My name is Chad Kleppe. I'm public affairs director for the Iowa Soybean Association, and on behalf of the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska State soybean farmers, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our recommendations on agriculture trade priorities for the next round of WTO negotiations.

Gaining improved access to foreign markets is a critical importance to soybean farmers. Every other row of soybeans produced by growers is exported overseas in the form of soybeans, soybean meal, or soybean oil. Soybeans and soy products are our nation's largest agricultural export commodity, and exports reached the $9 billion mark in the marketing year 1998/99. The economic livelihood of our nation's soybean farmers is linked to exports, market access around the globe, and economic growth, particularly in the world's developing countries that account for more than four-fifths of the world's population. History has shown us that trade liberalization helps fuel worldwide economic growth. And as consumers' incomes in developing countries improve, one of the first places they'll spend that income is on food, which includes more meat and cooking oil in their diets. As the world's largest exporters of both soy and meat, U.S. farmers have much to gain from trade liberalization.

Through the American Soybean Association and the American Oilseed Coalition, oilseed growers and processors have been working since the last round of trade negotiations to advance a market-opening initiative for trade in oilseeds and oilseed products referred to as the Level Playing Field Initiative. This initiative proposes to eliminate all tariffs, export subsidies, differential export taxes, and other non-tariff barriers to trade in oilseeds and oilseed products. We believe a level playing field will greatly benefit U.S. soybean growers by giving us increased access to foreign markets, eliminating unfair export practices, and stimulating demand among consumers. We believe the United States should vigorously pursue this initiative in the next WTO round.

We strongly believe the negotiations should be comprehensive in scope. For many countries, trade liberalization in agriculture is politically difficult and painful. Therefore, the scope of the negotiations has to be broad enough to ensure that countries being asked to make difficult concessions in agriculture can be assured of offsetting benefits in other areas.

In addition to pursuing the Level Playing Field Initiative for oilseeds, soybean growers believe the following additional issues need to be addressed in the next WTO round. We need rules governing biotech that are science-based and not based on power and propaganda. If we are to be successful in asking other countries to open their markets and rely on imports to meet a growing portion of their food needs, the United States and other exporting nations must agree not to restrict exports of agricultural goods through sanctions, embargoes, or reasons of short supply. Meaningful provisions providing food security to net food importing nations should be included in the next WTO agreement.

We believe that enhancing trade in pork and poultry products as well as a need for a strong sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Improvements in dispute settlement in addition to enhanced safeguards, antidumping, and (inaudible) duties.

We need to continue to provide income and other support to agricultural producers as a key feature of agricultural policy in many nations, including our own. WTO rules should allow for continued support of agricultural producers, but should transition countries to provide an increasing portion of total domestic support for agriculture in a decoupled form, as the United States already has done under the 1996 Farm Bill.

Labor and environmental issues should only be addressed in a manner that facilitates rather than restricts trade.

Finally the Blair House Agreement. U.S. soybean growers and the U.S. Government fought long and hard to achieve the Blair House Agreement which limits the area of oilseeds in the European Union that can be subsidized. The Blair House Agreement must not be weakened in any way, and the U.S. should insist that any changes in EU policy do not nullify or impair the benefits provided by the Blair House Agreement.

That concludes my presentation. I appreciate your time.