friends with labor and environmental concerns, but spe- 

 cifically for North American farmers. Today I intend to point out the inequities and 

 lack of safeguards for agriculture in the proposed NAFTA. 



Our concerns fall under four general categories, which will affect our members not 

 only as family farmers, but as consumers and taxpayers as well. 



1. Food safety — including inadequate inspection, the use of banned chemicals, 

 meat inspection problems under the CFTA, and animal disease. 



2. Displacement of our markets for commodities — caused by transshipment con- 

 cerns, the accession clause, and inadequate country of origin provisions. 



3. Loss of means for redress against trade violations — including the loss of Section 

 22. 



4. Loss of farm income — including the loss of off-farm employment opportunities. 



Failure to add safeguards to address these areas will result in a loss of farmers, 

 not only in our country, but in Mexico and Canada as well. The lack of safeguards 

 carries over into the concern of environmental abuse in Mexico as livestock feedlot 

 expansion occurs, dairy factories increase in number, large fruit and vegetable pro- 

 ducers move south of the border. In addition, the NAFTA lacks safeguards to protect 

 children and other workers from exploitation. 



I. FOOD SAFETY 



Many take it for granted that all we have to do is go to the grocery store, where 

 we choose from the freshest fruit, a large selection of attractively packaged meat 

 and all types of dairy products. Will this change with NAFTA? We believe it will. 

 Suppose USDA and EPA suddenly decided that chemicals which had previously 

 been banned on food for human consumption were now okay for use — not because 

 the danger had lessened, but because they were convenient to use. Suppose they 

 further decided that dairy farmers should be able to stretch their production by add- 

 ing water and vegetable oil to milk? Suppose they decided to forego inspection of 

 meat plants, or to change current regulations which prohibit the sale of meat con- 

 taminated with feces and urine? 



No one would agree to these changes, and yet it has been documented that these 

 problems currently exist with imports and will be exacerbated if we step up trade 

 without addressing them. When confronted with these problems, free-traders often 

 respond that a trade agreement is not the proper forum. This ignores the reality 

 that behavior is tied to profit. There is clearly a financial incentive not to comply 

 with restrictions. If at the same time, there is no reason to comply with standards, 

 i.e., no trade sanctions, then laws on food safety, as well as worker safety and envi- 

 ronmental protection will be ignored. 



An important safeguard that is missing is the assurance of both the quality and 

 quantity of border inspections for commodities traded. 



