Dr. Sumner.

DR. SUMNER: First, let me state that unlike most previous speakers today, I represent no one other than myself. In particular, I don't represent the University of California, which doesn't take policy positions on any public affairs matter.

To begin, all economic evidence that I know about shows that opening markets is a strong positive factor for U.S. and California agriculture. There's no question about it, more open markets creates economic growth and stronger economy here and abroad. This expands the demand for farm commodities, especially California agricultural commodities.

The overall point in my statement, which is the written statement which you've been given, is to urge the negotiators to focus on the basics and to move quickly. In particular, we should note well that the best protection of strategy for the new round is delay. I elaborate on all these views in the statement, but the key point is our goal should be agricultural free trade by 2010.

And, in fact, this can be achieved --

CO-MODERATOR LYONS: We're not using that. There's a little malfunction.

CO-MODERATOR JONES: Technical difficulty.

DR. SUMNER: This agricultural free trade by 2010 can be achieved almost by simply extending the Uruguay Round without delay. There are several steps that I'll mention about open markets as quickly and fully as possible. And this is really the key, continue the Uruguay Round tariff cuts at roughly the same base, six percent a year off 1995 base is roughly the same as a ten percent tariff cut off a year 2000 base. Either one will get us to the same point, essentially free trade by 2010.

Along the way, it probably makes sense to expand quantitative access in TRQs, say, going from our five percent minimums to a ten percent minimum. That's not as important, because if we move quickly with the tariff cuts, that will take care of it. But I think expanding quantitative access in some markets is important. We can also eliminate export subsidies over this ten-year period, by essentially continuing the Uruguay Round Agreement cases.

Now, let me add a few other points. I do believe we need some special monitoring for State trading enterprises to assure their compliance with import and export rules. That's not a whole list of new rules, it's just compliance. I believe we should fully implement but not reopen the SPS agreement. The case law so far seems to be going in the right direction. Obviously, dispute settlement is tedious, but it seems to be going in the right direction.

Frankly, I believe we should ignore internal supports. Internal support rules are a distraction. They don't open markets. They really have achieved nothing in this round. And I elaborate on this in my statement, I think they just don't get us what we need.

I believe we should drop special and differential treatment. It doesn't do the less-developed countries any good and it hurts the rest of the world. It doesn't open markets any quicker, which is good for them and for us. Instead, we should provide technical and other assistance to less developed countries, so they can participate more fully in the round and so that they can participate more fully in dispute settlement. I think that's the road to fairness, not the so-called special and differential treatment that really doesn't do them any good.

I do believe that the WTO should have a rule that says no export taxes, no quantitative restraints on exports. And, in fact, this will go a long way to addressing the food security concerns that you hear when you travel in Europe or Asia. One argument they use against opening markets is their own food security. And one argument they make about food security is they don't trust international markets.

If we can give them written hard assurances through the WTO that we're not going -- that no one who's a member of the WTO is allowed to restrain exports, I think it will go a long way to helping them to open their markets. That's helping them politically in their own countries.

Thank you.