![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.510416666666667in"
height="1.4583333333333333in"}

Release No. 0003.03

# REMARKS BY DEPUTY SECRETARY JIM MOSELEY

**2003 BELTWIDE COTTON PRODUCTION CONFERENCES**

**NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE**

**JANUARY 7, 2003**

(As prepared for delivery)

Thank you very much, Ken. Thank you for that warm welcome.

This is my first speech of the New Year and it's good to be with the
cotton industry at what is an historical time for the nation.

This distinguished conference, representing the strength of American
agriculture, is a chance to lay out more than the issues facing the
industry. It's an opportunity to rethink and recast your partnership
with the American people.

As Ken said, this audience represents the great diversity of a key
industry -- from agribusiness, to science, to academia, to government.
It is [precisely]{.underline} this diversity, making up the vital
infrastructure of American agriculture, that gives this country the
tremendous strength we enjoy.

This is a strength we must draw on as we are all engaged, as a nation,
in the battle against terrorism.

Clearly, 9/11 put us on notice not only that we are at war, but that
this is a different kind of war, a truly unconventional war...with an
elusive enemy, with no rules, no boundaries and no time frame.

[Because]{.underline} we regard threats to the nation's food and fiber
supply system as real ... and [because]{.underline} the economic
consequences would directly impact national security, agriculture is key
to the nation's infrastructure and therefore to Homeland Security.

As President Bush said, "From the morning of September 11^th^, 2001, to
this hour, America has been (engaged in) an unprecedented effort to
defend our freedom and security. We're fighting against terror with
[all]{.underline} our resources, and we're determined to win."

Now, what does this mean for us? It means the most important thing we
can do to negate terrorism is to preempt it ... and everyone, at every
step in the farm-to-table continuum, is responsible.

Everyone in agriculture is our first line of defense when it comes to
the bio-security of our farms, our processing plants, our labs and
research facilities...every piece of our production system.

Secretary Veneman and I are working closely with Secretary-designate Tom
Ridge of the new Department of Homeland Security. We met with him the
day after he was sworn into the White House Office of Homeland Security
in late 2001 \... and what I learned is---he understands.

As a governor of an ag state, he comprehends the threat to American
agriculture and he knows that homeland security must have a benefit
beyond just thwarting terrorism; otherwise, the cost is never recovered.

The things we'll do in homeland security are not only to protect against
terrorists. They will be good business as well \-- tracking
shipments...improving the safety of our processing systems ...protecting
our agricultural production inputs.

We're preparing on many fronts ... investing in early detection
technologies ...staging simulation exercises ... reaching into every
county in the nation ... to develop "first responder" capability...to
guide farmers and ranchers in securing their operations ... and to
strengthen preparedness in ways ranging from fertilizer and chemical
storage to disaster reporting.

But I can't overstate that this is not a federal strategy. It's a
[national]{.underline} strategy. The front line is at the local and
state level.

The important point is that, as a nation, we're fully capable of
comprehending this threat and the vigilance it demands.

This is the challenge the President wrestles with every day...it is the
top priority of the President because it must be. And what the President
asks us to understand is all related to the small sacrifices that must
be made to maintain the broader freedoms that we cherish...and a way of
life that we must preserve. And I say [must]{.underline}, not want,
because we, the United States, are the leaders of the free world and
without our leadership, as history has revealed over and over again, the
despots of the world will have their way.

That's what's at stake as we enter a new year...the President wants,
needs, and for my part, [deserves]{.underline} your support. So I would
appeal to you, please help all Americans by offering him your patience
and resolve to rid the world of this threat...because, literally, the
world depends on it.

*THE COTTON INDUSTRY*

As we enlist your help in the war on terrorism, we have the
responsibility at the Department to move forward on many other fronts to
address the many ongoing needs and concerns of agriculture and
specifically today the cotton industry.

We are here to listen about what we can do to help you. These are
extraordinary times and this I know: the American farmer is under
continuing and intense pressure.

Even when new technologies for better production, such as Bt cotton,
originate here in the U.S., our free enterprise system makes them
available within a few years to farmers everywhere.

The result is that American farmers now have a condensed time frame of
competitive advantage from technology. So we're compelled to increase
yield and efficiency, and to maximize fiber quality, just to keep from
falling behind.

But the challenge is deeper yet: the farmer's number one customer---the
American textile mill -- is under severe pressure of its own from a
strong dollar, low-cost labor and improving technology overseas.

Last year, for the first time since 1984-85, the U.S. exported more raw
cotton than we used here at home---an indicator of the loss of domestic
milling. Fortunately, world cotton consumption is growing, expected to
be a record high 96 million bales this year. But we still have too much
cotton worldwide. Our own stocks to use ratio still remains above 40
percent. But what to do?

I still read the farm magazine articles and they frequently ask the
question: "Can we compete?" That's the wrong question. The one we want
to answer is: "How do we compete?" As I listen to your leadership, this
is what I hear.

The industry needs a strong research and development program, which you
have already developed, to advance the position of cotton in the
marketplace. And for government's part, our role is to equip industry
with every possible tool \-- through legislation and funding, and
through research, science and trade \-- to develop and market products
scientifically and competitively.

Here are some things that seem obvious to pursue:

First, it's been suggested that perhaps one reason for this leveling off
of yields may be the narrow genetic base of current commercial
varieties. This means we need new genes for yield, disease resistance,
and fiber quality in the base genotype, even over and above what genetic
engineering can add. In the past few years, our Agricultural Research
Service has almost doubled the number of geneticists dedicated to this
issue. And we're looking forward to research partnerships with Cotton
Incorporated and land grant universities that will produce another major
cycle of productivity increases.

Second, it was, in fact the outstanding USDA-private sector research
partnership over the last 20 years that resulted in the High Volume
Instrumentation classing system. That system has shown the superiority
of U.S. cotton and added to its price on the world market.

With cotton fiber quality now more important than ever, the question is:
can this be improved even more? We're now building on the system to add
short fiber tests that meet international standards for accuracy and
precision that provide a valid measure of intrinsic value, so a free and
fair marketplace will reward our farmers with a price that truly
reflects the high quality of their product.

Third point ... your industry operates in a highly competitive
marketplace that's often unfair due to non-tariff trade barriers. And
this is where USDA partners must really step up with trade policies and
research and development capabilities that counter these strong forces.

When China announced new standards on short fiber last summer, USDA
formed emergency task groups that delivered on their promise to have
scientific data in hand by last week \-- December 31.

Though we play a major "government to government" role, we can't and
didn't do this alone. With cooperation by Cotton Incorporated, we
documented evidence that the Chinese standards are unsuitable for use in
international trade. This data, in part, will form the basis for future
official actions on these non-tariff barriers.

All of this leads to the all-important issue of world trade...an issue
that always will be of high importance to American agriculture if we are
to maintain our current productive land base and the agricultural
system.

Nineteenth-century British historian Thomas Macaulay lived in a time
when free trade was, as it is now, a *major* issue. He wrote, "Free
trade, one of the *greatest* blessings which a government can confer on
a people, is in almost every country *unpopular*." More than a century
later, not enough has changed.

There's no question -- and cotton producers know this better than anyone
-- that our farmers need free trade, for without it, the downsizing
would be catastrophic. As a farmer who produced corn and pork, I know I
would not have survived without trade.

Altogether we export about a quarter of all we produce -- over half the
cotton and wheat. These are tremendous achievements, but the challenge
never ends---we must constantly keep growing markets by tearing down
walls that keep our products out of other countries.

We continue our efforts to slash trade barriers globally through the WTO
negotiations.

The joint proposal submitted by Secretary Veneman and U.S. Trade
Representative Zoellick would ultimately eliminate the remaining
barriers to agricultural trade -- export subsidies, domestic supports,
and market access barriers.

We're working with USTR to negotiate free trade agreements with Morocco,
Australia, and the countries of Central America and Southern Africa.
Negotiations with Singapore and Chile have been concluded, and we seek
to expand hemispheric trade with the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

But we're currently concerned with Brazil's WTO challenge to U.S. cotton
programs. I've been told we're still consulting informally with them on
the issue, which isn't yet at the stage of a "formal" WTO complaint.
We're working closely with the cotton industry to coordinate the U.S.
response. The U.S. position is that our programs are in full compliance
with all of our GATT and WTO obligations and we'll vigorously defend
their legitimacy and legality.

We're also working closely with USTR to press China to live up to the
commitments it made when it became the 143^rd^ member of the WTO just
over a year ago. At issue is their agreement to establish a tariff rate
quota system for cotton and other commodities, and their failure to live
up to it. People make plans and investments based on agreements and we
can't accept negligence in following them.

The bottom line is that we have many challenges in the trade arena.
Secretary Veneman works daily to represent the interests of all of
American agriculture to our trading partners around the world. But it is
a challenge that never ends...and we at the Department can always use
your counsel and advice. Call, write, or express ideas through your
association, but let us know what more we can do to help.

I want to close with an area that frankly distresses me, not in terms of
its need and usefulness, but the challenge we're seeing. This year I
witnessed a state of affairs I never thought I'd see. US food aid was
turned down by some countries because of biotechnology.

I was in Johannesburg for the World Summit on Sustainable Development
when we learned that Zimbabwe had rejected our grain to feed starving
people.

Here are the facts:

Forty million people in Africa are at risk of starving to death. We
pledged over 500,000 tons of food aid to Africa to ameliorate that need.
And yet some countries in southern Africa are allowing their people to
starve rather than distribute the food aid we've provided.

Why? The simple word is fear. Fear that the corn is not safe to eat? No,
but fear that the European Community would cut off purchases from Africa
to Europe because of potential "biotech" contamination.

Meanwhile, famine continues, and will continue until its underlying
causes are remedied \... which is, of course, food production that
biotech could address. For the sake of generations to come---Africa
should embrace biotechnology.

This is a major issue that is arriving at the flash point. We cannot let
irrational public opposition in Europe prevent the rest of the world
from accessing this technology, particularly when their brand of biotech
seems to be all right.

Maybe you saw the story. The Euro, the new European dollar, it turns
out, is made with GM cotton.

If there is any doubt about our position on this issue, listen
carefully. We must hold firm in our position that biotechnology remains
one of our best tools and brightest hopes for addressing numerous global
concerns, including hunger, malnutrition, water scarcity and
environmental degradation.

To take any other direction or hold any other position is irresponsible
to the generation yet to arrive on this Mother Earth.

To foster global understanding of the role of agricultural science and
technology, Secretary Veneman will host a ministerial-level conference
next June in Sacramento\... focusing on the needs of developing
countries in adopting new technologies and accessing those technologies
through public-private partnerships. We expect Ministers from over 180
nations and organizations to attend.

Before I close I want to mention the Farm Bill.

FARM BILLIn the seven months since President Bush signed the bill, it
feels like we've put two years' worth of work into getting programs into
the hands of America's farmers. We committed early on to have the
program in place by October, to get payments flowing by October, and we
did it \-- thanks to a determined and tireless staff. We estimate USDA
could pump about \$13 billion in payments into the farm economy during
the last quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003. We wanted to
live up to the commitment to get that accomplished for farmers.

But it's not just about commodity programs. This legislation puts
forward a historical investment in conservation programs, as Chief
Knight mentioned. In short, this farm bill is a real opportunity---we
even have an energy title---but it's also highly complex and
comprehensive.

Meeting the deadline meant developing many regulations, massive training
programs, hundreds of outreach meetings with farmers nationwide, and a
new website with user-friendly tools. Now it's your turn to participate.
I urge you to get in there and sign up early for the program. The sooner
you contact your local officials and start the process, the better we
can help you receive timely benefits and avoid a spring rush.

So we've got a full plate at USDA...homeland
security....trade...research...farm bill implementation. We need your
help \... your counsel, advice, some patience, and most of all, your
resolve, to keep this country free and an economic model to the world.
When we come up short in meeting your expectations, because we do make
mistakes, tell us. But when you do, give us your ideas as well for
finding the solution.

It's a system I trust because I trust you.

American agriculture is the strongest and best agricultural system in
the world. Let's keep it that way.

Thank you.