Thank you. Just a note to our presenters. If you stay at the podium until questions or statements are asked, it will help with the transcription of this whole process of here. So thank you. Duane Alberts with the Minnesota Farm Bureau.

MR. ALBERTS:

Thank you, Robin. Good morning panel members. My name is Duane Alberts. I’m the district one board member of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation. I farm in partnership with my father and two brothers in Southeastern Minnesota near the small town of Pine Island. We milk 550 cows and raise 1,500 acres of corn, alfalfa and oats. And we appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding negotiating objectives for the agriculture in the next round of trade talks in the World Trade Organization. Minnesota Farm Bureau represents over 33,000 member families in Minnesota. Our members produce every commodity grown in Minnesota and depend on access to customers around the world for the sale of over one-third of our production. Agriculture is one of the few U.S. industries that consistently runs a trade surplus, posting a positive balance every trade -- a positive balance of trade every year since 1960. The U.S. along with agriculture must be at the negotiating table in the next WTO round in a meaningful way with trade negotiating authority to assure that this trade surplus continues. I would like to focus my remarks on the objectives that Farm Bureau will be working on for the upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations. Higher living standards throughout the world depend upon mutually beneficial trade among nations. We urge that trade policies be developed that promote the growth in world trade. To this end U.S. negotiators must comprehensively address high tariffs, trade distorting subsidies and other restrictive trade practices in the new round of negotiations in agriculture. Farm Bureau supports expediting action on the next round for agriculture in the WTO. Our market is the most open in the world. We cannot sit idly by while our competitors trade openly in our market but deny us access to their markets on equal terms. We must begin the negotiations and conclude them as early as possible to put U.S. agricultural producers on a level playing field with the rest of the world. To this end we have set a goal to complete the agricultural negotiations by the end of 2002 to ensure that our producers gain increased market access in a timely manner. Second. We support a single undertaking for the next round wherein all negotiations conclude simultaneously. This format would prevent other countries from leaving the difficult agricultural negotiations until the bitter end while cherry picking the easier negotiations in other sectors. We believe that a short time frame for the next round coupled with a single undertaking approach will prevent long, drawn out negotiations that become too complicated to conclude expeditiously. Third. We must call for the elimination of export subsidies by all WTO member countries. Our producers cannot compete against the mountain of spending by our primary competitors like the EU. The EU spends in excess of eight times the level of domestic and export subsidies as the U.S. Data from the USDA and the European commission show that total EU domestic and export subsidy expenditures for ’97 exceeded $46 billion compared to $5.3 billion spent by the U.S. This level of spending distorts world trade and undermines U.S. producers’ competitiveness in the vital export markets. Fourth. We believe that the new negotiations must include a recommitment to binding agreements to resolve sanitary and phytosanitary issues based on scientific principles in accordance with the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The provisions of the Uruguay Round SPS agreement are sound and do not need to be reopened. The U.S. has successfully litigated several SPS cases that underscore the strength of this agreement. Fifth. The next round should result in tariff equalization and increased market access by requiring U.S. trading partners to eliminate trade barriers within specified time frames. Our producers compete openly in their own domestic market with their foreign competitors but are shut out of export markets due to prohibitively high tariffs. We need to correct this imbalance for our farmers. All WTO member countries should reduce tariffs, both bound and applied in a manner that provides commercially meaningful access on a an accelerated basis. Six. We must impose disciplines on state trading enterprises that distort the flow of trade in world markets. Every effort should be made to craft an agreement that sheds light on the pricing practices of STEs and ends their discriminatory practices. Our producers have lost too many sales to third-country markets due to the non-competitive, non-transparent operations of STEs. Seventh. We must ensure market access for biotechnology products produced from genetically modified organisms. Significant delays and a lack of transparency in the regulatory approval process for GMOs in the EU have heightened the need for science based transparent provisions governing bio-engineered products. We cannot continue to be held hostage to the EU’s non-transparent, discriminatory procedures that deny market access for our GMO products. We must end the use of all non-tariff barriers to trade. Finally, our negotiators must make changes to trading practices that would facilitate and shorten dispute resolution procedures and processes. The process for a WTO dispute settlement case typically runs three years if the WTO ruling is implemented. We have seen in both the EU banana and the EU beef cases that compliance is not always assured. Our trading partners cannot be allowed to unilaterally weaken the very principles that we negotiated in the Uruguay Round. The expedited dispute settlement process for perishable ag products outlined in the WTO dispute settlement understanding should be modified to allow the procedure to be used if the aggrieved party requests it. In summary, we support liberalization in global ag markets that will result in true reform of the current trading regime and bring about fair trade for our producers. The U.S. has a tremendous opportunity before it to shape the agenda for the next round and should seize this chance to demonstrate to the world that we are committed to opening new markets for U.S. agriculture. Given the economic turmoil now being experienced in many of our important export markets, the launching of new negotiations to further open markets has never been more important. I’d like to leave you with one last thought. We should not depend solely on our trade negotiators. Global competitiveness begins here at home. Railroads need to be upgraded. Locks and dams need enlarging and many of our nation’s farms and ranches need modernizing. Thank you.