Release No. 0178.98 Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman National Association of Agricultural Journalists Washington, D.C. -- April 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION It's good to be back here with all of you for our own annual spring rite. Others have baseball, gardening, even cleaning ... I get all of you. But as farmers complete spring planting and Congress comes back from their recess, it is a good time for us to talk. I want to leave most of it to questions, but I do want to briefly raise two matters. The first is that branch of government at the other end of Constitution Avenue. Congress in the next several days or weeks will make a number of decisions that have a direct, sizable impact on all of us in agriculture. AGRICULTURE RESEARCH BILL Right now, my top priority is a very good, bipartisan agriculture research bill. It would invest $1.7 billion in agricultural research which is critical to increasing farm productivity and income; rural development efforts; and crop insurance, so producers have a reliable program that they can count on in the years ahead. This bill also restores food stamp benefits for legal immigrant families. That's the right thing to do with this pot of funds which comes from savings in how we run the food stamp program. It's only appropriate that a good chunk of this money go back into feeding hungry people. This is a good bill. It unites farm and anti-hunger interests which always have been a winning combination in terms of getting important farm legislation through Congress. Unfortunately, since Congress didn't pass our bill before the recess, if this bill doesn't pass quickly, our funding may be gobbled up by a very costly highway funding bill. I'm sure you've read about this one in the papers. It would tip over our balanced budget efforts. And, if this highway bill passes before our research bill, it could take our entire $1.7 billion in funding with it. That can't happen. Congress needs to pass the research bill first, so these funds are spent where they're needed most -- helping farmers and our nation's hungry. This really is the week to get this done. ETHANOL TAX EXEMPTION I hope most of you know that I've started a bi-weekly radio address. This afternoon, I'll have a special guest with me -- Vice President Gore. We're going to talk about the importance of Congress extending the ethanol tax exemption. This is a high priority for this Administration. At a time when small farms are struggling, ethanol is providing a critical economic lifeline to many family farms. The bulk of the industry's growth today comes from small farmers joining together in co-ops that produce and sell ethanol. This is a clean-burning, made-in-America fuel. The more ethanol we use, the stronger our rural farm communities, the cleaner our environment, the more fuel-independent our nation. That's a triple win for America, yet some in Washington want to see the tax exemption eliminated. This Administration -- backed by a strong, bipartisan majority of the Senate -- support an extension through 2007 of the tax exemption. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House wants it gone. That would be a terrible mistake. Without continued, strong federal support, investments in this still-growing industry will dry up, costing farmers and rural towns billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, not to mention the cost down the road to our air quality and our national security should we continue to rely on foreign oil for our fuel. This Administration will actively oppose any effort to eliminate the ethanol program. The President is committed to extending the credit. He strongly believes that the future of this industry will be seriously damaged without it. The Senate has acted, and it really now is up to Speaker Gingrich and his leadership to see that the House follows suit. This Administration will be watching their actions very closely. SAFETY NET The other subject I want to briefly raise with all of you is the safety net. As many of you know, I've recently returned from a farm tour where I went out and talked to farmers and ranchers across the country about what's going on with the markets and with their lives two years into a new U.S. farm policy. We've had two good years. Prices and exports have generally been strong. It's pretty clear that the Farm Bill works quite well in that sort of win-win environment. But this year, the story's a bit different. Strong world crop production and an economic crisis in Asia are bringing prices down a bit. It's clear to me and to a lot of the folks I've talked to that we have some unfinished business from 1996 -- namely, ensuring we have a sturdy farm safety net for the future. In the past month, I announced some steps we're taking at USDA to help the livestock industry -- everything from accelerated beef purchases for our federal nutrition programs to reforming how we go about making sure that ranchers get a fair shake in the marketplace, so we can better guard against the concerns folks have about concentration in the livestock industry. I also announced a package of relief for folks in the northern Plains who have been pummeled for several years by bad weather. We're working to make sure that folks don't get hit while they're down by a crop insurance program that isn't geared to year after year after year of crises. TRADE Another core element of the safety net is trade. Agriculture is an export-dependent industry; the product of one in three crop acres is sold overseas; that number will only increase as we make advances in productivity, and the world outside our borders continues to grow -- in population and in incomes; 96% of our potential customers live in other countries; we cannot grow farm incomes here at home without embracing this world of opportunity. You all know this as well as I do. We also know that trade is often a hard sell out in the countryside. Despite the fact that agriculture's foreign sales are up 50% since President Clinton took office, folks tend to resent the very trade agreements that made this growth possible. I think we can do a better job of helping those folks who have been adversely impacted by trade. But I also believe that trade politics these days are too often governed by the squeaky wheel' principle. We hear about the small number of issues that are difficult, not the majority of agreements that run quite smoothly. It's dog bites man versus man bites dog. As we head into the next round of GATT trade talks, as President Clinton returns from Chile where he discussed a Free Trade Area of the Americas, the United States has every intention of staying out front in terms of agricultural trade liberalization. We want to eliminate export subsidies; we want to deal with as yet undisciplined State Trading Enterprises; we want to see country's have more open approval processes for new products, so we know that they are making import decisions based on sound science. That's our international agenda. On the domestic front, we've got to make sure that our producers -- as they say out in farm country -- stay hitched.' We've got to give farmers confidence that these trade agreements -- and the direction of U.S. trade policy, in general -- is working for them. Look at the numbers, and it's clear it is. But that doesn't mean there isn't more we can do, and that there aren't areas where we need to see serious progress. Coming back from my farm tour, I sat down with all of my trade folks, and I talked to them about this. I asked them to take a fresh, hard look at all of our trade programs. I asked for innovative, creative ways to use the tools we do have to sharpen American agriculture's competitive edge without compromising our trade principles. Right now, we are putting together a package of options. Some we can do on our own; some will require interagency clearance; others will likely require legislative action. All will be designed to creatively use our programs to help farmers and ranchers increase their exports and compete in a world that is still transitioning to a free and fair global trading environment. Now I want to be clear: I don't want to use programs just for the sake of using them. They must be cost effective and provide real help to producers. But I also don't think we should be wedded to the idea that programs must always be used in the same old way. If our trade tools need to be modified so they give producers the benefits intended by Congress, then we should do that. I can't share any details today. But this package will be something I talk about very soon. However, I can share with all of you a development on the credit front with Asia. I have approved an additional $400 million in GSM export credit guarantees to Korea. We don't yet have a definitive list of commodities, but I'd say that by and large that list will closely resemble what we've seen in previous credit packages to Korea. It will include commodities that have faced price difficulties in recent months. This is a program that works well for U.S. agriculture and for countries that need help in purchasing food. I have every intention of continuing to use this program aggressively to help our partners in Asia and our farmers here at home. That said, I think I'll stop for now. And, I'd be glad to take your questions. # 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