Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
February 10, 2000
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 8654 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY February 10, 2000 CHARLENE BARSHEFSKY AMBASSADOR US TRADE
REPRESENTATIVE SENATE FINANCE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
BODY:
NEXT STEPS AT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Testimony of Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky U.S. Trade Representative Senate
Committee on Finance February 10, 2000 Chairman Roth, Senator Moynihan, Members
of the Committee: Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before the
Committee on our agenda at the World Trade Organization over the coming year. I
appreciate this opportunity to review our assessment of the WTO after five
years, the events at last year's Ministerial Conference, the negotiations and
other work we have under way in the year 2000. INTRODUCTION Our agenda for the
year 2000 ranges from opening negotiations on agriculture and services as
mandated by the Uruguay Round Agreement of 1994; to implementing and enforcing
existing agreements, including several now coming fully into force; promoting
the full integration of the least developed countries into the trading system;
institutional reform at the WTO, with a focus on strengthening transparency; and
the accession of new members, in particular China, to the organization. At the
same time, we are working with other WTO members for consensus on a new Round.
To reach such a consensus, as the President has said, all WTO members will have
to show flexibility and accept their share of the responsibility for success. My
testimony will review each of these points, but will open with a more basic
review of the record of the WTO over the past five years. And here the immediate
point is clear. That is, the trading system is fundamentally sound and our
participation in it is profoundly in America's interest. While the Ministerial
Conference in Seattle was unable to agree on an agenda for a new negotiating
Round, and the WTO has received some criticism from its members and from outside
as well, on the whole the WTO is fulfilling its mission of opening new
opportunities, promoting sustainable development, raising living standards and
strengthening peace. As the President recently said, there is no substitute for
the confidence and credibility the WTO offers the world as trade grows.
WTO membership opens world markets to our goods and services,
and helps us take advantage of our competitiveness in agriculture, manufacturing
and high-tech industries. It advances the rule of law in commerce, and promotes
stability during economic crisis. And thus our participation and leadership in
the WTO is of critical importance. Criticisms, both from within the WTO and from
outside, deserve a respectful hearing and the WTO must respond to the legitimate
issues they raise. But these were not the fundamental reason the Ministerial
conference did not launch a new Round. Rather, the WTO's 135 members reached an
unfortunate, but familiar, impasse on some of the major policy issues. The
impasse will not fix itself-, but if WTO members remember history and first
principles, focus more intently on the shared benefits we derive from the open
markets and rule of law represented by the WTO, and accept the shared
responsibilities of developing the trading system, we can break the deadlock and
move ahead. THE CONTEXT Our first challenge is to place the Ministerial in its
proper context. Today's WTO has its roots in the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, or GATT, created under President Truman after the Second World War.
The leaders of the time acted in the light of their personal experience: they
had seen the Smoot-Hawley Act in America and similar protectionist policies
overseas deepen the Depression and contribute to the political upheavals of the
1930s. Fifteen years later, they believed that by reopening world markets they
could promote growth and raise living standards; and that as open markets gave
nations greater stakes in stability and prosperity beyond their borders, a
fragile peace would strengthen. The work they began has proceeded through five
decades. Over time, as we and others abandoned the closed markets of the
Depression era, we have strengthened peace by integrating first Germany and
Japan, then the post-colonial world, and now the countries moving away from
communist planning systems into a modem economic world. And we have fostered
what amounts to a fifty-year economic boom during which the world economy grew
six- fold, per capita income nearly tripled, and hundreds of millions of
families escaped from poverty. Most recently, with completion of the Uruguay
Round and Congress' passage of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994, we made
a fundamental advance: going well beyond the GATT agreements in addressing
agriculture and services; protecting intellectual property rights; and
strengthening our ability to enforce all the agreements covered by the WTO. In
the WTO itself we created a small but efficient organization, with a very small
budget and professional staff, to serve as a venue by which governments can
agree by consensus on measures in the general interest. This is evident in the
substantial further progress we have made since 1995, in conclusion of the
landmark multilateral agreements on Information Technology, Basic
Telecommunications and Financial Services. Taken as a whole, these achievements
have substantially improved the world trade environment and its institutions, in
ways including: Expansion of the Rule of Law: In just five years, the 5 0 year-
old trading system has been transformed from a complex set of rules and
disciplines that applied fully to a relatively few members to a system where the
rules apply to all members (subject to transitions) eliminating the potential
for "free riders" on the benefits of an open trading system. Dispute Settlement:
Today, WTO Members rely on a set of procedures for the prompt settlement of
disputes, eliminating many of the shortcomings of the earlier GATT system where
the process could drag out indefinitely. While improvements to the system are
still warranted, the greater certainty of the new system has led to a more
prompt resolution of disputes and greater predictability in the application of
rules. Market Access in traditional and new areas of commerce.- Globally, the
Uruguay Round is reducing manufacturing tariffs by a third; American farmers and
ranchers are finding export opportunities, as a result of the first real
commitments to reduce barriers and limit the use of export subsidies; for the
first time in the history of the trading system services providers have also
recorded real export opportunities, from accounting to telecommunications
services providers. New entrants into the global marketplace, particularly small
and medium-sized enterprises, are also benefitting from these new market
openings and innovations. Intellectual Property Rights Protection: WTO member
governments have accepted a landmark set of rules for protection of patents,
copyrights, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property. This both
protects the research and innovation of Americans in our most competitive
industries, and creates incentives for further investment and technological
progress worldwide. Global Membership: The WTO has grown by 50%, from the 90
members which joined to launch the Uruguay Round in 1986 to 135 in 1999, with
another 30 members seeking to negotiate entry. More stringent requirements for
membership mean acceptance of WTO rules helps to open markets to American
products and promote domestic economic reform. This is especially important for
countries emerging from communist planning systems and seeking to establish
market-based economies. Thus, membership in the WTO is a key element in newly
emerging economies in Eastern Europe, in Asia, and in the Middle East. African
nations as well are participating more fully in the WTO than in the past.
Creation of a dynamic forum for trade liberalization: In establishing the WTO,
we created a system that is responsive to rapid changes in technology and the
needs of the 21'century. The WTO first set in motion and then realized
agreements in financial services, basic telecommunications services and
information technology, whose outcomes are larger in scope than the totality of
the results of the Uruguay Round; and by setting a built-in agenda to continue
in agriculture and services this year. High Technology: The dynamism of the WTO
has kept the trading system current with technological development, providing
real benefits to business and consumers - through its work on the Information
Technology Agreement, Basic Telecommunications, Financial Services, electronic
commerce and other initiatives. Since the Basic Telecommunications Agreement
came into effect, for example, rates paid by U.S. consumers for international
service to most foreign destinations have declined significantly. From 1996 to
1998, the average price of an international long distance call declined from 74
cents per minute to 55 cents per minute, a 25% decline. On highly competitive
routes, such as the U.S.-UK route, prices have fallen even more dramatically, to
as low as 10 cents per minute. Although aggregate data for 1999 are not yet
available, indications are that the trend toward lower rates has continued and
that the current average price worldwide is well below 55 cents per minute.
World Economic Stability: The WTO has also strengthened the world's ability to
address economic crises. During the financial crisis of 1997 and 1998, for
example, the respect WTO members, including ourselves, showed for open market
commitments helped to prevent a cycle of protection and retaliation similar to
that of the Depression era, ensuring affected countries the access to markets
they needed for recovery, and minimizing damage to American farmers and
manufacturing exporters. Greater 0penness and Accountability: While, as I will
note later, we are not satisfied with the WTO's progress toward full
transparency, we also recognize that in five years, the WTO has moved forward on
these issues by making a majority of its documents available to the public,
reaching out via symposia and other means to the NGO community and by creating a
Web page. All of the WTO Ministerial Meetings held thus far - in Singapore,
Geneva and Seattle - have enjoyed strong NGO participation. THE WTO IN AMERICA'S
ECONOMIC BOOM These policy achievements, in turn, have helped to facilitate an
expansion of American goods and services exports, despite the effects of the
Asian financial crisis, by 55% since 1992. This is especially important, as
export-related jobs typically pay 10-15% above the average U.S. wage. Together
with domestic policy measures such as the improvement of fiscal discipline since
1993 and increased investment in education, the trading system has thus made a
remarkable contribution to our prosperity in the past five years. By opening
markets, advancing the rule of law and promoting competition, the WTO has
contributed to a record of: Growth: The U.S. economy has grown by $2.2 trillion,
from $7.0 trillion in 1992 to $9.2 trillion in 1999. To put this figure in
context, only two countries in the world apart from the United States have a GDP
totaling $2 trillion or greater. Jobs: U.S. employment has grown by over 20
million, as unemployment levels dropped from 7.3% to 4.0%. This is the lowest
unemployment rate since January of 1970. Rising Living Standards: American
living standards are rising, as hourly wages for nonsupervisory workers are up
by 6.8%. At the same time, openness to imports has helped to keep inflation low,
broaden choice and improve consumer prices especially for basic household
necessities. This is especially important for the poorest families. Investment:
Since creation of the WTO, U.S. non-residential business investment has risen at
10.8% per year. Shared Benefit:. Americans have broadly benefitted from our
expansion, with poverty rates failing to the lowest level measured since 1979,
and unemployment at record lows for African- Americans and Hispanics. A final
point to note is that in the past five years, the U.S.' share of world foreign
direct investment has sharply increased, with foreign countries investing more
than $400 billion in America. Many had expressed fears that a more open world
would promote investment in countries with weaker labor and environmental
standards. Investment decisions obviously have many causes, but experience shows
that our high standards have not been any sort of a deterrent to investment in
the United States. REASONS FOR SEATTLE DEADLOCK Let me now turn to an analysis
of the Ministerial, and then to our next steps. As the record -- both of the
past five years and of the past fifty -- indicates, developing the trading
system has been work of profound importance. It has therefore always been
difficult: nations always have entrenched interests which benefit from the
status quo, and at each point along the road, governments must make politically
difficult choices to serve the greater good. It should therefore be no surprise
that we at times have encountered deadlocks. This happened at the creation of
the trading system, in which the founding of the GATT in 1948 built upon a
failure to set up an "International Trade Organization" in 1947. The creation of
the WTO five years ago followed a failed attempt to launch a Round in 1982, a
mid-term breakdown in 1988, and failures to conclude the Round in 1990 and 1993.
More recent negotiations on financial services and telecommunications also broke
down in 1996 and 1997, in all cases to be followed by success. The experience in
Seattle was similar to many of these previous negotiating deadlocks. While
broadly supportive of a Round, a number of major WTO members were reluctant to
commit themselves to a negotiating agenda covering issues that are genuinely
difficult. Most important, any new Round must clearly have as a central goal the
rapid reform of agricultural trade. This is a commitment the WTO made long ago,
when in 1995 it adopted a "built-in agenda" requiring the opening of
agricultural talks this year. This poses a special challenge to the European
Union and Japan. However, developing countries also have diverse interests and
agendas, which a Round must take into account, and we in the U.S. have sensitive
areas as well. All of us must be willing to look hard at our agendas and
consider ways to accommodate a number of the concerns of our trading partners to
move forward. We knew well before the Ministerial, of course, that a new Round
would involve difficult issues. But an agenda that does not take on the
difficult issues is one of little real-world consequence. Over the long run, WTO
members have been able to overcome their differences; on this occasion they did
not. WTO members began to harden their positions rather than coming to
consensus, and the negotiations proved unable to bridge the gaps. WTO AGENDA FOR
2000 Since then, we have been consulting with our trading partners and with
Director-General Moore on ways to move ahead. As we do so, we view it as of
fundamental importance that the WTO acts on the issues immediately before it:
the implementation of core agreements under the Uruguay Round, the opportunity
to promote development and integration for the poorer countries, the decision by
China and a number of other countries to join the WTO and the commitment made in
1995 to open negotiations on agriculture and services this year. 1.
Implementation of Agreements To begin with, a set of WTO agreements covering
intellectual property, trade-related investment measures, customs valuation and
other issues come fully into force this year, when remaining transitions expire.
It is crucial that this proceed smoothly. We are meeting our own commitments, of
course, in areas such as textiles. And in case of outright refusal to keep
promises, we will not hesitate to use dispute settlement to enforce compliance.
But we also recognize that these agreements are complex. Some countries have
genuine difficulty implementing them despite making sincere efforts to do so. In
such cases, our preferred approach is to work through the problems on a
practical, constructive and pragmatic basis. That is the best way to ensure that
we address the fundamental concerns countries have, and preserve the integrity
of the balance of rights and obligations all of us have taken up. Likewise, we
are willing to review concerns others may have about our own implementation of
agreements. 2. Least Developed Nations WTO members must also act with greater
generosity of spirit toward the least developed countries. Part of this is
greater market access for the poorest countries. We are prepared to do this
unilaterally, as the President stressed in his State of the Union Address, by
securing passage this year of legislation further opening U.S. markets to goods
from Africa and the Caribbean. This is of fundamental importance to growth and
sustainable development for the people of these regions, and will also help them
become better markets for our own products. Equally crucial, we must develop
better means to help these countries participate fully in the trading system.
Many of them come to the table with less experience in trade policy and at times
fewer resources to devote to it. They often rightly feel they have difficulty in
asserting their rights and interests in the WTO. A proposal we introduced last
year, together with Bangladesh, Lesotho, Nigeria, Senegal and Zambia, to improve
the technical assistance and capacity-building programs available from the WTO
and other international institutions, can serve as a starting point. 3. WTO
Accession for China and Others Likewise, the WTO is considering the accession of
31 economies. A number of these negotiations are well advanced: we expect Jordan
and Georgia to enter in the very near future; we have also completed our
bilateral negotiations with Albania, China, Croatia, and Taiwan; and have had
significant progress with a number of other countries. Each case will mean
significant trade liberalization, bounded by the rule of law. Let me say a few
special words about the completion of China's entry into the WTO. This is a
critical goal for the WTO this year. The economic liberalization and opening to
the world China will make as part of its WTO accession have the potential to
support reform in China, create opportunities for China's trading partners, and
ultimately help to stabilize peace in the Pacific. And simply from the
perspective of the trading system, a status quo in which the world's
third-largest economy does not need to follow WTO rules is an enormous source of
distortion and uncertainty. The China accession is thus a central task for the
WTO, and must move ahead this year. This will require expeditious action, first
of all by those WTO members which have yet to complete their own negotiations
with China, and second by the entirety of the WTO's membership
on rules issues. It is a complex task, but one which is manageable for the WTO
and should be completed soon. As part of this process, the United States must
grant China permanent NTR or risk losing the full benefits of the agreement we
negotiated, including special import protections, and rights to enforce China's
commitments through WTO dispute settlement, among other means. If Congress were
to refuse to grant permanent NTR, our Asian and European competitors will reap
these benefits of the agreement we negotiated with China, but American farmers
and businesses may well be left behind. 4. Built-In Agenda Negotiations and Work
Toward New Round Finally, with this work proceeding, we must look to the future.
The core elements of the negotiating agenda are before us, in the opening of
talks on agriculture and services, as required under the "built-in agenda" WTO
members agreed upon in 1995. These are the sectors in which markets remain most
distorted and closed, and in which the opening of trade will mean perhaps most
to future prospects for rising living standards, technological progress, and
sustainable development. I am pleased to report that WTO Members are moving
forward on this agenda. The WTO General Council yesterday set dates for the
initial meetings for the negotiations on services and agriculture, and our
expectation is that the important work for those negotiations will proceed. That
will include the development of negotiating proposals this year, a matter on
which we will be consulting with Members, the private sector and other
interested Americans in the days ahead. The work has just begun, and we will
soon publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments from all
interested parties as we begin the process of developing proposals for these
negotiations. But our view of the initial steps is as follows: In agriculture,
the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, with binding commitments on market access,
export subsidies and domestic support, provides the basis on which to pursue
further agricultural reform. Useful preparatory work has already been
accomplished through the WTO Committee on Agriculture over the last three years,
where countries have identified key issues and their interests. We are now
working with other countries to ensure discussions in Geneva focus on
substantive reform proposals. Our work last year enabled us to identify general
negotiating objectives, such as eliminating export subsidies; reducing tariffs;
expanding market access opportunities for products subject to tariff rate
quotas, including better disciplines on the administration of those TRQ's;
reducing trade-distorting domestic support levels; and ensuring that the
operation of agricultural state trading entities are more market-oriented. We
also want to ensure access for biotechnology products. We are now developing
specific proposals to implement these objectives. While specific negotiating
timelines have not been established by the Uruguay Round, the expiration of the
agricultural "peace clause" in 2003, and continued domestic farm reform efforts
in the United States, Europe and other countries, should help to move the
negotiations forward. In services, we are developing negotiating proposals for a
wide range of sectors where our companies have strong commercial interests,
including, energy services, environmental services, audiovisual services,
express delivery, financial services, telecommunications, professional services,
education and training, private healthcare, travel and tourism, and other
sectors. Our companies are poised to be among the primary beneficiaries from
stronger services commitments in the WTO. Broadly speaking, our objectives are
to remove restrictions on services trade and ensure non-discriminatory
treatment. We also need to ensure that the commitments we obtain accurately
reflect our companies' range of commercial activities. For example, the GATS
definition of environmental services does not include recycling services, an
area where U.S. companies are leaders. We want to fix this and similar
deficiencies in the GATS. Our proposals must also reflect the many different
means U.S. service providers use to meet the needs of their foreign customers.
This includes U.S. companies that establish operations overseas - for example,
as a branch or subsidiary; that deliver their services electronically - by
phone, fax, or the Internet; or that depend on individual personnel to export"
services - for example, Americans that perform short-term consultancy services
in a foreign country. Beyond these mandated negotiations, we have pressing needs
to address market access concerns in non-agricultural products, electronic
commerce, issues related to trade and the environment, trade facilitation, and
perhaps other topics as well. Thus, while there are a number of different
options for proceeding with trade liberalization beyond the agricultural and
services sectors, we working to build consensus for a new Round. To build a
consensus for such a Round will not be a simple task. However, the outlines can
be drawn, if WTO members prove willing to rethink some of their positions, focus
more fully on the shared benefits of success, and find the balance that allows
us to move ahead. As the President has said, we will keep working toward
consensus; we are willing to be flexible, and expect our trading partners to do
the same. WTO REFORM Finally, let me turn to the criticisms the WTO has received
and the questions of institutional reform. The protests and internal criticisms
of the WTO were not at the heart of the negotiating impasse in Seattle. However,
they raise issues that require a response. Only through openness and willingness
to listen to its critics will the trading system retain the broad support of the
public and its member governments over time. This does not mean that all
criticisms are valid. Indeed, part of the response must be a rejection of
unsubstantiated and more radical criticisms. The core vision of the trading
system is right: opening markets in the past decades has sparked growth, reduced
poverty and strengthened peace. The creation of the WTO here in the United
States has brought this still further: by cutting tariffs, it has been the
equivalent of a $750 billion global tax cut, whose benefit goes largely to less
prosperous families which devote more of their income to food and basic
necessities. It has helped America's farmers, working people and businesses find
new markets overseas. And as our import growth has shown, it has helped to raise
living standards, dampened inflationary pressures and broadened consumer choice,
while creating new opportunities for our trading partners. Most recently, during
the Asian financial crisis the respect WTO members showed for open market
commitments helped to prevent a cycle of protection and retaliation similar to
that of the Depression area, ensuring affected countries the access to markets
they needed for recovery, and minimizing damage to farmers and manufacturing
exporters worldwide. To begin reversing the work we have done would be
irresponsible and damaging in the extreme. Workers in poorer countries would
lose jobs as industrial markets closed; living standards of the poor in America
and other industrialized countries would fall as the price of food, clothing,
shoes and other essential goods rose. Hopes of rising labor and environmental
standards would be deferred, as countries which suffer from grinding poverty
have little time or resources for clean air enforcement and factory inspection.
And a crucial support for peace would weaken, as the stake nations now have in
one another's prosperity and stability beyond their borders diminished. But the
WTO must also be willing to listen to and act upon legitimate criticisms and
incorporate new ideas. Most immediately, it must address concerns about
transparency which are valid and can be easily remedied. This is especially
important in dispute settlement, where the current practice is to close
arguments to the public. Historically, the practice dates from an earlier era,
in which dispute settlement largely meant mediation and negotiation. But today,
dispute settlement is a more adjudicative process. In such a process, what once
was privacy becomes a harmful secrecy that reduces public confidence in
decisions. If this remains unchanged, public confidence in the system will
erode. As a first step, at our US-EU Summit in December, we proposed that we and
the EU, as the largest users of WTO dispute settlement, immediately agree to
open the arguments in our transatlantic disputes. Thus far, to our regret, the
EU has refused. But it is quite clear that this issue threatens to erode public
confidence in the WTO and its work, and must be addressed sooner rather than
later. Likewise, the WTO's internal processes can be improved and updated. Since
1986, when the Uruguay Round opened, the WTO has grown by over 50%, from 90 to
135 members, with more to follow this year. It is not only larger but more
diverse, ranging from the world's most developed to its poorest countries, and
covering each point of the spectrum in between. Each of these members has
different priorities and interests, adding to the complexity of negotiations.
Over time we should develop a more effective means of ensuring both
participation and efficient consensus-building. Director-General Moore has begun
consultations with WTO members toward this end. However, as we address the
issue, we must be careful not to alter the principle of consensus for decision-
making in the WTO. And we must also ensure that such procedural discussions do
not distract us from taking immediate action on core policy issues. There are
also clear areas in which the WTO can do more to help environmental protection.
These include elimination of environmentally abusive subsidies, such as fishery
subsidies which contribute to over-fishing; elimination of barriers to trade in
environmental goods and services; and the disciplining of agricultural
subsidies, including the elimination of agricultural export subsidies. And we
believe the WTO can contribute to the advance of internationally recognized core
labor standards. Its current refusal to discuss the links between trade and
labor cannot be justified. It can also cooperate more actively with the
International Labor Organization on a number of issues. We should also, however,
draw lessons for the future from our experience in Seattle in these areas. While
our environmental proposals won a substantial amount of support, we received at
times intense criticism for pressing to open a discussion of trade and labor. If
we are to move forward, I believe we must address more effectively the reasons
many developing countries are suspicious of these discussions. Few want to
specialize in low-wage industries; almost all would prefer highly skilled,
healthy and prosperous work-forces. But most also fear discrimination against
their products that would block development and perpetuate poverty. Clearly, our
proposals in this area have no such intention and would have no such effect. But
if the trading system is to play a role in achieving the shared goal of
improving labor standards -- as it should -- we must find ways to allay these
concerns. USTR BUDGET Finally, Mr. Chairman, in the context of our ability to
meet the totality of these challenges, let me raise one final issue. Monday, the
president transmitted his budget to the Congress. In it, he is recommending
funding for USTR at $28.3 million and 190 staff. This represents an increase of
$2.8 million and 12 full- time positions. In addition, the President's
initiative on enforcement includes additional resources for our agency. Thus,
this budget, like the previous two the President has submitted, calls for
funding increases, to match the escalating workload our agency has at home and
worldwide. As you know, USTR is certainly one of the leanest and I believe most
cost-effective agencies in the Federal government. When we began, we were an
agency designed to coordinate policy, drawing on the resources of other
agencies. Today, we have tremendous statutory obligations, together with
complicated and demanding interactions with nearly 200 foreign trade partners
and a very wide spectrum of Americans. As the Appropriations Committee begins
considering this budget request, I ask your support as our authorizers for the
addition of these 12 new positions to our team. To fulfill our mission most
effectively, we need additional support not only at the WTO, but with respect to
agriculture, Africa, China, Japan and several other areas. I hope you will
support this request. CONCLUSION In conclusion, then, the WTO faces a number of
challenges in the coming year, from proceeding on the built-in agenda for
agriculture and services, to implementing prior agreements, bringing in new
members, improving the ability of the least developed countries to participate,
reforming its institutions, and working toward a new Round. To meet these
challenges is a responsibility that all WTO members share. None of these are
easy or simple; but others have shouldered equally difficult tasks in the past.
And the record of the past fifty years should give us a great deal of
confidence. Taken as a whole, the multilateral trading system has promoted the
rule of law, created new opportunities for worldwide economic growth, and
created opportunities for Americans. This amply justifies the decision Congress
took five years ago to support creation of the WTO as a successor to the GATT.
And it should remind us how significant will be the rewards of success as we
take up the challenges of the new century.
LOAD-DATE:
February 12, 2000