121 



Russian agriculture and the concern that the Russians have about 

 being taken over by the West. 



And we beheve that there is a way to work shoulder to shoulder 

 with the Russians, which we have done. With the monetization pro- 

 gram specifically, which we have suggested, the costs associated 

 with shipping and distribution of the immediate distribution from 

 the port of the product is covered under the existing program. 



However, since — and this is speaking from personal experience in 

 the first monetization program in Jamaica — there are many prob- 

 lems that surface after the product has arrived in a country. And 

 right now there are no dollars to cover the cost of handling that 

 commodity and making sure that that commodity does not end up 

 in an alternate market. So we need financial resources so that the 

 U.S. Government's name and also the Land O'Lakes' name is not 

 tarnished once the product gets out of the St. Petersburg port. 



The second issue, and it is not really a Land O'Lakes' issue but 

 it is an issue that we believe is fundamental to the survivability 

 of private farming in Russia, and that is, right now and for the 

 past 4 years, the grain shipments that have been going in osten- 

 sibly for the feed industry are still going to the state enterprises, 

 the agrienterprises, the state farms. And when you have a private 

 farmer who is out there struggling to make a farming operation, 

 a family farm, much along the same lines that we have in the Mid- 

 west, a survivable entity, what happens is that private farmer has 

 absolutely no access to input, no access to feeds, no access to fer- 

 tilizers, no access to seeds. 



So if we were going to make a recommendation, future monetiza- 

 tion or future commodity export programs should be geared toward 

 a 25-percent earmark that would have to go to the private farming 

 movement within Russia. Right now that is not happening. I know 

 that the Russian Government says it is, bpt it simply is not hap- 

 pening. 



Mr. Penny. Mr. Allard. 



Mr. Allard. I am wondering if each of you would comment a lit- 

 tle bit on what you think the future for agricultural markets for 

 the United States and Russia might be. Is it in the sales of bulk 

 commodities or is it in the sales of value-added products or is it in 

 the technical services on production and processing of agricultural 

 produce? And maybe each one of you could make some statement 

 on that rather broad question. 



Ms. Cashman. I would like to comment that I think it is all of 

 the above. It is not an either/or situation. And, quite frankly, if we 

 are going to be commercial partners with Russia, we have to do all 

 of the above. 



However, I do think, and again this is speaking from experience 

 not only in Russia but in many other markets around the world, 

 the United States is shooting itself in the foot by shipping bulk 

 commodities. Because what happens is, when that commodity ar- 

 rives in a country and it is distributed, it loses the source identi- 

 fication of coming from the United States. 



In fact, to be specific regarding dairy products, it generally is at- 

 tributed to an EEC commitment, commodity commitment, or a new 

 sea-land commodity commitment, and very seldom does the United 

 States get credit for shipping bulk commodities. The source identi- 



