119 



Such proposals are not only contrary to past assurances, but grossly unfair - since 

 agriculture accounts for less than 5% of the estimated $10-14 billion in revenue 

 losses due to tariff reductions required under the agreement. 



More importantly, however, is the fact that our foreign competitors would not be 

 required to make similar reductions in their programs. The effect of such unilateral 

 reductions, therefore, would be to place U.S. agriculture at a substantial 

 competitive disadvantage, and to make it difficult to capitalize on any of the market 

 opportunities afforded by the Uruguay Round agreement. 



For this reason, we have joined with a broad-based coalition of food and 

 agriculture interests, as highlighted in the attached letter to Secretary Espy, in 

 expressing concern over such proposals. We know that many of you have 

 expressed similar concerns, and we appreciate your continued leadership and 

 support on this important issue. 



As a member of the coalition, we have also urged the following actions. First, that 

 funding be maintained for both domestic and international programs as allowed 

 under GATT, and that such programs continue to be aggressively implemented. 



Second, that any funds for programs subject to reduction under GATT (such as 

 those used for EEP, DEIP, COAP and SOAP) be redirected and utilized as allowed 

 under GATT for such "green box" programs as market development and 

 promotion, export credit and food assistance, including P.L. 480 and TEFAP (The 

 Emergency Food Assistance Program). 



In this regard, we understand that Representatives Jill Long, Jack Kingston, Bill 

 Emerson and Earl Pomeroy have indicated they plan to introduce related 

 legislation, reflecting these recommendations. Accordingly, we would like to take 

 this opportunity to strongly endorse such legislation and to urge that it be included 

 as part of the Uruguay Round implementing legislation. 



Such legislation would help ensure U.S. policies and programs are equally 

 competitive with those of other countries, help capitalize on potential new market 

 opportunities as a result of the Uruguay Round agreement, minimize potential 

 outlays under other farm programs, and promote economic growth, jobs and an 

 expanding tax base. Further, it would not require any new outlays since it involves 

 only the use of existing funds. 



