 Thank you very much, and I'm pleased to be here in Canberra and participating in the Outlook Conference. My remarks cover long-term drivers of global markets and U.S. policies. And I'll make the case that while macroeconomic conditions have changed and commodity prices have fallen, the overall forces shaping markets in the world in the U.S. remain largely the same. I'm going to review some of these trends and then turn to recent developments in U.S. farm policy in the 2014 Farm Bill and conclude by looking forward. USDA's annual baseline provides a framework to assess drivers of global markets. On February 19th, we released the market projections for 10 years out to 2025. And they are based on specific assumptions about macroeconomic conditions, policy, weather, and international developments with no domestic or external shocks assumed to occur to global markets. In terms of policies, the baseline assumes that current policies continue throughout the period, including the 2014 Farm Bill. And as such, this is one scenario that's based on a combination of our models and some expert judgment. The first chart here shows the macroeconomic projections for gross domestic product or GDP. And the global growth throughout the period averages 3.1 percent, which is slightly below the long-term trend prior to the 2008 financial crisis. There's two lines here. On top and green is developing countries. On the bottom, developed countries. And we see we project higher rates of growth in developing countries. This combined with higher rates of population growth reinforced a shift towards developing countries as the drivers of ag markets and trade. Two other significant drivers of agricultural markets are oil prices and exchange rates. On the left, you see crude oil prices, which are assumed to increase from recent lows at rates that are higher than the general rate of inflation. On the right is the awaited US agricultural exchange rate. And you can see the recent appreciation of the dollar, which we assume will continue into 2017 and then begin a slow gradual depreciation through the end of the projection period. This is the average, but the baseline assumes different rates of appreciation vis-a-vis countries around the world. One of the smaller ones is for China, given the Chinese management of their foreign exchange rates. The largest real appreciation of the dollar takes place against Russia and other former Soviet Union countries. On average, on balance in the exchange rate, the dollar appreciation reduces US exports. We've seen that already, and this is especially true for basic commodities and intermediate products, less so for process products. In terms of other important policies, renewable energy policies remain a significant driver of markets. Within the US in the projection period, ethanol continues to account for about a third of total US corn use. This drops slightly due to the ability to blend ethanol into gasoline, but nonetheless it remains important. Globally, biofuels are projected, production is expected to increase in the next 10 years, although at a slower rate than in the past. That's the macroeconomic background, and they lead to a slow recovery in global demand for agricultural commodities. USDA baseline also assumes rates of technological improvement, and they continue to grow. If you bring this demand and supply side together, that implies that we see slowly recovering prices. This is US farm prices for soybeans, wheat, and corn. Here you have a line that shows where the projection period starts. Among the three, soybean prices rise the most, reflecting increased demand for soy products, linked to growing meat demand in developing countries. You see a similar story on the meat side. On the left-hand side, you see US production of poultry in green, beef in red, and pork in blue. On all three, we see growth in projection in the US, partly linked to lower feed prices that make it more competitive. We also assume increased technological improvements. The key component is the growth in international demand. I don't include dairy production, but that's also projected to grow. On the right-hand side, you see US per capita demand for these three meats, and they rise ever so slightly. This is even as the baseline also includes declining nominal prices for meat. In fact, the declining price for beef is slightly more than other meats, which helps arrest the fall in per capita beef consumption. The real action in beef for US producers is in global markets. This chart shows total exports from the major exporting countries. You can see that that grows over time for all of the different major meat products. What we don't see in this chart is that there are shifts among the exporters. This illustrates a second point that Jamie also made, that an important trend in global markets is increasing competition from developing countries that are growing as both importers and exporters. For example, in 2014, India became the world's largest beef exporter, and its exports are projected to increase by 30% over the next decade. I think I've only mentioned China once in terms of its exchange rate, but China remains a powerful force in global agricultural markets. This chart shows soybeans imports around the world, and Green shows that China already has become a dominant force as a global soybean importer, and that's projected to increase. As such, Chinese macroeconomic conditions and policies are going to shape the markets for soybeans and other products. Another example of a market that's important to the US is cotton, and China is the world's largest cotton importer and also holds record levels of stocks. My one final chart on the baseline reinforces this point about competitiveness for exporting countries. Here you see global corn exports, where the US remains a large producer and exporter of corn, but in response to higher prices in recent years, you can see the growth in exports from the former Soviet Union in green, Brazil in black, and Argentina in gray. And I think this growth in competitors around the world in all products means that the US needs to invest in technology and management strategies in order to manage costs to remain a competitive exporter. I'm going to tie up a few key points of the drivers from the baseline and the US economy before turning to farm policy. And one trend that I've talked about that we've heard also at this conference is the growing importance of developing countries as a source of demand. In blue on this chart, you see the growth in US ag exports that have taken place over the past several years, with a decrease last year largely due to the exchange rate changes. And what's interesting here is in green you have the share of exports going to developing countries in red to develop countries. And these lines crossed in 2003. And while we see some dip in the most recent year, I think the baseline and common wisdom in the US is that developing countries are going to remain the largest source of growth for agricultural markets and for US producers. A second key factor that is behind the baseline and you can see in recent trends is that growth in agricultural output depends on productivity and new technologies. On the left hand side, you can see results for the United States. And this is an index of total output, total inputs and total factor productivity, which is a ratio of outputs over inputs. The lines for total factor productivity and total output really lie on top of each other. And you see at the bottom in light blue total inputs which changed little over time. And this goes back to 1950, showing that for decades the growth in US agricultural output has been driven by changes in technology. In the world if you look back and this goes, the chart on the right hand side goes back to 1960, that wasn't true globally. Changes in inputs were driving increases in output on average globally into the 60s. But if you look in the most recent period we have data for 2000 to 2012, it's total factor productivity that's now on average globally driving the increase in production. And that's the green bar where you see in bright orange total input growth, gray is irrigation and light orange is morag land. So going forward the role of investments in research that lead to new technologies and farmers innovations and management practices will be critical to increase agricultural output. Another important dimension that drives US policy decisions is the nature of farms that underlies these supply curves. And in the US we see two somewhat seemingly contradictory trends at the same time. One is growing size of farms and here I'm providing a measure that the economic research developed using calling the midpoint acre. Above this line half of production is on acres of farms greater than that size, half below. And in the most recent period, year measured 2012, that's 1200 acres. I think we think that's a better measure than average acreage which is below because there are many very small farms and their changes in numbers can distort the measure of the increasing size of operations. And we don't, in our looking at the data on the cost of different sizes of operations, the economics seem to suggest that farms will grow in size. However at the same time we see more farms engaging in non-traditional activities. And this shows changes between 2007 and 2012 of different focal points including direct sales to consumers and agritourism. And in all these categories there's more farmers engaging in these activities. And this reflects a growth in consumer interest in where their food comes from and how wanting to have a stronger connection to farming. And both of these trends, the growth in the size of farms as well as consumer interest in food are shaping farm policy going forward. So let me turn last to U.S. Ag Policy Directions. And I'm going to start by looking at the 2014 Farm Act. And for those of you not familiar with U.S. Ag Policy, this goes in five year cycles. The most recent farm act was passed and signed by the President in early 2014. And this pie chart represents an estimate for total spending over the five years that was updated in January 2016 by the Congressional Budget Office. And you'll see that the largest share in blue is for USDA's nutrition programs which provide assistance for low income Americans in meeting their nutrition needs. Commodities account for 5% commodity programs, crop insurance, 9% of the spending and conservation, 6%. The other 1% category in yellow, this represents trade programs, credit, rural development, research and extension including my agency which is located here, energy and miscellaneous programs. So within USDA the spending is dominated by nutrition programs and these three farm programs are also an important share of what is invested in by Congress. Let me turn now and I'm going to focus on the farm and insurance programs. Conservation is important but I'll leave that aside today. I'll start with the commodity programs. The USDA has a forecast for farm income and the first forecast was produced in February 2016 and it includes estimates of different types of spending for commodity programs. This doesn't include the insurance programs. And the light green color represents prices where payments depend on prices. And while the slide says there's a transition from fixed to price dependent programs, it's really an evolution. And this shares have shifted over time under different farm policy regimes and different market conditions. In 2016 payments that depend on prices are projected at over $10 billion. These payments are largely based on some fixed or program acreage and not the production isn't linked to prices in the market in each year. You also see over time growth in conservation programs and within these programs there are more payments going to working lands versus land retirement programs. The recent Farm Bill introduced new programs. There are some special programs for cotton that I'm not going to discuss. But three new programs that were introduced for field crops are the price loss coverage or PLC program and the agricultural risk coverage, ARC, which has two variants, one based on county yields and one based on individual yields. And each farmer in the U.S. had to decide at the beginning of the Farm Bill what program they would choose and then stay with that program throughout the duration of the Farm Bill. And this shows the choices that farmers made. And it varies by product. You see that soybeans, corn, oats chose mainly the ARC county program. Rice and peanuts chose mainly the PLC program and wheat producers split their decisions. And analysis by farm extension agents and economists show that, as one might think, the expected payments under each program were the key driving factor for farmers. One thing that is interesting is that less than one percent of farmers chose the individual coverage option. And I think the analysis around this indicates that that's a couple things. One, it's a more complex program. Producers may have good close substitute in the crop insurance programs. It also had a lower payout based on 65 percent of the BASER program acres versus 85 percent in the county average. So I think this is, you know, we have what were widely called more complex programs, but farmers were able to make decisions and choose which program to participate in. Let me turn now to crop insurance. And over time, the growth of crop insurance and has, crop insurance has grown and covers more acreage and more farmers. This trend shows millions of acres covered over time starting in 1994 through 2015. In addition to the growth, you see a changing type of crop insurance plan. In blue are revenue insurance products based not only on yield but also prices and you see the growth of these revenue products over time. Another trend in crop insurance policies in the U.S. is expanding coverage beyond the major field crops. And in gray are insurance policies written to the non-big crops of corn, soybeans and wheat, the other in gray. And we see in the last, well we see over recent times that the share of the major crops has fallen by 10 percent. And this variety of policies doesn't just apply to the type of crops but also to the way of production as there's a growing number of crop insurance policies for organic products. And then I have one final point that it makes that is a driver of U.S. farm policy and that's the distribution of payments to different sizes and types of farms. And in the last few farm bill discussions, there's been concern about whether payments from the government are going too much so, and this is a value judgment, to large farms that may be commercial operations with high incomes. And I think this is really linked closely to the fact that payments are directed towards production. Crop insurance is linked towards production. If you produce more, you insure more. But at the same time as we saw earlier, the size of farms are growing on average. So to the extent that the programs remain linked to production, we're going to see, I think, an ongoing concern about more payments going to higher levels of production and higher income. And in this chart, you see the share of payments in green and the scale of the farms increases from left to right. So it illustrates the more payments going to larger operations. Let me conclude by looking forward at some of the drivers of food and farm policy in the United States. Today, I focused on markets and some of the traditional farm policies, and these issues will remain important. You hear them being discussed already on an ongoing basis in Washington. Concerns about whether the insurance or revenue protection that creates what's called a safety net is sufficiently effective. The discussions about competitiveness, the role of the U.S. in international markets. On average, the U.S. exports about 20% of its production every year, so these markets are very important. We see discussion of competitiveness and technology of the structure and size and scale of farms and whether it should be limits on payments. And we see conservation policy discussed and being looked at as a way to meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But as I alluded to earlier, there's also increasing interest and discussion in the U.S. of consumer concerns about the way farm products are produced. And right now there's an ongoing debate on the government's role in labeling for genetically engineered products of biotechnology. So all in all, I think it's a really interesting time to be working in food and ag policy. There's a lot of research issues that we're seeing in the U.S. and other countries, and it seems like that's also true in Australia. Thank you very much.