122 



June 10, 1994 



The Honorable Mike Espy 

 U S Department of Agriculture 

 Room 200-A Administration Building 

 14th and Independence Avenue, SW 

 Washington, D C 20250 



Dear Mr Secretary 



We, the undersigned organizations, continue to be extremely concerned over reports 

 the Administration may propose substantial additional agriculture-related spending cuts 

 as part of the Uruguay Round implementing legislation to help offset potential revenue 

 losses resulting from tariff reductions 



As we outlined in our earlier letter to the President, such a proposal would be 

 completely contrary to past assurances that the Uruguay Round agreement would not 

 require further reductions in agriculture programs. It would also be grossly unfair, since 

 U S agriculture accounts for less than 5 percent of the estimated 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 agriculture-related programs The effect of 

 such unilateral reductions, therefore, would be to place US agriculture at a substantial 

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

 opportunities afforded by the Uruguay Round agreement. 



Clearly, as history has shown, our foreign competitors will continue to utilize every 

 available weapon to maintain and increase their share of the world market If U S 

 agriculture is going to remain viable and competitive, it must have a similar commitment 

 on the part of the US government 



For these reasons, we believe the following actions are needed First, funding 

 should be maintained for both domestic and international programs as allowed under 

 GATT and they should continue to be aggressively implemented Second, any funds 

 subject to reduction under GATT (such as those used for direct export subsidies) should 

 be redirected and utilized as allowed under GATT for such programs as market 

 development and promotion, export credit, food assistance and other so-called "green box" 

 programs which are considered non-trade distorting 



