MR. PECK: Thank you. We are on schedule, but I thought maybe it would be a good time for those that braved until the end to get a little response from our panel members on what their thoughts are and where we go from here. Do you want to give kind of a summary of your thoughts? Not to put you on the spot, but just what your thoughts are and where do we go from here.

MS. GARROS: One of the things you can't miss sitting up here in the room today is that agriculture producers in Montana and other parts of the country are facing a very difficult time. I appreciate you took the time to come and talk to us and explain what your concerns are, both with the domestic agriculture policies, the conditions of competition you're facing, as well as, your concerns about trade agreements in general and your concerns that you want to make sure are raised in the next round as we go into Seattle.

We heard a lot of frustration and skepticism about trade in general and about whether trade agreements benefit producers. I would say that they do and I think a lot of us when we think about where we sell our products, we would say that in the broad scope, trade agreements are beneficial to producers. One of the other things we heard is that world access is important for the production of grains and cattle here in Montana, and a lot of other ag products.

You also gave us some specific suggestions on what our objectives should be, some of those were eliminating or reducing export subsidies, restraining domestic supports at the store trade, restraining or eliminating state trading enterprises, strengthening the dispute settlement system to make sure the trade agreements can be enforced, moving towards greater harmonization between agriculture and environmental regulations. Some of the issues that you raised are being incorporated into our policies and they're already up on the web sites as we check what we're looking at in the next round. Some we'll need to reflect on further and determine how to fold them into our policy, how to shape our policy to take some of those concerns into consideration. And some of them might not be issues that trade agreements can necessarily address; the issue of currency fluctuations and how that affects both competition here is one that we might not be able to address in trade negotiations.

Your perspective is important to us and one of the things that I would like to emphasize is that we hope this isn't a one-shot deal, we're not here just to listen to you and go back home and go about our business. This is the beginning of a process and it's kind of an exchange, hopefully it will be the beginning of a much closer dialogue. Seattle will be just the beginning of a process of negotiation and this kind of session where you're communicating directly with us in Washington, we hope will be the beginning of a dialogue so as we go through the negotiations, we will be able to report back to you on what is going on and you will continue to bring us your concerns.

MR. PECK: One important thing to note that we've recognized is that fact that it's nice to have the State Department sitting with us talking about agriculture issues. That's a major change that we've seen occur over the last year.

MS. GARROS: Thank you, it's nice to be out here. I want to remind you that State Department plays a role in both trade policy and in explaining our policies to other countries. It's nice to be here and hear this firsthand.

MS. LAURITSEN: As Susan was talking, I would try to think of other things I would add and then she would add them to her statement. I do want to thank all of you, particularly those who have driven hundreds of miles to be here. Those of us on the East Coast sometimes have a hard time appreciating the distances in this great state.

I think Susan captured some excellent points. I think, though, we also heard of the pain that you're all going through, and that we have to be conscious as we approach our international trade policy on how these things impact the individual producers who are working day-to-day producing food and trying to make a living. And if anything, I think we'll take that home. And I think, though, it's also one of the reasons we came out here is we do have trade associations knocking on our doors all the time, whether they're -- you know, they represent individual producers as well as corporations, but I think it's extremely important for us to get out here and hear from grassroots folks as well and get a broader perspective on what's important to America.

I would like to emphasize again, as Susan said, I hope that somehow we can continue this dialogue. I know I met with several of you when you were back in the Washington a couple months ago. Was it June? I think that was very useful, too, particularly for some of our folks who aren't as close to agriculture as those of us who have worked for the Department of Agriculture. So I would hope that we continue this two-way dialogue in the future. Thank you.

MR. PECK: Wait for a minute for lawyer Jim and see if Tim has anything to say.

MR. GALVIN: Just to take a minute, I guess more than anything, I would really like to emphasize the fact that I view these 12 regional hearings that we've done as just more than an exercise. I think it really does reflect a basic change in the way we try to go about doing our business. And I think that, again, goes back to the statement that President Clinton made May of last year when he was Geneva speaking to the WTO and he made it very clear that we've got to change our basis approach in how we conduct these negotiations. We've got to open up the process and make it clear that anybody that has an interest in the subject can follow it and can participate in our policy formation. And in the course of that speech, he made a direct appeal not only to producers but to consumers, to the environmental community, and others, and he made it really clear that he wants to see this whole process opened up not only in the formulation of trade policy but also in the basic way in which the WTO goes about its business.

Because I think he realizes and others of us in the administration really recognize that trade has a very direct impact on your lives. That's not the say that trade is the be-all and end-all because there's certainly many other things that are important in shaping your bottom line.

But I think it's an inescapable fact that trade does have a very large impact, and we very much want to understand your concerns so that as we sit down and try to formulate trade policy that we get it right. And thanks again for participating today.

MR. PECK: I think we saw your lawyer in this come out a little bit once in a while.

MR. SCHROEDER: I agree with my friends. I really can't say much more. I've probably interjected myself too much as it is. But what you've seen here and what you've heard here today is the critical importance of agriculture. It's very clear we have programs that support our agriculture, perhaps they're not the right ones and perhaps they're not sufficient enough but our Canadian friends have them, the Europeans, the Japanese. Agriculture is critical, it's critical to the economies, welfare of all countries, and all countries have agriculture programs. And we've got to focus on that, we've got to look at our programs and make sure they're the ones we want and that they're working.

Now, we have a second phenomena. We have this global economy, and I commend to you a recent book by Tom Freedman of the New York Times, he's written several articles that globalization is here. We can't do much about it, if you don't like it, it's too bad, but it's here. Cold war is over, the walls have come down, we're into the web and the internet and we're all in this now together. So where does that leave us as we approach this trade issue? And that's what we've been grappling with.

And remember, really we didn't do anything until 1994. Two things happened, the Uruguay Round. The first time agriculture is on the table in this new worldwide marketplace. And then our own agreement here in the hemisphere here with NAFTA. So we're trying to build on those agreements, improve market access, reduce tariffs for our products. Remember where we started. 96 percent of the people don't live in the United States. The USA Today, I saw a little column the other day, per capita meat consumption in the United States from 1976 to last year, 1998, has dropped from approximately 93 or 94 pounds back to around 67. I mean, I used to have roast beef ever Sunday when I was after kid, now I'm lucky to see it at all. What do we do about that?

The marketplace for our production and one-third of our production, one-third of our acreage, it produces more than we could ever eat or need here. So we've got to look out if we're going to still have healthy production in this country because we can't consume all this here. So that's what we're about, we really value your input. We value the input and the partnership from our State officials because they're here, they're close to, you talk to them. It's an invaluable partnership that we have between the Federal and State officials. And believe it or not we do listen.

Now, unfortunately, we do represent Cargill. It's an American company, the last time I looked. But we also represent the Farm Bureau, and the National Corn Growers, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and all the ships at sea. We listen to everybody, our goal, believe it or not, is to have these agreements benefit producers, ranchers, and farmers. That's our goal, and with your help, hopefully we can succeed. So thank you very much.

MR. PECK: And we'd like to thank you for coming to Montana. As you noticed, I didn't interject today. This was the discussion with the folks that will be representing us in the negotiations as this moves forward. And it was critical for you to provide them input, provide them direction, and let them have the interjection and the discussion with you regarding what I think is an absolute critical issue in the future of there industry and of our nation.

Governor Racicot and myself will be on an advisory council as we work on agriculture issues and trade issues, as we work with USDR and USDA with regard to future action and direction, along with three other governors that have also agreed to serve on that, and my counterparts from border states. And so we will continue to work and be involved and provide a partnership as we move forward with these negotiations. They are absolutely critical for all of us and we hope that you will continue to stay in touch with the members of the panel and the Department of Agriculture and your congressional delegation. I was very pleased that we had that kind of response from our congressional delegation and that they remained committed to active and very active participation in this process and committed to the industry of agriculture.

I'm one of those that believe, as agriculture goes, so will this nation go. And I maintain that belief as long as I shall live and we've all got to form that partnership to be sure that we maintain the strength of this industry in the future. Thank you for being here, this is what makes it work. I know it was a major commitment on everybody's part to be here, and for that, we are grateful because the future that we have is at stake. So thank you.

(Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.)