MR. WELLS: On behalf of the Tennessee Soybean Association and the state soybean producers, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our recommendations on agriculture trade agreements for the upcoming round of the WTO negotiations. Achieving improved access to foreign markets is of critical importance to soybean producers. Every other row of soybeans produced in the United States is exported overseas in the form of soybeans, soybean meal. Approximately 90 percent of Tennessee's production goes into export marketing. And soybeans complex imposes the largest export in the nation in the agriculture industry with exports exceeding nine million dollars in the 1998-99 year.

The economic livelihood of soybean producers is linked to exports. Market excess (inaudible) economic growth particularly in the world developing countries that account for more than four-fifths of the world population. History has shown us that trade liberalization helps (inaudible) it's included in the income for developing countries and proofs so does the level of purchase of food which includes more meat and oil in the dates. As the world's largest exporters of both soybeans and soybean oil, U.S. farmers have much to gain with trade liberalization. Please consider that when the export products are not transferring technology that they (inaudible) overseas and come back as exports. Through the American Soybean Association and American Oil Seed Coalition, oil seed growers have processed and have been working to advance the market (inaudible) initially for trade oil seed and oil seed products (inaudible) level. We propose to eliminate all tariffs, export subsidies (inaudible) export taxes and other nontariff barriers to trade oil, seed oil and seed products. We believe a level playing field will benefit soybean growers by increasing our access of foreign markets by eliminating unfair export practices and stimulate the (inaudible) among customers.

We believe the United States should vigorously pursue (inaudible) in Seattle. We strongly believe that negotiations should be (inaudible) Many countries the trade liberalization act is politically difficult. Therefore, the scope of the negotiations has to be broad enough to ensure (inaudible) difficult concessions in agriculture benefits and in other areas.

In addition to pursuing the relative (inaudible) the following additional issues should be addressed at the next round. Rules governing biotech trade must be included in order to ensure science based regulatory rules of trade issues. WTO rules must supercede those of other international treaties or agreements. If we are successful in asking other countries to open their markets relying on imports in a growing portion of food needs, the United States and other export nations must agree not to export agriculture for consumptions in embargoes or reasons of short supply. Meaningful provision providing food security for (inaudible) should be included in the next WTO agreement. Fifty percent of our soybean production (inaudible) domestic, foreign public poultry industry. U.S. foreign and public exports have declined following the reduction in trade access barriers in the Uruguay Round. This momentum in market access of pork and poultry should be continued and accelerated. Under current WTO rules developing countries are the subject of foreign (inaudible) have a longer period of time to liberalize their markets, a country also able to accept and designate itself as developed country.

The United States should pursue the rules for the graduation of developing countries to full WTO obligation in using objective economic (inaudible) such as per capita TDP. The sanitary and phytosanitary of the division of the Uruguay Round stipulated that measures designed to protect the human animal must be based on sound science. These provisions can prevent no sales for safety concerns being used to restrict trade. In the next round it is critical to prevent SPS agreements from being undermined or obstructed by non-concerns. Weaknesses in current WTO settlement systems are readily apparent. The United States should not have a complaint in order to achieve compliance in the (inaudible) compliance dispute settlement round to rule in favor of the United States.

The Uruguay Round agreement changed safeguard rules to allow countries that oppose safeguard import barriers without penalty for three years.

In the next round countries that retaliate should (inaudible) there so that safeguard actions are not taken casually. For effective oath (inaudible) and permitted unilateral provisions such as countervailing dues and anti (inaudible.) Providing income and other support for agriculture (inaudible) including their own. WTO rules should allow for continued support of agriculture but should (inaudible) countries to provide an increasing portion of (inaudible) shown as the United States has already done in 1996. What (inaudible) issue should not restrict trade to U.S. soybean production. They have fought long and hard to achieve the (inaudible), which limits the area of overseas and European be subsidized. The Blair House Agreement must not be weakened in any way and U.S. should (inaudible) to any changes in U.S. policy should not nullify or impair the benefits provided by Blair House Agreement. Thank you. T hat concludes my presentation and I want to thank you for (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Does the panel have any questions or comments?

MS. WINTON: The want to talk to you about export restrictions from (inaudible). Do you have any specific request looking at the APEC open food system as perhaps (inaudible) to achieve this concept of freight security to countries, a specific proposal (inaudible?)

MS. WELLS: That issue is rather complex. It involves getting down to details of understanding the labeling and SPS issues and I really can't answer that very well. It's something I would like to get a little more information on and send it to you.

MS. WINTON: Okay, thanks.

MR. SCHUMACHER: Let me follow up on that issue. You mentioned in your testimony export restrictions. We are working very hard to get a bill out of Congress on construction of the policy. What I would like to hear from you and others on the wider issue -- if you recall European export taxes a couple of years ago to protect their livestock industry and grain, do we need to get -- the question so do we need to have something in the next round that would really restrict exporting countries putting restrictions on to ensure import countries that we have a smoother trade, operating trade rules, that we (inaudible) their export taxes, help their wheat products sends all the wrong signals to importing countries that we need to be sure that the trade system will be there in tough times as well as good times. Eventually we need to have some assurance that we and others will always be there when things gets tight. There is a paragraph I would follow up on that issue.

MR. WELLS: Let me add in that sense they started markets in 1972. The big blow that we had was in the markup and sent a message to Japan that we would not (inaudible) and this has pushed the productions down in South America. This is our biggest competitor and that signalling is still going out that there are restrictions in that sense. It needs to be resolved to the point that they realize that we've got to have available supplies and if supplies are short, they go down just like everyone else.

That issue is most important in the next biotech issue. You asked about prioritizing, wehave tremendous concerns in Europe and Japan about biotech. It's not something that's going to go away. We thought it would, but we have to work on that. Thank you.

MR. CUMMINGS: Question in follow-up (inaudible) readily available. They would be interested with regard to your comments on safeguards if you could provide us with any particular instances where you feel that other countries are abusing the safeguards agreement. We have been trying to enforce on countries this is not the way to restrict imports for the long term. If there is something in particular that you have been seeing, what problem was that, and we would appreciate hearing from you on that, also.

MR. WELLS: We'll be glad to provide that. Thank you.