Thank you, Ben. Just so you aware, each state does things a little differently as it relates to their ag person. They call them different things, they’re chosen in different ways. In Minnesota and North Dakota we’re Commissioners. In Wisconsin and South Dakota they’re Secretaries. In -- in all of the states except North Dakota and Iowa in our region the Commissioners are appointed by the Governors. In the other two states and in North Dakota and Iowa they’re elected. So you sort of have a different way in how we all get to this position. Commissioner Roger Johnson is from North Dakota. He’s one of the, as I mentioned, elected to that position and has served in that position now for two years?

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON:

Two-and-a-half.

COMMISSIONER HUGOSON:

Two-and-a-half years. And so Roger welcome and it’s good to hear from you.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON:

Thank you, Gene. And thank you in particular for hosting this -- this important listening session. On behalf of North Dakota’s 30,000 farmers and ranchers, I certainly thank you for this opportunity. I want to make special mention of -- of thanking the USDA and USTR for putting these sessions together in the State of Minnesota and your department here, Gene, for hosting these. Certainly, these talks that are upcoming are going to be very important and the negotiations that are a part of those are going to have a very long-term effect on agriculture, as we know it in this country. And so the importance of this meeting and -- and others that precede those talks I think can probably not be over emphasized. I want to touch real briefly on about seven what I call guiding principles that I would hope that our negotiators would follow as they move into this next round of WTO talks. And the first one is one that’s already been mentioned that agriculture needs to be a top priority. And this I think belongs at the top of the list because of its importance. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Looking back I believe many of us in agriculture feel as though our industry has not been a top priority of our country’s trade negotiators in past rounds both regional and international negotiations, and that needs to be changed. As you all know, our domestic agricultural economy is suffering tremendously - a subject for a whole different meeting I’m sure - and a number of them due to the prolonged periods of low market prices coupled with a series of natural disasters throughout much of our country. And I would argue in part due to federal farm policies that have just not adequately protected our family farmers and ranchers. We absolutely can’t afford to lose more ground in the area of agriculture in this country and our negotiators need to keep this at the top of their priority list. Our family farmers and ranchers must be the top priority of our countries trade negotiators. And this might even be compared to be in contrast to the former administration’s approach, which I think in earlier trade negotiations, often brought agriculture sort of to the table at the last, and then tended to trade away some of the very important elements of agriculture for other important sectors of our economy. Hopefully, we’ve learned our lesson. And, obviously, those of us in this -- this room have sort of a selfish interest, because we’re all concerned about agriculture and hopefully that sort of priority is one that -- that this administration will take to the talks and place it very high. Our domestic industry largely made up of family farmers and ranchers cannot survive the policy of trading at any cost. If we continue in that direction, the cost would be the loss of an industry that is the backbone of our country’s social structure, as well. The second guiding principle is that I believe our domestic policy rights must be protected in trade agreements and the heart of our trade negotiations must be, as I mentioned, the interest of our family farmers and ranchers. We must protect their ability to implement domestic farm policies that enhance our producers’ capabilities to compete fairly in the world market while yet becoming the trusted provider of the highest quality food in the world. The Asian economic crisis clearly demonstrates that we must do more than rely solely on foreign markets to sustain our domestic industry. And certainly there’s an appropriate role for domestic policies to play. As a matter of national security, we need to have domestic farm policy that recognizes the inherent obligations of a government to provide its citizens with a safe, healthy and adequate food supply. Our negotiators must make sure that in the future we have the ability to develop and maintain those policies, which may, in fact, be different from policies that we currently have in place in this country. And we must recognize the sovereign rights of other countries to have the same capabilities. After all, what is more important for any country than its obligation to ensure -- to assure its citizens of a safe, healthy and adequate food supply? Thirdly, an international food reserve; we also have a need to provide food security on an international level for counties across this globe. An international food reserve program should be developed to increase the security. During productive, profitable years some of that production should be held for use in lean years. All WTO countries should be responsible for sharing in the cost of such a program and it ought to be isolated from the market. Certainly, we can all recognize that such a program, if employed only by this country or only by any other country in the world, would impose a very large burden on that country. But if all major food-producing countries were to share in such a system, its humanitarian benefits would be something that would accrue to all of us. It is really no new idea to suggest that food ought to be stored during the years of plenty for the lean years that will follow. Fourth. Direct export subsidies must be equalized first and then eliminated. And you’ve heard both of my colleagues talk about the need for doing that. I will just make a very brief point about it. The European Union continues to use direct export subsidies to dump their commodities onto a world market and have in large fashion have created sort of a David versus Goliath scenario with the use of direct export subsidies while many other countries, including our own, continually fight a losing battle in this arena. Our negotiators must work to first equalize and them eliminate direct export subsidies. Fifth, the trade dispute resolution process must be improved. And you heard discussion about this, as well, from both of my colleagues. We have ongoing trade disputes in this country that started years ago and are still unresolved. The dispute resolution process is slow. It is very cumbersome. Our negotiators must insist on improvements to this process. As Gene mentioned, last week we spent much of our time in Great Falls meeting with our Canadian counterparts and this is an issue on -- on which I think we will have very strong commonality. They share the same short of frustrations that we have with respect to resolving trade disputes. We must demand timely and complete compliance with current trade agreements and international trade laws from all countries and that dispute resolution process ought to be a part of that. Sixth, high standards must be adhered to. We need to insist that international standards are set at a level at least equivalent to the high standards already in place in this country. Consumers worldwide are increasingly demanding higher quality products. We produce that high level of quality, but we must never forget that it is the consumer who determines what she or he is willing to buy. We can no longer tolerate the importation of commodities produced at much lower standards than what our farmers and ranchers must adhere to in this country and we should not allow the importation of products which are produced with inputs that are illegal for our producers to use if there is a concern about public safety, food safety, about health or environmental issues. We ought to level up rather than level down with respect to setting international food standards. Our past legislative session addressed this issue by passing a bill that clearly adhered to this principle. Why should our producers be forced to compete with foreign procedures who have the ability to use chemicals that are banned in our country? Perhaps even more importantly, why should our consumers tolerate it? We must negotiate toward the highest standards, not to the least common denominator. My final point is that the use of non-tariff trade barriers must be eliminated. We must also work to end these barriers which often hamper the flow of trade. The next round of WTO talks must create more stringent rules and require the use of sound science in dealing with non-tariff issues. Sound science must also be used in making determinations on the safety of using hormones and genetically modified organisms in food production. Government scare tactics should not be tolerated. But as I mentioned on my earlier point, we must continually remind ourselves that consumers drive the market and we must meet their standards. I believe we must increase our capabilities in the area of identity preservation and should consider the potential benefits of accurately labeling organic, mainstream and enhanced food production. In the end consumers must be willing to accept our science -- sound science or the products simply will not sell. We will not achieve our goal of becoming the trusted provider of the highest quality food in the world by forcing sound science onto consumers. They must believe it. In conclusion, I would point out that many textbooks and publications on trade indicate that the displacement of domestic industries is sometimes the price that has to be paid to obtain free trade. I’m here to tell you that agriculture is not willing to be one of those industries that simply disappears from this country. Agriculture must be the top priority in upcoming negotiations and the interest or our family farmers and ranchers must be protected.

Thank you again for this opportunity.