(00:00:00) History writes loud and clear that it is extraordinary difficult to evolve pass into law and put in place a sensible agricultural policy for the United States unlike most countries. No person or group of people organization or Federation of organizations can speak for the American Farmer or the tens of millions of people who Supply him and move his products to market. The result is deep fractionalization strongly contending forces some with narrow bottom line interests and others deeply-held emotional positions compete. Often to further their own ideas and interests. No, one understood this process better or far harder for a sound policy sensitive to needs of this country and the American Farmer then Hubert Humphrey. No one better understood the desperate need for a coherent comprehensive balanced long-range strategy for American agriculture accordingly as the national dialogue aimed at developing such a policy and program next year gets underway. It is I believe both timely and appropriate to attempt to outline such a policy in this forum sponsored by The Institute that carries his name and the spirit of this great man who did so much for agriculture and those who till the soil not only in this state and Nation, but all over the world. Before addressing directly what I think in agricultural policy for this nation should Encompass permit me to identify the facts and forces the must be factored into a realistic policy first and foremost is the critical importance of American agriculture to the well-being of our people and to our constructive role as a leader of the Free World. It's not an oversight over statement. I believe to describe the accomplishments of American agriculture as the number one production Marvel in the history of mankind. Today only two percent of the population. The United States is on the farm on the average. Each of these Farmers Feed 76 Americans as a price that are lower as a percentage of income than anyone else in the world in addition agriculture directly or indirectly is responsible for approximately 25% of American employment. between 1965 and 1980 while Farm population decreased by 1/2 annual output in constant dollars tripled increasing over a hundred billion dollars annually between 1970 and 1980 to grain production the United States climb from a hundred and seventy million metric tons to 330 million metric tons and while US exports climb from 38 million tons to a hundred and fifty million tonnes over 400% increase in exports Soviet Imports climb from 8 million tons to 43 million tons of 500 million a 500% increase American Family Farm agriculture accomplished this with roughly 350 million acres of land under the plow in contrast to 500 million Acres cultivated in the Soviet Union the forty four billion dollars worth of American Agricultural exports in 1981. We're in a central offset to are otherwise rapidly deteriorating balance of trade and current account in a very troubled and uncertain World economy. Reminds me a little bit of a favorite story of mine of the of the Arch Bishop of the Church of England and the top Admiral in the British Navy. They had gone through these so-called Public Schools together and were Fierce Rivals went on to higher education at all. And one follow the military route in the other the church the Rivalry continued and they were really bitter enemies one afternoon in the train station in London suddenly in a large crowd. They ran right into each other. And the bishop in his flowing robes responded first, and he put his finger right in the middle of the Admirals Metals which reached from his ear to his navel and he said stationmaster. When is the next train to Manchester? for a moment the bishop was the the Admiral was overtaking and he recovered fairly quickly and he put his finger right in the midst of the of the Bishops flowing robes and portly figure and he said Madam track ten five o'clock, but you think you're in any condition to travel Well, I what I really trying to say here I think is that that American agriculture is in condition to travel certainly on the productivity front and we could use that word that I'll touch on here as comparative advantage. We can produce it certainly in grains with outstanding efficiency and Effectiveness. And I think we ought to explode that now despite this on Excel record American agriculture day stands at a troubled and on certain Crossroad all is not well down on the farm. Aggregate income is the lowest. It's been in 50 years Farm return on equity in 81 and 82 was a negative nine point two and six point five percent respectively and will probably be negative again in 1984 land values decline for the first time in 27 years exports have slipped in the last two years suffering a 20 percent shrinkage. The debt equity ratio is way up as Farm debt climbed three hundred percent between 1971 and 1983 bankruptcies and foreclosures are sharply On The Rise the cost of the price support production control program has zoomed reaching a record 18 point nine billion in fiscal 1983. If one includes the cost of the pic program price support costs were actually twenty eight point three billion and had chouard pointing out if you take some of the spillover which is in the current fiscal year why it will be another 8 million or so. This incidentally is 10 times the average annual cost in the 20-year period from 1961 to 1981 and five times higher than the largest expenditure in the two previous decades. It is really almost (00:07:06) disgraceful (00:07:08) what has gone wrong. It's my contention that these adverse developments called for a careful thoughtful re-examination of where we've been where we are and where we want to go only if there's recognition and understanding of the massive change that's taken place in American agriculture. Can we develop a viable and workable policy which will make it possible for this nation to regain lost ground and to take appropriate advantage of The Magnificent productive plant. We've built over the past generation how then did we lose ground. How did we get ourselves into the mess? We're in The answer to that question is of course highly complex. But the key point is that agriculture policy such as it has been over the last two decades has not reflected. The fact that American agriculture is no longer National in scope. It's International. We're no longer relatively isolated from the rest of the world in any way to illustrate in the 1950s agricultural exports were less than 10% of cash Farm receipts today exports represent 30% of total cash receipts and 54% of crop receipts production of four acres out of every 10 is destined for foreign markets. Typically, we export a fourth of the US corn crop a half of the soybean crop 60 to 65% of the wheat crop and over 40% of the cotton and rice crops. What these figures demonstrate dramatically incontrovertibly is it for the United States agricultural plant to be continuously operated at an acceptable capacity level foreign market share must be maintained and expanded farmers and agribusiness alike. Now have a vital stake in international conditions economic and political a stake that did not exist before the last decade agriculture is all of you are aware is always been subject to Great uncertainties historically, these uncertainties were predominantly on the supply side. No one control the weather disease and pests equally unpredictable seriously affect Supply adjusting production to signals in the marketplace is much more difficult and the lead time required much longer. Then it is the case for industry and these uncertainties continue but uncertainties in demand have now become as greater even greater in the internationalized marketplace. Let me sketch for you two scenarios that will manifest these new uncertainties. The first scenario can properly be labeled a growth scenario. It starts with the fact that the middle income developing countries the so-called Nick's increased their Imports of grain from twelve point seven million metric tons in the Years 63 245 million tons, almost a 400% increase in the Years 1977 to 79 with our own annual economic growth in a five to seven percent range. These countries became an explosive market for agricultural products particularly grain resulting in firm and growing prices. Had the world not slipped into a major recession in 1980 and with it the threatening debt overhang we face today u.s. Agricultural exports would not have slumped as a matter of fact had economic growth continued in those countries and around the world and incidentally there are 38 low income developing countries whose increase in agricultural Imports. It climbed only eight point seven million tons a year if they really came on stream there would be an enormous explosion of demand worldwide. It's a matter of fact if you'll pardon the personal anecdote for quite a number of years I did battle with the chairman of the house committee on Appropriations because I was supportive as secretary of agriculture and Technical agricultural assistance for developing countries and the to the wrong the front end who are exporting and competing with us at that time in part were Korea and Taiwan and Jamie Whitten used to say you're out of your cotton-picking mind. What are you doing enabling our competitors to produce more efficiently. It makes no sense at all. And we still hear that argument. I made the point that if you increase the economic well-being of these two countries, and the only way you're really going to do that is to start Iran are cultural Foundation why then that economy will start to boom and what it does. They won't be able to produce enough even though they are using advanced technology to feed. On people and that will build an enormous market for us. Well at that point there was about 200 million dollars worth of agricultural exports in the Crea. I think last year. It was two and a half billion dollars of agricultural exports into Korea. So this is where the market is not in the industrial world in the developing countries. And that is a target that we really need to have in mind it follows from this that the world returns to a reasonable level of growth and prosperity with favorable growth rates of the developing world the demand for food and particularly for protein will again explode that is where the future markets will be found. As a matter of fact a number of studies projecting such growth conclude that there's actually a serious threat of a major shortfall. Some studies estimate a shortfall of as much as 70 million tons of grain by the turn of the century. And obviously if this should happen us agriculture would respond assuming we still have productive capacity prices would move up solidly American Agricultural Prosper. That's one scenario and a hopeful one a more realistic scenario given the current world economy still largely bogged down in recession with the heavy debt overhang inhibiting growth and expansion in developing World Markets. Is that for at least the next four or five years? There will be strong competition for commercial World Markets. During the late 70s the us became in many respects a residual supplier this occurred in part because of very strong dollar and also because of price support levels were higher in some instances than the prices are competitors and world markets were able to offer this we can no longer afford. US policy resting solidly on our comparative advantage as an agriculture producer must be to move more aggressively in the world markets prepared to meet competition everywhere. I emphasize meet competition. We should make it crystal clear that the United States will not initiate export subsidies. However, we should also send a strong signal that if our competitors in the World Market engage in export subsidies will match them and then some But the stage we set and the leadership we provide in my considered judgment and I feel very strongly about this ought to be open market competitively organized oriented and then make it clear particular export subsidies are concerned. They're restricting Imports is a little different cut export subsidies is really the running sore and just make it clear make it ahead of time make it firm and if they insist on doing it and distorting competitive forces worldwide, we have to be prepared to respond to it. After all this nation built on private Enterprise in a competitive Marketplace should firmly set the course for an open competitive world with agriculture in the lead in the process. I believe we can point the way for the industrial side of our economy to reverse its current tilt toward protectionism. Currently World agriculture markets are in an abnormal State on a global basis production has been expanded significantly as our competitors have been favored by excellent yields in the last few years at the same time. As I said Global demand has fallen sharply because of the world recession with the result of glut of grain the total carryover green stalks plus the equivalent of idle acres in the United States has climbed to an all-time high of 283 metric tons or in terms of world consumption days 68 days. By way of perspective this carryover compares to a hundred and four days in 1961 when I was secretary of agriculture. The problem we face in these terms us is not exactly a new one. The immediate result is weak market prices and an acute recession in the agriculture sector of the US economy given these circumstances and they're likely to recur in unpredictable but inevitable Cycles the US must have in place a domestic Farm program to support and assist the American Farmer also to make the program work experienced and competent management must be in place. These are tough programs to operate effectively and require strong leadership and excellent management. The policy premise for this program is twofold first the production capacity of the US agricultural sector must not be seriously eroded. History has shown that we at home in the world internationally will need American production capacity when global economic Cycles emerge from the trough second and equally important as a policy imperative both fairness and Equity demands support by the government of this nation to the farmers who have contributed so much to our economic well-being and our uniquely subject to uncontrollable external causes and to cyclical movements and Global interactions nevertheless a policy in a program to accomplish what for want of a better word. I'll call a defensive purposes must be sensitive to Global realities and designer and a fashion that does not result in the United States pricing itself out of World Markets. Let me offer some ideas on how I think this can be done and what it'll take to design an agricultural policy for the u.s. That will effectively integrate both domestic and international realities and I submit to you we really have never done that on the international front the u.s. Much launched a carefully coordinated major sustained integrated agricultural export offensive such an offensive should take advantage of our production superiority are efficient Agricultural Marketing System and of us exporters, geared to for needs the effort was recognized a demand has leveled off in the industrial countries and the developing world now taking 1/3 of us Farm exports offers the best opportunities for expansion in the years ahead. If and when those Nations again show income growth It must be recognized that this offensive will be a different kind of game than we've known in the past requiring a wider range of skills resources and initiative and exporting strategy based on the notion that it can expand sales simply by writing orders will fail we'll have to do our homework Americans have to research potential concern customer countries in terms of their total requirements will have to look at consumer needs and wants purchasing power political pressure need for infrastructure such as Port facilities and transportation. Also customer country's needs for new production storage processing technology as well as farm products in short. We'll have to size up these opportunities in terms of packages that meet the customers needs. Happily the u.s. Is solidly positioned to put such packages together and to tie them to a sensible domestic Farm program. Since 1954 in the passage of public law 480 this country has on a concessional basis moved over a hundred billion dollars of food and fiber to meet human need contributor Economic Development and Bill commercial export markets in developing countries all over the world shipments. It's 1954 have range from fifteen point three million tons of grain in 1967 to an estimated four million tons of 1983 in the process. We've learned how food abundance can be effectively utilized. We've also learned if carefully managed it can be counterproductive. It's my conviction. The time has come to combine that knowledge and our farm abundance into a solid efficient International agricultural initiative. Such an initiative should have four components humanitarian. We should reach out all over the world to help feed truly needy people a major effort with a significant u.s. Contribution is now underway in drought-stricken Africa that effort must be strengthened and expanded in addition to relief wherever possible food age should be tied into self-help projects focused on improving production potential aimed especially at small producers to development. The US should expand its Economic Development assistance program do many more developing countries food. Aid can be used to stimulate agriculture development in developing countries food for work programs building needed infrastructure can be highly successful if well managed, Title 3 of public law for it. He provides for the u.s. To grant money. It receives for agricultural Commodities back to the country to finance agriculture development projects with forgiveness of funds. If the project is successful the authority of title 3 could be expanded to help Finance investment by American agribusiness companies in developing countries. The president initially of of the Bureau of private Enterprise in eight agency can make good use of title 3. It should be given more support and resources. Our nation is gauged today in a great debate on Industrial policy. We're trying to identify what should be the relationship between the government and the private sector as American industry faces new technology new challenges and new competition around the world one can hardly pick up a newspaper or tuned in a television station without exposure to the question how to relate government in the private sector as we go forward to meet competition and world markets and successfully accommodate basic structural changes. There's no doubt in my mind is the private sector moves technology to use more efficiently than does the government and this is true in developing countries as well as in industrialized one, obviously profit and risk criteria must be met if private agribusiness companies are to invest in the developing world and move modern technology to production and marketing to small farmers in developing countries. My point here is that identifying these win-win opportunities for private sector activity in the developing world and encouraging us companies to respond could and should be an important ingredient of our national agricultural policy. Designed and close cooperation between government and business the highest level this kind of global Enterprise would have a triple dimension for the u.s. It would yield profits build export markets and make us friends in the political area. Another Innovative way of putting American food abundance to constructive use in solving pressing Global problems would be for the u.s. Government to make available to the international monetary fund the substantial volume of wheat. In addition to the credit already recommended by the president the IMF could use this week to alleviate the debt loads that now plagued many of the developing countries that we could be supplied by the IMF to grain importing ldcs with payment negotiated over a period of time at appropriate levels of Interest such a move would make it possible for hard-pressed LD cease to use foreign exchange. They would otherwise spend on grain Imports to meet their International obligation or invest in internal growth and development. Three we must expand our Market development activities coordinating them closely with our Economic Development initiatives since the mid-1950s. The US has run a remarkably successful foreign market development program for agricultural products. It's a Cooperative program between the foreign agricultural service of the USDA and some 60 private commodity organizations ranging from wheat and flour to raisins. The cost of these programs are shared by government and commodity groups. These Market development efforts need to be expanded. They should command top priority and adequate resources. Finally, I've mentioned competition oriented United States must fight on Fair Trade competition wherever it occurs particularly in Nations that use export subsidies and this means developing a long-range strategy to prevent some countries from putting up new protective barriers and getting other nations to reduce on Fair levels of protection measures the u.s. Can use range from instituting countervailing subsidies of our own to limiting access to the US market if we don't have Fair access to other markets, but that is not our initiative. That's not out in front. What's out in front as a solid policy understood looking to an open and competitive World taking advantage of the comparative advantage that we have in that market and then no nonsense about it that if other countries are not prepared to do that on a competitive world. We will proceed accordingly. Before I proceed further to my policy recommendations on the domestic side. Let me sketch for you a concise profile of what American agriculture looks like today at president approximately a hundred and twelve thousand Farms 5% of the total number of Farms Produce just under 50% of the entire output of food and fiber originating in the continental United States. These are operations with annual sales of 200,000 or more in 1981. It's important to remember that these major producers are mostly Family Farms. Not what we think of as a corporate Farm the great bulk somewhere around 95% are individually owned and operated Family Farm businesses at the other end of the scale of the large majority of farms, 1.7 million of them comprising 71% of all economic units classified as farmed by the USDA. These are generally small farms frequently worked part-time with off-farm income covering a major portion of the family living expense these 1.7 million Farm units with annual Farm sales of less than 40,000 produce only 12 and a half percent of the total u.s. Agricultural output. The final feature of the profile consists of the medium sized traditional Family Farm These make up a little less than 1/4 of all Farms some 580,000. They're predominantly family owned and operated with the owner-operator engaged full-time in farming Pursuit sales range between 40,000 and 200,000 annually in the aggregate these medium-sized Farms Produce thirty eight and a half percent of the output of us agriculture. So we have three General classes of farming Enterprise that are different in size productivity and income requirements how then should a comprehensive National Farm program relate to each of these three groups. Let's consider first a largest farm to 5% of produce approximately 50% of the total output according to a number of studies. These Farms have cost structures that allow them to be profitable. They have in recent years benefited greatly from government programs, but there is considerable question as how important these programs really are to the Continued economic Vitality of these larger Parts. They could probably make it on their own the small farmers to are economically strong albeit in a different way because there are Farm earnings are sufficient to fully offset small losses of income from farming. These small farmers are relatively well-off in economic terms and apparently satisfied with their ability to live in rural areas and pursue farming as a secondary part time or in some cases hobby operation. The middle group however is a different story. Recent research by Texas am covering cotton farmers in Texas Southern High Plains clearly suggest that government fire programs in a major benefit to these medium-sized Farm operators, the Texas study found that without a program along the lines of the farm programs of 1981 only 42% of the medium-sized traditional Family Farms would survive over the next decade in contrast the Texas study found that 98% of the smallest Farms would be able to survive for 10 years without any program and the largest Farms those over four thousand Four Hundred Acres would survive without any government program. I think we can conclude that. It is Middle category of farms were a long-range Farm program is needed. Perhaps desperately needed for economic survival. Let me stress in this context that I foresee. No drastic alteration in this profile all the evidence from agricultural Scholars concurred that for the foreseeable future the composition of the u.s. Agricultural sector will remain much as it is now the real question. Therefore is how can a program or program be developed to meet the economic social and cultural conditions of these diverse groups. I've already cited evidence a small producer the large number of farms that produce very little and make little income or perhaps negative income from farming which survive without any program National agricultural policy can do little to help or hurt this group of farmers. However, State programs in the areas of Education Health Medical Service Roads schools, and so forth are important to the economic and social well-being of this group of nearly two million American families. The group of large Farmers would also do well without Federal Farm program. These are educated Innovative producers well-financed deficient highly mechanized. They can compete effectively in both domestic and World Markets. They're fully poised to take advantage of the food requirements of the world for the remaining years of this Century. The needs of this group will be best served by constructive trade and macroeconomic policies. These producers will benefit from government development efforts to stimulate the national economies of the world. So there's a capability to purchase the needed food commodities including those produced in the United States export credit assistance efforts export Market development assistance, sensible, consistent international trade policies stable reasonably valid currency good infrastructure in the way of transportation and Port facilities. These are the policies that will benefit this group of Highly efficient far businessman domestically, they need some assistance from public institutions and research and a stable economic climate of growth. There is over one additional policy element to be considered for these large part producers. However, well trained educated finance mechanize and efficient. They're still subject to the vagaries of Nature. And because their Market is international, they're also subject to Global uncertainties and shifts in economic and political climate these factors coupled with a large capitalization credit requirements of farms with sales of 200,000 or more subject these large Farmers to a much higher level of risk than many other businesses long-term policy should therefore provide a way to cushion the risk faced by this very important part of our productive economy at a minimum a long-range fire program could provide a world market clearing non-recourse Loan program for large producers. This program would enable them in periods of extreme adverse conditions to assure orderly marketing and some degree of risk sharing with the public. Such price support loans could be based on a three-year or five-year moving average the world market prices or some significant percentage of that level. An additional idea which deserves further study and considerations the possibility of providing a mechanism, whereby these large producers would have both the legal and economic ability to limit their own production in periods. When Federal weather conditions and on federal market conditions have combined to produce excess supplies. I have in mind a system in which under a government refereed and sanctioned referendum large producers of the major Commodities could vote to decide if they want her to have mandatory acreage and production adjustments. So as to maintain a reasonable Supply demand balance, there'd be little or no expenditure of funds by the public to carry out such a program no payments for acreage adjustment. It would provide the economic and legal mechanism to avoid wasteful and economically disruptive short-term Surplus buildups. Finally in undoubtedly. The most difficult challenge is the effort advise a sensible program to deal with the medium sized family Farmers. I believe we need to offer these Farmers some system of income transfer protection, perhaps similar to the existing Target price concept a scheme could be developed that would assure these farmers are returned from the marketplace and from the farm program that enable the most efficient of them and this would be a majority to continue to be viable contributors to our society such a program might well include a requirement that the farmer follows sound soil conserving practices dealing fairly with these Farmers is important to the National wheel not only because they produce nearly 40% of our total food and fiber output but also because they are a vital part of the social and cultural fabric of Rural America and indeed the nation a modest expenditure of well under 1% of the national budget could in my judgment be justified to protect and preserve this important. part of our society finally a meaningful agricultural policy responsive to the international and domestic realities requires effective coordination of private and public programs and initiatives and that ain't easy as matters now stand a wide range of activities need to be tied into a logical and sensible packages currently. No person or group is performing this function recently at the initiative of the Ohio Farm Bureau a number of agricultural leaders got together in Chicago to discuss the need for new leadership position to represent the private sector and Export development for agriculture. I find much Merit in their recommendations. But I believe we need more than a new leader in the private sector. We need a leader spokesman to articulate and coordinate a new agricultural policy for this nation indeed for the world. I suggest that he or she be a presidential appointee with cabinet rank. This cabinet members should not have direct line responsibility but should have the complete confidence of and direct access to the president. This would make it possible for him or her to coordinate across the entire US government and the private sector speaking with one voice poor on behalf of the president on all issues and topics involving u.s. Agra policy. And the only one that can do that and develop overall government policy in our government is the president This person would also maintain direct contact with foreign governments at the highest level to measure in concert with the resident US ambassador the Secretary of State administrative aide in the US Secretary of Agriculture. How us agricultural policy is actually being carried out. Twenty-three years ago John F. Kennedy named be us secretary of agriculture. I was privileged to serve in that capacity for eight years at that time the importance of Agriculture to the well-being of the people of the United States and of the world did not receive priority attention today as we approach the midpoint of the decade of the 80s. The critical importance of Agriculture of mankind is to advance toward its goal of human betterment is universally recognized the time has come for this country as a leader of the Free World to put in place a sound agriculture policy and to give the highest priority to carrying it out at home (00:37:13) and around the globe. Thank you and good (00:37:16) afternoon. I'm time for just a couple of questions. (00:37:35) Yes. Your analysis of the farm groups if we were to cut the large ones a little lower on the small ones a little higher. How would you distinguish that from where secretary block is today on this analysis of farm groups and what we should do. Well, then he's right. Huh? (00:38:08) No, I really don't have quite in my mind. I haven't noted and I tried to follow what he's saying. Really? I didn't mean to be smart. Alecky that that he had broken down exactly this fashion and said that we were the two extremes really don't need farm programs of the group in the middle did and (00:38:29) he (00:38:30) well. Well then the difference is I don't think we should throw the ones in the in the middle out. I think there's a 40% of our productivity and a very important part of these communities and we've got to have something there that will permit them to survive some of these extreme changes over which they have no control the others don't either there was some possible suggestions in terms of the larger ones and for the on the smaller side words only part-time why I think the studies that say they're doing pretty well, but this is just Kind of a kind of macro considerations. I really haven't tried to spell out at this point precisely what those groupings should be. (00:39:11) Anybody else? Yes right here. Yes, I think development is Curtis been the growth of food stamp programs. And then the department this is expressed as a very large budget increase which time the MythBusters are very was a as he pointed out was an overflow overwhelming factor in the Department's total budget puts. What is your feeling about the Place of food stamp and related kinds of programs as a element of the agriculture department or elsewhere in government and the implications of this how you see it for agricultural policy. (00:40:04) Well, number one, I think food stamp plan if you'll pardon my saying so I kind of consider myself the father of it. I started it with an executive order and and nurtured it along and all those years. I can't imagine getting a 30 billion dollar appropriation or whatever it is now, but it's a good program that reaches human need and morally I can never I could never participate in cutting back production at the same time that there was a lot of hungry people in the country and we weren't using at abundance to try and reach them. Now. It's a very tough program to to administer as we know you get that amount of money and that number of people you get a lot of cheating and wheeling and dealing if you're saying should it be an H ew, I would say to you that I don't think they managed as well as agriculture. So I'd better stay. Where it is, and that's I guess that's the answer to that in the program honor be worked on it ought to be strengthened. And I think it's a very very important program reaching real human need as I say I can and all conscious before cutting back production without doing everything you possibly can within reason to reach hungry people and we got fairly well along a line and recent studies in terms of nutritional Improvement in the country. And now I'm worried because you know, what happened the food stamp program post World War One when it worked for a while is it got administered for poorly and sloppily that the Congress destroyed it. They just stopped it and we started again on a legal fiction the first executive order that Jack Kennedy put out within the on the fiction that if anything in the stores that wasn't getting 90% of parity why then we could go into section 32 funds that had accumulated in have to be appropriated and then we went real real careful and it took four years to get Congressional. And it took almost no the for to get any amount of money. They're monitored anything and now it it really worries me when I see some of these charges and slippage has but when you got that many people that much money why I can do is just work like everything to operate it efficiently and try and catch the cheaters in the corruptors. Well, the answer is under the term set here. Once we have made our clear and affirmative declaration that we don't want to subsidize credit anymore than we ought to subsidize credit for other kind of exports unless other companies do some countries do so when they do so why then we have we just reply in kind and use the considerable muscle we have to accomplish that purpose and if I may so that's exactly what I did is secretary of agriculture with a number of countries that were cheating on the margins in terms of export markets and just called him in and said now look stop it. If you want to get into an economic war on that level after full notice. Why why then that you're doing it? We're not my only exception with Ed and I've got great admiration for him. I haven't read his paper yet. We had a good discussion this morning in the short-term why the temptation to do Exactly what he's advocating and advocating and in part As I understood him because it was being done. In other Industries in a response to protection is forces. This is not in my judgment the rights the right system the right process that we had to kind of wipe the Slate clean in a sense come out with a real meaningful basic long-term program said we believe in Market forces. We believe in competition. This is a kind of world we live in and just let the rest of the world know we mean business and then if they keep cheating around the margins of what all y then we will be forced to take that kind of movement. We have been in some ways Patsy's in this respect as he points out certainly in terms of grain reserves. We have carried the grain reserves for the whole world and all the rest of said you got yourself in that position with your own domestic Farm program. You're really not doing it because you want to you're doing it because your own domestic Farm program, so just don't cry on our shoulder. And we haven't been able to move it. We won't get into that or some ways. We can move that to so in are not very far apart. It's I think a question of emphasis and where do you begin Harlem's getting nervous? I talk too (00:44:38) long.