I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on a subject that is so important to the profitability of American agriculture.  When the President signed the Farm Bill in April of 1996, he emphasized the role of USDA’s trade policy tools in enabling America's farmers to continue to take advantage of the growing opportunities in the world market.  I will be interested to hear Secretary Glickman’s and Ambassador Barshefsky’s assessment of how well the Administration has done in meeting those goals.

Over the last several decades, our farmers have increasingly relied on income derived from the sale of their products abroad, and that trend is expected to continue.  In fact, USDA projections suggest that exports will account for nearly a third of total farm income within a decade.  With so much at stake for U.S. agriculture, I am pleased to see the Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are remaining vigilant with respect to emerging obstacles to U.S. products in overseas markets.

My concerns about our continuing competitiveness are both short- and long-term.  Clearly, the financial crisis still facing many Asian countries poses a threat to our exports to that region of the world, by far our largest trading partner.  While that threat still exists, I applaud the Administration’s recent expansion of GSM export credit availability in Southeast Asia.  If the heated rhetoric of our competitors in Australia and Canada is any indication, you certainly seem to be taking the correct approach.  Beyond that, swift passage of a bill giving additional credit to the International Monetary Fund is a crucial step in our effort to maintain strong, healthy economies able and willing to buy the products of American farmers.

In addition, I remain concerned about the apparent reluctance of the European Union to meet their obligations under the Uruguay Round Agreement and other agreements.  Not only does their recent sale of subsidized barley to California represent a violation of the spirit of their commitments on export subsidies, their unwillingness to remove their import ban on U.S. beef after their loss in the beef hormone dispute panel also brings the WTO dispute resolution mechanism into question.   I am also troubled by EU efforts to restrict imports of genetically modified corn and soybeans, both crops of great importance to my home state of Iowa.

I urge the Administration to vigorously oppose any movement to exclude agriculture from consideration in the proposed New transatlantic Marketplace negotiations with the European Union.  It is a dangerous precedent to leave agriculture off the table in any multilateral context, especially when the European Union is involved.

Finally, I urge the Administration to continue its efforts to prepare for the WTO agricultural negotiations due to commence in 1999.  The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture represents a good down payment toward agricultural trade liberalization, but much more needs to be done.  I am hopeful that we will pass a fast track bill by 1999 to give you authority for this round, but in the meantime I am pleased with ongoing bilateral negotiations and the analytical work you plan to undertake, both designed to lay groundwork for the upcoming negotiations.

All of us in this room share a common interest in promoting increased exports of American agricultural products.  I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony about how they expect to  achieve that objective.