USDA Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Release No. 0037.97 Statement of Secretary Dan Glickman on the USDA Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Whitten Building -- February 6, 1997 On Tuesday night, the President gave us a very clear vision of where he wants to take America in the 21st century. We're here today to talk about where the rubber hits the road: How we protect our priorities and get to a credible balanced budget. I have here with me Steve Dewhurst, the director of our Office of Budget and Program Analysis. He's going to take you through this step by step. But I'd like to talk briefly about the bigger items that are going to be of interest to you. This budget keeps USDA's core commitments to protect farmers from risk, expand global opportunities, combat hunger, improve food safety, and protect our natural resources. At the same time, this is a budget that demands a great deal of sacrifice from all of us. That sacrifice will start right here at USDA. We've already reorganized and streamlined to the tune of $3 billion. We'll have saved $8 billion by 2002. Right now, we're the smallest the department's been since 1970. By 2002, our county field structure will be the smallest it's been probably since the New Deal. By 2002, we'll have cut our county field structure in half. There's no denying that's a real shock to the system. But we can no longer afford to deny that farm programs bear little resemblance to those of FDR 60 years ago. Our delivery system must change with the times to better serve farmers and all taxpayers. I've looked at the county system. We're doing a lot of common-sense restructuring, and I'm confident that we'll make these reductions and improve our services to farmers. This balanced budget also asks industry to sacrifice. On page 64, you'll find a reprisal of a fight that's been waged before: We're asking meat and poultry processors to cover all the costs of their in-plant inspections. The federal government -- taxpayers -- will cover the rest. It's fair to ask the industry to help pay for these services. It's the only way we get to a balanced budget and meet the increased demand for inspections under the new HACCP rule. Philosophically, you'll find throughout this budget a fundamental shift in the role of government. We can no longer be expected to do everything. It costs too much, and more often than not, it's overly bureaucratic. That's why with the new HACCP rule, there's less government micro-management. But in exchange for greater flexibility, we ask for greater responsibility. You see that with farmers, too. In exchange for planting flexibility, they're now exposed to greater risks in the marketplace. They're taking on that responsibility ... as we asked them to do in last year's farm bill. But we owe it to our farmers to recognize that responsibility is a 2-way street. Government needs to share the risk. This Administration promised to come back and fight for a viable safety net. In this budget we do. Our pilot revenue insurance programs have proven extremely successful. It's time we take them national. We can do it without busting the budget. In that context, we hope Congress will work with us to stitch a new safety net for a new century. We're also proposing that we extend loans when market conditions make it necessary, and we'll improve our credit system so farmers at the lower end of the economic ladder can get a second chance. We're also funding our outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers at five times their previous levels. That's a very frank acknowledgement that USDA needs to do much, much more in that area. The Administration's budget also provides much-needed estate tax relief so farmers can pass on the family farm to their children -- leaving them an opportunity instead of a financial burden. So not all the numbers go down in this budget, and I want to talk about that for a moment. There's 2 reason: 1) There are priority areas -- like socially disadvantaged farmers, like the safety net, like hunger -- where we simply need to do more, and 2) We've done enough belt-tightening that we can shift more resources to priority programs while holding the line on our overall budget. That's a significant accomplishment given that 75% of our funds are tied up in mandatory spending -- most of it in programs where demand is increasing. Welfare reform and the farm bill helped keep those numbers in check, so has our reorganization. But the bottom line is: We're getting record levels of resources out of the bureaucracy and to the people and communities who need them most. That's why we've found room in our budget to fully fund the Women, Infants and Children program. We're reaching more hungry women and children than ever before. In my book, that's no financial burden. It's an accomplishment -- one we need to build on. That means going back now and revisiting the food stamp restrictions in last year's welfare bill. It's wrong for children and adults who truly can't work to go hungry. Let's get the focus back where it belongs -- creating jobs so we can move people from welfare to work and getting tough on those who genuinely refuse to work. We'll work with Congress on that. This budget also includes a $12 million increase in child nutrition research. As well as a significant boost in other priority research areas -- trade, food safety, and more. We can't let our science slip. It's been the key to every major agricultural breakthrough in our history, and we know we'll need more in our future. There's other items of interest here. We build on USDA's role as America's premier conservation agency. We're asking for 212,000 additional acres for our Wetlands Reserve Program, and we want full funding for the new Conservation Reserve Program. You'll hear more about that when the final rule's announced. There's important trade issues in here as well ... most notably a $500 million budget for the Export Enhancement Program -- the maximum allowed under the law. That sends a clear signal to our trading partners that the United States is serious and fully capable of going to the mat for our producers if it's necessary to challenge unfair trade practices and if market conditions require it. This is a different kind of budget for a different kind of department. There's no reason to look back anymore. This budget gives us a sharp focus on the challenges ahead and points out the differences between a balanced budget and a balanced budget amendment. Anyone with a home loan or a car payment can feel the difference. So, I fear, will America's farmers. I recently read a report by Ken Cook, of the Environmental Working Group. I encourage all of you to read his report. It basically says there's no way you can have a balanced budget amendment and keep up market transition payments. I agree. In an overwhelmingly urban America, they make a very fat target ... as do CRP payments, as does crop insurance. When political push comes to financial shove, under a balanced budget amendment, critical farm programs are sitting ducks. So we need to balance the budget the right way .... by looking a few years down the road -- as this budget does to 2002 ... by setting core priorities -- including protecting America's farmers ... and standing firm on tough choices. There can be no ducking. This is not an easy budget. But the easy path isn't going to get us where we need to go as a nation. We have an historic opportunity to get America's fiscal house in order. This plan will get us there and protect our priorities. I'm ready, and this President's ready to fight for it. Thank you. # NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov