| OCR Text |
Show UTAH FARM BUREAU The United States Department of Agriculture has a very active program of trade promotion and spent more than $13 million in 1967 to increase the demand for American farm products. More than 60 nonprofit tirade organizations spend a matching amount in cooperation with the USDA for trade development Some farmers believe that there should be a compulsory checkoff applied to all of the major commodities which farmers produce. They think that more money needs to be spent both in domestic and international trade promotion. They are willing to participate in government financed programs, even though this involves some government controls. There are others who believe that promotion is necessary, but they argue that it should be carried on by farmers themselves without the participation of the government They believe that contributions made by farmers should be voluntary. There are others who question the value of spending huge sums of money for promotion. They point out that many farm commodities compete with one another, and that things that help Page 5 NEWS Because the United States is the most efficient producer of wheat in the world, it is the position of Farm Bureau that the allocaton of international markets seriously restricts the American farmers' opportunity to expand markets. Wheat prices this Fall have reached a 26 year low. There is a definite relationship between these prices and our government trade policies. Our State Department and the United States Department of Agriculture defend the Grains Agreement which they say will help stabilize world prices and reduce wide market fluctuations. They think that these policies are essential to greater trade linkage between developed and less developed countries. Many farmers fear that in trade negotiations the interests of agriculture are often put in second place by the State Department and other Government agencies. EDOD EDD PEACE one farmer may hurt another. TIRADE NEGOTIATIONS Farm Bureau resolutions support vigorous trade negotiation which would reduce restrictions on world trade with nations which are prepared to offer reciprocal benefits to United States exports. We believe that such negotiations must emphasize trade in agricultural products. Congress passed a Trade Expansion Act in 1962 that contained a firm directive that trade agreements should not be concluded with any nation until meaningful concessions were obtained by United States agricultural exports. One of the principal objectives of this legislation was to obtain a reduction in the restrictions being placed on our exports to the European Common Market countries. For many months the "Kennedy Round" of trade negotiations continued. The United States gave tariff concessions of $8.5 billion of industrial and agricultural imports, and obtained concessions on $8.1 billion of exports from the United so-calle- d States. Contrary to Farm Bureau's recommendations, negotiations on agriculture were conducted in separate sectors. The groups on red meats and dairy products made no recommendations, and the grain groups recommended an International Grains Arrangement These negotiations with the Common Market acted to the disadvantage of the American farmer. The United States Senate, despite the opposition of Farm g International Grains Agreement Bureau, adopted the which became effective July 1, 1968. The minimum sales price under the pact was set at $1.73 a bushel, basis United States Gulf ports, for a key grade. There is a world surplus of wheat this year, and some countries who signed the agreement are apparently undercutting the minimum prices. price-fixin- Congress has voted to extend the Food for Peace Act for another two years. Under its provisions the United States will continue to give some assistance to developing nations who need our help. Since 1945 the United States has given away $31 billion worth of food and fiber. There is no record in history of such generosity on the part of any nation. However, improved weather conditions in nearly all parts of the world in the past two years has lessened the demand for our produce. Many nations are beginning to apply the technical knowledge about agriculture that we have supplied to them through our AID programs. New varieties of seed have been developed for wheat and rice with spectacular results. Fertilizer, when available, has further increased yields. There is limited optimism that Asia, where 56 percent of the world's people live, is beginning to experience an agricultural take off. The UN reports that food production rose 3 percent last year while world population increased by 2.2 percent These gains could be wiped out unless there is a decrease in the rate of growth of world population. It is estimated that the 3.5 billion people in the world today may increase to over 7 billion by the year 2000. Even now, 10,000 or more people a day die of starvation. Half of mankind goes to bed hungry every night. It was fear of massive starvation in India in 1966-6- 7 that caused the USDA to increase allotments and urge farmers to raise more wheat When the demand failed to materialize, wheat prices dropped to their present low levels. Farmers are willing to produce so that people will not be hungry but they are not willing to bear the cost of these efforts alone. Many of them feel that they were left holding the short end of the stick by actions which were taken by the USDA and the State Department UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON TDADE AND TARIFFS Farm Bureau believes that the United States Tariff Commission should be reconstituted as a Commission on Trade and Tariffs, which could take and other industries prompt and appropriate action when agriculture are being insured by imports. The Commission would be authorized and directed to: 1 ) Take immediate action to restrict imports when there is evidence of unfair trade practices such as dumping or subsidized prices; 2) Make prompt determinations and recommendations with respect to be injuring temporary relief from import competition which is found to or threatening injury to an United States industry; and (3) Consider actions under Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The new Commission would function with respect to foreign trade in a manner similar to the way the Federal Trade Commission operates. When unfair trade practices were discovered, it would have the power to act. It would be the duty of the Commission to stay abreast of trade developments, and give prompt relief when it is warranted. If such a Commission were in operation, it could deal promptly with the kinds of problems which have faced dairy and livestock farmers in the past few years. Subsidized imports being dumped on the American market could be promptly controlled in such a manner that our foreign trade would not be threatened. |
