Senator Pat Roberts spoke to members of the Farm Journal Forum
at the Capitol Hilton Hotel, Washington, DC on Dec. 3, 2002
.
Trade

I am pleased that the administration has sought to pursue an aggressive schedule of free trade negotiations.
We are close to completing agreements with Chile and Singapore. We are pursuing a Free Trade Area of the Americas, and agreements with Australia and Morocco.
Ambassador Zoellick submitted an aggressive agricultural trade reform position to the WTO earlier this year. Recently Ambassador Zoellick announced that the U.S. would seek to eliminate all tariffs on consumer and industrial goods by 2015.
We are now poised to deliver the aggressive trade policy to the American farmer and rancher - a promise we made more than a few years ago.
The issue of biotechnology will remain a significant issue in regards to trade and food aid - as other trade barriers fall our competitors may be more inclined to use barriers against genetically-enhanced crops to protect their markets. We must work to ensure that any question regarding new biotechnology is answered using sound-science.

Cuba

Related to trade and specifically agricultural trade, is the topic of sanctions reform.
While we achieved a victory during the fall of 2000 with the Trade Sanctions Reform Act (TSRA), we've got a ways to go until a common-sense approach prevails with respect to food and medicine and our unilateral sanctions.
I am specifically referring to Cuba, where great opportunity exists to help secure a post-Castro Cuba and prevent a whole-sale takeover by the drug-cartels and other groups wearing black-hats that would threaten stability in the Caribbean.
Our current policy has met with little success for over four decades.
In an odd-numbered year we now have the opportunity to look past the emotions of a small group of voters and address the wider concerns of stability and democracy in our own backyard.

Farm Bill

One thing that should have been learned during the past year about agricultural policy, is that it is much easier to have an issue than it is to pass a bill. o This was first apparent during the prolonged debate on the Farm Bill and now even more so in regards to disaster assistance.
It is easy to bring up a $6 billion dollar disaster package that is dead on arrival and then proceed to harp against the other side as being opposed to disaster aid. That strategy, of being unwilling to compromise on any realistic disaster assistance by a few in the Senate, I'm afraid, may have caused the death-knell for any assistance for farmers and ranchers to cope with this year's drought.
In year's past we have had market loss assistance arriving in farmer's mailboxes during September, this year, during the height of a terrible drought, we had only 6 cents in additional direct payments for wheat, and no counter-cyclical payment because prices had risen above the target price.
There were also few loan deficiency payments made because either the price was above loan or the producer had no crop or both.
Try explaining to those not familiar with farm-country about the difficulties with the new Farm Bill, the drought, and why there is need for disaster assistance. They will quickly remind you about the $180 billion price tag of the new Farm Bill and put their hands over their ears.

Agriculture Committee

No one is surprised that we will see a change on the Senate Agriculture Committee. This was assured even prior to the November elections. The once chair, then ranking member, the senior member from our side of the aisle, Senator Lugar, was headed to the Foreign Relations Committee, where he will now be chairman.
However, many were surprised by the departure of Chairman Combest from the House Ag Committee.
Although we are now assured of two new Chairman, with Senator Cochran from Mississippi in the Senate and likely Rep. Goodlatte from Virginia in the House, I anticipate little change to the new Farm Bill.

Food Security

The long term viability of our food supply relies upon our ability to protect it from both unintentional and intentional threats.
We know have a Department of Homeland Security to deal with the laundry list of threats to our nation.
Among those items on that laundry list are the threats against our food supply. We know that several of the 9-11 hijackers had agricultural training. We've visited the secret cities in the former Soviet Union with their stockpiles of agents developed against North American agriculture.
Last fall we were successful in providing $415 million in funds to enhance our research capacity through grants to our land-grant colleges and universities, in addition to bulking up our security at our research labs in Ames, IA and at Plum Island, NY. We also improved coordination with our intelligence community in regards to food security.
However, we must strive forward and continue to stay ahead of the game. We know our enemy is resourceful, we know that our enemy does not discriminate between civilian and military targets, and we know that our enemy has the desire to strike out against our economy as much as he desires to instill fear in our citizens.
As President Bush and the new Director of Homeland Security, Governor Ridge, work to implement and pull together the new department from its various component agencies, agriculture must continue to be an integral part of our national security.