MR. POTTHAST: I'm not sure I know that clapping is indecorous.

My name is John Potthast. I'm from Plainfield, Vermont. I'm on the Board of the Hunger Mountain Co-op, who does a million dollars worth of business a year. I'm also involved in politics, and one of my slogans was; ecology is a national balanced budget.

I have some recommendations. One is along the line of transparency applied to products as well as to rules, namely, doing with what food product we have. At the Hunger Mountain Co-op, we expect to spend about a thousand man-hours just trying to find out whether we have genetically modified food on our shelves. This is unconscionable. I think that one standard is products should be well identified, including genetic modification. I have a suggestion later.

We believe there should be local and regional control of health and environmental standards. That's the only place a citizen can actually effectively participate in government. The effects of -- the ecological effects, environmental effects, and health effects should be keyed into the market. We should be able to choose when we buy food what effect we have on our local community.

Tariffs and limitations of trade should exist in provincial and state areas. Again, this is where people actually control the government. I believe the U.S. federal government is out of control. It's large Apple companies, ADM, Monsanto.

Commissioner Graves raised the issue of how we have healthy agriculture. One suggestion I have is go to Japan because the price is at least 50 percent higher than commercial market. We have spent 100 years of so-called scientific agriculture. We have a sterile, unproductive soil. Soil has been destroyed from the way it was before existing in a natural ecology. These are serious effects in production of food worldwide.

You're asking this partly -- in some avenues anyway, and I hope the negotiations will change their habits and learn what ecology is -- you're asking us to open up the worldwide food production to the deleterious effects.

Undersecretary Schumacher mentioned he was alarmed at the connection between land mines and agricultural production. But how much -- how many people have been killed by the effects of pesticides?

At least in summary, that's my remarks. And I'll be glad to send by E-mail a little more detailed comments. I'll be glad to respond to anybody who has questions.

MR. SCHUMACHER: Thank you very much for the testimony. First of all, on tariffs, the tariffs are in our constitution, the constitution -- those are federally set (inaudible).

MR. POTTHAST: Would you speak up?

MR. SCHUMACHER: The tariffs of foreign trade are part of the federal -- of our constitution states -- this is a body of -- (inaudible.)

MR. POTTHAST: I believe they should be under control of regional governments, state governments. That's where people actually control.

MR. SCHUMACHER: That would require a change.

MR. POTTHAST: I know it would require a change. I would urge it.

MR. SCHUMACHER: Changing the constitution.

MR. POTTHAST: I think it would go along well with Canada and Quebec. You don't have to decide for everyone else. Make it so it's possible if a particular country would like to make those changes, it can.

MR. SCHUMACHER: For the record, that does require changing our constitution. That's -- but I think more importantly, one of the reasons I'm pleased you're all here today is to hear all types of views. One of the things I said earlier is in previous administrations, we have not heard diversified testimony. That's why we have at least heard a variety of thoughts and comments on our trade policy, because we are going -- we do have farmers here. They are testifying, the community groups.

MR. POTTHAST: But they are not deciding.

MR. SCHUMACHER: That's one of the reasons we have changed. We have these 12 hearings listening to you all. Everybody can see all the international visitors here, and I'm proud that we are out here in the countryside listening to all points of view. It's a very, very important democratic process, that we have input into something as important as the next round of trade in the future. Trade impacts on trade. I think that's very, very important to state.

On the other issue of biotechnology, I think the secretary gave a speech last week --

I'll just read a couple comments, I think it's very important, on the record. Two big issues -- there are a number of issues. He had a five point program. Very, very carefully.

One, not delaying the regulatory process through government regulation. Regulation must continue to stay arm's length, a dispassionate distance from the companies developing the products.

Secondly, fairness to farmers. And I think some of the comments here is how fair are some of the farmers. Biotechnology has to result in greater not fewer options for farmers. The industry has to develop that, show real meaningful results from farmers, particularly -- particularly small and medium sized family farmers. I think that's important.

And then corporate citizenship. In addition to their desire to earn a profit, biotechnology companies must also understand and respect the role of the arm's length regulator, the farmer, and the consumer. And the secretary feels very strongly about that.

That's one of the things we are going to be looking at very, very carefully as we and all of the U.S. government looks in terms of biotechnology. But we also are not going to have non-scientific -- there is a lot of passion on this issue. But there also has to be some -- you cannot let others hide behind, as the secretary said, unfounded, unwarranted scientific claims to block commerce in agriculture.

I understand that would be -- it's all very important to be on the record as well. There is a lot of passion on this issue. But I think we have a strong scientific base, we want to look at this very, very carefully. There are some issues out there. But I think in that regard, the secretary is very careful to talk about fairness to farmers, arm's length, make it a fair process and citizenship. We will learn more from people during the day.

MR. POTTHAST: I saw one reference in here to environment, talking about a healthy environment. There is no other reference. One thing that the Department of Agriculture should find out is there exists such a thing as science of ecology.

MR. ALLBEE: Undersecretary will be around during the day, so there will be other opportunities.

MR. SCHUMACHER: I look forward to a discussion afterward as well. Thank you both for being here and we appreciate it.

MR. ALLBEE: Mr. Graves.

MR. GRAVES: Yes. Ron, I would like to ask Susan a question I didn't have an opportunity to question her.

Susan, you made an interesting comment that I would like to ask you to expand upon, if you care to, that -- I believe you said that the U.S. doesn't have a mandate to feed the world. And I just wondered what your perspective on that is. Is there any responsibility on behalf of the U.S. and U.S. Agriculture to provide food and fiber to third world countries or other parts of the world?

MS. DAVIDSON: It's my perspective that first and foremost the food security, the environmental food security of those countries should take precedence over our stated need to feed them. I believe that there is adequate food in this world. And the problem is getting it to the people more so than us needing to force new technologies onto developing countries. I think it truly threatens their sovereignty at a very basic level.

MR. GRAVES: Thank you.