I had the privilege of speaking to this forum a d 1 2 3 4 years ago something of that nature and enjoyed it very much and I must say usually this the time of the year in my home state of Nebraska. We got a little some more snow right now than you do. So is a bit nice to get out of there while I had a chance this morning to listen to the presentation is that were made here and also to doctor up for an early the earlier this afternoon, I think I'd like to change my own presentation some to adjust somewhat the one has it been said before and try to pull it all together. If I may at least insofar as foreign policies concerning and especially the international side of it. This is an emotional issue. Is it one can tell this morning from the demonstrations that we had out here and incidentally, I must say to our media friends. I wish they would someday concentrated as much time on the 99% of the people who don't demonstrate as they do in the 1% of the people to do.But I guess that's too much to expect in the world in which we live. They have to do their jobs too. And I guess so that calls for concentrating on some of those people. But anyway, I don't think I could contribute much to the solution to problem is very easy to be a Critic and is very easy to Batu to be concerned and I am very appropriate to be concerned but they're the real challenge comes to do the talking about Solutions and I am very sympathetic with a financial plight that farmers are in in this country is Rex indicated. I spent most of my life and farming and Nebraska many of the people are involved in the average American agriculture movement are good friends of mine. One of the strongest two states in that movement today as most of you know is Nebraska and the family that happens to be the leader that moving in Nebraska is a family that I've known and worked with for 30 years I suppose so I can very much understand what they've done I can alsoAppreciate the contribution that they made by calling the general Public's attention to the financial plight of farmers. That's all very positive. And so far. They so-called Firearms strike is really had very little violence involved in and to the extent that it'll continue to avoid having a violent the input to an input of violence. I think the do the response to the general public is going to be positive to the kind of problem that exists but calling the Public's attention to the problem is only one element of it and the only one rather insignificant element really when one is dealing with one's pocket books because we don't solve that problem just by by media attention to the issue you solve it by doing something. Where are they going to propose solutions to this problem, been enunciated here today?I like to a photo of formats with you. If I may by first of all dealing with some of the solutions that have been proposed that I don't happen to think are good solutions that I am to think or infeasible are impractical for some reason and really have to be discarded. And then I like the and I like it's and it's incumbent upon anybody was going to do that to do something other than just be negative about what somebody else is suggesting and come along with some things that I think are positive and can help and some things that can help immediately which of course is the real need for a good many farmers and then some things that can help help a little bit further down the road and keep up that kind of momentum. Okay, first of all that talk about a few of the things that aren't going to work and I don't want to spend a lot of time on the one hundred percent of parody objective which as you know is what is being sought by the American agriculture moving because some people have talked about that already today and John Holliman this morning said, he did not believe there was any chance whatsoever the Congress would pass that kind.Legislation and he's absolutely right. There is no chance that Congress is going to pass legislation authorizing 100% of parity furthermore and a lot more important as far as we are concerned. That would be the worst thing that could possibly happen to American agriculture. The worst thing that could possibly happen to the very Farmers that are asking that we get a hundred percent of parity guaranteed by governmental legislation, you know, I can understandthe farmers who are grasping for something in this problem situation that we do have some Farmers that are on the edge of going under and when you're about to be about to have your creditors pull the string and about to go into bankruptcy your grass for anything that you can reach just like a drowning man and I suppose if you're desperate enough is a farmer you're prepared to sell your soul to the government and some apparently are because that's really what they want or one hundred percent of parity objective is if you want to go down that route be prepared to give away your soul because just going to go now there's some people in the American agriculture movement and grab some out of the American agriculture movement who seem to feel that we could legislate 100% of parody in this country and not have any governmental in friends with her involvement in our business and I was simply say to them that's wishful thinking there is no way that an urban dominated Congress is going to do that if we wereAt 100% of Legends parody legislation passed by the US Congress in 1978. You would see that legislation accompanied by the most stringent governmental controls and involvement in US agriculture that we've seen in the 200-year history of this nation without the shadow of a doubt that is what would happen. And I really don't think they're very many either in the American agriculture movement or out who want to go down that road. But that's the roads are going to travel if the Congress were to do that fortunately to do that. Anyway as it evidence by some of the things that mr. Holliman said this morning, so that's not the answer ladies and gentlemen, and it's not one that's going to happen because it's an unrealistic proposal gentleman representing the Australian meat board was in the United States just a week or so ago and his suggestion was simply raise the loan rates in this particular case. He was talking about theOf course, he said of you Americans would just wise up and raise your loan rates on week. Then we would come along right behind you and Rahzar selling prices on week 2 and we all be a lot better off. Everybody would sell it for more money. Well, that's a very seductive proposition than one looks at it superficially but I can guarantee you the one of the things that farmers out to look at when these proposed Solutions. Come on come along as this one does people have their own sometimes have their own axe to grind and I mean that may not necessarily be your ex. And the only reason the Australian wakeboard wants the United States to raise him on his loan rate is because then they could put their selling price just to nickel a bushel or ten cents a bushel Below Us sell all of their grain out from under is Levi said the residual supplier and they'll get a much higher price for that week than they do now, they won't have to compete with us and it'll be a beautiful situation for Australia. Not a very good situation.Mission for us. I can't blame him for annunciating that position but we have to be intelligent enough not to buy it and one Midwestern Governor fired a letter into present card at the other day embracing this the concept without thinking through what he was really going to be doing to his own weight Farmers. That's not the answer either. Dancer of the labor unions is join with us and let's go protectionist, you know the way to solve this problem with the keep those Imports out and let's shut off but beef Imports Dairy Imports palm oil imports any other kind of enforce we can think of and that'll help because you won't have to compete with those here in the United States. Well, that's a nice superficially a peeling solution to but one must have one more stop and recognize those labor union people that were advocating that position by Farmers also have their own axe to grind. Why do they want to grind the acts of the protectionist route while it's not too hard to figure out with very many of our Union is having reach weight scales and industries where they now have wage rates out running productivity and they find themselves in the unenviable position where they can't compete very effectively when some of the producers in other countries and when you can't compete effectively, the only thing you can really do is try to keep that to production from coming into the crossing the border and coming in and compete. With you, so if you're a non competitive industry when you want to argue, the protection is proud if I were George many I'd make precisely the argument that he's making but that isn't the argument that farmers how to make because us farmers are competitive and you're if you're competitive you autocomplete not go protectionist. We export 24 billion a year of agricultural products. We import about 10 billion a year of agricultural products, which means it for every dollar of imports that we chop off. Somebody's got the prerogative of chopping off 2.4 dollars of exports and that's a losing proposition. That's not going to raise farm incomes in the US that's going to lower farm incomes in the US. So let's not be seduced by that proposition, which is not a very good one. This morning we heard the argument that what we radio to do is use export subsidies. We could sell a good bit more of agricultural production and moving on end of the world markets if we use subsidies and that's right, but I guess it is by that one either because if we put a 50 Cent a bushel subsidy on wheat, what do you suppose the Australians are going to do they're going to put up $0.55 a bushel subsidy on week and they Canadians are going to put a $0.58 a bushel subsidy on week. So what happens is you simply get into a war of treasuries know if we get into that kind of a war the United States will do pretty well. I think we probably got a bigger Federal Trade in Canada or Australia or Argentina, but that doesn't really make any sense to get into that kind of competition when you're all through what that simply amounts to is an income transfer from you in the taxpayers of the United States and where not only farmers were taxpayers to that's an income transfer from you and I to the people who buy that week that means to the Germans to the Russians to the Jap. And one Canadian the other buyers that we really need to make an income transfer from your pocketbooks into the pocketbooks of the Japanese and the Germans and the Russians. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I really don't think the export subsidy ride is the answer in any way shape or form another answer this morning was the was an international agreement. John Holliman was talking about that because the negotiations are underway in Geneva. And he said the European Community to come in with a proposition that which I am very with which I'm very familiar saying, you know lights have a price Corridor and let's have a ceiling and let's have a floor and it to you Americans and Canadians and the other exporters who have weed on hand will say and you know, we'll buy it a certain minimum price and we won't let the price go down below that by providing you put a ceiling on here so that we don't have to buy Above the ceiling fair enough isn't good trade or bad trade bad trade and we are not be seduced by that one either. We had an international weed agreement in the six. Season 2 Broke Down. Why did it break down? Because there isn't any discipline when that price begins to come down. There's a tremendous motivation to breach the agreement at that point and under sell your competitors. And when you get big surpluses, the discipline breaks down and the Europeans who are the proponents of this idea know full. Well that that's going to happen. And therefore they really don't have a bottom in this at all. There's no floor in an international weed agreement, even if they agree to it because it's going to break down. So what do you get if you have an international agreement agreement with ceiling which is exactly what the buyers such as the European Community want. They want the ceiling. They know the floor isn't going to be there when the time comes beautiful deal for them bad deal for us and we are not get seduced. And is that one either so that's not a very good suggestion. Somebody suggested we have a program like peanuts in tobacco. In fact, I understand that one of the Minnesota congressman is either been kind of lading introduction of such a bill or or I has already done. So and I are John Holliman say this morning that the he thought that legislation was better than the legislation that we now have on Weed and Feed grains now, I hope he put the word better in quotes because it's a better only in a very subjective way. I have nothing clean the peanut program in the tobacco program are are two of the least defensible a governmental programs in existence whether they be agriculture or none Agricultural and they're still in existence today only because Centertown me just chairman of the senate. Committee and there's some other Santa Southern senators and congressmen are in positions of influence in Washington are those programs are an anachronism and they're going to disappear someday. There were major changes made in the peanut program in 1977. There will be a lot more of that as time. Masses and there is no way the US Congress is going to win that that kind of legislation for feed grains or wheat or any of the other basic products. So let's not worry about trying to go down that route because it isn't going to happen any more than a hundred percent of parity legislation is going to happen the other solution made by doctor up here in just a minute ago and is the matter of food reserves and when he was a nauseating is essentially the food Reserve program that has been announced by the administration over the last several months and several weeks. And as you know, they just increase the stories payment of twenty-five cents a bushel weight will probably induce a good bit more rain end of the end of the reserve want to spend a lot of time talking about reserves because we can perhaps get into that into more detail left in a question-and-answer session. I just want want to point out the fact that cannot possibly be a Panacea to the problem. Any grain is moved off into Air Reserve in 1970s. 1978 is going to come back on the market. Eventually that green is not being consumed is just being moved aside and there's some benefits to that the doctor after outlining terms and moderating price fluctuations. And in terms of helping relationships with consumers and so far my only comment about a reserve program is it if we're going to go down that route and there a lot of disadvantages to that that I'll not bother to mention right now. We got to go down at on an international basis rather than unilaterally in other words. We're going to have an International Food reserve the moderate price price fluctuations and make sure that hungry people are going to get fed. Then we ought to do it in such a way that the importing countries the countries that really need the food share the cost and really they ought to Bear the major share of the cost rather than you and I is the us taxpayers because the risk of of being fat is there risk not Arvest we don't worry about going hungry in the United States with a k Surpluses we have today. It's the Japanese the Western Europeans the Russians and a number of the Lesser developed countries who are a major buyers who have the risk about whether they're going to eat there for if we have a reserve in my judgment at Autumn an internationally negotiated Reserve in which they pick up a good share the tab rather than us picking up the tab regrettably by establishing this Reserve unilaterally as we've done over the last few months. We've given away our bargaining leverage on this point. How do you convince the Japanese or the Russians or the Western Europeans to participate in the cost of an International Food Reserve when we already got one there answer is a pretty obvious one you Americans are doing very well with your food Reserve just keep doing what you're doing. We're very happy with what you're doing and they're not about to pick up the tab. When I kind of a program. I think we should have waited to establish the food reserve a table. We sat down with those people internationally and negotiated it out so that we get them picking up some some of the tab instead of a Are doing it all. Okay, that's enough on the negative side about what isn't going to work. Let's talk about some things that can help with respect to the short-term. You got money back up for just a second. You're ready can only do two things at first when you get into a surplus situation like this. You've either got to trim back on supplier production or you got a boost demand or some combination of the two supply-side. First of all, you can do that under the present legislation and I need to present legislation of sound on this is have it set aside now as I guess it was John Holliman indicated this morning the problem with a set aside to that's been enough to date by the administration is it isn't going to work and I think that's most unfortunate. We need to set aside. It's going to be affected. We got a 20% set aside on week has been announced at 10% satisfied on feed grains that's been in the house. But those are voluntary program. They have no teeth in them. There's no grain in Santee for anybody to follow him and farmers are not going to follow them to any great degree to we're not going to get the trim back in production that we ought to have in my judgment. We are not less than a 20% fee train set. Side in 1977 in Toronto be some inducements in there. So that farmers ready to set aside 20% and you get that kind of a can you get the kind of response and then it'll come from that and we get an immediate response if you had a truly effective 20% set aside and feed grains. That means you do how do you get to the factory set aside and you don't want to wait or a combination of the two one you're mandated and don't pay Farmers for it or to you you put in financial incentives to induce Farmers to take the land out of production or you do some combination of the two the present program has none of those in is neither mandated nor does it have any incentives for Farmers to produce and that's why I didn't go to work and that's regrettable because that's the quickest way to get an immediate price impact. It would benefit Farmers. Okay. So unless the administration changes his mind which doesn't seem to be a likely then you got to go to work on the demand side. Okay. So what are we doing the demand side? Play metronomy was talking this morning about PL 480 and CCC credit. But you mix the two up. Let me see if I can straighten him out for you and indicate what the what we are to do CCC credit is the program under which we loan. We the United States government the commodity Credit Corporation. If you will in the Department of Agriculture loans Money that our customers around the world then use to buy Grain or whatever. The product happens to be promise. That's the hundred eighty million dollar polish sale at Mr. Hahnemann was talking about this morning. We've just given polling an extra two hundred million dollars worth of CCC credit here a few weeks ago now done a pretty good job with CCC credit so far they've increased it from my level of last year's level of 750 million. The 1.7 billion in other words, they more than doubled it and that's good that they're only two problems with that one. They should have done a lot earlier. I would have helped a lot of beta done it six or eight months ago when this problem was evolving instead of waiting and doing it to hear just in the last few weeks and secondly. Get some more there's really no reason why we couldn't put another half a billion dollars at least NCCC credit and put another half a billion dollars in Farmers Pockets. That doesn't cost the taxpayer this country at 9, and it doesn't cost to Consumers of this country a dime because those loans are made at commercial interest rates and they're all paid back in the. Of no more than three years. That's an excellent program and a very valuable one. We got to increase. So one way an increase ECC credit some more. Secondly PL 480. This is the other part of it. Bl480. As you know is the food for peace program where which was started initially for humanitarian purposes and also get rid of our surpluses in the 50s that we're putting now about a billion and a half dollars a year in that one. It's about the same size as a CCC credit, but the administration hasn't done much at all with that program yet. And I think they should now admittedly you can't boost food for peace programs in any gigantic quantities. Otherwise, you'll flood the outlets and people don't know what the Who were the stop when it gets dumped on their docks in these lesser developed countries around the world awaken boosted some and I would say that you could easily put another half a billion dollars and see in the pl 480 food for peace program. This is either grants as you probably know or long term low interest rate loans. There is a subsidy involved in those kind of program that never lasts because of the humanitarian considerations that are involved and where were they trying to feed hungry people with bl480. I think we could put another half a billion dollars in PL 480 and put another half a billion dollars in front of his pockets. Well, that's a billion and a half a billion and CCC credit half a billion PL 480. One other thing we can do immediately is to do some arm-twisting and I'm a bit too critical of secretary burgling on this and I wish you were here to defend himself, but it seems to me that One of the things we got to be doing we the United States government is talking to some of our major customers around the world and saying luck gentlemen. When we have shorty juice over here, you want us to be a Dependable supplier. In fact, when we exported soybeans which we shouldn't embargoed soybean exports which we shouldn't have done a few years ago. You really chastises for that? And when I went to Japan has assistant secretary of agriculture. I must have heard that argument 500 times in a period of a few days when we put voluntary restraint and some of our sales to the Russian you really chastises for that and perhaps justifiably so, okay. So you want us to be a Dependable supplier. All right gentlemen, then why don't you be a Dependable buyer to in the me being a Dependable buyer me when we get into a surplus situation you buy a little bit extra and instead of buying 10 million tonnes this year like you did last year. How about buying 12 million tons? And I don't care what you do with it, and use it stored in your country stored in our country, whatever you wish to do, but buy it and I really think that we could sell OG in my judgment at least another ten million tons of grain. Pretty readily if we just did a little arm-twisting and I think we could easily put a billion dollars or two billion dollars in Farmers Pockets almost overnight if we worked on those traditional customer is a bit more than we have example of this is Taiwan. Taiwan is just add a 30-man trade mission in the United States. I met with him in Washington just a few days ago. They have cover gone all the way across the country and they've bought considerably more us grain and other products and they ordinarily by then if we could get the Japanese the Russians the Western Europeans in a number of our other buyers to do precisely the same thing we can move a good bit more green and the other agricultural products in those World Markets almost immediately we can do to immediately have an impact on that. We raise loan rates. All we do is price ourselves out of world markets in the whole thing collapses and we can raise Target prices. Now, that means some money out of federal treasury, I agree and you can't take too much money out of the federal. Fluid from the general pet taxpayer in the farmers. Are you get a rebellion by that General taxpayer, but I think we could raise Target prices somewhat Beyond where they are today without getting that kind of a rebellion seems to me there's some good arguments to be made on behalf of doing that as long as we don't get carried away and I can certainly see adding say another billion dollars or maybe even 2 in terms of Target Target price increases on some of our basic products. Well, let's just look at what you can do that in the short run if you can Buspar man comes a half a billion three more CCC credit another half a billion through PL 480 and say a couple of billion by arm-twisting and maybe one or two billion by by increasing Target prices. You really had about five or six billion dollars to farm income immediately in the short run. If you had an effect you set aside you could easily add another one or two billion department, They farm income from your increase in prices that would take place immediately. So you're up last year of a gross of about 20 billion. Play the twenty-six or twenty-seven or twenty-eight billion in 1978. Now that's doable and that's a very very healthy increased because we're talking about boosting Farm prices on the Aviary to buy perhaps at 25% over what they were in 1977. Nice a whole lot of farmers would feel a lot more comfortable. If we were able to do that a couple things quickly on the long-term and then we'll get back done run schedule on the longer-term that two or three things are very important in some of these are not very far down the road. One of them it's extremely important is the Jackson vanic and the Stevenson amendments to the trade Act of 1974 and let me explain what that is because not many of you know much about those in and they probably have as much to do with what we're going to do in sales behind the Iron Curtain over the next 10 years as any other one thing. And these are the amendments that are tight end of the Jewish immigration policies of the Soviet Union and some of the other communist countries and what they say really is the is the following then unless you people and improve your Jewish immigration policies. We're not going to permit you to the most favored nation treatment under our trade act and what that means is it those countries when they say and exports to the United States to have to pay a higher Duty than their competitors around the world It also says you can't use export-import Bank credit CCC credit that I was talking about in these other US Government Credit programs. Well fires in two ways one, they can't sell to us as much as they like to which means they don't get the foreign exchange from from those sales. Secondly, they can't borrow money from it. So they can't get that foreign exchange either those dollars either and as a consequence or trade levels are much lower than would otherwise be the case know who suffers the most from that you and I do in the agriculture sector because what it Sorry about that. That's what happens when you're a gesture. The point I was making his of the people who suffer the most or agricultural is because what is it that these countries want to buy from us agricultural technology and agricultural products. They're interested in buying some of the 900 Trail things to but very heavily in the agricultural area in my judgment. One of our biggest potential agricultural markets in this country is in Eastern Europe. We've also got an excellent Market in the Soviet Union, but that's an erratic one. The one in Eastern Europe Europe is going to be a consistent one in a time. We're going to have markets in the People's Republic of China to I am sympathetic with a Jewish immigration, you know, I hope that the Russians and everybody else will permit the Jews to immigrate but this isn't the way to solve that problem. In fact since we passed that law a 1974 Jewish immigration to go down in these countries weather in Ghana immigration problem, and it certainly cost you an eye money in terms of agricultural sales. Now the late Senator Humphrey introduced legislation to change the Jackson Van Aken Stevenson a man. Senator Dole is done likewise Congressman Findlay from Illinois is done likewise need the Congress will divert some devote some attention to those issues in 1978. They could pass amendments that would change that and we have an immediate benefit and sales behind the Iron Curtain that we can do. Is a multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva and I made the point earlier that we're competitive and we are what we want the ideal situation for us agriculture in this world is a free competitive markets where we can compete with the Australians the Canadians the argentinians and everybody else because we can beat them. There is no question in my mind that we can beat them in a decapitation. We're better than they are. We've got the most efficient agricultural sector in the world. We got the highest level of technology and agriculture of anybody when one looks at the aggregate of Any Given country and we've got Farmers beat Hill Beyond any doubt are better managers and better administrators and what we seeing other countries around the world. So what we need to do is compete and what that means is we need to cancel buying countries knocked down now the place to do that is the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva ice met the two years in that activity while I was in the White House is Deputy special trade. Representative laying the groundwork for all of this that's now being that the responsibilities now being handled by Bob Strauss. We was you remember was Democratic National chairman and is now a special trade representative under President Carter. That we had a round of negotiations multilateral trade negotiations in the mid-sixties and this is extremely important us agriculture was that we were flatly up negotiated by the Europeans and some others as well. And we got very little benefit in terms of reduce trade barriers barriers that are imposed against our agricultural products in the Canik so-called Kennedy around in the mid-60s. That means that we really got to catch up in this round which happens to be coming to a head right now in 1978 and we'll know by the end of this year whether we get zapped again or whether we get some meaningful the concessions from other countries in the empty in those are interested in us agriculture lot to do their best to make sure that our negotiators do a good job in Geneva this year and get some benefits that will pay us some real dividend down the line. One other point is the energy crisis and I want to do a load of this because of the comments that were made here this morning. Most of us sometimes failed to properly and fully tie energy in food together in terms of our export potential and yet it's extremely important in the reason. It's important and we end up point I'm getting to is a we've got a deal with the energy crisis and we've got we have got to somehow come up with a production of alternative sources of energy ultimately break the OPEC cartel and the bring the price price of energy down and we're not going to do it just by talking about conservation. We got to do it by getting production of something and otherwise, we're going to become increasingly dependent upon the Arab Nations back on Farmers is simply because there are a lot of energy using countries around the world that have to import they don't have their own energy supplies Brazil is a classic example in the in the in this hemisphere. The Brazilians have had their Economic Development plans knocked into a cocked hat because they have to import all of their lot of their energy not Brazil is not a big market for us in the short run will be in the long run, but there are a lot of other countries. In the same boat and many of them are lesser developed countries were really good potential markets for us. But what kind of a dilemma do they have now with that with the OPEC cartel squeezing them at the margin at the use any carnatic term. They've got a trade-off energy in food and to to a point what they're doing now is are putting more money and energy and oil and less money and food and that means they're buying less from us and we can break that Kartel and begin to get some alternative sources of energy then that'll change and they began to spend less money in oil and more money and food and that alone can make a lot of difference in farm income over the next several years. So what you heard this morning and energy is relevant not only with respect to operating cost here in the United States, but with respect to what we do on on exports one final comment on the side, and then we'll get back to other things. We do have a problem with relationships with consumers and we haven't handled very well and agriculture. One of the reasons we haven't handled it very well as we talk to each other all the time and those of you or involved and agricultural organizations were worrying about Communications with consumers. I'll have to go back to those organizations and say, you know, ladies and gentleman that we got to stop talking to each other and we got to start talking to Consumers, you know, we always have discussions about consumer relationships when we have Farm Bureau meetings or American soybean Association meetings or Cattlemen's Association meetings or whatever, but how many of us ever really go into the lions den? If you will and talk to Consumers and consumer groups and their the consumer Advocates until we begin to do that. We're never going to achieve a higher level of understanding with those consumers and have them understand what farming is all about and what he cannot lights are out about and what some of the trade-offs are. That's something that we've got to concentrate on and do a whole lot better job than we have the date now. I don't think we're going to raise. Consumer food cost very much in this United States. No matter what we do in terms of foreign policy. Certainly the things I ain't talked about today or going to have nominal impact on consumer food prices in this country and I like the solutions that anybody is offered are going to have rather not a nominal impact but a lot of consumers don't believe that and that's because we haven't haven't communicated effectively with him. We're not going to increase consumer consumption of food all that much in this country because our population is beginning to level off that that's why international trade and exports are so important. That's the grocery but we can do though hopefully is beginning have food become a higher priority item in the budget of the housewives in the United States right now. It's not a high priority item many Housewives would dispute that but it's true and that's why I don't like the fact that people quote to them the figures that are only spending 17% or 16% of their budgets on food. What is true? And that really signifies one that we've had a cheap food policy in this country and to that. We really don't put food at a very high priority in our expenditure patterns in the families of the United States if we could get it into a higher priority so that we began in Spanish say 20% or 21% on food. You see a lot more money flowing in the front of his pockets to one side while saying and that's that it's time that we zero in on the export markets that have a greatest potential in the coming years, you know, we can't just sit here and wait for people to come by and we've got to have aggressive Market development and sales efforts around the world as much energy and time in selling things around the world as we have driving tractors around state capitals in Washington DC in this country. We just sold a whole lot more grain over the last six months and some of those are markets that are not yet there. Let me just name a couple in front of you by and large. Our growth in the next few years is not going to be with our traditional customers. The Japan's in the countries of Western Europe. It's going to be elsewhere just going to be in the countries that are in the developing category now, but are you going to be wealthier as time passes? One of them is right next door and that's Mexico. The oil reserves a Mexico or huge and Mexico is going to have a balance-of-payments surplus with us and probably within five years. That's a potential market and a big one. Another one is Nigeria. Excellent oil resources. Another one is Malaysia. Excellent natural resources minerals primary. Another one is Indonesia. It's on oil. Another one is Taiwan with their developing economy. Another one is Korea. Well, that's developing economy. Another one is Spain, which is probably going to be very soon as the others are behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe and white cat name some others, but that's where we need to zero in and sell us agricultural products in the coming years because that's where the payoff is going to be Thank you, very Text Lady Gaga.