Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Galen Affield. I probably pronounced that name wrong.

MR. AFFIELD:

Yes, you did.

MS. KINNEY:

I did. All right, I’ll let you correct me as you get up here. You’re with the Minnesota Wheat Growers Association. Welcome.

MR. AFFIELD:

My name is Galen Affield. On behalf of the Minnesota Wheat Growers and the Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council I appreciate this opportunity to voice our hopes and concerns for the upcoming round of the World Trade Organization negotiations. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." That would well define what we feel is the stance of the United States going into these negotiations, except for the part about the big stick. When it comes to wheat export policy, it seems as we have been walking softly these past few years with no stick at all. And it seems that the U.S. will be walking softly into Seattle, again with no leverage or big stick to influence changes needed in international wheat trading policy, particularly as it pertains to discriminatory tactics of our wheat export competition, primarily Canada and the European Union. We do thank the administration for the trade advances made with China and the step taken in April to ease economic sanctions on some countries. We hope that the exceptions from -- the exemptions from other countries will follow. Still the baseline assumptions of the Freedom to Farm Act included utilization of the aggressive export policy of our government. This has not happened and U.S. farmers are experiencing very low prices in part because projecting -- projected exports are not materializing. One reason for the low U.S. wheat export is that there is no export enhancement program or expenditures for fiscal 1997 and only small expenditures in fiscal 1998. EEP is not currently being used in fiscal year ‘99 and exports are stagnant. Meanwhile, Canada and the EU continue to undercut us in our market -- wheat markets. EEP is one big stick that would strongly encourage you to use to its fullest extent. To gain the exports we need to improve the price picture of wheat. As well, let’s say the U.S. Congress authorizes $2 billion in spending for EEP in fiscal year 2000. That money would not be necessarily need to be appropriated, just authorized. This would be a key tactical move for the United States or our big stick, as one might call it, to signal to others that we mean business when we sit down at the negotiating table next November. We wish to highlight seven priorities for the upcoming WTO negotiations. We detail them further in our written testimony, so I shall only highlight them here. (1) We believe that the U.S. should establish as its highest priority the elimination of all direct export subsidies. We believe that the U.S. should use EEP as leverage on other countries to ensure export subsidies are eliminated completely. (2) Eliminate state trading enterprise such as the Canadian Wheat Board. This would end their discriminatory price practices. (3) Rules effecting availability of crop inputs such as crop protection products need to be harmonized. We cannot be competitive under environmental regulations more stringent than other countries. (4) U.S. negotiators should seek to eliminate inequities that persist between U.S. levels of domestic farm support and those of our competitors. (5) Fix the use of tariff rate quotas for better market access. (6) Leave the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process in place as it is the appropriate avenue for compliance on sanitary and phytosanitary issues. (7) Refrain from any new rules that would diminish the effectiveness of U.S. export credit guarantee programs. The future success of our wheat industry depends heavily on the outcome of the next round. Let’s walk strategically into Seattle and let’s not forget the big stick, because we strongly believe that the U.S. needs leverage that can and will be used to ensure that governments around the world negotiate in food faith to reduce and eliminate policies that hurt global trade. Thank you again for this opportunity.

MS. KINNEY:

Yes, Commissioner.

PANEL MEMBER:

I have a question on the fourth point you made. Something about we can’t be competitive if we have higher environmental standards than other countries. And I missed the first part of what you said. Are you suggesting we lower our standards or others...

MR. AFFIELD:

Okay. Well, so we harmonize our chemicals so what they use in Canada we can use here. So the same chemicals that they’re using up here in Canada we can use in the United States.

PANEL MEMBER:

And so the converse I presume would also be true in the event that -- that we say in our judgment we’re not going to allow that -- that chemical to be used here for environmental reasons then what do we do if other countries still permit it?

MR. AFFIELD:

Right, because they’re using the chemicals on their grain that are getting exported, so we have to have the same playing field that they do so we can -- if they’re getting chemicals that’s more -- cheaper to use on their crops that we can use them, too.

PANEL MEMBER:

Well, I need to follow-up just a little bit on that because I think the point that I tried to make in my testimony was that if we are held to a higher standard we ought to hold other countries that want to compete in our domestic market to that same standard.

MR. AFFIELD:

Right.

PANEL MEMBER:

Is that what you’re saying?

MR. AFFIELD:

Yes. Yes.

PANEL MEMBER:

Okay.