DAVE SHIVELY: Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Dave Shively. I'm a staff member for Congressman Doug Bereuter, and the Congressman was unable to be here today, and he asked me read a statement.

I regret that due to previously scheduled commitment, I am unable to be here to testify in person today. However, I wanted to thank the United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky for choosing Kearney for one of the WTO public listening sites and also thank the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Nebraska Department of Agriculture for inviting me and for making all of today's arrangements.

I am confident that today's forum will be a success. While the focus on today's forum is on negotiating objectives and priorities for the next WTO round scheduled to begin this November in Seattle, I would first like to briefly underscore the importance of finalizing pending bilateral negotiations with China over Beijing's ascension into the WTO. Overall offered by the Premier during his visit to Washington in April was a commercially viable agreement. In my judgment, it was a severe error for the Clinton administration to have rejected what was clearly a very good, commercially viable offer from the Chinese. We should have accepted this agreement because it is in both -- it is in both the short-term and long-term interests of the United States. Because of the information I have received, I placed absolutely no blame on and Ambassador Barshefski for that failure. She should receive only compliments for the extraordinary skill and tenaciousness she continues to display in these very prolonged negotiations with the Chinese.

WTO ascension for China requires a comprehensive opening of China's markets in all sectors. WTO ascension would lock China into a more open, transparent and nondiscriminatory trade regime hopefully enforced by multilateral dispute settlement procedures.

And in fact at a time when we have a special concern about the transfer of sensitive or dual use technology to China, this is such an agreement that would institute important reforms and reduce competitive coercion on American businesses to transfer their industrial technology to China or for China to require manufacturing offices to transfer jobs from America to China. The United States effectively gives up nothing. All the concessions are made by China.

No where is America's advantages in China's WTO ascension package more prevalent -- evident than in the agriculture sector. With 1.2 billion people, China is the largest potential market for agricultural and food products in the world. Yet this vast market is effectively closed to most American agriculture exports today. The Agriculture Market Access Agreement pending with China would address trading routes, distribution, high tariffs, quotas, application of unsigned sanitary and phytosanitary standards, the reliance on state trading companies and exports subsidies, the offer made by Premier Xou is a home run for America and especially Nebraska agriculture.

Taken as a whole, these commitments move China towards a system based almost entirely on tariffs with extremely low tariff rates of 1 to 3 percent in most bulk commodities. More specifically, it reduces tariffs to levels below those of most American trade partners with the greatest reductions in the areas of top priority to American and especially Nebraska producers of beef, pork, poultry, wheat, corn, soybeans. By its tariff concessions, eliminates one-day restrictions on imports, requires the use of science-based SPS standards, reduces the role of state trading enterprises for key commodities and eliminates export subsidies.

It is projected that by the year 2003, China could account for 37 percent of future growth in U.S. agriculture exports. It is an American short-term and long-term national interest to be in the position to make this projection a reality. That will only occur with the expeditious conclusion of the pending market access agreements without any weakening of commitment made by Beijing and China's timely ascension into the WTO, preferably before the beginning of the Seattle Round.

The Seattle Round will commence with a further negotiations on agriculture and services as required in Uruguay Round Agreement which was completed in 1994. Through the Uruguay Round Agreement, participant countries agreed to open markets by prohibiting non-tariff barriers, converting existing non-tariff barriers to tariffs, and reducing tariffs. Member countries also agreed to reduce expenditures on export subsidies by 21 percent in terms of quantities and by 36 percent in terms of budgetary outlays and prohibit the production of any new export subsidies of agriculture.

While these are important first steps, they have resulted in only a small amount of trade liberalization, especially for agricultural products.

In addition to further negotiations on agriculture, the Uruguay Round required further negotiations on services, another key export sector for the United States. The new issues of rules for direct investment and competition policy are receiving considerable attention.

Clearly this makes for a very full and challenging trade agenda for Seattle. Therefore, I would hope that the demands of some to turn the Seattle trade round into a vehicle for making broader environmenal and labor concerns and that are not directly related to trade will not be accommodated.

Finally, by listening sessions like this one today allow for our trade negotiators to learn firsthand which issues are most important to Nebraska farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses. Our negotiators must also have the authority to negotiate on behalf in a meaningful way.

Today they're severely hampered by the President's lack of fast-track negotiating authority. Fast track provides that Congress can consider trade agreements within mandatory deadlines, without amendments. In other words, Congress either accepts or rejects the package negotiated; it cannot amend it.

The Congressman appreciates the opportunity to be able to address this, and there was further information in his testimony that was provided.

MICHAEL LEPORTE: Thank you, David. We are at that point on the schedule where we are to break for lunch for one hour. Is there anything we need to wrap up in terms of comments from either of you gentlemen before we break for lunch?

(At this point, the noon break was taken from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.)