MS. KINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. Sprinkle. Our final comments or scheduled comments so far, David Hugo from Waban. If Bob Metz is in the room at all from Soybean Growers, he was scheduled this morning, we still have his card here.

MR. HUGO:

Welcome to Minnesota, Panelists. I should also own up to the fact that I’m Chairman of the state FAS Committee at the current time, have been active in a number of farm organizations, but I’ve always made my living on the farm and still do. I could actually take Social Security. I’ve reached that age, but I’ve continued to farm. I farm up in Mahnomen County in the Northwestern part of the state, and I think have a little different perspective of some of these issues than some of the people that have been speaking to you. For one thing, I live along or very close to the mainline of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. We’re very familiar with what happens with that railroad. We live along a couple major highways that come out of Canada. And to give you an idea of what we do, we do produce -- last year we had eight crops, this year we’re down to seven. One of the representatives here spoke for barley producers. We no longer produce barley. We do raise spring wheat. It’s still our main crop in acreage. We raise navy beans, we raise soybeans, we raise sugarbeets, we raise alfalfa. I guess this year we don’t have pinto beans either. Why don’t we raise a couple of these crops? Part of the reason is the function of what’s happened under NAFTA. That’s part of the reason. Under NAFTA the barley maltster in this country had free and open access to the Canadian malting barley grown by Canadian farmers. And I should inform you, too, I’ve had groups of Canadian farmers and other countries as well at my farm. I subscribe regularly to a couple of Canadian farm publications to keep up on what they’re doing. And I did miss your forenoon session. Why is the Canadian barley coming into this country that’s taken us out of production? That used to be either number one or number two in acreage on our farm. Probably the main reason is the value of the currency. One of the crops that we raise -- another crop, is alfalfa. We raised it in the years when some of the other crops didn’t make as much money and we made very good money raising alfalfa for the dairy producers in the southeastern part of the state, hauling into Wisconsin, into Iowa. About two, three years ago the Canadian trucks started to come across with alfalfa. Basically today, partly because of them that market is gone. When they come down here and they get a dollar and they take it home, and it converts to a dollar-and-a-half, that makes a heck of a difference when they go into town to pay their bills. We can’t compete basically. I don’t see in those Canadian Pacific railcars corn raised in Minnesota or soybeans raised in Minnesota going north. That’s the fallacy of what we thought was going to happen under NAFTA; that we’re more efficient producers of corn and soybeans and it’s going to go north to feed their livestock. That has not happened. I can remember when corn raised in Minnesota did go that direction. It doesn’t work that way when you’ve got a 60-some cent Canadian dollar. And I understand where the Canadian farmers are. If I was in Canada and I could load onto my truck my wheat or my barley or my alfalfa or my straw that they use for bedding and haul it south and get a 50 percent increase in the price right now because of the currency exchange, I’d do it as long as they let me. Mr. Just mentioned something about the differences in the different chemicals that can be used on the sides of the border. I can take Canadian farm publications and I see chemicals that we can’t buy. That’s one thing that’s happened. The other thing that has happened is the price in Canada. Last -- I think last year it was it’s always been lower priced than Canada. I called Monsanto Canada and asked why I couldn’t buy Roundup up there and bring it across the border. It was 50 percent less costly than it was here. And I have to compete with them guys because they come across with all of these products that are raised whether you use Roundup or whatever other herbicide it is, and there are herbicides that are available to those Canadian grain producers that are not available to us. To show you how ridiculous some of these standards are, in the northern part of our state we have producers that would sign contracts to grow canola for companies in Canada. They could go to Canada and they could get the seed. They could go to Canada and get chemicals that we couldn’t use in our country, and then when they -- when the stuff gets sold it went to a plant in West Fargo, North Dakota, for processing and our consumers ate it. But legally we could not use those chemicals whether they’re insecticides or herbicides. Now what’s the gist of everything that’s taking place here today? And I’ll ask you a question that I asked at a wheat growers convention in the ‘80s when the wheat market went to 50 percent. Whose the winner in all of this? Whose the winner? Is the Canadian farmer a big winner? The Australian farmer or the European farmer? I had -- my brother was at my place the other day and I’m not a cook, but on Sunday morning I gave him a bowl of Cheerios. And I looked at that box of Cheerios and it was $3.69. Are the consumers winning because oats and wheat and barley and these have all taken a 50 percent hit? Or is somebody sitting over all of this got us kind of fighting at each other and walking away with their pockets full? Because I don’t think consumers in the world are getting a break any place as far as that goes because I know what happened with pork prices. I mean we sold wheat for $6 a bushel a couple years ago and now we can’t get $3 out of it. I sold corn off of my farm for $4.70 and now it’s $1.70. Are you people as consumers benefiting? When you go to that World Trade Organization thing in Seattle, remember that consumers and producers should be the winners, not some multinational or international companies that basically want to play us against each other. Thank you for coming out. I’m sorry I kept you that extra ten minutes or whatever. Thank you. Any questions?

MS. KINNEY:

That was our last official presenter for the afternoon.

MS. HOWES:

I’d like to make a couple of comments before leaving, because as -- as we said earlier this is really just the beginning. I’ve learned an awful lot here and I’m sure the other panel members have, as well. Obviously, you never know too much. Maybe sometimes you never know enough. But I would like to say that we’ve heard your concerns and we’d like to convey them to Ambassador Barshefsky and Ambassador Cher when I get back to Washington. And we still need your help. Please don’t view this as your only opportunity for input but continue to contact us with your suggestions, your concerns and use every avenue possible when you have time, and I don’t -- aren’t out in the field to let us know how you think things are going. Thank you.

MS. KINNEY:

Ambassador Baas?

AMBASSADOR BAAS:

Well, I’d also like to make a few closing comments, if I could. Certainly I first want to thank all of you here for coming. I want to thank our host, the Commissioners from the four states, particularly our Commissioner here from Minnesota for hosting this affair. It’s really been enlightening for us and we’ve really enjoyed it. Again, this was -- this was not a forum on farm policy, on Freedom to Farm, on loan rates, on corporate concentration. But we -- we appreciate those comments. We know those are of vital interest to you and of concern. It has indeed been a forum on trade and on trade agreements. Trade agreements are not the be all and the end all. We have an international labor organization. We have all kinds of environmental groups and treaties. We certainly can’t do much about exchange rates or financial policies and the whole area of monopoly and antitrust is sort of out of our realm, too. So we have to operate with all those things in mind but we can’t directly deal with those in the context of trade agreements. And what is our goal? Our goal in these agreements is simply a better deal for American agriculture. We go into these agreements trying to get lower tariffs, lower subsidies and better market access for America’s farmers and ranchers. That is our goal. We are the Executive Branch. And believe it or not we don’t make a lot of policy. The policy of this government is usually made by our Congress and by others, and what -- we try and implement and do the best we can in carrying out the policies that our Congress passes or that others determine. However, in agriculture we have a long history I think of working together. Traditionally, agriculture has been a bipartisan area where Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals try to work together both in the Congress and elsewhere. We’re also proud that over the years we have paid attention to and listened to and worked with the private sector. And I hope that that can continue as we move into the 21st Century. Thank you.