CONGRESSMAN BARRETT: Thank you so much, Mike, and let me echo the comments of the preceding speakers when I thank Governor Johanns and Director Carlson and his team and anyone who has had anything to do with putting this listening session together. I think it's very timely, and I think Nebraska needs to be congratulated for being one of the 12 sites for the listening sessions around the country.

Chuck, I like what you said about Barshefsky and her team. I echo those comments as well, and also I think Dan Glickman is doing a good job. I've been particularly excited in some of the hearings that we've had with Charlene Barshefsky, Peter Scherr and that team and also the hearings that the House agriculture committee had last week with reference to the WTO meeting to take place in Seattle in late November. This is one of the finest negotiating teams that I can remember in my entire lifetime. I think they're doing an exceptional job.

The USTR and USDA are on track, and they are working for agriculture trying to negotiate the best deals that they possibly can. Gentlemen, I couldn't agree with you more to say it was a mistake for the administration to back away from the Chinese agreement. At the very essence where it was ready to be consummated, and we bombed an embassy and apparently the administration got some poor advice.

I recall very specifically one of the comments that Charlene Barshefsky made. She said--and Jim you mentioned it earlier--had that been completed, tariffs on, for example, livestock would have fallen 45 percent, 12 percent by the year 2004. Unbelievable. Restrictions on wheat coming out of the northwest would be lifted in China and on and on and on.

So I'm delighted that the essence of this session today is highlighting trade because this is the key. This is the key to the success of production agriculture.

Article 20 of the Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture calls for a continuing improvement on trade -- world agriculture trade by 1999. And I couldn't agree more. This is the most critical element when we look to the future, trade -- enhanced trade, increased trade, new markets. This is the bottom line.

The goals for the upcoming WTO negotiations including or do include number one, a decrease in agricultural tariffs; number two, a reduction in export subsidies; number three, physical and state trade enterprises; and number four, assurances that science and not protectionism are the basis for our worldwide trade rules. This makes much sense to me.

Our agriculture markets are open to imports, our tariffs are low. I know Jim Schroeder mentioned it and he mentioned it very well. Worldwide tariffs are running around a 45 percent. Our tariffs now are running from 8 to 10 percent. And it's to the advantage of U.S. agriculture that we continue to open markets and remove those barriers to our ag exports.

Much of the decline in the loss of exports is, of course, due to the terrible financial situations in Asia and elsewhere around the globe. I recall talking about much of the reliance on exports, but all of us should worry a little bit more about free trade argument that is beginning to lose a little bit of its luster.

I cite something that occurred on the other side of the hill in the last week, and my colleagues were debating a steel agreement. A bill that will would have sharply restricted imports of foreign steel. This was clearly a protectionist piece of legislation at the time, and I'm glad that it was defeated but- - -

SENATOR HAGEL: And both senators voted against it by the way.

CONGRESSMAN BARRETT: I hear you loud and clear. But legislation like is going to affect us. This means that we're going to have retaliation on U.S. agriculture. We've seen it time and time and time again.

During the '99 WTO negotiations, there were several issues that -- there are several issues I think ought to be addressed. I think they're important. There are a lot of issues that should be addressed. Two of them jump out at me. As long as I'm here, let me share with you. One is the age-old question of state trading enterprises. Jim Schroeder and Jim Murphy both touched on it, and the other one, of course, the rules for trade regarding bioengineered products, and this has been mentioned previously as well. I think each of these issues need to be very, very carefully examined, very carefully considered.

We talk about the Asian crisis. The economic stagnation of farm beef is, of course, due in large part to the Asian financial crisis, but it extends elsewhere as well. It seems like well, not only Canada, Europe, Japan, but take a look at our closest trading partner and our best friend probably, and that is our neighbor to the north, Canada. It seems like all the debate on wheat exports eventually centers on the Canadian border. So many of decisions that are being made in that regard are being made in Winnipeg. The decisions that are made in Winnipeg and Ottawa certainly affect dramatically what happens in this country and certainly in Nebraska.

An additional concern as far as I'm concerned especially for the European community is a review of the GMO's, and this has been touched on as well. I simply say that the GMO's have not been considered entirely in the European Union and other nations as well. We raise biotech corn and soybeans in Nebraska for obvious reasons because of the many benefits associated with the use of the product, but it's not universally accepted. And this is certainly an area that our negotiators need to zero in on when they convene in Seattle.

I think another important issue with this round of negotiations is China, and that was touched on a moment ago as well. The ascension of China into the WTO. This is I think one of the best things that could happen to us. It could be tremendously beneficial to our production agriculture.

In this week's hearing before the House Ag Committee, Ambassador Barshefsky touched on it along with her staff, Peter Scherr and did a nice job of sharing with us what could happen up to this point and at a previous briefing she did as well. If China is accepted into the WTO -- this question was asked, Ambassador, what did the United States give up? What did we have to give to China in order for you to get this kind of a positive agreement? And she said absolutely nothing. Absolutely zero. And what an impression that made on the members of the Agriculture Committee at that particular time. I urge the negotiators to certainly continue to pursue the possibility of China's ascension into the World Trade Organization.

Lastly, but certainly not last as far as I'm concerned and, Chuck, you touched on it as well is fast-track negotiating authority. So many of us have worked so long and hard on this issue over the past several years. This is a tool which the administration needs to help negotiate agreements with other nations. Every administration I believe since the Ford administration has had this kind of authority. It's a wonderful tool. The House has passed fast-track negotiating authority, and I can tell you in all honesty that some of the folks, some of the "yes" votes that were passed by members on both sides of the aisle were extremely difficult votes. But it passed. The administration needs to get behind fast-track trading authority with all of its collective strength. It will not pass without the help of the administration. And when we hear now the speech which was made at the University of Chicago, the commencement address, the President is now saying we must get behind fast-track trading authority. I say to myself, where has the administration been all this time? So negotiators, ambassadors, members, please, please do everything you can to emphasize the importance of that tool to be given to the President of the United States to allow him to negotiate some good agreements.

So in summary, I'm confident that we'll have a good session in November. I'm confident both the House and the Senate Agriculture Committees will carefully examine the present position of ag trade, and you can be sure that we will continue to closely monitor what's happening with regard to the administration's plans or defending fully this country's farmers and ranchers at the WTO Ministerial in Seattle.

Thank you again. Thank you, Merlyn. Thank you, Governor, and thanks to others who have had anything to do with these matters.

MICHAEL LEPORTE: Thank you, Congressman Barrett. And I think we really should thank these men for what they are doing as a team. And as you have heard them say earlier today, they don't always agree, but they have the dialogue in a professional way. And I admire the way that this is being handled on the part of our Congressional delegation and our governor. Let's all just give them a big hand for what they do. Thank you.

We're going to take a short break, and I might just mention for the media that are here that immediately following this session, right now there will be a news opportunity with the Governor and the Congressional delegation in room 219. If you could be back in your seats at about 25 after, we'll resume 10:30 straight up, there is some coffee and some refreshments back there for you. See you in just a couple of minutes.

(At this point, a break was taken from 10:25 to 10:35.)