Thank you very much, Governor. We’re also honored today to have one of the Governors from our neighboring state of North Dakota here, as well. Governor Schafer was first elected in 1992, reelected in 1996. And as Minnesota does, North Dakota has a big interest in agriculture, as well. Governor Schafer, we’re extremely pleased and honored to have you here. Welcome.

GOVERNOR SCHAFER:

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Governor, we’re pleased that you finally made it. I -- we had to leave North Dakota a little earlier, but I don’t think we had the problems that you had getting here. I think it worked out pretty good. But I do appreciate the efforts of your office and Commissioner Hugoson to put together this listening session. Hopefully, we’ll have a good day. Governor, I’m glad you brought up the bumper sticker thing. It’s pretty interesting. Now, that bumper sticker didn’t bother me too much when it first came out, Our Governor can beat up your Governor. My problem I had is the Greater North Dakota Association, which is our statewide Chamber of Commerce, was selling T-shirts that said, Prove it. That did concern me some, you know, but I figured just up the street here at Gram's Marathon in Duluth I ran a two hour and 49 minute marathon, so you’ll have to catch me first. But if you’re going to get me in the ring, it’s going to be after a good long run. But we do appreciate the opportunity to be here and thank you all for joining us today. Also, I want to thank the USTR and the USDA for arranging these meetings, not only here but around the country. And good morning to all of you, as well. When I saw the list of the farm group representatives here this morning from North Dakota, one question came immediately to mind is that why aren’t you in the fields? Why aren’t you out there? It’s been a very wet spring in North Dakota and a lot of parts of our state planting is still going on. Farmers are frustrated and worried about even getting a crop in the ground. But they still thought that this was so important that they wanted to attend this meeting here in St. Paul and say one thing. In trade negotiations it’s time that agriculture comes first. North Dakotans understand the importance of exporting our crops and our livestock and our food products. We produce one-half of the nation’s hard bread spring wheat, two-thirds of the durum in the United States and more than half of the sunflowers. And we know that in the United States as a whole and North Dakota, as well, our citizens tend to be a bit overweight but, you know, there’s only so much we can do. We can’t eat all of the commodities that are produced in the United States. They must be exported and exported in opportunities out there where we have a level playing field. More than a quarter of the North Dakota population is employed in agriculture or ag-related jobs. Healthy exports mean more jobs in these sectors. We know that the Uruguay Round lowered tariffs on what and sunflowers and cattle to the benefit of North Dakota farmers and ranchers. But I dare say if you ask around this room I doubt if you would find one person who would say their Federal Government stands up for farmers and ranchers in trade negotiations. I’m not here to beat up the USTR or the USDA for the collapse of commodity prices. There are many complicated reasons for $2 wheat and ten cents a pound for hogs, supply and demand, the Asian economy, economic concentration. It’s too easy to scapegoat one agency or one group or one country even if it does make for good politics. But there really are cases of unfair competition by the European Union and Canada, and there really are times when our Federal Government just sits on their hands. North Dakota reaches the boiling point when we see the Federal Government failing to act when it can solve problems. If our United States government won’t stand up and deliver the agreements that are in place right now, we will not have the public support for new agreements to be put on the table. You don’t know how many farmers told me in recent years, you know, the Canadians can ship their grain through North Dakota, but I can’t get a single bushel up there. Or why can’t we move my cattle north of the border? And what conclusion do you come to? Apparently, no one in Washington listens unless they’re forced to. Governor Janklow in South Dakota took unilateral action last year to stop trucks bearing certain Canadian commodities without certification. Governor Racicot in Montana and myself increased our inspections, as well. The Canadians protested and then, and only then, did the USTR and the USDA say, well, maybe we can work something out. The result was an agreement last December that opened up the Canadian marketing system to more North Dakota commodities and we are seeing now livestock and grains moving north. The agreement also moved towards more transparency in the Canadian Wheat Board. But I’m pleased with the results of those negotiations. It’s not the solution, however, to all of our problems. But when the USTR and the USDA engage with their Canadian counterparts and just as importantly listen to the states, we see positive results now that western premiers and western governors are talking trying to find regional and informal ways of resolving some of these conflicts. Just last week Premiere Klein and Governor Racicot supported and sponsored a gathering in Montana on agriculture trade issues. Canadians and U.S. farmers came out of that meeting saying, we should work together to understand each other better. If we can all start listening to each other, and to our WTO negotiators if you start listening to agriculture in the states, I believe then we can avoid some of the blowups that lead to barriers to a lot of our exports.

I know you’re saying, all right. All right. We’re listening already. Thank you, I know you are. And I guess that’s why you’re here and calling this a listening session. Not every farm group that you will hear has the same view about the next round of WTO. Certainly, priorities are different, but broad agreement exists on a number of points. I know you will hear many details later, but I would like to emphasize the following areas which I believe are of consensus about the Seattle talks. (1) Agriculture is a priority. It is that the negotiators should make agriculture a priority during the upcoming talks in Seattle. To do so you should address agriculture at the same time as other issues rather than leaving it until the end. It’s too easy to leave things until it’s almost over and then walk out and say, well, we’ll make a few concessions so we can all go home. It’s easy to walk away giving what might seem to be small concessions but to our farmers are big dollar items. (2) The second point I believe in consensus is we have to stand up to Europe. The European Union is the world’s heaviest subsidizer in the largest economy to erect barriers to United States exports. The billions of dollars that the European Union spends on supporting agriculture is the big reason I hear widespread sentiment for eliminating all subsidies. America is the lowest cost producer in the world, and we can compete in the world market against anyone if the playing field is level. (3) State trading entities. Continued existence of the STE should be premised on full price transparency. The ability of quasi-government monopolies like the Canadian Wheat Board to operate and set prices in secrecy allows hidden subsidies and distorts the marketplace. The lack of transparency is the major source of friction between United States grain growers and their competition in Canada. (4) We need to address genetically modified organisms. Negotiators should insist that markets not be closed to genetically modified organisms for political or protectionist reasons. Rule must be based on sound science, new strains of crops that can resist disease or survive hard winters. Their continued development will be very valuable in areas like North Dakota where the planting limitations and the environment limits are options. Sanitary and phytosanitary barriers. The SPS rules must be based on legitimate science once again and they must not serve as trade barriers. The Uruguay Round was essentially correct on the substance, but there are a number of instances since 1994 where foreign nations used supposed SPS measures to restrict United States agriculture imports. Lastly, enforcement. Just as in the SPS area, there should be mechanisms to enforce the agreements to reduce tariffs. If our trading partners say they will lower tariffs and agree to it in the documents, they should follow through or they should be compelled to do so. Let me close by again thanking our hosts and thanking the panel members for being here. I believe the ultimate goal of the Seattle negotiations should be opening more markets. Creating more opportunities for agriculture exports from North Dakota and the rest of the United States. You cannot achieve that goal if you do not become strong advocates for agriculture. You need to recognize that our nation’s farmers and ranchers can be the greatest exporters in the world if they’re working in a framework that does not tilt against them. I want our negotiators in Seattle to wake up every morning and say, what can I do for agriculture today? Because, otherwise, there will be a lot of farmers and ranchers in rooms like this all over saying, why didn’t you listen to us? Thank you for the opportunity to be here.