Statement by

Dan Glickman
Secretary of Agriculture

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

June 18, 1997

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you with Ambassador Barshefsky to discuss agricultural trade issues.

American Global Competitiveness

First let me start by saying that by all measurable accounts, U.S. agricultural trade policy has put our food and agricultural sector on the road to success. Fiscal year 1996 was another record year for the value of U.S. agricultural exports. Exports climbed to $59.8 billion, and 1996 was the second consecutive year of record export growth. Sales of both bulk commodities (such as grains) and consumer-oriented products (foods and beverages) were up from the previous year. In the intermediate products category (semi-processed commodities, live animals and seeds), exports were off 4 percent from 1995's record level but were still at the second highest level on record.

The U.S. share of global agricultural trade also increased. Today we are the world's leading exporter of agricultural products, commanding a 23 percent share of world agricultural trade -- up from 17 percent a decade ago. Our agricultural trade surplus totaled $27 billion in 1996--the largest agricultural trade surplus in history--making the agricultural sector the largest positive contributor to the U.S. balance of trade.

To be sure, it is the agricultural community itself and not policy makers in Washington who deserve much of the credit for this success. While policy efforts have created the opportunity for America's farmers and ranchers to compete and win in world markets, it is the vibrancy and innovativeness of America's producers and processors, and the investments American agriculture has made in technology, research, and export promotion that have turned opportunity into real export success.

Of course, many policy challenges remain to be resolved. Today, the major trade issue before the Congress is whether to continue to grant China Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trading status. I'm sure this Committee is keenly aware of the importance of the China market for U.S. agriculture, particularly for bulk commodities like wheat, cotton, and soybeans. China is also a growing market for hides and skins and our second largest export market for poultry. As China's economy expands and economic reforms are put in place, prospects for future sales of U.S. agricultural products will continue to improve.

That is not to say our trading relationship with China is perfect. Despite our export successes, China continues to block U.S. exports of wheat from the Pacific Northwest, citrus from California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, plums and tobacco -- all on questionable scientific grounds. We are pressing to eliminate these barriers and bring China into the World Trade Organization (WTO). But I believe that we can make more progress by maintaining economic ties than by severing them. MFN revocation would jeopardize our efforts and hurt American farmers and ranchers.

Past Cooperation Leads to Today's Trade Success

Before turning to other trade issues, it is important to take stock of what we have accomplished through our bipartisan efforts to put American agriculture on a level playing field in the global arena.

Recent trade liberalization agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (the Uruguay Round Agreement) are landmark accomplishments that lay the groundwork for long-term growth in U.S. agricultural trade, driven by new and burgeoning consumer demand worldwide for food, fiber, and related exports.

Building upon the Canada-U.S. Free-Trade Agreement negotiated in the 1980's, NAFTA is eliminating all tariff and non-tariff barriers on agricultural products traded between the United States and Mexico. Despite some problems with our NAFTA trading partners, which I will discuss later, NAFTA has helped increase U.S. agricultural exports to both Canada and Mexico. With 1996 exports to Canada at $6.1 billion and sales to Mexico totaling $5.4 billion, these NAFTA partners rank second and third among all single-country destinations. Together, they represent the second largest regional market for U.S. agricultural goods. Overall, our agricultural trade surplus with our NAFTA trading partners increased in 1996, even though we are now running a slight deficit in trade with Canada, mainly due to the weakness of the Canadian dollar. Under NAFTA rules regarding sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), we have been successful in resolving several trade disputes on the basis of scientific principles. Most recently, Mexico agreed to allow the importation of U.S. citrus from Arizona and to establish procedures as soon as possible for Florida citrus to enter Mexico.

In the multilateral context, the Uruguay Round Agreement is a landmark agreement for liberalizing agricultural trade. Under the Uruguay Round Agreement, tariffs on agricultural goods are being reduced, non-tariff barriers are generally being replaced by more transparent tariff-rate quotas (TRQ) that ensure access opportunities, significant steps are being taken to bring discipline to the use of subsidies in agriculture, new rules are being established to discipline the use of SPS measures that might restrict trade, and dispute settlement procedures are being strengthened.

As a result of this agreement, American agricultural products are more competitive in more markets than ever before. Improved access for American agricultural products to the Korean market illustrates the Uruguay Round Agreement's benefits for American agriculture. Under the terms of the Uruguay Round Agreement, Korea eliminated its longstanding ban on orange imports and implemented a 15,000 metric ton TRQ that will increase through 2004, when the TRQ restrictions will be eliminated. Because of the competitiveness of the U.S. citrus industry, imports under the TRQ were sourced entirely from the United States in both 1995 and 1996, and totaled $5.3 million and $13.6 million, respectively. Over the long term, Korea is expected to become a major importer of U.S. oranges.

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is playing a major role in today's trade environment. The United States brought the first complaint under this agreement -- the European Union's (EU) ban on meat from hormone-treated animals. In May, the WTO panel issued its interim ruling. While the report is still confidential and subject to change, I can say if the decision stands as reported, it will be a major victory for the principles fought for in the SPS negotiations and for U.S. agriculture.

Responding to Trade Policy Challenges

Trade policy challenges remain, particularly in the form of non-tariff trade barriers. Over the past year we have effectively countered numerous attempts by our trading partners to restrict our agricultural exports under the guise of "bogus" plant, animal or human health concerns.

The market access game is changing. Trade negotiators who traditionally focused on export subsidies, tariffs, and quotas are shifting their attention to plant and animal health regulations and food safety standards. New threats emerge daily -- some in the form of a seemingly benign rule change -- that can stop U.S. agricultural exports.

Let me assure you that we have taken steps to ensure that we address these issues before they turn into major trade disputes.

For more than a year now, an interagency SPS Action Team has been meeting to coordinate U.S. policy and responses to trade-related SPS issues. The purpose of this task force is to bring to bear the full weight and resources of each USDA agency to determine if a specific SPS trade barrier is based on a legitimate health concern or merely a disguised restriction on trade.

USDA trade negotiators and technical experts meet regularly to identify new issues, review the status of outstanding issues, set priorities, and determine the most effective strategy for resolving problems. A Departmental database on all outstanding SPS trade-related issues exists and is being updated on a continuing basis.

The Department continues to champion the role of science in developing international plant and animal health regulations and international food standards. Earlier this month, the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) revised the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The IPPC promotes international standards on actions countries take to control plant pests while minimizing trade interference.

The USA CODEX Secretariat office has been relentless in assuring that CODEX standards are based on sound scientific principles, a key element in assuring that the principles embodied in the SPS agreement are not compromised by international food standards based on political rather than scientific foundations.

We have launched a second major initiative to improve our ability to address coming trade policy challenges with the establishment earlier this year of the Secretary's Trade Task Force, which is comprised of the heads of all agencies involved in agricultural trade policy, and other officials throughout the Department. The Trade Task Force is charged to respond to immediate trade policy issues, and to address actively issues with broad implications such as food security, biotechnology and trade, and USDA objectives for future WTO agricultural trade negotiations.

These new coordinating groups, in turn, enhance the abilities of USDA to address international agricultural issues in cooperation with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). We support USTR and are pleased with the commitment of Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky to be an advocate for American agriculture and look forward to working with Peter Scher when he is confirmed as the Special Trade Ambassador for Agriculture.

Promoting U.S. Agriculture through International Organizations

We also rely on membership and active participation in international agricultural organizations to promote our agricultural trade policy. The United States must be a strong leader in international organizations to represent and defend U.S. agricultural interests when multilateral decisions are taken.

Where the United States is a full and supportive member in the decision process, these organizations develop policies, standards and programs that support U.S. agricultural trade. A recent decision of the Codex Alimentarius Commission affirming the safety of growth hormones in beef production strengthened international recognition of U.S. arguments that the European Union has no valid scientific basis for restricting sales of U.S. beef.

The FAO and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) are particularly important organizations. In particular, FAO helps increase U.S. agriculture's competitiveness and profitability by harmonizing sanitary and phytosanitary standards through the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the IPPC, which I mentioned earlier. These organizations also facilitate agricultural trade by establishing internationally accepted grade and labeling guidelines for agricultural commodities; by collecting, analyzing and disseminating agricultural statistics and data; and by supplementing the WTO as a forum to resolve trade disputes.

Trade Policy Priorities

EU Veterinary Equivalency

Perhaps nowhere are we facing greater challenges on trade policy issues than in our dealings with the EU. In April, the United States and the EU reached an agreement on an overall framework for recognizing as equivalent each other's veterinary inspection systems. The agreement should preserve most pre-existing trade in products such as petfood, dairy and egg products, and potentially opens up new trade opportunities for beef and pork. Unfortunately, negotiators were unable to resolve all the poultry issues. We intend to continue to work to resolve the remaining outstanding issues, especially in the poultry sector.

Biotechnology and Trade

The EU has also proven to be difficult on the important issue of biotechnology. The United States views biotechnology as an important tool for fighting hunger and protecting the environment. Our government has addressed sensitive issues about these products in a forthright manner, and has had some success in reaching a consensus on the direction that our public policy should take. But that is not the case in the EU. Despite the EU approval of two biotech products (Roundup Ready Soybeans and BT-resistant corn), actions of various EU member states (e.g., Austria, France, Italy) are jeopardizing implementation of these approvals and thus U.S. exports of soybeans and corn. USDA will continue to work with the U.S. industry to ensure that EU governments use science in making decisions and to cope with concerns of EU consumers.

WTO Implementation

As we begin preparation for coming WTO agricultural trade negotiations (set to begin at the end of 1999) that will continue the reform process, we are faced with some unfinished business. Some issues will be resolved as the terms of the agreement are implemented. However, other areas will require further negotiation in the new talks. Since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations, our primary trade policy focus has been on ensuring compliance with the terms of the Uruguay Round agreements by our trading partners. We believe monitoring other countries' compliance with this and other agreements (NAFTA and numerous bilateral agreements) is vital if the United States is to realize the full benefits of these agreements.

Through the WTO Committees on Agriculture and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and through consultations and bilateral meetings, we have sought to ensure that all countries understand and implement their WTO obligations. While we have successfully resolved a number of issues, a number of outstanding disputes with regard to implementation remain in the areas of market access, subsidy commitments, and sanitary and phytosanitary issues.

Market access and subsidy commitments

For the most part, countries are living up to their commitments to eliminate non-tariff barriers, lower duties, open TRQs, and reduce subsidies. However, there are some instances where these commitments have not been kept. For example, Hungary is providing export subsidies and at higher levels on a substantially broader group of products (i.e., fruits, vegetables and dairy products ) than are included in its WTO schedule of commitments, and the Philippines has not provided the access it committed to for pork and poultry meat.

In these cases, the United States and other concerned countries first raised the issue as part of the monitoring process in the WTO Committee on Agriculture and followed up by informal consultations under the auspices of the Chairman of that Committee. Because Hungary refused to resolve our concerns about its use of excessive export subsidies, the United States and three other countries requested that a dispute settlement panel be formed to determine if commitments are being violated. We are hopeful that we will resolve this issue with Hungary. We have requested a formal dispute settlement consultation to resolve our concerns about the Philippines' pork and poultry commitments as well.

We are also concerned about signs the EU may try to carry over unused export subsidy authority from one year for use in future years and that they may exceed authorized export subsidy levels for cheese -- both violations of the spirit of the Uruguay Round Agreement.

We are also working to improve market access for U.S. rice in Japan. Japanese consumers prefer American rice, as demonstrated by the level of U.S. market share in private simultaneous buy and sell (SBS) tenders that bring U.S. exporters and Japanese users in direct contact. We are also strongly discouraging Japan from reexporting as food aid U.S. rice imported under Japan's access commitment.

Sanitary and phytosanitary issues

We have placed special emphasis on monitoring and aggressively challenging other countries' use of non-scientifically based SPS standards that unfairly restrict U.S. access to foreign markets. In addition, the United States is playing a leading role in the WTO Committee on SPS measures, which this year is chaired by an American.

We believe that some countries are using specious scientific claims to support SPS measures that unfairly restrict market access for U.S. agricultural products. While we have resolved a number of SPS issues successfully through the WTO, estimates of lost global trade due to SPS barriers range as high as nearly $5 billion annually.

We are concerned about Indonesia's proposed import requirements for fresh fruits and vegetables including apples, pears, grapes, and oranges. We believe that the new inspection procedures lack transparency, are overly burdensome and costly, and violate national treatment principles. We are also working to resolve U.S. concerns over Japan's restrictions on imports of U.S. apples and other fruits, for which Japan is requiring variety-by-variety testing for pests. We have requested formal dispute settlement consultations with Japan on this issue. On the positive side, after years of negotiation, in April Japan announced that it was opening its market to U.S. tomatoes. The potential value of the Japanese tomato market may be as high as $20 million. Taiwan also has removed its ban on imports of U.S. tomatoes.

WTO Accessions

In addition to focusing on WTO implementation, USDA is actively engaged with the more than 25 nations that are currently applying to the WTO for full membership in the world trading community. Trading partners such as China, Russia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Panama, and Ukraine must demonstrate that their trade regimes comply with WTO rules and improve market access for imported agricultural products. We are working to help these countries put into place the disciplines and access commitments commensurate with those made by the 129 WTO members. It is particularly important for us to examine the trading practices of the countries of the former Soviet Union and China to ensure that our agricultural producers are able to compete fairly in those markets and in third countries. As part of this exercise, USDA is focusing on the areas of market access, internal support, export subsidies and SPS measures.

In the case of China, our efforts begin on the basis of ensuring Chinese compliance with the terms of the 1992 Market Access Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on SPS issues. Since the signing of the MOU, we have made progress in several areas. Under this agreement, all of China's sanitary commitments have been met, including export protocols for live cattle, bovine semen, and bovine embryos. Furthermore, China has also signed sanitary protocols governing swine semen, rabbits, horses, ratite (emu and ostrich ) hatching eggs and improved access for ratite breeding stock. These are not part of the MOU agreement, but are the result of ongoing MOU negotiations.

On the phytosanitary side, some progress has been made. Export protocols have been signed for apple imports from the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and for sweet cherries from Washington. A research protocol for tobacco has also been signed. Just last month, we concluded a protocol that will open the Chinese market to U.S. grapes. The U.S. government continues to push China to fulfill the remaining commitments in the MOU that cover wheat from the Pacific Northwest; citrus from California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida; stone fruit (i.e., plums); and tobacco.

In the WTO accession negotiations, other agriculture-specific issues include liberalization of China's state trading regime for bulk commodities, tariff reductions, disciplines on subsidies, and Chinese adoption of WTO rules across its trade system.

State Trading

It is difficult to mention China without discussing the issue of state trading enterprises, although this issue is not exclusive to China. We are aggressively pursuing the issue of state trading in a number of fora--most notably, we have made state trading a top priority in the accession of the countries of the former Soviet Union and China to the WTO.

In the WTO we are also using the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises to review activities of state trading enterprises to determine if their practices are WTO-consistent and we are working on strengthening reporting requirements for those organizations so a clearer picture of their activities can be obtained. In the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), we have raised state trading practices in the context of the ongoing negotiations regarding agricultural export credits and credit guarantees. We have made it clear that any agreement on credit must take into account the special privileges available to state trading enterprises. We have also raised state trading in the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) discussions on subsidies and unfair export practices.

Additional Negotiation of Free Trade Agreements

President Clinton has repeatedly stated how important it is to have fast-track negotiating authority so that the United States can negotiate to expand access for U.S. products abroad. The President has indicated that he will seek legislative authority from Congress this fall. An early use of fast-track authority will likely be to negotiate a trade agreement with Chile.

Trade Representative Barshefsky is leading the Administration's effort to reach consensus with Congress and other groups on fast-track, and we at USDA are supportive of her efforts.

Regional Trading Arrangements: FTAA/APEC

Another major facet of trade policy we must address in coming years is the growing trend toward regional trading groups. The EU continues to grow; South American countries have formed several groupings, including MERCOSUR and the Andean Pact; and our NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico have already negotiated preferential agreements with Chile. In Asia the ASEAN group is taking measures to strengthen its members' ties with one another, and Australia and New Zealand are doing the same.

The United States is also participating in regional liberalization through the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the FTAA processes. In APEC, we are taking part in a number of activities to provide for greater cooperation and transparency on technical issues such as import requirements, plant and animal quarantine, biotechnology and agricultural finance. APEC has adopted the goal of attaining free trade in the Asia Pacific region by the year 2020 for developing countries and 2010 for developed countries. The FTAA process has the ultimate goal of free trade among its members in the Western Hemisphere, with negotiations to be completed by 2005. USDA objectives in the FTAA focus on encouraging the countries of the hemisphere to understand and implement their WTO obligations on SPS measures, and on identifying and developing strategies for reducing trade distorting export practices on agricultural trade in the hemisphere.

Future WTO Negotiations: Continuing the Reform Process

We recognize that even with full compliance with WTO rules by WTO members, global agricultural trade barriers and trade distorting export practices by competitors remain high relative to other industries. This inhibits U.S. agriculture from reaching its full export potential.

The Agreement on Agriculture includes a provision to begin negotiations on the continuation of the reform process by December 31, 1999, which is one year before the end of the implementation period. While this date is still more than two years away, we have begun preparing for these negotiations. As you can tell, much remains to be done in the categories I've already spoken about.

At the Singapore Ministerial meeting, we were successful in getting a mandate to begin this process as part of the ongoing work of the WTO Committee on Agriculture. Informal meetings will be called to allow discussion and presentation of papers on topics related to the continuation of the reform process. These informal discussions will be reported back periodically to the Committee.

The Secretary's Trade Task Force has been charged to begin developing strategies and positions for our participation in these discussions. While the group is just beginning its work, there are a few key issues we know we will be focusing on.

First and foremost, we need to look at existing agreements and pinpoint the problem areas in their implementation. The rules governing the administration of TRQs, refinements to measures concerning the operation of SPS measures, and disciplines on state trading enterprises are at the top of our list. We will continue to support the process of liberalization while addressing specific trade policy concerns, including Canada's continuing restrictions on imports of dairy, poultry and eggs, barley and margarine products.

And we will need to decide how to pursue further liberalization and disciplines in the areas negotiated in the Uruguay Round: market access, export subsidies, and domestic support. By 1999, the world will be a very different place than it was when we began the Uruguay Round negotiations in 1986. The significance of subsidies may have diminished as production policies become more market-oriented around the world. On the other hand, we know that market access restrictions will remain substantial for many of the products we export. We are exploring these issues to determine what they mean for future negotiations. We also will seek input from our private sector advisors and the general public.

1996 Act Implementation

Our work in the trade and export policy area will be heavily influenced by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act). In addition to the fundamental changes in domestic agricultural programs, the 1996 Act made important changes in a number of export promotion and assistance programs managed by USDA, and I would like to update the Committee on our efforts to implement those changes. The 1996 Act amended title I of P.L.-480, which finances concessional sales of U.S. agricultural commodities through long-term, low-interest loans to developing countries, to authorize agreements with private entities in addition to foreign governments. Following enactment of the 1996 Act in 1996, we held a public meeting with various private sector groups including private voluntary organizations and cooperators. A proposed rule authorizing private entity agreements was published on January 27, 1997. We are currently reviewing comments, and expect to publish a final rule in the Federal Register in the near future. We also are continuing to work with interested parties from the private sector to develop proposals to implement this unique authority.

The 1996 Act established a new P.L. 480 micro-nutrient fortification program. A number of initiatives are currently underway in USDA and USAID to assess and conduct research on micro-nutrient fortification for P.L.-480 commodities. For example, USAID has a pilot program underway to increase the level of vitamin C fortification of P.L.-480 blended food commodities. USDA has designed a new nutrient grain blend that is fortified with added vitamins and minerals to increase nutrient value. The research on this project is a joint effort among USDA, USAID, private voluntary organizations, and industry.

The 1996 Act authorized a new short-term supplier credit guarantee program. We have successfully implemented this provision and are making available supplier credit guarantees that are designed to help expand exports of processed and other high-value products. Under this program, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) guarantees a portion of the risk of default by an importer on short-term credits, up to 180 days, extended by a U.S. exporter. We have announced programs to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Jamaica, and the Southeast Asia region. We are continuing our outreach efforts to educate potential users of this program on how it works. The 1996 Act reauthorized and amended the Facilities Guarantee Program. Under this authority the CCC can issue credit guarantees to establish or improve processing, handling, storage and other facilities overseas in order to increase the capacity of emerging markets to import U.S. agricultural products. We have spent considerable time developing proposed regulations for this program. This is the first time our staff will be involved in a program dealing with facilities. We hope these regulations will be published shortly in the Federal Register as an interim rule. This will allow us to gain some practical experience with this new tool before we promulgate final regulations.

The 1996 Act allows the use of export credit guarantees in conjunction with exports of high-value products with at least 90 percent U.S. content (by weight). The Act also provides that a minimum amount of export credit guarantees be available for processed and high-value products. A final rule implementing the domestic content provision was published through a notice in the Federal Register on May 6, 1997. We have also announced nearly $2.2 billion in export credit guarantees in support of a basket of commodities, including processed and high-value exports, to 28 countries or regions.

The 1996 Act directs USDA to continue the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) at the maximum volume and funding levels consistent with Uruguay Round limitations. While we do not project reaching either the quantity or budgetary ceilings allowed under our Uruguay Round commitments for the current year, we are using this authority aggressively and activity under the program has been growing. We believe the current level of activity under DEIP is appropriate for moving available dairy products to the international market without causing undue disruption to our domestic markets, while at the same time helping to position the U.S. dairy industry to sell to global markets.

We have provided advice and assistance to the U.S. dairy industry, as provided by the Act, to enable the industry to establish and maintain one or more export trading companies to develop international markets and to export U.S. dairy products.

The 1996 Act requires CCC to make available not less than $1 billion of direct credit or credit guarantees to emerging markets during FY 1996-2002. The President's FY 1998 budget assumes that the guarantees will be made available in annual installments of $200 million beginning in FY 1998 and continuing in future years.

Edward Madigan U.S. Agricultural Export Excellence Award. The 1996 Act establishes a U.S. agricultural export excellence award to recognize entrepreneurial efforts in the food and agricultural sector to advance U.S. agricultural exports. We alerted the public to the Madigan Award through the Federal Register. Our next step is to establish a Board of Reviewers, which will be announced in the Federal Register, followed by a public request for nominees.

The 1996 Act retargeted the Emerging Democracies Program to emerging markets. USDA has implemented this proposal by developing a definition of emerging markets, one that goes beyond the former Soviet Union, providing program guidance to potential participants, and adopting an application procedure for funding under the emerging markets program. We also are designating a significant portion of this program to be used by the private sector.

Conclusion

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, much work lies ahead, but we are optimistic about the future for U.S. agricultural exports and we believe U.S. agriculture is up to the challenge. We look forward to working with our partners throughout U.S. agriculture to meet this challenge.

I have described exports as an important part of the safety net for America's farmers and ranchers--and in a very real sense this is true. The enactment of the 1996 Act makes clear that growth in U.S. farm income is primarily dependent on an increase in market returns. Given the modest annual growth projected in domestic demand for U.S. agricultural production, the export market remains the only real source of potentially significant increases in U.S. farm income. With 30 percent of U.S. farm cash receipts already coming from export markets, agriculture is already the most export-dependent sector of the U.S. economy. And that share is rising. Because we are blessed with the ability to produce far more food than we can consume, we must ensure that foreign markets are open to our goods .

In the face of unprecedented opportunities and challenges, continuing collaboration between the Administration and Congress toward a bold, comprehensive export strategy will ensure America's leadership in the global food and agricultural markets of the future. I look forward to continuing our bipartisan efforts to help American agriculture make the most out of the trade opportunities both now and in the future.

Charts prepared by USDA to accompany Secretary Dan Glickman's testimony.