Thank you, Mr. Alberts. Jim Harmon with the North Dakota Farm Bureau to be followed by Bob Metz of the South Dakota Soybean Association and then Don Louwagie of the American Soybean Growers Association. Welcome Jim.

MR. HARMON:

Thank you very much. My name is Jim Harmon. I’m the president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau and I’m here representing the American Farm Bureau Federation. Before we get going I would like to say I really enjoyed Alan’s comments. They are ones to take to heart. I do have sympathy for the signer, though. You about gave him a heart attack keeping up.

I am a fifth generation -- or excuse me -- a fourth generation farmer from Carrington, North Dakota, raise irrigated potatoes for French-fries, durum wheat, hard bread spring wheat, barley, edible beans and flax. I’m also currently raising the fifth generation, I hope, of farmer on my farm. I have three boys who are very interested and I’d like to further that cause. And we are here I think in that -- in that effort, and I appreciate your being here. The North Dakota Farm Bureau has 28,000 members. The American Farm Bureau Federation has just under 5 million farmer members. While we’re highly diversified around the nation and represent every aspect of agriculture, North Dakota I feel -- and I suppose every state in here is going to feel the same way. But I feel we’re one of the most diverse agricultural economies in the United States of America, and as such, we raise a tremendous amount of each one of these products and to a large degree depend upon export markets. Upper Midwest producers are rightfully concerned with the negative trade balance in many commodities specific to this region and affected by cross border trading practices. The U.S. and its agriculture industry must be at the negotiating table in a very thoughtful and meaningful way to protect, to look out for the number one industry in this part of the country which is agriculture. I think we’ve been in the position before, but we have not had agriculture in the forefront. In fact, at times I don’t know if it’s been in our minds at all. We’ve been sacrificed at times for other aspects of industry and it’s obviously been to our detriment. Strong national trade policies and international agreements are critical to the success of agriculture in this era of reduced price supports, reduced direct government involvement. We have the ability to be profitable, only if we’re allowed to compete fairly in the marketplace, and to do that we have to have the ability to maintain and increase our share of global markets. And these depend on many factors, especially negotiation of strong agreements, proper enforcement of these pacts is also essential. This administration must negotiate increased market access for U.S. agriculture and built-in necessary dispute settlement mechanisms, to ensure timely resolution of all of these disputes. We raise a lot of food in the United States of America. We need to export a third of what we raise. Global food demand is expanding rapidly. Over 90 percent of the world’s consumers live outside of the U.S. borders. It just seems like a simple equation to be able to capture some of that 95 percent of the world with a higher market share. It would also take care of some of our excess production which has to go to the export markets. While past agreements have opened U.S. markets to foreign imports, many of the world’s agriculture markets remain highly subsidized and obviously protected. We are placed at a competitive disadvantage due to a growing number of regional trade agreements by our competitors. Yet the U.S. leaves it to others to form trade pacts and right rules for trade, our producers will die a slow death which we are doing in the global marketplace in the 21st Century. We are counting on all of you in Congress to ensure that the U.S. and North Dakota producers have a significant role in the negotiating process armed with trade negotiating authority. They need to rewrite agreements beneficial to our industry.

I’m running out of time.

MS. KINNEY:

You have one minute.

MR. HARMON:

I’ll kick it in gear. It’s essential that these new agreements include a recommitment to binding agreements in dealing with the sanitary and phytosanitary issues. Again, these are just trade distorting issues. They are protectionist. What we -- what we say, what we mean is that the individuals within the countries ought to have the ability to purchase GMO raised crops if they so choose. If they choose not to, great. That’s a personal decision. That’s what we are asking for, the ability for individuals around the world to have the personal decision whether to buy or not to buy as long as it’s based on sound, scientific facts. I have to mention the STEs. Our trading partners, especially Canada, it should be a high priority for this round to craft an agriculture agreement that sheds light on the discriminatory and predatory pricing practices of STEs. Our products have lost billions in sales to third world countries and our own domestic markets due to non-competitive, non-transparent operations of STEs. It’s essential that these become transparent. We should not be sacrificed to benefit other industries in the negotiating process. As I said before, it has been done in the past. It cannot be done in the future. A focused effort toward improvement of these areas and other areas of trade policy will greatly benefit U.S. producers in the future and ensure that I can keep my fifth generation on the farm. Thank you.

MS. KINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. Harmon. I believe we have a couple questions or comments.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON:

Yes. Jim, I’ve got a question on one of the last points you made about GMOs which is I think a real vexing issue for all of us. I think you said that GMOs ought to be -- consumers around the world ought to be made aware so that they can make a choice if they choose to -- to buy those sorts of commodities...

MR. HARMON:

Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON:

...that they can and if they choose not to they should have that choice. This is an issue that a lot of other folks have talked about, but there seem to be different approaches on it. And one approach is we just go down the argument -- the road that I think our country has been taking which is they’re safe, therefore you should buy them and no labels. You seem to be suggesting an -- an approach that, frankly, I’m a bit more comfortable with, but I’m troubled by how we go about segregating and labeling and all that kind of stuff. Do you have a comment about that?

MR. HARMON:

Yes, I’d like to comment on that. Thank you, Roger. We have in this country a lot of support for what’s called country-of-origin labeling among our producers just so we know where -- where it comes from. In our industry just like any other business, the consumer is always right. The customer is always right. If the customer demands that they need to know whether that’s a GMO product or a GMO free, there’s a marketing opportunity there probably for someone who is raising the GMO free. But the point being that there’s still the opportunity for each side to be able to sell their product as long as everybody is informed on the issues and what they’re buying. It’s not impossible. It may be expensive at first. But if the customer is willing to pay for it, it can be done. The customer is always right.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON:

Okay, thank you.

MS. KINNEY:

Yes?

SECRETARY CRUEA:

I’d like to take off a little bit, Jim, on that same avenue. I’d like for you to from a trade standpoint, differentiate country of origin versus point of origin, and the advantages that point of origin might have.

MR. HARMON:

Can you get some more specifics on the point of origin? You’re talking about semantics in the difference between importing -- say if I imported a calf from Australia that beef down the line being identified as?

SECRETARY CRUEA:

Well, I think what we’re all looking for eventually from the trade standpoint is the ability for trace back. And that, in effect, to the aspect of genetically modified plants rather than organisms...

MR. HARMON:

Uh-huh, okay.

SECRETARY CRUEA:

...as was brought up earlier...

MR. HARMON:

Okay.

SECRETARY CRUEA:

...type situation.

MR. HARMON:

I see -- I see what you mean now. I think that, you know, the consumer needs to know. The consumer deserves to know country of origin, point of origin. Anything they feel that they need to know about what they’re consuming. I think that’s just a right, a basic right that individuals ought to have.

MS. KINNEY:

Were there any other comments or questions? Thank you, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON:

Thank you for indulging me.