MR. DeBRUYCKER: I'd like to thank Ralph Peck and the rest of his crew for inviting me and giving me an opportunity to attend the session. I'm Lloyd DeBruycker, I'm from Dutton Montana, it's about 200 mile north of here, it's 30 miles north of Great Falls. My wife, Jane, and I have farmed and ranched in Teton County for 44 years. I'm 65 years old, just six years older than the average American farmer. We have two sons and their wives in agriculture in Teton County. Three daughters and husbands and their families in agriculture in Teton and adjoining counties. We have two daughters who make a living in teaching with a small interest in agriculture. We have many neighbors and close friends that are dependent on US Agriculture. So you can understand my concern for agriculture's future in the United States.

We have enjoyed being in agriculture, and we were reasonably successful for about 38 years. But these last to five to seven years have really been frustrating. We used to have highs and lows, if you hung in there, you could count on the good years coming. Lately, we just get the lows and the highs never come. NAFTA and free trade are part of this problem. Free trade needs to be fair trade. US Agriculture cannot compete if input costs are not equal. At present, these costs are way out of balance. Chemicals for crop production are twice as high in the United States as they are in Canada, our neighboring country. This spring I paid $21.60 cents an acre for the same chemical I could have bought in Canada for $11.50 an acre. Yet, I could not legally bring this chemical out of Canada even though we live just 80 miles from the Canada border. Free trade must me fair trade.

Ivomec, a product used widely in the livestock industry to control worms and lice, it's twice as high in the US as it is in Canada. Again, just 80 miles from us, but we cannot bring it across the border. Free trade must be fair trade. Canada has no property tax on cattle, we do. Canada has no property tax on farm, ranch, or feedlot buildings and equipment, we do. Free trade must be fair trade.

Produce from crops treated with chemicals not proven in the US can come into the US, this should not be aloud. Argentina and Brazil right now are trying to get approval to ship beef to the United States. All costs there are less than 10 percent of our costs, labor is a dollar and a half a day, ours is worth $50 a day. Their management-type ranch worker can be hired for $300 per month. Here that would cost about $2,000 a month. Free trade must be fair trade.

Balance of trade reports show beef exports in dollars as being positive over beef imports in dollars, and that is correct. However, beef cattle imports in pounds exceed beef cattle imports and exports by about 2 to 1. Livestock producers sell their production by the pound and get paid by the pound. Pounds of imports of livestock agriculture should not exceed the pounds of exports when that industry is struggling to survive. Free trade must be fair trade.

Our regulations and laws make us pay minimum wage, insurance, retirement benefits. Some of our competition do not have these costs. Free trade must be fair trade.

To keep our US strong and safe, we need a stable, profitable agriculture. To do this, our input costs need to be competitive or agriculture in the US will not survive. Over 100 years ago William McBride said, "Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up as if by magic. But destroy our farms and grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country." Ladies and Gentlemen, that still holds true today.

Please consider points I and other ag producers brought up. Unless our input costs are equal or our income justifies our higher cost of production, agriculture in the US will not survive. In many cases, our input costs are controlled by our government, by our government regulations. So why should we be penalized for this by making us compete with production that does not have the same regulations? Free trade must be fair trade. Thank you.

MR. NELSON: Thank you, Lloyd. Panel?

MR. GALVIN: I do think your point about other costs like family living costs and expenses is an interesting one, and one that I've given some thought to myself. And I think that it is related to trade and ability to compete, and I think the health care area is a particular good example. I certainly hear reports of more and more farm families dropping their health coverage. And if you assume that a good family policy today costs about $6,000 or so in the US, and if a Canadian farm family can get that same policy for about $600 or $800, and if it's essentially free to farmers in Europe, there may be other problems with their perspective health care programs and it may mean that there's higher income taxes when they have income, but I think it does raise an interesting point in terms of people's ability to compete and stay on the farm.

And it would certainly be interesting if you or anybody in the state has any figures on percent of families that have health care coverage and that sort of thing.

MR. DeBRUYCKER: As far as our comparison between Canada and the US, we're closer. But when we start looking at South America, that really scares me in livestock agriculture because we cannot compete with them. When that meat starts coming in from Argentina and Brazil, and it's not long before it will start coming in unless we have some import regulations for quantities that are allowed to come in, it's going to kill the livestock industry.