21 



I think that there is a consensus with respect to a recognition 

 that U.S. interest is served when competitive U.S. products that 

 are not being exported now in fact start to be exported. Employ- 

 ment is higher, income is higher, national well-being is improved. 



And to the extent to which competitive U.S. products are not 

 being exported because of a whole host of reasons, the Government 

 has, I think, a worthwhile function to undertake, and that is to 

 promote those exports. The problem we have heard over and over 

 again when we have talked to the business community is that for 

 the most part U.S. companies generally lack a firm commitment to 

 exporting, and that while the Government doesn't make exports, 

 other — Public Law 480 or specific Government programs, only the 

 private sector makes exports — the Government does have a role 

 with respect to figuring out how to get the private sector to export 

 more of their competitive products. 



To the extent we think of the export problem as that, I don't 

 think we will run afoul of the concern that you raised. But I think 

 it is certainly a legitimate concern. But as long as we focus on the 

 effort to get U.S. firms who are disinclined to export because it is 

 harder, it is more complex, it requires a longer-term effort, prod- 

 ucts have to be modified, you have to learn about all sorts of things 

 that you don't have to deal with if you only sell in the United 

 States. Shipping is more complex, paperwork is more complex, cus- 

 toms, health regulations make it more difficult, distribution sys- 

 tems are more complex. 



To the extent that we can help the private sector sort of be will- 

 ing to overcome those added difficulties of exporting, I don't think 

 we will run into your problem. 



Mr. Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have completed the 

 line of questioning along this line here, and if we have time I will 

 come back later with some additional questions. 



Mr. Penny. Mr. Stenholm. 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to pursue that 

 last line of questioning, including, Mr. Chairman, your statement 

 a moment ago. As we look forward to the 1995 farm bill, it is going 

 to be absolutely critical that we identify markets. We have been 

 clearly moving our agricultural policy in a market-oriented direc- 

 tion. 



The first question I want to ask, in a general way, as of today, 

 on a scale of 1 to 10, in which 10 would be a perfect, free world 

 market in which producers in America could produce with the tech- 

 nology and produce for an efficient market and have a reasonable 

 chance of competing, versus zero being the other way, where are 

 we today, and where will we be after GATT is signed, in your opin- 

 ion? 



Mr. Goldthwait. The question is a very difficult one 



Mr. Stenholm. Let me interrupt you here, because everyone be- 

 gins to hesitate when we start quantifying, but the language just 

 starts flowing around the dome over here when we start talking 

 about farmers competing in a free market, getting the Government 

 out of our business, let's get on with the market system. If you 

 folks can't give me a range in your opinion of how free that market 

 is, then we better go back to the drawing board and find somebody 

 else that can, because if you can't tell me as a policymaker what 



