SENATOR HAGEL: Mike, thank you and good morning. I too wish to add my welcome and thanks to all of you who have taken a Saturday to come present your views and thoughts.

As Jim Murphy, Jim Schroeder said and as Bob Kerrey just mentioned, we need to listen to producers. We need to learn and listen. And we in Washington can frame a structure and deal with the mechanics of trade issues, but it is the producer who is the key to all of this. For all the reasons that you understand. I appreciate very much Merlyn Carlson. Thank you, Governor Johanns, for hosting this. As Bob said, we're grateful to the USDA and United States Trade Representative's offices and to the Secretary and Ambassador and for both Jims being out here.

I enjoyed coming to Kearney. I spent a year and a half in the 60's here trying to get educated. It was not the fault of this institution, they were not successful. But fortunately the statute of limitations has I think taken hold and outstanding warrants are probably not in force for me. But I also want to acknowledge the University for putting this together because you have a facility that is well suited for this.

Let me build on a couple of comments that Senator Kerrey made and Jim Murphy and Jim Schroeder on what is ahead of us. It seems to me that if we are to be successful in the area of trade, and I think Secretary Glickman had it exactly right when he appeared before Senator Kerrey's Ag Committee on Thursday when he said the best hope to escape the current ag prices is through exports. It is exports. It is trade. And we can talk about am payments, we can talk about Freedom to Farm, and we can talk restructuring and retooling and a lot of things. But if we don't find markets for our products, then all of this is just temporary. And we can go deeper into the issue of culture and the bucolic scenery of farms and the good life, but if we don't find those markets, and if we don't open up those markets, this is just a very, very temporary exercise. And I think you all understand very well, and I think Jim's slide show reflected very accurately the numbers that are stated that we are dealing with.

I believe like in almost everything, but in this case especially trade, that it needs to be dealt with in the completeness of the issue. What I mean by that is, you can't take, for example, NAFTA in 1994, and I happen to support NAFTA. It's flawed. Bob Kerrey brought up a couple of examples of where we need to do better, but it's measurable. It is very measurable, and it has worked. It's got problems, yes, but it's worked. Any time you continue to move too much bring barriers down -- trade barriers down, we're making progress. We're not fixing it all, but we're going to the right direction.

But my point is this, in 1994 when we began the NAFTA agreement and working our way down through that, was the same year that the President lost his authorization for fast track. So we're working one track here on NAFTA but yet the President over here without any fast-track authority. That's an example of what I am referring to when I say completeness of trade. Sanctions.

Bob and I and a number of us in the Senate are working hard to bring some leadership to doing away with the policy of unilateral economic sanctions. And, of course, agriculture historically has always been hurt worse, and do we improve or do we alter the behavior of nations when we say we're not going to sell you the wheat? We'll show you. The Australians and others, the Canadians turn around and sell them the wheat. So that's another dynamic. Regulation, past policy, that's all part of what was committed to in 1996 Freedom to Farm Act but also an important part of the entire package of exports trade.

Let's pull some EPA regulation off the producer. Let's bring some common sense to what we're asking you to do and what regulations we're asking you to abide by. The tax policy, there have been a number of us in Congress who for sometime have advocated doing away with inheritance taxes. That's another clear, measurable, precise example of how we could help. So there are many, many pieces of trade and export policy that we need to put into place, not just one or two.

I was handed a piece of paper this morning when I got on the plane to come out here which many of you have probably seen this or are aware of this. This is a very clear example of what's happening to us in the United States. The fast track is a very good example. You know what's happened in Rio deJaniero this weekend, early next week? The European Union is meeting with representatives about the trade agreement 15 members of the EU meeting with the 6 members plus 30 other nations from Latin America and the Caribbean to start working out a trade pact between the Europeans and South America, but yet our President doesn't have fast-track authority. Something is wrong here. We've got some obvious vacuums.

What all this traces back to--there's not a person in this room that doesn't understand it--is leadership.

Trade must be a priority. Trade must be a priority of the Congress, of the Governor, of the President, of everybody. And if it is not a priority, there will be no leadership and somebody will fill that trade vacuum just as the European Union is doing today in Brazil.

And again we can craft the technology, and we can move a little bit of regulation here, and we can talk about, well, we ought to adjust the farm, and we can tweak. But overall it doesn't mean anything unless we come at this with a completeness of a policy, of a leadership and prioritize that and do all the things we need to do. Cut the silly sanctions, eliminate them, bring in a tough negotiator.

And by the way Ambassador Barshefsky and her team have been terrific. I think the President made a fundamental error -- fundamental error he turned the Chinese away. When Premier Wonjou was here after Barshefsky's team negotiated one of the finest packages this country has ever seen. I think Glickman and his team is doing a good job.

We all have a lot to do. It's not the fault of one person or one group. We all have to come together and an organization that is represented here as a total group of people with the foundation being the producers, listening to the producers, then I think we need to start to build something and make some sense. We are going to have some difference of opinion. I don't agree with Bob Kerrey on some of his points on this. He doesn't agree with me. But I think we have all one mutual common denominator interest of everybody in this room, and that is to sell the products. It's to open those markets, break down those barriers and get those markets so we can get our product out. If we don't do that, there is not much in the future for American agriculture.

Well, I am again pleased to have an opportunity to be here and to listen to the comments today and grateful to all of you that have made this happen. Thank you very much.