SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DAN GLICKMAN WORLD AGRICULTURAL CONGRESS                                        
 						Release No. 0229.99 

Remarks
          As Prepared for Delivery
                               Of
                                
             SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DAN GLICKMAN
                  WORLD AGRICULTURAL CONGRESS
              ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI -- MAY 24, 1999

     "Thank you very much, Senator Danforth, for that kind introduction. 
Your role in the World Agricultural Forum is proof that there is life after
public service.  But back in Washington, we do miss the leadership and
intellect you brought to the United States Senate for nearly two decades. 

     "It's good to be in the hometown of my friend Dick Gephardt, and I'm
sorry that he's not here in person today.  Many of you probably don't know
this, but the Minority Leader and I were elected to Congress in the same year,
1976, along with the Vice President of the United States.  Now on that very
first day when you're sworn in, they line you up alphabetically.  So there we
were   Gephardt, Glickman, and Gore.  And I remember looking to my left and
looking to my right and thinking: "The G's are going places."  Well, two out
of three ain't bad.  And, of course, the Minority Leader has accomplished
something that Vice President Gore and I can't even hope to match.  Dick
Gephardt, I think, has every hair on his head that he had on that day we were
sworn in more than 22 years ago.  Truly remarkable.  

     "It's a great honor to be here at the inaugural World Agricultural
Congress.  This kind of gathering of luminaries from industry, government,
academia and NGOs from around the world is exactly what we need as we prepare
to tackle the agricultural challenges of the new millennium.  

     "It wasn't so long ago that we could talk about the new millennium as
something far off on the horizon...something we have plenty of time to plan
for.  The truth is, it starts in less than 250 days.  So I hope that this
forum can be an opportunity to talk and think not just about the long-
term...but about the immediate crisis facing American agriculture.
I hear from farmers every day who don't have the luxury of thinking about the
long-term.  Day in and day out, they're coping every day with the devastating
effects of sluggish prices, nasty weather, record worldwide production and a
global financial crisis.  Their very way of life is being threatened by
conditions largely beyond their control.  They're worried about the
possibility that they won't even have a long-term...at least not one in
agriculture. 
                                
     "I wish I could say that we're about to turn the corner.  But the price
forecasts we recently issued at the Agriculture Department don't give us much
hope for a strong rebound in the next year.  Although we're somewhat
optimistic about beef prices, generally speaking we're forecasting high stocks
and low prices in the short-term for wheat, corn and soybeans. 

     "While the long term looks far more encouraging, I'm reminded of what
John Maynard Keynes said when asked about the difference between the short and
long term: "In the long term, we are all dead."

     "We in the federal government are doing everything we can to provide
some relief.  But since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, we simply don't
have the authorities we once did to intervene in the market on farmers'
behalf.  The '96 Bill had some very good provisions.  But it was written for a
bullish farm economy, with the underlying assumption that the good times would
last forever.  It offered little protection for when the going got tough.  

     "Emergency spending bills, like the one just passed by Congress last
week, can help fill some of the gaps.  But that's more crisis management than
public policy.  While we should not revert back to the days when the
government told farmers what, when and how to plant, I believe that Congress
and the Administration will be reviewing a variety of options for
strengthening and preserving the profitability of family farm agriculture.

     "But we also have to look at the big picture, and big-picture challenges
in agriculture are considerable.  Some of us could live long enough to see
this world grow to be 10 or 12 billion people strong.  And, of course, the
growth is not happening in the mature economies but in the developing world,
the poorest regions that have traditionally had the greatest food security
problems.  How are we going to feed and clothe the world in the 21st century,
despite a dwindling natural resource base?  

     "One thing we are doing is reevaluating long-held positions on trade
sanctions.  A few weeks ago, we announced that, from now on, agricultural
goods and medical equipment will be exempted from future unilateral trade
sanctions.  Our new policy will also allow U.S. exports of food and medicine
to the embargoed states of Iran, Libya and the Sudan, pending individual case-
by case reviews.     

     "This new policy is guided by the belief that sanctions should punish
governments, not people.  Depriving the Iranian people of the opportunity to
buy and eat American wheat does not advance our foreign policy goals.  It just
contributes to the deprivation of innocent people abroad, and it shuts off
potentially lucrative markets for American farmers.  Food is different.  It is
a human essential, and we should therefore be moving it around the world with
as few restrictions as possible.  While in the Congress, I fought hard to
remove trade restrictions and embargos for agricultural commodities.  
Insuring that the U.S. is a reliable supplier is a high priority for this
administration.

     "That same principle is guiding our aggressive food aid program.  While
people around the world are starving, here we sit with an agricultural
abundance, much more food than we can possibly consume ourselves...more, in
fact, than our farmers can sell to overseas customers through traditional
means.  So our government steps in as the purchasing agent and helps arrange
for the transportation and distribution of food to needy people around the
globe.
                                
     "Just last week, we announced that the United States will be providing
14,000 tons of food per month to Kosovo refugees -- both those in camps and
those staying with host families in Albania and Macedonia.  That's enough to
feed three quarters of a million people a month.  The first shipments should
be going out in the next few weeks.  And on top of that, we have plans to
offer 160,000 additional tons of food and animal feed to countries in the
region who are experiencing economic hardship because of the ongoing conflict. 

     "We are prepared to increase our donations if necessary.  We are taking
steps to stockpile another month's supply of extra food in the region, in the
event that it's needed.  When it's all said and done, U.S. food donations to
the Kosovars through the end of the year are likely to reach 250,000 tons,
with a total value of about $100 million.

     "And Kosovo is just one part of our food aid efforts.  Also last week,
we announced a shipment of 400,000 tons of food to provide relief to famine
victims in North Korea.  Earlier this year, we reached an unprecedented food
aid agreement with Russia that includes donations and long-term credit sales
adding up to 3.2 million tons of grains, meats, oilseeds and other
commodities.

     "All told, in 1999 the United States will provide more than 10 million
tons of food aid to needy people around the world.  That's almost triple the
amount we sent last year.

     "Food aid is as pragmatic as it is humanitarian.  It is a moral
imperative; it encourages the growth of free and democratic societies.  But it
also helps build human capital around the world.  Well-nourished people are
the first step toward a skilled labor pool and a functioning economy that will
be a viable commercial partner for the United States.  The people we feed
today will, tomorrow, be able to buy American goods and services in every
other sector.  And, of course, there is the added benefit that food aid
generates income for our struggling farmers.

                     **********************

     "Food aid and sanctions reform are a few of the tools we have to move
food into certain world markets.  But they are small steps toward a much more
ambitious goal   the construction of an entire rules-based world trading
system, based on open competition and market principles, where food and fiber
are passed freely across oceans and continents
                                
     "Of course, like most grand ambitions, this one faces considerable
opposition.  There are many powerful voices around the world who see
agricultural trade not as a win-win situation, but as a zero-sum game   the
exporter wins and the importer loses.  Many nations protect their domestic
producers with artificial supports and block access to their market with
tariff and non-tariff barriers.  

     "It is these obstacles that we will confront later this year in Seattle
at the next round of WTO negotiations.  The United States has a bold
agricultural agenda for Seattle.  We want to eliminate export subsidies, which
make for unfair trading practices and depress world commodity prices for all
producers.  We must restrict State Trading Enterprises, which continue to
block our path to an open, transparent trading system.  We must further reduce
tariffs, which 

average 50 percent on agricultural goods around the world.  We need to expand
markets by raising the ceilings on tariff-rate quotas, even as we try to phase
them out over the long run.  And we must ensure the continued effectiveness of
the rules governing sanitary and phytosanitary measures, so that science
prevails and nations cannot mask protectionism behind unvalidated, secretive
studies. 

     "Easier said than done, of course.  It's a good thing we're going to be
in Seattle, where the coffee is good and strong, because I think we have a lot
of late-night negotiating sessions to look forward to.

     "The truth is that, for any single country, arriving at consensus on any
single point is challenge enough.  But the WTO, like all multilateral
entities, must reconcile a noisy throng of national interests, political
agendas, economic models and cultural traditions...and somehow harmonize them
under a uniform set of rules.  If we're going to open global agricultural
markets and feed the world in the 21st century, we're all going to have to
temper some of our national impulses for the greater, long-term global good.

     "I'm not so naive as to think that this is going to be easy...that the
whole world has bought into the free trade agenda.  Whether their objection is
economic, or political, or health-related, many people around the world  
including some folks in the U.S.   have not accepted the principles of a more
globalized economy.  

     "I saw a variation on this dynamic at the World Meat Congress in Dublin
last week, where the beef hormone issue, as you might expect, was at the top
of the agenda.  This dispute is really a lesson in just how difficult it can
be to get everyone to live under the same international trade rules.  The U.S.
and the European Union are the closest allies imaginable.  But not even a long
history of partnership and common values have kept us from letting this market
access dispute escalate to the brink of a trade war.  

     "We in the United States believe that both the WTO rule of law and the
science are on our side in this case.  And we are pressing forward in our
pursuit of retaliatory tariffs, as is our right under WTO rules.  But I also
think it's worth stepping back for a minute and trying to understand some of
the cultural differences that are at the heart of this dispute.  Because it's
those cultural differences   in fact much greater ones than exist between the
U.S. and Europe   that we'll all have to overcome to make a rules-based global
trading system work.-more-
                         
     "Let's remember that the BSE scare in Europe was far worse than any
foodborne illness outbreak we've had in the United States, and it has
understandably heightened consumer anxiety in the EU.  We should remember that
Americans are more willing to see science as a force for progress...while
Europeans, generally speaking, may be more cautious, more concerned perhaps
about even the theoretical possibility of risk.  

     "We're not backing down from our insistence that the ban be lifted.  But
I think that if we all tone down the rhetoric a bit and try to understand each
other a little better, we may move closer to an ultimate resolution of this
dispute. 
     
"Of course, the coming battle over biotechnology and genetically modified
organisms may just  make beef hormones look like the minor leagues.  
                                
     "There is no doubt that biotechnology will be an indispensable tool as
we try to serve global agricultural demand in a sustainable manner.  With more
and more people to feed...more and more fiber to produce...and a limited
amount of arable land to put into production...we need biotechnology.

     "I remember visiting the wheat research center in Mexico where some of
the research was done on the wheat gene Norin 10, which helped developing
countries like India and Pakistan increase their wheat harvests by 60 percent. 
At the center, there is an inscription on the wall that simply reads: "A
single gene has saved 100 million lives." 

     "That's a powerful statement.  I don't think there's a hospital in the
world that can say the same.

     "Nevertheless, we can't be afraid to ask some of the difficult questions
about biotech.  We shouldn't rush to embrace every new biotech innovation just
because it's new.  We have to have rigorous testing and strong regulations. 
And we have to make sure that those involved in determining the safety of
genetically-engineered products are staying at arm's length from the people
who stand to profit from them.  

     "Let's be enthusiastic about the potential of biotechnology.  But let's
also understand and acknowledge all of the ethical, safety and ecological
implications.  We just learned last week of scientific evidence from a
laboratory that some varieties of Bt corn may be lethal to the monarch
butterfly.  Further research is needed.  We have to recognize that the
application of biotechnology will have some unintended consequences, which
will, in turn, trigger opposition 
from different constituencies.  I would point out one of the motivating
principles of using biotech in agriculture is to reduce the excessive use of
pesticides which themselves may be harmful.   

     "We have to be aware of -- and responsive to --  the biotech skepticism
that's out there, especially as it relates to food safety.  We can't forcefeed
GMOs to reluctant consumers.  We can't lecture or shout down those who
disagree with us.  Instead, let's bring them along.  Let's help them
understand the benefits.  Let's explain to them that our approval process is
comprehensive and transparent.  Let's reassure them that biotech products must
pass through many checkpoints on the road from petri dish to store shelf. 
Let's convince them that the science is fair and objective and that all
participants in the food process   producers, consumers, marketers, retailers,
the academic community and others   are actively participating in the debate.
                                
     "My confidence in biotech -- or industry's confidence in biotech -- is
ultimately irrelevant, if the consumers are not buying.  Only when consumers
have confidence -- and only when they express that confidence at the grocery-
store checkout line -- will we be able to see the return on the enormous
public and private investments we've made in biotechnology. Only then can the
consumers around the world make informed choices about the food they eat,
relying on information that is objective and science based.  Only then can the
forces of irrational fear of science and fear of the future and fear of change
be directly met head on. 
     
     "Innovations may be born in the laboratory, but they find success in the
marketplace.  It's not enough to celebrate science for science's sake. 
Technological progress must always be accompanied by public information and
consumer education efforts that address concerns and 

allay fears.  Scientists should always remember that there's another kind of
research -- market research - without which all the patents and all the
ingenuity in the world add up to very little.  When it's all said and done,
the public opinion poll is just as powerful a research tool as the test tube.

                       ******************

     "I want to close with a story about a boy -- a very curious and
inquisitive young boy -- who had the opportunity to visit a submarine and was
just fascinated at its ability to stay underwater for so long.  So he asked
the captain: "What happens when submarines run out of fuel?"  And the captain
explained that they run on nuclear energy and can stay underwater for a decade
or so.  "Well," the boy asked, "what happens when they run out of drinking
water?"  And the captain explained all the different distillation methods they
had to make sea water potable.  The boy persisted: "Well, what happens when
they run out of air?"  And the captain told him about their oxygen tanks and
so forth.

     "Finally, the boy asked: "So when do submarines come up?"  "That's
easy," the captain said, "when we run out of food."

     "All the technology in the world can't replace food, the most
fundamental of human needs.  It's great to have fiber optic networks and high-
definition televisions.  But no one can create or use  state-of-the-art
innovations unless they eat their breakfast.  It's as simple as that.

     "Food is unique.  Its distribution around the world should be a matter
of the utmost urgency.  The rules governing its purchase and sale are not
identical to those that apply to other goods and services.  

     "Our challenge is to ensure that everyone around the world has access to
food...and that the men and women who produce it are able to turn a profit and
make a living.

     "That won't be easy.  It will require an extraordinary level of
compromise and cooperation from vastly different nations and peoples.  It will
require that we push the frontiers of science, even as we understand the costs
-- as well as the benefits -- of doing so.  It will mean serving a global
demand for new products that we hadn't even heard of 15 years ago.  It will
mean being responsive to consumer consciousness about diet and nutrition that
is more acute than ever.

     "Meeting these challenges is going to take the collective expertise of
everyone in this room, everyone tuning in from around the world, and then
some.  But it can be done, and it must be done.  And I look forward to doing
it with you.

     "Thank you very much."

                             # # #