MR. UNDERBRINK: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today. I'm Robert Underbrink, Vice-President of King Ranch. We farm about 12,000 acres of sugarcane in Florida. I am also President of Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership which farms approximately 39,000 acres of citrus.

Both of the companies that I represent are concerned about the upcoming WTO negotiations, however today I will speak to you about the impact of these negotiations on sugar.

In 1987, at the start of the Uruguay Round of the GATT, the sugar industry endorsed the goal of free trade. Today our industry endorses the goal of genuine global free trade in sugar. We want global free trade in sugar because we are efficient growers. We are efficient growers despite some of the world's highest government-imposed costs per labor and environmental protection. We welcome the opportunity to compete on a genuine level playing field, however until we achieve that free trade goal the United States must keep at least the minimum sugar policy that we have in place today.

Subsidizing the dumped sugar market should not displace efficient American producers. We are concerned about the WTO negotiations. Results of past trade agreements remain a problem. More than 100 countries produce sugar and have some form of governmental intervention. Unfortunately, these policies were not significantly changed in the Uruguay Round Agreement.

Compliance with these agreement obligations has been and remains a major problem. A wide gap in labor and environmental standards between developed and developing countries has not been satisfactorily addressed. Export subsidies, state trading enterprises and developing countries' obligations have not been disciplined.

To date, the world sugar market remains the most distorted agricultural trade. Lavish export subsidies from the European community allow it to dump excess sugar on the world market. The Brazilian sugar industry was largely built around its subsidized sugar-to-alcohol program. Mexico subsidizes its sugar exports. Australia regulates its market with massive monopolistic state trading enterprise. These are just a few examples of the distortions of the world market.

Based on previous experience with trade agreements, I have the following five recommendations. One, United States should not force any new agreements or reduce its government programs any further until other countries have complied fully with the Uruguay Round.

Two, United States should not reduce its support for agriculture programs until other countries have reduced their supports to our level.

Three, export subsidies and state trading enterprises should be given top priority in the next Trade Round.

Four, the wide gap in agricultural, labor and environmental standards between developed and developing countries should be taken into account.

Number five, the Uruguay Round approach of a rigid, one-size-fits-all formula will not fit the needs of U.S. agriculture in general or for sugar, in particular. Each commodity is different and these differences need to be taken into account. Sugar is very important to Florida, as you know, and we can compete with sugar producers anywhere in the world but we can not compete with other government's treasuries.

I urge you to negotiate carefully and give us an opportunity to compete and prosper in a genuine, free trade environment. Thank you.