Barbara Sanderson, Suzanne Debrosse, Kathy Ruhf, Susan Armiger, Mark Lorenzo. I would ask you to summarize at three minutes.

MR. LORENZO: Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to present our views to the United States Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade representatives.

I'm Martin Lorenzo, Northern Forest Project Manager with the National Wildlife Federation, the nation's largest member supported conservation education and advocacy organization. Our members are America's mainstream and main street conservation activists who understand the link between sustainable economic development and environmental protection.

These regional listening sessions come at an important time in American history. For years we have negotiated international trade and investment agreements as if they were independent from their impact on wildlife and natural resources they need. We have assumed that more trade is always better because we believe that more trade brings greater wealth for all people. To that end, U.S. trade policy has focused on eliminating national policies that stand in the way of efforts to trade more and more products and services.

In many cases, more may be better, especially when we are talking about the plight of the world's poor. Increased access to international markets allows them to sell their goods and services in the global marketplace. But in the new era of global economy, we are learning the impact that globalization has on our efforts to protect the environment and we understand that liberalizing trade can bring significant environmental costs. We now understand that trade liberalization increases the pressure to turn wild spaces into farmland, family farms into factory farms, and wild forests into tree plantations.

The National Wildlife Federation believes the scope and direction of U.S. trade policy must be changed so that it promotes healthy economies and cleaner environments. Economically sound trade policy must respect the environment and the communities affected by the trend toward globalization.

In my written testimony I represent fully the National Wildlife Federation's agenda for environmentally responsible trade.

In brief, all future trade negotiations must accomplish the following:

Involved participation of environmental ministry on equal footing with trade ministries.

The WTO should set a floor for national environmental standards, not a ceiling for national standards.

Allow explicit deference to multilateral environmental agreements addressing shared international environmental issues, such as sitings that protect the trade environments of endangered species, trading environment areas as part of an overall trading environment agenda. For example, proposed forest products tariff reforms, trade agreements should reward exporters of products with high local value added content and discourage that which neither serves the communities nor their forests.

Commit to minimize the impact on environmental laws. The WTO prohibition on -- and protection and process methods. In this area we believe that the right of consumers to access information on production methods and environmental impacts, for example, through language like that enforced corresponds closely to the economic accent that full litigation is a necessity for efficient markets.

Each of these five points are addressed in the written comments. We urge the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Trade Representatives to consider and adopt the recommendations we have made for responsible trade and negotiations. Unless WTO member nations embrace the agenda for environmental reform on the WTO, we believe it will not earn the support needed to negotiate that can convince people that trade utilization works for them.

In conclusion, for the members of the National Wildlife Federation and our many affiliated state organizations, such as the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the question is not whether to trade, but under what rules the trade and investment serve to promote a healthier environment, maintain family farms and healthier communities. Trade is not an end in itself. Trade is a tool to achieve human aspirations, to improve standards of living, to enhance the quality of life. Our environment and wild places and wildlife, diminish them and you diminish our standard of living. Trade rules are self-defeating if they force us to trade those things we value most highly, the clean air, clean water, the open living places that give quality to life. Trade should be an investment in a better way of life, not the license to degrade those things in which a healthy life depends.

Thank you.

MR. ALLBEE: Thank you.

MR. SCHUMACHER: Let me ask you one of the issues you raise. I think that it's very important. And that is the third issue, if I recall, on more value added forest products. That is one of the issues that we are working on very hard. Japan is resisting this enormously because they basically want the hard woods out of Malaysia, Indonesia, the hard woods out of Vermont and Appalachia, they will take the trees, the logs. And in Portland -- and the number of hard wood that goes out of Portland is lost. It should be going out to furniture or adding value here. So, I really appreciate your comment on that one. It's something we really have to work hard. We are not getting on very well. Any pressure you can bring to bear on our friends across the pond would be greatly appreciated. I feel strongly about that. I think we share a common --

MR. LORENZO: I appreciate that. Let us harmonize our standards with our Canadian friends and the standards between the eastern states and the western states regarding raw log exports as a first step towards that.

Thank you.

MR. ACETO: Can I actually -- you mentioned about the environmental, I think that's part -- I don't understand. In opposition that it -- that is kind of interesting because we -- (inaudible)

MR. LORENZO: As I said, the environment ministries need to be involved as the labor industries on equal footing. How that becomes implemented is, I think, up to WTO recommendations. As I said, I think that WTO can establish some kind of floor for national standards, but no way should limit the ability of nations and national sovereignties to set their own standards for environmental labor protection.