We are here today to give both the Texas and the regional perspective on internationaltrade to the negotiators who will be involved in the next round of World Trade Organization talks. The WTO ministerial begins on November the 30th in Seattle. Today we are going to hear about what has worked and what hasn't worked in the global trade arena. This listening session here in Austin is one of 12 regional hearings being held nationwide to give negotiators a chance to meet face to face with farmers, ranchers, and commodity groups and hear their concerns. We're also very pleased to have some distinguished visitors from our neighboring states; I believe that Roy Johnson is here from the -- the director of marketing development for the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and I think Rick is here, the director of marketing and development from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture.

Let me talk a little bit about Texas. Texas has a major stake in the resolution ofseveral trade issues during this next round of negotiations. After all, our state is one of thisnation's leading agricultural exporters. We rank among the top five states in overall value of ag exports, with our exports from this state worth 3.1 billion dollars in 1997. As overseas economies begin to improve, Texas and U.S. farmers and ranchers must have fair trade and fair access to these growing global markets. Texas supports free trade as long as our trading partners are willing to support a fair and equitable system.

One major issue is the timely resolution of trade disputes, especially when perishable products are involved. We need quicker ways to resolve disputes and a system to anticipate and mediate differences before they become major disputes. Right now the World Trade Organization is the arbitrator of the last resort. One solution could be groups, such as a proposed U.S./European Union Trade Dispute Panel, that would work as an early warning system to resolve arguments in their infancy. This proposed panel is a good start, and I'm sure we can come up with other ways to make the trade dispute process speedier and more workable.

Another trade issue involves animal and food safety, known in trade groups as sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions. We must end the practice that some nations have of hiding behind a so-called food or animal safety veil when the science is not there. Sound science, not unfair protection of local markets, must be the criterion for fair global trade.

Other countries are also lagging behind in commitments made during the last trade negotiations to remove agricultural tariffs and subsidies. The European Union is still being allowed to spend nearly eight billion dollars in the year 2000 to subsidize agricultural exports. This is more than eight times the United States expenditures of 600 million for the same year.

While the United States has stood by the original commitment to reduce export subsidies, other countries have taken advantage of this situation to gain market advantage. All WTO members must follow through on their commitments to work toward eliminating export subsidies.

Reducing tariffs is another area that needs work. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that tariffs on U.S. exports averaged more than 50 percent. 50 percent, compared to imports in the United States which were subject to tariffs less than five percent. The United States should not have to reduce its tariffs any further other countries follow suit. This clearly is an unfair situation that shuts our producers out markets that they need to reach to help improve record low commodity prices.

Another unfair situation that was calling for decisive action is the flood of imports from New Zealand and other countries. The U.S. International Trade Commission has found that imports of foreign lamb surged 47 percent between 1993 and 1997. In addition, 1998 lamb imports were 30 percent above the 1997 figures. These have severely harmed our domestic lamb industry.

I am glad to say that as of late yesterday, the White House did go ahead and agree, in substance, with the recommendation of the International Trade Commission. But to put the need for that industry in perspective, I want to give you a couple of numbers. The value of U.S. exports in lamb to Australia for the two-year period '95 to '97 was $5,000. $5,000. We had zero exports to New Zealand. The imports in the same two-year period of lamb from Australia in the two years was 142 million; 108 million from New Zealand. So its $5,000 versus about 250 million.

Another number that's kind of interesting is with respect to beef. This exported about a million dollars in beef in a two-year period to Australia in '95 through '97. We imported 640 million. To New Zealand, in the same period, we exported about $730,000 worth; we imported from New Zealand 500 million.

I am sure that today we will hear great deal more about these issues and others that are restricting Texas and U.S. producers' access to other markets. Again, on behalf of Texas Agriculture and Austin, thank you for taking the time to come and testify at this session today.

Now I'm going to turn the -- the session's facilitator over to Tony Purcell. Tony is with the Texas State Network and he's going to be our terrific moderator for today's session.