MODERATOR: Good afternoon from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington. Welcome to today's news conference with Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns to discuss World Trade Organization negotiations currently under way in Geneva. Now speaking to you from Geneva, here is Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns.

SEC. MIKE JOHANNS: Well, good afternoon, everyone. I am going to keep my comments very, very limited because I have just a very short period of time here, in fact about 15 minutes, and I know you do have questions. So I'll just offer a quick thought here.

First let me comment just a second on the U.S. proposal and how it's been received. It has been received as a bold move by the United States. Negotiations continue. That would be the second point I make-- this is a situation where not only are we negotiating literally as I speak, but those negotiations will continue in the weeks ahead.

I will say what I've been saying for months and months now, actually from the day I took this job, and that is that market access for us is the key. And I've repeated that during the negotiations. Ambassador Portman has. We need a bold proposal on market access. And that's what we continue to work toward.

With that, that will wrap up my comments. And Larry, let's go ahead and open it up to any questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time if you'd like to ask a question you may press *1. Please record your name. Jackie Fatka you may ask a question.

REPORTER: Hi. Thanks for the opportunity. I had seen a letter from Senate Ag Chairman Chambliss saying that he's concerned that the administration is using the current negotiations to reshape farm policy without the full input of Congress. How do you respond to that?

SEC. JOHANNS: I can't because I haven't seen the letter.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Sophie Walker.

REPORTER: Hi. Sophie Walker at Reuters. My question is also based on the letter. I understand you may not have seen it, but my question is, is it possible for the U.S. to come to a deal without reducing overall farm program funding?

SEC. JOHANNS: As I indicated in the speech that I gave last week, as I've been out on the listening sessions across the country I've heard a lot of discussion about the farm programs. And a lot of support for some programs-- Rural Development, our conservation programs, just virtually unanimous support. The subsidy programs, very much a debate going on.

You know, I was in Lubbock, Texas, recently, and it was almost unanimous-- we'd just love to see you repackage the 2002 Farm Bill. But having said that, in other parts of the country people advocate very, very strongly for payment limits. And I would guess if the repackaged 2002 Farm Bill had strict limits relative to farm payments support would be a lot less certain in the southern states.

So I guess what I would say to you is this. As I indicated in my comments, we aren't writing the Farm Bill here. Congress will write a Farm Bill. The best approach in policy will be debated in the halls of Congress. Again, it will be written there, and it's written by Congress. We'll offer input and then the President makes a decision as to what to do with the Farm Bill.

So that really is the situation where the best approach is going to be debated in Congress. And again I would advocate that there are ways to be very, very progressive. I will always advocate we should support agriculture. I just think it's good federal policy. And we can continue to do that, notwithstanding what happens at the WTO.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Bill Tomson. Please state your affiliation.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Bill Tomson with Dow Jones. Thanks for doing this, Mr. Secretary. There is some debate over countercyclical payments. The U.S. has asked to put these in the blue box. Have you gotten an agreement for that, or would you agree to leaving them in the amber box and subject to the 60 percent cut that you've proposed?

SEC. JOHANNS: Uh-huh. I will tell you this. This is not a situation where literally folks are talking about you can do this program and it will go here, and then you can do that program and it will go there. That is not the kind of negotiations. Again, debate as to what the farm program will look like will occur in the halls of Congress.

You know, if you look back at the last WTO agreement it shaped broad parameters, and that's what I would anticipate here.

There was a limit set, as you remember, in the amber box for countries that subsidized agriculture. And but beyond that the program was shaped by the individual countries. So there really hasn't been discussion along the lines that you've talked about, Bill.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Matt Kaye, and please state your affiliation.

REPORTER: Matt Kaye, the Burns Bureau. Secretary, thanks so much for giving us this opportunity.

SEC. JOHANNS: Sure.

REPORTER: If you look more specifically at Senator Chambliss' letter, he talks about current baseline spending for agriculture. Mathematically I guess the question is, is it possible to protect that baseline, which I'm not sure what it is today. It used to be somewhere up around $19 billion. I guess it's come down somewhat in recent years, or at least the spending has compared to the baseline. Is it possible to protect that baseline if you make the cuts that are called for in the U.S. proposal, some 53 percent in trade-distorting domestic supports?

And also, the chairman talks about a more gradual timeline for easing U.S. agriculture into any adjustments called for in an agreement of 10 years instead of the five years in the proposal. Is five years cutting it a bit close?

SEC. JOHANNS: I am so handicapped because I haven't seen that letter, and you know I'm very hesitant to comment about something I haven't had an opportunity to even lay my eyes on. Again, I would point out however that the question of how agriculture is supported is a question that each country deals with, and we will do that. We did it in the 2002 Farm Bill after a WTO agreement. We'll do it again in the next Farm Bill. That debate will occur in Congress in terms of how best to shape it. It occurred in the last Congress.

So that's about the best I can offer there.

REPORTER: Okay. Just a quick follow-up if I could. We started to see some reaction to what the U.S is left with if these cuts were to take place. I understand from the fact sheet that USDTR put out that the Europeans would still command a two-to-one advantage in subsidies. Will that pass muster politically on the Hill when lawmakers have been calling for a level playing field in agriculture?

SEC. JOHANNS: Here's what I would say. Again those kinds of discussions are going to occur as we get down to a Farm Bill. There, as I pointed out in my speech last week, there are many ways to support agriculture. And the important thing that we need to focus on is that 27 percent of what agriculture is about comes from trade. Let's be smart, let's be very thoughtful in a policy sort of way as to how we approach this. But the base of where I'm coming from on the Farm Bill legislation is, there's a consensus that some believe is out there, quite honestly, depends a whole bunch on what the Farm Bill looks like. And if you followed the advice and direction of farmers in certain parts of the country it would be a Farm Bill that probably would not be what people in other parts of the country want.

But those issues will develop as we get to a point where we're really getting down to debate in Congress about what the Farm Bill should look like.

Let me take maybe one final question here, and then I need to get off the line.

OPERATOR: Rob Gentry, you may ask your question, and please state your affiliation.

REPORTER: Hi. This is Rob Gentry with TV Asahi (sp). I just wanted to know if you could tell us about any discussions you were able to have with the Japanese agriculture minister about reopening the Japanese market to U.S. beef. And did you hear anything positive you might pass on to members of Congress who are concerned about this issue?

SEC. JOHANNS: I did have a bilateral meeting with the minister of agriculture from Japan, and we talked about a number of things. But I did again point out to him that what I've said so many times, and that is that I think they've got a serious problem here. Congress has shown all kinds of signs that their patience has run out. And I just think there has to be something nailed down and specific right now. And I can't tell you that was given to me.

So I don't know. They keep talking about being in the final stages. I sure as heck hope they are because the time has long since passed for me to ask Congress to continue to be patient. I can ask, but they've run out of patience.

Everyone, thank you very much.