MR. GOERTZ: Thank you. My name is Bill Goertz, I'm a wheat and barley producer from Malta, Montana. I'm currently serving as the President of the Montana Grain Grower's Association, a commodity organization representing 3,000 wheat and barley producers in our state. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you some of our thoughts on trade policy.

Trade policy, trade agreements, and world trade organizations are extremely important to me and the producers I represent. The majority of grains I raise enter into the world markets and compete with producers and governments from around the world. We haven't been doing very well these past few years, we're losing market share.

In the seventies and eighties, US wheat producers captured approximately 40 percent of the world wheat market, now we are fortunate if we provide 30 percent of the world's wheat needs. We've reduced acreage, idled valuable land and resources at a time when other countries, most notably, the European Union have increased their production to meet the growing world demand for wheat. At the same time, we are experiencing record low prices and our farms are trouble.

While there has been many factors that have contributed to our situation, we believe one of the primary causes is that we have been forced to compete in a marketplace that is far from fair. We are forced to compete with governments that do not allow their producers to respond to the marketplace. While we here in the US have turned the corner and are living under policy that forces us to leave with the realities of supply and demand, many producers around the world do not.

For example, wheat producers in the EU have increased around 40 million metric tons in the early seventies to over 100 million metric tons in recent years. They have expanded their share of world wheat exports from 11 to 12 percent, currently to 35 to 40 percent. This has happened not because producers in the EU have become more efficient and are able to make a great living, but rather their government is willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into their ag economy through policy that isolates their producers from the market. World trade policy, the rules that we all operate under, allow this to happen.

I'm not going to dwell on the solutions of this problem. You've heard that many times over, I'm sure, during these past few months in previous listening sessions. The solutions and goals of our negotiations this next round have been stated many times over by our organizations, USDA, and USDR. For example: One, export subsidies must be eliminated. Two, domestic farm subsidies must either not distort or limit trade. Tariffs must be reduced farther. Tariff rate quotas should be substantially increased or effectively eliminated. State trading enterprises must be forced to operate at the risk of the market. The rules governing sanitary or phytosanitary measures must be strengthened so that the SPS measures are not used to block US imports. Despite settlements, mechanisms must be shortened to address the perishable nature of ag commodities. And, lastly, trading, in general, must be based on fair, transparent, and scientifically acceptable rules and standards.

I do not believe there is much dispute over what must be done in this round of negotiations. If we could achieve all or most of these goals, my neighbors and I would fair much better than we do now. However, the question that has to be on the minds of my neighbors and myself is whether or not my country and negotiators, who have my future in their hands, have the horsepower to get the job done. Certainly, some progress was made in the Uruguay Round, but it seems to many of us that we are -- that we in the United States have decided largely to lead by an example. While that is generally a good policy in dealing with my children, I'm not sure it can work with the high stakes in world trade.

In lieu of the EU, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I have two suggestions. First, don't skip on resources as we go to the negotiating table, play hardball, bring your brightest and best negotiators to Seattle and ensuing talks. Build alliances, remember we have many competitors who also believe that more liberalized trade can contribute to a better world. Our friends in Canada, in Australia, and other countries also want to get rid of exported subsidies and domestic policy that unrealistically encourage production. Also don't forget that we can help. Consult with us, keep us up to speed on what is happening. We at the national organizations that represent us can be an asset to you, use us.

Secondly, I encourage you to take another look at utilizing the export enhancement program to give us some leverage in these talks. We need to consider using EEP programs funded, and to use the extent legal under existing trade laws to bring the EU to the table. It should not be used against our friends, but only for those EU customers that are bought and paid for by the US subsidy regime. Thank you and good luck.

MR. NELSON: Thank you, Bill. Panel, questions? Comments?

MR. GALVIN: Maybe just a quick comment. I certainly understand your comment on the EEP program. I want to get back to what I mentioned earlier, and that is our level of commodity donations currently as well as our near record use of export subsidies. I want to assure you that we continue to get plenty of flak and criticism from other countries for use of those programs, as well as, for the additional assistance package that was approved by congress last year for US agriculture, plus, all the discussions currently about another package of assistance here this fall. That's something that we continue to hear complaints about from Europe, from Canada, from Australia, from others, and that criticism doesn't bother us and it doesn't deter us. But I want you to know that we hear from these other countries on these issues on a very regular basis.

MR. GOERTZ: Thank you.