[Senate Hearing 109-824]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-824
REGIONAL FARM BILL FIELD HEARING
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-131 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
Martha Scott Poindexter, Majority Staff Director
David L. Johnson, Majority Chief Counsel
Vernie Hubert, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Mark Halverson, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Regional Farm Bill Field Hearing................................. 1
----------
Wednesday, June 23, 2006
Panel I
Cobb, Douglas R., President, Georgia Corn Growers Association.... 12
Coley, Chuck, of Vienna, Georgia................................. 11
Detweiler, Mark, President, Georgia/Florida Soybean Association
Board of Directors, American Soybean Association............... 9
Morris, Armond, Chairman, Georgia Peanut Commission Southern
Peanut Farmers Federation...................................... 13
Panel II
Brim, Bill, Lewis Taylor Farms, Tifton, Georgia.................. 28
Campbell, Murray, Chairman, First United Ethanol, LLC............ 32
Perry, Carl, Farmer of sugarcane, beans, citrus and cattle
Albany, Georgia................................................ 29
Thompson, Tom, President, Georgia Milk Producers, Inc............ 30
Panel III
Strickland, James E., DVM President, Georgia Cattlemen's
Association Member, National Cattlemen's Beef Association...... 44
Hunt, R. C., Pork Producer, Wilson, North Carolina President of
the North Carolina Pork Council................................ 45
Giles, Mike, Senior Vice President Georgia Poultry Federation
Gainesville, Georgia........................................... 47
Dreelin, Elizabeth Desportes..................................... 49
Ham, Jim, Georgia Association of Conservation District
Supervisors and the National Association of Conservation
Districts...................................................... 50
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Brim, Bill................................................... 60
Campbell, Murray............................................. 64
Cobb, Douglas R.............................................. 67
Coley, Chuck................................................. 69
Detweiler, Mark.............................................. 75
Dreelin, Elizabeth Desportes................................. 78
Giles, Mike.................................................. 84
Ham, Jim..................................................... 91
Hunt, R. C................................................... 96
Morris, Armond............................................... 111
Perry, Carl.................................................. 118
Strickland, James E.......................................... 124
Thompson, Tom................................................ 133
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Florida Conservation Coalition, prepared statement............... 138
Georgia Agricultural Land Trust, prepared statement.............. 139
Georgia Farm Bureau, prepared statement.......................... 141
Georgia Milk Producers, Inc., prepared statement................. 145
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, prepared statement......... 157
Southeast Milk, prepared statement............................... 167
Southwest Georgia Farm Credit, prepared statement................ 185
Winegrowers Association of Georgia, prepared statement........... 187
REGIONAL FARM BILL FIELD HEARING
----------
Wednesday, June 23, 2006
U.S. Senate
Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry
Albany, Georgia
Hearing on 2007 Farm Bill, held before Committee Chairman
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Chairman, and Senator Pat Roberts,
reported by Debbie Paulk Mixon, CCR, RPR, CRR, at Albany State
University Academic Building Auditorium, Albany, Georgia, on
the 23rd day of June 2006.
Senator Chambliss. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry will now come to
order. As Chairman of the Committee and Senator from this great
state, I welcome each of you and thank you all for joining us
this morning to hear each of our witnesses testify. I know many
of you drove a long way to get here, and I appreciate you
taking the time to travel to this hearing. What a great crowd
we have this morning. And I see a lot of familiar faces out
there. And this is going to be a critical year for agriculture.
Your participation in this today and as we move toward the
rewriting of the Farm Bill next year is critically important.
So to all of you I say, on behalf of Senator Roberts and myself
personally, thank you for you being here.
I want to thank Albany State University for hosting us this
morning. Dr. Everette Freeman is out of town this morning,
could not be here. But Dr. Freeman and his staff have been most
gracious in having us here this morning.
We have a couple of our good friends who are strong
supporters of agriculture in the audience this morning that I
want to recognize. First of all is my longtime dear friend and
neighbor from Mitchell County, Representative Richard Royal.
Richard, where are you? Right here. Richard, thank you very
much for being here, and thanks for the great work you do for
our state.
Also, I saw him outside, Representative Gene Maddox from
Cairo. Gene, right here in the middle. Thanks to both of you
guys for the great work you're doing in the Legislature and for
what you do for agriculture as well as otherwise in our state.
Also, my longtime dear friend former Congressman Mac
Collins. I saw Mac outside. Mac's back here in the back. Mac,
thank you very much for being here, and thanks for your
continued interest in what's going on in the world of
agriculture.
I also want to thank my longtime dear friend, my colleague,
my former House Agriculture Chairman, Senator Pat Roberts from
Kansas, for being here today. Pat and I go back a long ways
when it comes to dealing with farm bills and trying to make
sure that we look after farmers and ranchers all across
America. And there's nobody who has their heart in agriculture
more so than Pat Roberts. He's my dear friend. We serve on
several different committees together. And, Pat, I want to
welcome you to the state of Georgia.
I want to tell everybody here something you already know,
and that is that we're blessed in the Southeast to have a very
diverse agricultural economy. And I'm pleased to host our
Committee's first Farm Bill field hearing right here in the
southwest part of our state in Albany.
This is the first in a series of regional field hearings
that we will hold in preparation for the next Farm Bill. The
next scheduled hearings will take place next month in July in
Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Missouri. We will also hold others in
western states. During these hearings, we hope producers will
express their thoughts on what the next Farm Bill will look
like. It will be important for us to know what has worked in
the 2002 Farm Bill and specifically how we might improve farm
policy for producers in a manner consistent with our trade
obligations and budget needs.
It's interesting in agriculture to see things change over
time. We no longer live in an era of mules pulling plows.
Technology has moved us into a time where GPS tractors can
assess the specific needs of soils in order to maximum yields.
We no longer farm in a time in which the government dictates
what you should or shouldn't plant. Thanks to planting
flexibility provided in the 1996 Farm Bill under the direction
of then Chairman of the House Ag Committee Pat Roberts and
retained in the 2000 Farm Bill, you can choose what is best for
your farm and your bottom line.
The environment in which we write the next Farm Bill will
be considerably different than when we wrote the 2002 Farm
Bill, especially with respect to trade and the budget. As a
Subcommittee Chairman in the House and a conferee on the 2002
Farm Bill, I was one of many who believed that our commodity
programs were compliant with the World Trade Organization
rules.
Having dealt with the outcome of the case brought forth by
Brazil against U.S. cotton, I'm not as confident now as I was
back then. As a conferee on the 2002 Farm Bill, I was pleased
to help write the Farm Bill in a time of budget surpluses.
That, of course, has changed, and we are unsure of what the
future will hold with respect to the budget.
While times have changed, one thing is for certain: This
Committee will be a strong advocate for American agriculture.
Through our trade negotiators, we will continue to affirm our
role as authors of the Farm Bill, and we will continue to
implore the need for trade agreements benefiting, not
sacrificing, our producers.
As we did during the budget reconciliation proceedings of
last year, we will continue to argue that the Federal farm
policy is not only good for rural America, it's good for the
American taxpayer. And I think that has been proven over the
course of this current Farm Bill. Federal farm programs provide
this nation an abundant affordable food supply at a cost of
$12.9 billion less than originally projected through the fiscal
year 2005.
Agriculture accounts for only 3.7 percent of the Federal
budget, and the majority of this, 57 percent of the total ag
spending, is not for commodity programs, as some believe, but
for nutritional programs that are valuable and viable and are
critically important to America.
As policymakers, we have an obligation to provide producers
a safety net into open markets. We have an obligation to
promote land stewardship. We have an obligation to provide
nutritious meals in schools and assist in providing food to
needy families. While nutrition programs will be discussed in
depth at a later date, we look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about how we can achieve these producer-
oriented goals in the next Farm Bill.
Before I turn to our witnesses, I want to turn to Senator
Roberts and any comments he has in an opening statement.
Senator Roberts. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good
morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Audience. Good Morning.
Senator Roberts. That's just a mumbled good morning. I'm
sure you can do a little better than that. Let's try it again.
Good morning.
Audience. Good Morning.
Senator Roberts. That's a good Georgia welcome.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to join you here
today for this first hearing on what's going to be a very
aggressive schedule of Farm Bill hearings as we prepare to
write the next Farm Bill in 2007. I noticed you mentioned
Missouri. If you go to Missouri, you've got to come to Kansas.
I do not envy the task you are in charge of as you work to
put together this very important legislation, with everybody in
the audience as partners, while making every effort to address
the needs and complexities of agricultural production all
throughout this nation. I think you're exactly right in regards
to the challenge that you face. During the previous years, I
think many farm groups and many agricultural organizations,
many commodity groups, I told them at the time, when I said
show me the policy, they said show me the money. And I
understand that.
And I certainly understand it with the energy costs that
we're going through and some of the crop losses we're going
through. We're about 25 percent down in our wheat crop in
Kansas with about a 75 percent increase in energy costs. So we
really have a tight vice, and a lot of farmers are really
considering whether or not they ought to sell while the farm
has value. And that's not a good thing, not a good thing for
them, not a good thing for the next generation of farmers.
As indicated by Saxby, I have served as the Chairman. I
have put together a Farm Bill. It's a lot like pushing a rope.
And there's been six Farm Bills I've been associated with. I
don't know; that might be a record for some of us. And it is
not an easy task, by any means.
And with the budget pressures that we face and with the
trade talks looming over us--and that's not exactly fair play
or a two-way street--you have my commitment to work with you,
to work with the Chairman, and all the members of the Committee
to write the very best bill possible that we can to provide you
stability, consistency, and to keep production of agriculture
in a healthy situation. That's not only for our benefit but
also the benefit of the country.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding the field
hearings all throughout the nation. I've always believed the
most important thing we can do when crafting agriculture policy
is to get out of Washington, travel out in the countryside, sit
on the wagon tongue with our farmers and listen, and basically
find out exactly what they need to keep their operations on the
profit side and to allow the next generation of producers to
enter the business. And that's probably the most important
question that we face in agriculture today: Where is the next
generation of farmers going to come from?
This is exactly what we're doing here today. I look forward
to the testimony from our witnesses. I want to thank you again
for taking us out of Washington and actually bringing us to
speak firsthand with producers that feed and clothe not only
this country but a troubled and hungry world.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your strong
and active leadership of this Committee. He won't say this. I
will. I keep referring to him as the new sheriff in town in
charge of the powerful Senate Agriculture Committee. I used to
be the Chairman of the sometimes powerful House Agriculture
Committee. And I want the farmers and people in rural
communities of Georgia to know that they can have no stronger
champion in Washington than Saxby Chambliss.
Senator Roberts. That applause would also occur in Dodge
City, where I'm from, Dodge City, Kansas. And they would be
giving the same kind of applause because of your efforts on
behalf of not only Georgia's producers but Kansas's producers
or, for that matter, somebody out in California in the fruit
and nut section of the world. In behalf of all America's
producers, he's second to none.
Now, I've got to tell you a little story about this fellow.
We do serve together. We have the privilege of serving together
on the Intelligence Committee. I happen to have the obligation
or the responsibility and privilege to be the Chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, right in the middle of
the war against terrorism.
And I've got a point guard sitting to my left who has
served on the Intelligence Committee in the House, hit the
ground running, hit the ground running at a gallop when he hit
the Senate. And I don't know what I would do without Saxby's
common sense and his support as we try to keep America safe.
We also serve together on the Armed Services Committee. And
both Saxby and I know that healthcare, education, agriculture,
all the things that affect our daily lives and pocketbooks are
terribly important. But the first obligation that we have as
Members of Congress is to do what we can to guarantee our
national security and our individual freedoms.
This man is a stalwart on the Armed Services Committee and
the Intelligence Committee and on the Agriculture Committee. He
may get a little sick of me. I won't with him. But at any rate,
in regards to those three committees that we serve on. Just the
other day, he won a vote in the U.S. Senate--I think it was
over 70 votes--to have a 3-year purchase agreement to save
taxpayers money for something called the F-22, which is our
most modern fighter and brings us up to date with what the
Russians have.
Now, that's tough, because some people want to buy it on an
annual basis, 60 planes. But if you do it that way, you're
going to cost the taxpayer one heck of a lot more. And at the
same time, we're finally moving ahead in terms of the
production of that airplane that we sort of need for our
national defense. The author of that amendment, Saxby
Chambliss. The vote, over 70 votes. It shows you the respect
that the Senate has for your Senator.
Second thing that he did that I didn't know until I was
riding on the plane when we came down and I was asking about
the health of the peanut program and a little thing about
paying the peanut producers for their storage and things of
this nature. And I thought that that was not in the Bill. As a
matter of fact, they fuss about it over in the House. And he
just got it done.
I didn't know about that. That was below the radar. That
was covert, man. And so here's a guy who got an amendment in
behalf of the peanut producer in Georgia and got an amendment
on the Senate floor with over 70 votes. And so he is doing an
amazing job in your behalf.
Let me just say that we have a coalition of my legislative
director, who is sitting to my left, and I will not embarrass
him, and his wife, who is from Georgia, and their new baby. Is
that baby half Kansas and half Georgia? I don't know quite how
that works out. But Mike is down here visiting his in-laws. And
we're just delighted with both of them. And I would say, being
a Kansas wheat, corn, soybeans, livestock producers fellow, I
have learned a whole different world from his wife in peanuts
and rice and cotton and everything else. So we're very happy
about that, that combination and that partnership.
There, I've gone on longer than the Chairman has by 2
minutes. And, you know, you're not supposed to do that in
Washington. So I'm eagerly awaiting your testimony. And thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be in Georgia. Thank
you.
Senator Chambliss. Well, if you're going to say good things
about me: Pat's right, we work very closely together on the
Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. And
I'm pleased to ride shotgun with him. And you talking about
having a point guard on agriculture on any issue, there's no
better point guard for me to have than Pat Roberts.
We're in the Second Congressional District this morning.
And the Congressman from the Second Congressional District has
been a dear friend of mine for many years, since before I
became an elected official. Sanford Bishop does a great job in
representing the Second District of Georgia in the U.S. House
of Representatives. He brings not only a common sense opinion
of issues, but he works hard to make sure that the interests of
the Second District are put before the U.S. House of
Representatives in a very positive way.
He is my great friend. And he and I served on the
Agriculture Committee in the House under Pat for several years.
And he now is an appropriator, which means that he's the one
that signs the checks that come out of Washington. So anytime
you're running low on funds, Sanford is the one that you need
to talk to.
But Sanford Bishop is a great American, a great member of
the U.S. House of Representatives. I'm pleased to have you
here. And I'm going to ask Sanford to come forward at this time
and make some comments and introduce a very special guest.
Representative Bishop. Good morning. And thank you very
much, Saxby and Pat. Thanks so much to you for bringing the Ag
Committee to Albany, Georgia, to the Second Congressional
District. And I certainly want to welcome all of the people who
have come, and especially our witnesses, to this event. It's so
vitally important. Agriculture is so important.
And I'm not going to take my time, because I want to
introduce a special person, Niki Newberry, who is a University
of Georgia agriculture intern. We have a joint program with the
University of Georgia and our Congressional offices, along with
the Georgia Agribusiness Council, to provide special
agricultural training experiences for ag majors at the
University.
And we have Niki Newberry, and I want to yield my time to
Niki at this point. Niki, would you come forth? And she will be
speaking for me and for our office.
Ms. Newberry. Good morning. Like the Congressman said, I'm
Niki Newberry, an agricultural intern from the University of
Georgia's College of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences.
First, I would like to thank Senator Chambliss and the
Senate Agriculture Committee for holding this field hearing in
Albany, the heart of Georgia's Second Congressional District. I
would also like to thank all the witnesses who came to speak on
behalf of American farmers and agribusiness owners. With help
from people like you, the 2007 Farm Bill has the potential to
improve upon the 2002 Farm Bill. Also, thank you, Congressman
Bishop, for the opportunity to speak about the importance of
the Farm Bill for rural Georgia and the agrarian way of life.
Agriculture has been the most important issue in my life. I
grew up on a farm only about 50 miles from here, and I grew to
love and appreciate this experience. My father is still a
farmer in Wilcox County, and I'm honored he is in the audience
here today. Because of my upbringing, I chose to major in
agricultural communications.
Agriculture is the most vital component of the Southwest
Georgia economy. According to the Georgia Farm Gate Value
Report, the total 2004 farm gate value for Georgia was over
$10.2 billion. For Georgia's Second Congressional District, it
was over $90 million. One in six jobs in the state are in the
agricultural sector. The 2007 Farm Bill will have a dramatic
effect on communities in rural Georgia.
Although the state of Georgia remains a proven leader in
the production of cotton, peanuts, poultry, and timber, farmers
and agribusiness owners are facing economic hardships.
Operating a farm requires scores of workers, and many producers
support a reformed H2A guest worker program which, when it is
properly administered, will help improve efficiency. The
success of the seasonal fruit and vegetable harvest in the
Second Congressional District would not be possible without
those workers who participate in the H2A program.
The rising cost of fuel and other input costs is one of our
greatest concerns. Because of challenges like fuel costs, farm
programs instituted by the Farm Bill are extremely important
for the livelihood of farmers and agribusiness owners. The
emergence of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel
has created a potentially limitless market for agricultural
products. In the future, our farmers will not only feed America
but fuel her as well. The new Farm Bill should contain
provisions and support for biofuel development.
The farmers of south Georgia are resilient. They're willing
to change and adapt their farming practices to become more
efficient and environmentally friendly. They use conservation
tillage practices and variable rate irrigation systems to
reduce the impact of farming on the land, made possible by the
current Farm Bill. Agriculturalists are stewards of the land,
stewards who want the land they cultivate and the natural
resources on their land preserved. Please continue the strong
conservation programs that are provided for in the current Farm
Bill.
The technology of farming is advancing. Researchers at land
grant institutions like the University of Georgia have found
ways to produce higher yields while lessening farming's impact
on the environment. It is crucial that funding for these
research centers, like the National Peanut Laboratory and
others, continue to further develop ways for America to stay
competitive in the world market.
Although the heart of the Farm Bill is the farmer,
surrounding the farmer are the rural communities whose
economies rely on success of their local farmers. Programs that
support rural economic development are important to the lives
of the people who live and work in these communities. Whether
it's broadband technology or local medical centers, we owe it
to rural Americans to invest in the places they work and call
home.
It is our goal to secure a Farm Bill which will serve all
aspects of agriculture, from livestock and poultry producers to
row crop and vegetable farmers covering south Georgia to
California and all in between. The next Farm Bill should ensure
that the agrarian way of life that this country was founded
upon is preserved. We must protect America's farmers. They
protect us by satisfying our most basic needs: food, clothing,
shelter, and jobs. We must make sure to give them a Farm Bill
that will enable them to compete on a level playing field in
the global marketplace.
Thank you for your time today and for holding this
important hearing here in Albany. We all look forward to
working with you to draft the best Farm Bill possible.
Senator Chambliss. Niki, thank you very much for that fine
presentation. I assure you your boss could not have said it
that well. And he doesn't look nearly as good as you do. So the
audience particularly enjoyed that.
Speaking of that, Niki being Sanford's Georgia agricultural
intern, I guess most of the House members now have a program
like this. Let me just quickly tell you what we do. We started
this program modeled after a program that Thad Cochran has. And
we work with the University of Georgia and the Georgia
Agribusiness Council to bring an intern from the University of
Georgia College of Agricultural Sciences to Washington every
summer and to stay with us the whole summer.
And the idea is that we want to let folks, young folks, who
want to be involved in agriculture figure out what goes on in
Washington and how Washington works and bring that knowledge
back to Georgia, because if they're involved in agriculture,
they need to know how agricultural policy is set. And by the
same token, we try to create a pool of young people that we can
hopefully bring to Washington and get them to work on our
staffs up there and bring the knowledge of southeastern crops
to the Ag Committee or to our personal offices, whatever it may
be.
The very first person that I had as my ag intern from the
University of Georgia was a young lady named Christy Crumley.
Christy is from Brooklet, Georgia. She is the daughter of Chap
and Barbara Crumley. And Christy worked for me that first
summer, and she came back and graduated. And just so happened
that my ag LA, who now directs my Senate Ag Committee, left me
to go make money somewhere else. And we immediately brought
Christy back to Washington. And now Christy is on my Ag
Committee staff. And she is the one that put together this
hearing this morning. Christy, stand up so everybody can see
you.
Senator Chambliss. I am very proud of Christy. If you don't
like your crop insurance program, you can blame Christy,
because during the writing of that reform package, Christy
headed up my shop that helped write that.
Now, the end of this story is that I was told by Barbara,
when Christy came back to Washington to work for me, she said,
``It's OK, Saxby, for Christy to come back and work with you,
because we want her involved in agriculture. But,'' she said,
``don't let her marry somebody from outside of Georgia that she
meets in Washington.''
Well, lo and behold, a year or so later, I hear she's
dating this guy. And I happen to know this guy she's dating
because he works for my good friend Pat Roberts. Well, lo and
behold, another six or 8 months later, I hear that they're
getting married. And I said, ``Oh, my God. I'm in trouble with
Chap and Martha.''
But Mike Seyfert, who is also here this morning--stand up,
Mike. We're going to introduce the whole crowd. Mike has worked
for Pat for a long time and is in charge of his ag policy on
his staff and is a terrific young man. And I got to see this
morning the little Seyfert. They have a brand new daughter. And
grandmama couldn't be here. I don't know whether Chap is here
or not. But grandmama is baby-sitting this morning, and she's
having a ball. She said she was really going to miss hearing a
bunch of farmers talk this morning but she would rather opt to
go be with that little granddaughter.
But this is a great example of what happens with this
program that Sanford and I both have, Jack Kingston has, I
know. And it's a great program. And we appreciate the
participation of the University of Georgia and the Agribusiness
Council with us.
Now, we're going to get down to what everybody's here for.
We've got three panels this morning, and we're going to ask
these presenters this morning to take about 3 minutes each to
make a presentation relative to their particular expertise. And
then Pat and I will be asking questions to the panel.
First panel this morning consists of Mr. Mark Detweiler
from Rome, Georgia, who represents the American Soybean
Association. We have Mr. Chuck Coley, whose son Matt was also
one of my ag interns from the University of Georgia and who we
also brought back to Washington. And Matt is with us this
morning. Matt is now a member of my Ag Committee staff, and I'm
very proud of that. Chuck is from Vienna, Georgia, represents
the National Cotton Council. Mr. Ray Cobb is from Davisboro,
Georgia, and he represents the Georgia Corn Growers
Association. And my longtime good friend, Armond Morris, from
Ocilla, represents the Southern Peanut Farmers Federation.
Gentlemen, thank you all for being here. Mark, we're going
to start with you, and we'll just go right down the line. And
if you all will make your presentation into the microphone
where everybody can hear, we look forward to hearing your
comments.
STATEMENT OF MARK DETWEILER PRESIDENT, GEORGIA/FLORIDA SOYBEAN
ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
Mr. Detweiler. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee. I am Mark Detweiler. I am a farmer, diversified
farmer, from Rome, Georgia, growing corn, soybeans, small
grains, and livestock cattle. I appreciate very much the
opportunity to speak to you today. I am president of the
Georgia/Florida Soybean Growers Association and serve on the
Board of Directors of the American Soybean Association.
Mr. Chairman, soybean producers in the Southeast, as well
as other regions of the country, support the safety net we now
have under the 2002 Farm Bill. Most soybean farmers would also
support extending the current farm programs when Congress
considers new farm legislation next year. Unfortunately,
current budget baseline for farm program spending declines over
the next 10 years and will probably not accommodate expected
outlays based on current support levels. We would need
additional funding as was done in 2001 for the 1902 Farm Bill.
Given the outlook for the Federal deficit, in coming years we
will be fortunate to keep the level of spending that we
currently have now. After facing budget cuts in the agriculture
budget last year, we can expect Congress to consider further
reductions in spending after the election occurs this fall.
A second reason we need to look at alternatives to the
current farm program is the potential additional WTO challenges
of current farm programs. We are familiar with the results of
Brazil's case against cotton. In order to avoid sanctions, the
U.S. will need to change the direct payment program to
eliminate planting restrictions on fruits and vegetable crops.
But, also, the marketing loan and counter-cyclical programs
were found to cause serious prejudice and could be subject to
other cases for other crops, including soybeans.
We're also watching the WTO negotiation agreement, which
entered in with the Administration last October, when the
Administration has made an offer for 60 percent reduction in
outlays permitted under the most production and trade-
distorting programs, including the marketing loan and dairy and
sugar price support programs. ASA and other farm organizations
are insisting that importing countries make equally aggressive
reductions in their tariffs, including on soybean and livestock
products. If an agreement is reached and approved by Congress
next year, we will need to make major changes in current farm
programs.
Given these uncertainties, ASA's policy on the 2007 Farm
Bill is that there will be no further cuts in CCC budget
baseline for agriculture spending, that farm programs not
distort planting decisions between crops, and future programs
be WTO compliant to avoid challenges like the cotton case. To
explore the alternatives, ASA organized a Farm Bill Task Force
last year, which has been working with other farm organizations
to look at the so-called green box that would be considered
non-trade distorting under the WTO.
The results of this analysis indicate a variety of options
that would guarantee 70 percent of historical income and still
be WTO compliant. These options include basing the current
guarantee on whole farm versus specific commodity income,
looking at either using a net or a gross income, and
guaranteeing income for only program commodities, for program
crops plus horticultural crops, or for all crops and livestock.
The cost of these options varies considerably, from 3.3 billion
per year to guarantee 70 percent gross income on whole farm
basis for only program crops to over 10 billion per year to
guarantee 70 percent net income for specific commodities of all
crops and livestock.
Neither ASA nor any other farm organization involved in
this Task Force has endorsed a revenue guarantee concept at
this time. Instead we are now working with other groups to see
how a revenue guarantee could be combined with one or several
other farm programs to create a more effective safety net for
producers. These include crop insurance, permanent disaster
assistance, the three main components of the current Farm Bill,
which is the marketing loan, counter-cyclical payments, and
direct payments. We are working to have recommendations to put
forward to the Committee sometime this Fall.
We're also very supportive of the conservation, energy,
research, and trade titles in the 2002 Farm Bill. We're
particularly interested in looking at programs that would
support soybeans as a biodiesel alternative, renewable energy
source, and to promote biodiesel production in the United
States. The CCC has operated a bioenergy program since 2001. It
is providing payments to biodiesel producers who utilize
feedstocks that are domestically produced, such as soybean oil.
This program has facilitated expansion of domestic biodiesel
production, but the program sunsets after 2006. Therefore, we
are asking Congress to extend that provision.
Also, the CCC program is justified because imports already
have subsidized biodiesel programs coming in that will
undermine the U.S. industry since they're eligible for a tax
incentive, too, also in our current law. Higher premiums should
be placed on domestic biodiesel production and expansion. The
prospective cost of a biodiesel program could be offset by
reduced CCC outlays under the soybean marketing loan and
counter-cyclical programs.
With regard to conservation and research, we are concerned
by recent actions that have depleted funding for these programs
in order to pay for disaster assistance and to cover budget
reduction commitments. ASA supports increased funding for
conservation payments to producers on working lands such as
through the Conservation Security Program. We also believe that
a significant number of acres currently locked up in the
Conservation Reserve Program could be farmed in an
environmentally sustainable manner given the enormous increase
in no-till farming practices that have been implemented over
the past 10 to 15 years. Finally, we strongly support
maintaining funding for promotion activities under the foreign
market development and market access programs and for
international food aid.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before
you.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much. Chuck?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Detweiler can be found on
page 75 in the appendix.]
STATEMENT OF CHUCK COLEY OF VIENNA, GEORGIA
Mr. Coley. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
welcome to Georgia. And thank you for holding this hearing and
providing me an opportunity to present testimony on current and
future farm policy.
My name is Chuck Coley. I'm a third-generation cotton and
peanut farmer from Vienna, Georgia, and I currently serve as
vice chairman of the American Cotton Producers. Mr. Chairman,
thank you for your positive efforts to develop and maintain
sound agricultural policy, which is so important to this area
and to this nation.
Georgia is the third largest cotton producing state. The
principle reasons for the resurgence in cotton production in
Georgia are the eradication of the boll weevil and an effective
and stable farm program. Cotton farmers are deeply concerned
with the loss of our manufacturing customer base and have
committed to continue to work with them. The manufacturers have
indicated strong interest in making revisions to our Step 3
import policy and in developing a possible WTO compliant
replacement for Step 2.
While the cotton fiber is our principal product, we also
continue to seek ways to enhance the value of cottonseed and
its products, which account for 12 percent of the value of the
crop at the farm gate. As ethanol production increases, one of
the byproducts--dried distillers' grain--has depressed the
value of cottonseed.
We believe the current farm law has and continues to
provide a stable and effective national farm policy for our
country. The combination of direct and counter-cyclical
payments provide an effective means of income support,
especially when prices are low, without distorting planting
decisions. The direct payment provides financial stability
required by our lenders and suppliers.
I would caution that those who promote replacement of the
counter-cyclical payment with higher direct payments risk
taking the land out of the producers' hand, so it is important
to continue to maintain a balance. It is also important to
recognize the difference in regional impacts that can occur due
to program changes. In the Southeast, payment yields for direct
payments are lower than other regions, so a rebalancing toward
direct payments would be a competitive disadvantage for the
Southeast.
We strongly support continuation of the marketing loan. The
marketing loan responds to low prices; it does not cause low
prices. It ensures that U.S. cotton farmers are not residual
suppliers in world markets because they are unable to compete
with the treasuries of foreign governments.
It is also critical that all production remain eligible for
the marketing loan. Sound farm policy is of little value to the
cotton industry if we have arbitrary, unworkable limitations
placed on our benefits. We believe limitations should be
eliminated and, at the very least, limitations in future law
should not be more restrictive or disruptive than current law.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, most cotton farmers and a majority
of the industry would be satisfied with an extension of the
current farm law. We are increasingly concerned that the Doha
negotiations are turning against U.S. agriculture in general
and against U.S. cotton in particular. They want more U.S.
concessions while refusing to provide adequate market access.
Worse, China, the largest cotton market in the world, wants to
be exempt from any further market access commitments. If other
countries cannot match the U.S. level of ambition for market
access, we should either withdraw or reduce our offer on
domestic support. I also want to emphasize that an agreement
that singles out U.S. cotton for additional inequitable
treatment will not be accepted by U.S. cotton producers.
Finally, we are deeply disturbed by claims that 80 percent
of all program benefits go to fewer than 20 percent of the
producers and that only the so-called program crops receive
direct benefits from farm law. Virtually every commodity
receives some type of support, whether through direct income
payments, price support programs, or barriers to import.
Favorable tax laws are used to provide support for certain
products, but the benefits are not directly attributed to the
individual farmers. Today's payments are an important safety
net and not a windfall of profit.
I am pleased to assure you and your colleagues that the
cotton industry is prepared to continue to work with all
interests to develop and support continuation of a balanced and
effective policy for all of U.S. agriculture. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Chuck. Ray?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coley can be found on page
69 in the appendix.]
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS R. COBB, PRESIDENT, GEORGIA CORN GROWERS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Cobb. Good morning, Chairman Chambliss and other
members of the Committee. It's an honor to be here before you
as president of the Georgia Corn Growers Association. We
appreciate your efforts to gather input to help with the
development of the new Farm Bill. I do not envy the monumental
task that you have before you, and I pray that God will give
you wisdom to do so.
Agriculture has always been and will be the backbone of a
strong United States economy. With the recent terroristic
activities both here and abroad, I do not believe it is
possible to overemphasize the need to keep a strong domestic
supply of food and fiber. This is a must for the health and
well-being of our nation.
Southern farmers need a bill that favors diversification.
Crop diversity is important for the economy of our rural
communities. Diversity helps us control pests and keep our
yields up. Corn fits well in this rotation. In general, the
1902 Farm Bill has worked well, and I believe we can use our
current bill as a foundation to develop an even better Farm
Bill.
First, farmers need some kind of safety net at a level that
will allow them to survive. Depressed commodity prices,
tremendous increases in input costs, unfair competition from
world markets, and natural disasters, such as droughts, floods,
insects, create severe financial problems for farm operations
whose profit margins are very small even in good years. A
combination of good crop insurance programs, counter-cyclical
payments, and loan deficiency payments could be worked in
combination to create a safety net. Crop insurance should be
amended so that disaster years do not erode the farmers'
protection levels.
Payment limitations should not penalize farmers. With the
necessities of economics of scale, we have had to get larger
and larger just to stay in business. Therefore, with smaller
profits per acre, it is taking more and more acres just to
survive.
Conservation is important to everyone, especially farmers.
The farmers who have survived in agriculture know the best
conservation practices for their operation and are using these
practices. We should continue to receive credits for our
efforts and leeway in the conservation practices that we
implement.
There has been a tremendous effort in the development of
biofuels. We have led the way with corn/ethanol production. And
there is a concern that an orchestrated drop in world oil
prices could undermine these endeavors. This would disrupt not
only the corn and ethanol production efforts but the
development of other biofuels as well. We need protection as we
build the technology and infrastructure to become independent
of other countries' energy sources.
It is imperative that we continue to provide funding for
agricultural research, extension, and educational endeavors.
Without the contributions from these important people, United
States agriculture would be years behind where we are now and
many of us would be out of business. Thank you.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Ray. Armond?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cobb can be found on page 67
in the appendix.]
STATEMENT OF ARMOND MORRIS CHAIRMAN, GEORGIA PEANUT COMMISSION
SOUTHERN PEANUT FARMERS FEDERATION
Mr. Morris. Good morning, Chairman Chambliss and Senator
Roberts. It's great to have you in the state of Georgia here
with us today. Thank you all for having this hearing here in
Albany.
I'm Armond Morris. I'm a peanut producer from Irwin County,
Georgia. I am chairman of the Georgia Peanut Commission. I am
here today representing the Southern Peanut Farmers Federation.
The Federation is comprised of Alabama Peanut Producers,
Georgia Peanut Commission, Florida Peanut Producers
Association, and also, within the last month, the Mississippi
Peanut Growers has voted to join the Federation. So we're
excited to be here representing three-fourths of the nations
peanuts. So I'm here to testify for them this morning.
First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the
Senate Agriculture Committee to South Georgia, for the
Committee's leadership in moving the U.S. peanut program from a
supply management program to a more market-oriented program.
The new peanut program has encouraged peanut product
manufacturers to develop new products and spend more money on
marketing these products. And the domestic demand has increased
like 25 to 30 percent since the new program has been
implemented. The 2005 peanut crop was valued at $370 million,
pushing about 50,000 jobs into Georgia's economy.
The Southern Peanut Farmers Federation has met with other
segments of the industry, including buying points, shellers,
manufacturers, and each having indicated they are pleased with
the 2002 Farm Bill. While Congress has passed a very
respectable peanut program in 2002, the administration of the
peanut program by the Department of Agriculture has not been as
successful. While the domestic marketplace has seen a healthy
increase in demand from consumers and production growth for
producers, this has not been the case for the peanut export
market.
The USDA continues to set the loan repayment rate for
peanuts too high. Despite language to the contrary in the 2002
Farm Bill, the Department has relied far too much on data
unrelated to the price other export nations are marketing
peanuts for in the world.
We are encouraged by a recent meeting in Washington with
the USDA Farm Service Agency economists. At this meeting, the
peanut producers offered options for achieving a more accurate
posted price. I have included these detailed options in my
written statement. The Southern Peanut Farmers Federation will
continue to work with our industry partners to develop more
specific suggestions for the next Farm Bill and refer that to
your Committee.
When the 2002 Farm Bill was drafted, peanut producers did
not envision record high energy prices that impacted our major
crop inputs, including fuel, fertilizer, and chemicals. The
2006 peanut crop will feel the impact of these increases. In
Georgia we anticipate a 30 percent reduction in peanut planting
for the 2006 crop year. High energy costs and weak contract
offers are the primary variables for the less acreage. Weak
contract offers are a direct result of the loan repayment rate
being set too high. With a declining export market, peanuts are
not moving out of the loan quickly enough, resulting in a
buyers' market.
As the Committee is aware, the storage and handling fees
provided in the 2002 Farm Bill, they are to be eliminated for
the 2007 crop. Producers consider this an integral part of the
peanut program. Without these fees, the marketing loan will be
produced for the producers in excess of probably $50 per ton.
With a projected 30 percent reduction in Georgia production in
2006, peanut planting could fall below pre-2002 levels in the
2007 crop year if these fees are not restored. The $355 per ton
marketing loan rate in the 2002 Farm Bill would then be reduced
to approximately $300 per ton.
Producers in the Southeast will not plant peanuts at these
levels. If the storage and handling fees are eliminated in the
next Farm Bill, the Federation requests that the Committee
consider options for replacing these fees through an increase
in marketing loan rate or other options.
And, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the Committee is concerned
about the Doha Round negotiations to the Administration,
conveying that message, and Congress should set the ag policy
and not our trade negotiators. And I'm grateful for the
opportunity to be here today representing the Southeastern
peanut farmer/growers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris can be found on page
111 in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Well, thanks to each one of you for
those presentations. I've got a series of five questions that
I'm going to ask at every field hearing we have this year. And
I'd like to address it to all four of you and have you respond
to it.
As we approach the 2007 Farm Bill, the budget situation is
much different than when we wrote the 2002 Farm Bill. If the
World Trade Organization agriculture negotiations are
successful, the commodity title will require changes in order
to comply with the new commitments. How would you prioritize
the programs of the Farm Bill generally and the commodity title
specifically? How would you write the relative importance of
the direct payment program, the marketing loan program, and the
counter-cyclical payment program? Mark?
Mr. Detweiler. That's a loaded question.
Senator Chambliss. Intended to be.
Mr. Detweiler. In my opinion, we're going to have to look
more toward an insurance-based formula to sustain our safety
nets versus the counter-cyclical direct and marketing loan
payment programs we now have currently in place. That may or
may not cause more financial outlay to Congress, depending on
the year, depending on the insurance payment programs that
would be used or utilized, considering whether it be net farm
income based or gross farm income based or crops-specific
based. There's many options in that insurance scheme that we're
currently looking at. But I personally believe we're going to
have to look closer toward an insurance program to solve or to
ensure our safety net than our current programs that we have
now in place.
Senator Chambliss. OK. Chuck?
Mr. Coley. I think the marketing loan program is vitally
important to the crop industry. I think it's one of the most
forward-thinking laws that have came back to help us market our
crops when they're low. I think the safety net of the counter-
cyclical is very important. And like I said in my statement,
the balancing of direct and counter-cyclical is vitally
important to the whole cotton industry.
Senator Chambliss. Ray?
Mr. Cobb. Like Mark says, that's a loaded question. But I
think what we have is working, has worked well. And as Chuck
said, you know, I think the counter-cyclical payments are most
important. And I also agree with Mark, insurance. I don't know
the answer. I know that's what you're looking for. But it's
very important that we do something for the American farmer and
keep the American farmer, the true American farmer, in
business.
Senator Chambliss. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we in peanuts, we've tried to
conform like other commodities. Back in 1996, I believe, you
reminded us of the fact that you couldn't get us another Farm
Bill similar to what we had with the quota system. So we've
tried to transition to conform to the other commodities and to
make our program work and work well. And you've done a great
job of orchestrating that and helping us to do that.
I think the marketing loan is very important to us in
peanuts and, of course, the counter-cyclical, also. I realize
that the legislation that you all brought forward in setting up
our Farm Bill, last Farm Bill, that USDA has faltered in some
of the ways. I feel that had they set the prices right, we'd
have been able to move our peanuts forward.
But to answer your question, basically, the program has
worked well and we would like to see it continue to work in
that effort. And, of course, we want to make it better in any
way that we can.
But another thing that concerns me, when we look at other
countries around the world and look at what their food cost is
related back to their income, I think in America we're like
9.4, 9.5, somewhere around 9-1/2 spendable income of the
American people for food. And in France, I believe it's like
18, 18-1/2. If the American consumer was paying 18-1/2 percent
of their income for food, I don't think we'd have a problem
with what the farmer receives for his commodity. We wouldn't be
facing the chaos and the low prices and the problems that we
have. We'd probably be able to pay for our fuel, even though
it's high.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm a consumer. I want us to get the
best quality food that we can on the American consumers' table
at the cheapest possible price. So that's very important. And
you gentlemen, in writing a new Farm Bill, I know that that's
you all's goal.
Senator Chambliss. Second, we can expect an effort to
further reduce payment limits in the next Farm Bill. In fact,
in its recently released Risk Management Farm Bill Theme Paper,
USDA suggests that an alternative to the current farm program
could be to better target farm programs to producers in
greatest need of assistance, that is, target payments toward
smaller and mid-sized farms. Do you believe this would be a
good idea, or do you believe that farm programs should support
those with a greater risk to a greater degree? Do payment
limits need to be modified in the next Farm Bill? Mark?
Mr. Detweiler. I'm going to get in trouble no matter what I
say on this one. I believe the greatest risk factor on the
larger farmer needs to be the one insured. Generally, looking
from a smaller farm--and I would be considered a smaller
farmer--you're going to look at assistance from off-farm
income, supporting your income farm--family, live-farm income,
from off-source farm income, a net. And I believe it would be
better targeted toward the larger and more risk-factored
farmer.
Mr. Coley. I definitely don't believe we need any more
payment limitations. We were talking about the marketing loan.
We need to have all our crop eligible for marketing loan in
order for it to work properly. We also have to remember the
definition of small and medium-sized farms. Years ago, when I
was a little boy, if you had 250 acres, it was a large farm.
Now, with the consolidation of farms and the expense it takes
to run a farm and the amount of investment, you have to have a
lot larger farming operations than you did in the past. And
they're the ones out there taking the risk. And, you know, we
got into people hollering about 20 percent of the people
getting 80 percent of the payments. Well, those 20 percent of
the people are producing over 80 percent of the crops.
Senator Chambliss. Ray?
Mr. Cobb. Chairman Chambliss, I don't think we need to cut
payments to farmers. As Chuck said, you know, we've been forced
to produce more and more. And the inputs that we're putting
into farming, it's tremendous. And the income, we're getting
1950 prices. So I think the country's got to make a decision:
You want to cut the backbone of the nation, or you want to look
at some other things?
Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I don't feel like we need to
reduce the payment. The limitation probably even needs to be
raised because the size of the farms have increased. And why
should we penalize someone that wants to expand to stay in
business?
And if you are a true family farmer now, it's hard for you
to exist on 300 acres or less land. You have to have larger
farms. For instance, fuel prices, look how it has increased in
the last 24 months, fertilizer prices. So all these prices has
increased, too. So you've had to increase your farming
operation. So I think it's important that we look at that.
And, second, we want to be sure that we've got the best
quality food in the nation. We want to be sure that we have an
adequate supply. So all these things play an integral part of
the farming operation.
Senator Chambliss. As we speak, there are conversations
going on in Geneva relative to the Doha Round. And agriculture
has finally achieved the profile that folks like Pat and I have
long believed it should, and that is that we're not going to
have an agreement coming out of Doha without a strong
agricultural agreement that's going to be beneficial not just
for American farmers but it should be beneficial for other
folks around the world. But, frankly, I'm a lot more concerned
about a farmer in Paris, Texas, than I am one in Paris, France.
So, naturally, we are determined to make sure that the American
farmer comes out in the best shape possible.
We also have a trade negotiator in Susan Schwab who
understands the importance of agriculture to America. And she
understands that we're not going to unilaterally disarm. If
we're going to get any trade agreement through the U.S.
Congress, it's going to have to be fair and equitable, it's
going to have to be balanced, it's going to have to provide our
farmers with true market access, real market access, if we're
going to have a reduction in domestic support.
With that being said, the Doha Round of negotiations seeks
to provide additional market access for U.S. agricultural goods
in exchange for reductions in trade-distorting domestic support
programs. How dependent are your farm operations on exports?
And to what extent do you believe your future profitability
will depend on exports rather than domestic markets? Armond,
let's start with you this time.
Mr. Morris. Well, I think that, Mr. Chairman, definitely
exports are very important. I know it's very important to the
peanut industry. And we was hoping the new Farm Bill would
address that, and it did. You and legislation addressed it, but
then USDA has not implemented it right.
And we're spending probably a million and a half dollars,
or the USDA is spending a million and a half dollars, for
peanuts to develop the export market. Our exports has went down
300,000 tons since the 2002 Farm Bill. Had we set our prices
right, we would have been able to retain that 300,000 ton
market, probably wouldn't have a surplus today of peanuts in
the warehouse.
But I think it's very important. I think it's very
important. And as we've moved into the new era that you all
have helped to write legislation for, it's been directed toward
the export markets. And I think that we need to be able to fit
into those markets. But I think that we're an industrialized
nation, and I think that it's going to take involvement from
you all and through USDA to help the farmer to be able to fit
into that market and for us to keep the cheap food here on the
American table, too.
Senator Chambliss. Ray?
Mr. Cobb. I think exports are very important. I don't know
to what percent. But farmers need to have--our competition,
they're able to use a lot of things we're not able to at
cheaper cost. So the exports, again, are very important. And I
don't know how--I'd like to get back to you on that in writing,
maybe.
Senator Chambliss. OK. That would be fine. Chuck?
Mr. Coley. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know it's vitally
important to the cotton industry for exports. Three out of four
bales now are exported. Of course, there's the demise of our
domestic industry, which has hurt the cotton industry as a
whole, where just a few years ago was spinning 11 million
bales, is only spinning a little over 5 million bales now.
We're exporting some 16 million bales. As I mentioned in my
oral statement, the access to China is vitally important for
the cotton industry, and China trying to go behind the scenes
and limit cotton's access to their market would not fare well
for the cotton industry.
Senator Chambliss. Mark?
Mr. Detweiler. Mr. Chairman, I would say that exports are
extremely important to us in soybeans. In the Southwest, we are
a protein-deficit area, which means we consume the majority of
our soybeans here domestically for our broiler production and
livestock production facilities. But if you look toward the
Midwest, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, they are totally dependent
on export beans out of the country, through the Mississippi.
And that would directly affect us and our market price for
soybeans if that export market dries up. It's also critically
important for us, in balance of trade, increasing export market
availability for us in all products.
Senator Chambliss. In its recently released Risk Management
Farm Bill Theme Paper, USDA suggests replacing marketing
assistant loans and counter-cyclical payments with a program
that pays producers based on revenue shortfalls as an
alternative to the current farm program. What do you think
about a revenue-based approach to a safety net as a replacement
for the current commodity programs? Armond?
Mr. Morris. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we would have to, I
reckon, review that and look at it. But it could work. But we
do have to have the revenues that would repay the loans that we
have with the banks and also support any expansions and new
development and support the farmer himself.
So I couldn't answer that question until, I reckon, we
studied it a little bit more. I know the program we've got now
is working. With all the increase in cost of production, it
would be hard for the farmer to take any decrease in his
commodity prices. And I do like to see the commodity prices be
high enough that the farmer be paid on what he produces,
production. And that's a good incentive, if he's getting a good
price for his commodity.
Senator Chambliss. Ray?
Mr. Cobb. Well, we don't need to increase the payments
again. And you sure do ask some good questions. Like Armond,
I'd have to do some studying on that. I think it would work,
but it doesn't need to be decreased, as far as what we're
getting.
Senator Chambliss. OK. Chuck?
Mr. Coley. I think, you know, there could be a possibility
for the revenue-based. I think, as the others agree, I think
what we have is working well. I think when you look into a
revenue-based program, I think each section of the country has
to be considered. The Southeast has some crops that require
pretty intensive management, plus high capital outlay, such as
cotton and peanuts. And they would have to be designed in an
equitable manner so certain regions would not be behind other
regions in the country.
Senator Chambliss. Mark, you addressed this in your opening
statement, but you might want to expand on it a little bit.
Mr. Detweiler. I will try to, Mr. Chairman. We have had an
analysis done on revenue options and future farm program design
by two companies, Risk Management and DTB Associates. And I've
not had time to thoroughly go through the 64-page report since
the other night.
But it is a possibility. Of course, WTO is linking us not
to yield but to income to be compliant. In that case, an
insurance program is going to be based on your expected loss,
financial loss, not in a yield-per-acre gain or loss in bushels
or pounds. It is possible.
There's several different scenarios, as I said, to look at.
There's many options through that, through gross farm income,
through crops-specific income. And these two are--the gross
farm income level, using that, using a farm basis as taking all
the products you have--and, you know, I have a diversified
farm--but taking all those products and having a gross income
level. And basing it off that loss, you would have to get to
over a 30 percent loss before it would be triggered for an
insurance payment and up to 70 percent.
And the situation that I think would be hard for us to
swallow in the agricultural industry is that we've been used to
direct payments. Going to an insurance-revenue option would
eliminate most of those payments. That would be a hard thing
for us to comprehend. A larger operation, the more dependent we
are on these direct payment programs. I think that would be a
way we're going to have to rethink, refinance, the way we do
farming operations if we go with that option.
Senator Chambliss. Last, should an increase in conservation
or bioenergy resources come at the expense of commodity
programs? Can you envision conservation or bioenergy incentive
programs providing an adequate safety net for production
agriculture? Armond?
Mr. Morris. I don't think it should come at the expense of
the commodity programs, because the commodity programs relate
right back directly to the producer himself. So, you know, I'd
rather it come from other revenues. But I think it would be
good. I think we need to study. And I think that we need to
develop other methods of using our commodities. I think it's
very important, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chambliss. Ray?
Mr. Cobb. Would you repeat that question again, please?
Senator Chambliss. Should an increase in conservation or
bioenergy resources come at the expense of the commodity
program? Chairman Roberts says no, and I agree.
Mr. Cobb. No.
Senator Chambliss. Can you envision conservation or
bioenergy incentive programs providing an adequate safety net
for production agriculture?
Mr. Cobb. I agree, no, it shouldn't come at the expense.
You know, you mentioned it in your statement to start with:
Who's going to be farming, the next generation? In all this,
we've got to promote agriculture. And there's very few young
farmers in my community. So again, we don't need to--stick with
the 1902 program, better it, and don't decrease, but still
promote the biofuels. And I think this is a place we can--you
know, maybe 1 day a farmer can produce his own fuel and promote
things like that, rather than decrease.
Senator Chambliss. OK.
Mr. Coley. The answer to the question would be no. I think
the conservation program is an important component of an
effective farm policy. I don't think it could replace what we
have now. I think it could--should be continued like that on a
voluntary cost-share basis like we do now.
I farm. I'm in the CSP and EQIP programs, familiar with
those. And they are a complement to the commodity programs, I
think.
As far as bioenergy, I don't think any bioenergy money
should come from the commodity programs, specifically. I think
they should add to the commodity programs from the energy
department area.
Mr. Detweiler. My personal opinion is no. The situation
with the bioenergy, I believe we should look at the situation
with our dependency on foreign oil, foreign energy. We have got
to start looking at how we can fund ourselves in energy in this
nation without being dependent on foreign suppliers. Ethanol/
biodiesel are a component that would be an aid. It would not be
a solution to the whole energy crisis, but it would be a
solution to a partial fulfillment of that. It would help the
farmer in the long run of moving excess product. Also, it would
be utilized or the money would be turned around in the United
States instead of given to foreign countries. This situation
would also be a renewable resource versus a finite resource.
And these are, I believe, alternatives that we need to look at
of renewable bioenergy resources to be utilized by our country.
Senator Chambliss. Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I have been
a chairman before, it took us about 18 months to write a Farm
Bill. It was vetoed twice by President Clinton. And then we
finally got it done, whereupon President Clinton personally
congratulated me for helping to pass our Farm Bill. Asked if I
wanted my picture taken with him. And I said I sure would and
had a picture taken. I was sort of overawed there in the
Presidential Oval Office. And I walked out there, and I said,
``Wait a minute. He's the one that vetoed that bill twice.''
But what this man to my right has to put up with is what I
call the Dutch uncle people or the green eyeshade gang or the
people from the Office of Management & Budget or the people
from the Congressional Budget Office or people who don't know
anything about farm programs and, quite frankly, think their
food comes from grocery stores.
I am reminded of my great conversation with Congressman Gus
Savage, who came from Chicago. As usual in Chicago, Mr. Savage
served several terms and then had some problems and then left.
So I went up to Gus, and I was trying to appeal to the other
side of the aisle. I was trying to get as many votes for the
Farm Bill as I possibly could, because it was tough. We were
trying to fit it under budget. The forty-year farm bills of the
past were not fitting into the budget, wouldn't work. So we
settled for the 1996 rubric of the Farm Bill at that particular
time.
And I asked Gus, I said, ``Can you help me on the Farm
Bill? We need your vote. Everybody in Chicago, more especially
those who are very disadvantaged, are only spending 10
cents''--now it's 9 cents--``out of their disposable income
dollar for the market-basket food. You know, could you help us?
Because, you know, the Farm Bill really does that.''
And he says, ``Now, what are you talking about?''
And I said, ``The Farm Bill.''
He said, ``Hell, just pay it.'' I marked him down as
undecided.
So I may give you sort of Dutch uncle kind of questions
here. And some of them are going to be repetitive of what the
Chairman has asked. But they're on his behalf, because he's got
to answer to these folks. It's easy for all the rest of us on
the Committee. I'm his wing man, so I'm a little more, I guess,
serious or responsible. But at any rate, here's what you get.
So this is not in order.
But Mr. Cobb, Ray, you're prepared comments discuss the
need for a strong combination of crop insurance and the
counter-cyclical payments and the LDP's. And you also discussed
the need to modify crop insurance so that your disaster years
don't count against your APH. Everything has to be an acronym
in Washington. That's your average production history. And I
have a two-part question.
First, we put in place a plug for crop insurance that can
be used for years of significant crop loss. We did that, we
meaning Bob Kerry and myself, a former senator from Nebraska.
Other than the increase in the premium subsidies in the 2000
crop insurance bill, the plug was the most costly provision of
this bill. It cost money. So during these times of budget
deficits, the budget people are sitting over the shoulder of
Saxby saying, ``If you're going to increase this one, you've
got to decrease that one within the parameters of your bill.''
So do you have any recommendation for modification or
reductions to other programs that could be used to pay for this
change?
Mr. Cobb. Another loaded question. No, sir.
Senator Roberts. OK. That's not a bad thing. That's, you
know, for us to deal with. You know, that's reality. You know,
that's what we're facing.
We also know that our counter-cyclical program is faced
with some challenges from a WTO perspective. The Chairman's
already gone over that, you've already gone over that. Do you
have any recommendations on ways that we might develop a
counter-cyclical program that might be better withstanding the
challenges through the WTO?
Now, this Chairman has just met with Pasqual Lamy. I guess
that's how you pronounce that. I've met with him on several
occasions. And he's right, we want market access, we want an
end to the state trading enterprises, we want a two-way street.
We've already lost Step 2. We've lost export credit programs.
They're after our food aid programs. They're after the Dole-
McGovern school lunch program, which is one of the biggest
tools we have to fight terrorism. I'm not very happy about
that.
Is there anything that you have thought about that we might
be able to develop a counter-cyclical program that might better
withstand these challenges? You know, we're into green and
amber and I guess it's red. What's the other one, red? Blue. We
want to be in green, by the way, in the green box.
Mr. Cobb. No, sir, not right here, right now. I'd have to
think on it some more.
Senator Roberts. Put your mind to it. Chuck?
Mr. Coley. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. American Cotton Producers, President of
Coley Gin & Fertilizer, did you know that Kansas is one of the
fastest growing cotton producing states in the United States?
You probably didn't.
Mr. Coley. Yes, I did.
Senator Roberts. You do?
Mr. Coley. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. Good. Briefed by my staff, huh? Cotton is
one of the largest crops in production in Kansas. We now have
over 100,000 acres of cotton planted in Kansas. I just want you
all to know down in this country that when Stephen Foster wrote
that song ``The Old Cotton Fields Back Home,'' he was talking
about Kansas. It's the most cost-efficient cotton in America
because it's so damn cold it kills the bugs and we don't have
to use insecticides and everything else. Also helps when we get
rain.
Chuck, in your prepared testimony, you mentioned the
concessions that have occurred in the cotton program, i.e., the
elimination of Step 2 as a result of our good friends in Brazil
and last year's budget reconciliation bill. You mentioned the
possible interest by the industry in restructuring Step 2 in a
WTO-compliant manner. So again, in light of the deficit changes
we face today, any such changes are going to require funding
cuts from another program area. What are we going to cut?
Mr. Coley. That's why we elected Senator Chambliss, sir.
Senator Roberts. I see. I tell you what we have cut: the
CSP program, the conservation program, which was huge. God
knows how many billions of dollars we gave to that. But you had
to have a U-Haul trailer to fill out all the paperwork to sign
up in regards to all the environmental requirements. But when
push came to shove and farmers going broke and farmers having a
tough time, which seems to happen more often today because of
the higher risk of it, the CSP program became a bank. I'm not
advocating that, but that's what happens, and also rural
development, also research, which I don't think we can cut back
on in regards to keeping our technological advantage.
All right. In your prepared testimony, you discuss the
importance of the counter-cyclical program. This is one area of
the current program where we have had some of the WTO
challenges, most notably from Brazil, in regards to cotton.
However, the other commodities, all of our commodities, could
very well be in the bull's eye. Do you have any recommendations
we might be able to consider that would allow us to continue
the counter-cyclical program while making it more WTO
compliant?
Mr. Coley. Sir, whenever I think about being WTO
compliant--and I'm not a politician, and I don't intend to
answer this question like a politician. But seems like to me
every time the U.S. is challenged in WTO or WTO negotiations,
the American farmer, American agriculture, and American Farm
Bill is sitting up there and everybody's shooting at it. I
think--I don't know what you do. We've got to maintain the
counter-cyclical payment. We feel like the counter-cyclical
payment is WTO compliant. And you all may feel that way, but
we've got to convince WTO of that. And when you have people
deciding your fate that's from Yugoslavia or Croatia or where
that committee came from, they're prejudiced against the U.S.,
I feel.
Senator Roberts. Well, I would agree with all that. We do
get into a real jam where they appeal it, then the ruling is in
their favor, then we have to fight through that. I think the
bloom is off the lily in regards to the trade talks. I think
trade talks are always oversold. I think they're always
overcriticized. But my farmers that I visit with in Kansas,
that's not the Number 1 issue they're talking about. And so I
would agree with your comment that we do have to take that into
consideration.
Your prepared testimony recommends some adjustments that
may be needed for the calculation of a loan rate schedule and
the world price. I am not familiar with the function of the
LDP's for cotton as I am for some of our other crops. Could you
expand a little on what you think those changes should be?
Mr. Coley. Yes, sir. I think they ought to take into
consideration more of the cost associated when they're
delivering the export. We're exporting three out of four bales.
And adjusted AWP, adjusted world price, is highest determinant
of the LDP on cotton. And I think that some of the cost of
delivering this cotton overseas should be in that, too.
Senator Roberts. Should be factored in?
Mr. Coley. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Morris, I understand you're going to
tell every consumer representative in America that they ought
to increase their food cost by 100 percent.
Mr. Morris. Well, no, sir, I wouldn't----
Senator Roberts. Why don't you come with me to New York and
we'll walk the streets? I tell you what: Come up with me and
Hillary and Schumer and we'll make that pitch.
Mr. Morris. Well, what I was really trying to point out
there, I think, is this, that American consumer is getting a
bargain.
Senator Roberts. He's getting a hell of a bargain.
Mr. Morris. That's exactly right.
Senator Roberts. It is the best quality food at the most
inexpensive price, not cheap, the most inexpensive price in the
history of the world. It is one of the greatest success stories
that you can imagine.
I told Saxby this the other day. When I was toting the 1996
bill and had to go through security up in New York--they
figured out that we should have security in New York at that
time. But at any rate, we went to the Wall Street Journal. And
some guy with a neck tie with stripes on it and he came from
some Ivy League school, he said, ``Well, if we had a company
that made widgets, why would you not subsidize widgets as
opposed to agriculture?''
I said, ``Have you ever put a widget between two slices of
bread and tried to eat it?''
Mr. Morris. Correct.
Senator Roberts. And what are you going to do with that
disadvantaged youth that unfortunately lives in unfortunate
housing in a part of New York that's in pretty bad shape, that
youngster still gets, i.e., food stamps and a lot of other
support, but they still only pay 10 cents or less out of their
disposable income dollar? So I'm sympathetic, but I don't think
that's going to work, to say we're going to have you pay 18
percent, plus the fact I don't know if it will ever go to the
farmer. So it's just a thought.
Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. In your prepared testimony, you identified
several concerns with the way the USDA is currently
administering the loan program for peanuts. You have several
suggestions. I'm going to skip right over that because this man
took care of you covertly. So everybody is classified top
secret. I'm the Chairman. And if you go out of there and say
that, you're going to be taken to Dodge City and hung by the
neck until you're dead. So, at any rate, I think I'll probably
skip that one. And I understand that on the storage business.
But we had hard white wheat incentive payments--hard to
say--that expired at the same time as the peanut handling and
storage assistance. At the time, I told our wheat industry that
during this time of budget deficits, I needed suggestions on
where we should take the money out of the wheat program--OK?--
in order to pay for an extension of the incentive. So my
question to you is for the same guidance. If we were to fund
this provision, from what other peanut or Farm Bill program
should we shift the funding for that purpose? Now, the miracle
worker here did it. See what I'm saying?
Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. Each one of our commodities has this same
problem.
Mr. Morris. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. And we've either got to hang together or
hang separately, so----
Mr. Morris. Well, we want you to be able to do that for the
wheat farmers, also, because we want to keep that cheap bread
on our table, also. And I grow some wheat, too, about 500 acres
of wheat.
Senator Roberts. Well, you shouldn't do that, but that's
all right.
Mark, you responded to the payment limit. And my staff's
going to go nuts over here behind me. But this man prevented--
along with trying to convince Chuck Grassley, who's a hard man
to convince, from Iowa, who's on the payment limit posse. Every
time you have an ag appropriation bill, this damn thing comes
up and we should consider that in the Farm Bill in the context
of what's going on with agriculture and moving to larger and
larger farms.
Now, you know, my typical farmer out there in western
Kansas, probably, when I started off back there in the Dark
Ages, was about 2,000 acres. That's 10,000 now, that's 15,000
now. It isn't the farmer with two sons and a daughter. It's a
farmer with one son and a daughter that's in Denver and the
other son's in Kansas City, maybe involved in agriculture, but
that's what we're into, high risk agriculture, make a hell of a
crop 1 year, loose it in the next two, and we're dry, 25
percent less in terms of our crop, and, as I indicated earlier,
75 percent increase in energy costs. And so we have people that
say we're going to have to limit payments.
Ken Cook, through the FOIA Act--you know, God bless Ken--
basically has indicated that all those payments end up on the
front page. So you don't go into town for coffee for a month.
And that's where we are. And so, basically, if you reduce those
payment, I do have a problem with it in that why can't we talk
about, instead of farmers, why can't we talk about production
agriculture, as opposed to the hobby farmer? Nothing wrong with
being a hobby farmer. Don't misunderstand me. A lot of us exist
because of the off-farm income.
But a lot of folks in Congress say small family farm. I
used to argue with Tim Penny of Minnesota all the time. Small
family farmer defined by Washington is somebody about 5 foot 4
and he comes from Vermont and he has an orchard with about six
trees and a farm pond, sits on the front porch, he's a retired
airline pilot, he subscribes to Gentlemen's Quarterly, his wife
works downtown as a stock broker, and he has a three-legged dog
named Lucky. But he ain't into production agriculture. That
isn't the same fellow.
So somehow we have to change this around to get out of this
nostalgic Saturday Evening Post on what is a family farmer,
what I call Walden Pond agriculture. OK? So if you could pick
that up, you could help us. And again, this fellow was
responsible for delaying that and going through that laborious
exercise. And it's not that we're trying to shut Chuck Grassley
out. Every morning Saxby Chambliss, Pat Roberts, and Chuck
Grassley sits down, we have a peanut butter sandwich to honor
Georgia, and then we have a glass of ethanol. And it just warms
you right up.
Senator Roberts. Mark, have I got to you, or did I just do
you?
Mr. Detweiler. I think you said it for me.
Senator Roberts. You say that ASA's still working to
develop its final Farm Bill recommendations. Did you mention
you're looking at the possibility of a counter-cyclical
program--you did--on the revenue triggers?
Mr. Detweiler. Yes.
Senator Roberts. We're really thinking a lot about this out
in Kansas. It's a concept. I know that. You did expand on some
of the ideas that you are considering. But the thing that I
haven't been able to get my hands around: Is this national, is
it state, is there individual triggers, crop specific, whole
farm? I'm intrigued by the idea. Do you have a preference?
Mr. Detweiler. Do I have a preference?
Senator Roberts. Yes. Is it by region or what?
Mr. Detweiler. It is by state and it is by local farm,
depending on the farm production history, the income history.
We've looked at every option you can think of. But we're
looking at varying state by state, also county by county, down
to individual farm net income or gross income in that area. To
be honest with you, I don't know if I can really answer your
question because we're still trying to compile everything and
look at it.
Senator Roberts. I know. You're trying to put the pieces
together, just like we are in Kansas.
Mr. Detweiler. Right. The problems we see is being able to
provide a safety net for the farmer, which is the bottom line,
is to provide a safety net for the farmer that will be
economical for the United States in a financial situation but
would also be WTO compliant, would not be in a legality system,
having to change a farm program somewhere through the middle of
its course of life.
This situation with the counter-cyclical payments, it's
difficult. We may not be able to work out a feasible solution
for that--I do not know personally right now whether we can or
not--and still be WTO compliant to a green box situation. We're
already in an amber. And the problem in triggering that has
been--and, really, with the cotton case, the trigger was not
because of counter-cyclical or market loan but it was because
they added in the direct payment because it was coupled with
the restriction on food and vegetable production.
Senator Roberts. Right.
Mr. Detweiler. So that's what really triggered that
situation. So I haven't answered your question, really.
Senator Roberts. Well, no. But there isn't an easy answer
for this. But all four of you said we ought to continue this
program under the banner of consistency and predictability.
It's like one old boy told me in Hutchinson, Kansas, at the
State Fair. He said, ``Pat, I don't care what you do to me.
Just let me know.''
If we were to simply extend the Farm Bill, as some have
suggested--and I'm not for that--how serious do you think the
threat is both to the soybean program and the overall commodity
title of the Farm Bill as a whole? Somewhat, very?
Mr. Detweiler. Very.
Senator Roberts. I agree with you. Now, 2002, there's the
Cochran Roberts alternative. Didn't get too far. You've got to
have a Farm Bill. So I waited until the last minute. I'd never
voted against a Farm Bill. Some of them I sort of had to hold
my nose. You never get the best possible Farm Bill. You get the
best bill possible.
But on this time around, my studious staff over here noted
that under the counter-cyclical program that was being
proposed, seven out of the last 10 years prior to 2002, when we
had some of our worst years, we'd never get a payment. Now, it
works damn fine if you have a crop. If you don't have a crop,
you're out of luck.
Now, why would I want to vote for that in Kansas when we're
25 percent down with our wheat crop and you folks sit here and
tell me, ``We want to continue the counter-cyclical payment,''
when we haven't got a payment in many of the years that we
have? And we have to rely on crop insurance as best we can. And
there's a small direct payment. Why wouldn't we think about
going more to more direct payments. Which is green. Help me out
on this.
Mr. Coley. Well, from the cotton standpoint in the
Southeast, more direct payments would hurt producers in Georgia
because we have a lower direct payment yield than we do
counter-cyclical yield.
Senator Roberts. I see. Well, I just thought I'd let you
know what we're thinking about from the Kansas perspective.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chambliss. Well, thank you, Pat. And, gentlemen,
thank you all very much. You understand now why I serve on
three committees with Pat. He's always this entertaining.
Usually his comments are directed at Hillary or Diane Feinstein
or somebody just as conservative as he is.
Pat was very generous in his comments to me starting off,
relative to looking after agriculture across the country. And I
want you to know why I do that. And the way I'm going to tell
you about why I do that is I learned a lesson from Pat Roberts
when he was Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and I
was a lowly freshman Member of Congress, sat in the next to the
last seat on the House Agriculture Committee, right next to Ray
LaHood, who was last.
And we had a heck of a battle my first year in Congress
during the appropriation process. And the battle was over the
total elimination of the peanut program. Well, you all know how
many peanuts they grow in Kansas. He doesn't want Armond
growing wheat because we don't want him growing peanuts in
Kansas. He has none.
But in the battle over the peanut program that year, which
was 1995, we won that vote by two votes. The man who secured
the last two votes to get us over the hump was Pat Roberts. So
I learned a great and valuable lesson from him, and I'll always
be indebted to him for working hard for American agriculture
while he was Chairman. And we're going to continue to work hard
for American agriculture while I'm Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you all very much for your testimony, for
your comments. And we look forward to staying in touch and
continuing our dialog. Our next panel--
We're going to take about a 5-minute break--and I literally
mean that--as we bring our next panel forward. That's Mr. Bill
Brim, Mr. Carl Perry, Mr. Tom Thompson, and Mr. Murray
Campbell.
(BREAK)
Senator Chambliss. We're going to move ahead with our
second panel. Our second panel consists of Mr. Bill Brim of
Tifton, Georgia, representing the Georgia Fruit & Vegetable
Growers Association; Mr. Carl Perry of Moore Haven, Florida,
representing the Florida Sugar Cane League; Mr. Tom Thompson of
Eatonton, Georgia, representing the Georgia Milk Producers; Mr.
Murray Campbell of Camilla, Georgia, representing the First
United Ethanol LLC.
Gentlemen, thank all of you all for being here. We will
submit your full statement for the record. But we will turn to
you now for any opening comments you wish to make. Bill, we'll
start with you.
STATEMENT OF BILL BRIM LEWIS TAYLOR FARMS, TIFTON, GEORGIA
Mr. Brim. Good morning, Chairman Chambliss and members of
the Committee. My name is Bill Brim. I'm a vegetable grower
from Tift County, Georgia. Our farm is a diversified operation
of 352,000 square feet of greenhouse production space and 4,000
acres of vegetable production. Our fruit and vegetable industry
is growing at a rapid pace, but this growth is not limited to
just Georgia. We also have to include those people from the
land of fruits and nuts. Specialty crop growers produce
approximately 50 percent of the farm gate value of total plant
agricultural production in the United States.
Despite the impact of the U.S. economy, specialty crop
growers receive a very small percentage of Federal resources
aimed at promoting and sustaining agricultural production. We
hope the Committee will take a hard look at a balanced Farm
Bill that will include an increased emphasis on specialty crop
producers.
In addition to growers, consumers also benefit in the
Federal investment of specialty crops. By expanding access and
availability to safe, wholesome, and healthy fruit and
vegetables, the Farm Bill is a critical component to reaching
the 2005 Food Pyramid goal of doubling fruit and vegetable
consumption in the United States.
I am not here today to tell you that we want or need a new
Farm Bill for fruit and vegetables; however, there are several
areas in the Farm Bill that should address issues of concern to
our specialty crop industry. A written testimony I've filed
with the Committee may fully discuss the details of the issues.
Number 1, as a matter of fair competition, we support
continuation of the restrictions on planting flexibilities.
Number 2, we support a thorough review of all farm programs
to ensure that specialty crop producers have access to benefits
comparable to other farmers rather than being excluded or
limited simply due to a higher cost of production.
Due to the wide diversity and localized needs in specialty
crop production, we support an expansion of the state block
grants for specialty crops. Georgia producers believe this is
the most important component to be considered in the 2007 Farm
Bill debate.
Number 4, increased funding for specialty crop research is
critical. Fruit and vegetable growers need assistance and
support from USDA researchers to find practical production
solutions for problems such as methyl bromide alternatives,
pest management, production practices, water conservation, and
plant variety improvements.
And Number 5, nutrition, we support a strong new focus
within the new Farm Bill for increasing the access of
availability of fruits and vegetables, particularly in
children. We appreciate the recent inclusion of Georgia in the
Senate ag approach markup. We hope this program can be expanded
nationwide in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Most fruits and vegetables are not covered by a crop
insurance program. We would like to see the increase in pilot
projects and studies that determine the feasibility of
specialty crop coverage. Our pecan growers have a specific need
that should be addressed in the new crop insurance policy such
as 10 percent cup, tree thinning, and exclusion of the tree due
to disasters and loss.
I want to thank the Committee for giving us, the
organization, an opportunity to testify. And, Mr. Chairman, as
you know, my farm is located just east of here. And I would be
remiss if I didn't mention something about immigration and the
debate that's going on here and in Washington, too. And I just
wanted to let you know how much we appreciate what you've done
for immigration and border security and hopefully what we can
get accomplished in this coming year. Thank you very much.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Bill. And that's an issue we
could have a whole hearing about. And you and I have worked
very closely on this for all of my 12 years in Congress. And I
appreciate your input, your patience, and your expert advice in
counseling me personally, as well as to the Committee, on the
issue of immigration. I will be a Conferee on the immigration
bill. And we're going to continue to work very closely with you
to make sure we craft good, sound policy there.
Mr. Brim. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brim can be found on page 60
in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Carl?
STATEMENT OF CARL PERRY FARMER OF SUGARCANE, BEANS, CITRUS AND
CATTLE ALBANY, GEORGIA
Mr. Perry. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Roberts.
Thank you for deciding to hold one of your Committee farm
policy hearings in the southeast U.S., for agriculture is the
backbone of our states' and rural communities' economics. I'm a
fourth generation farmer. My family and I grow sugarcane,
cattle, citrus, and beans. Florida is an extremely
agriculturally diverse state but has few program crops compared
to most other states. Although Florida is the ninth largest
agricultural state in the U.S., only 4 percent of Florida crops
are row crops.
The Florida sugar industry has a $3.1 billion economic
impact on the state. It provides 25,000 direct jobs. The U.S.
sugar policy, is it working? I can enthusiastically say that
like most of the provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill, absolutely.
The program operates at a no-net cost to taxpayers and provides
a fair price to farmers and consumers alike. Look no further
than this year to see how effective the program performs.
Hurricanes devastated the sugar crops in Florida and Louisiana.
We had a loss of nearly 30 percent, which is unprecedent to our
industry. Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, the sugar
policy gave the USDA the flexibility it needed to address
supply interruptions. Domestic stocks were quickly made
available, and USDA increased the imports to address the
domestic shortfalls.
Other countries aren't quite so lucky. They don't have that
type of flexibility when disaster strikes. Thailand and
Australia both have experienced weather disasters that left
them with short supply. It doesn't take an economist to figure
out that this had and are continuing to have a dramatic effect
on the world sugar market. America cannot become dependent on
such unreliable foreign sugar supplies. This country needs
homegrown sugar, and American sugar farmers need a strong sugar
policy.
Many people believe that sucrose ethanol may be a great
opportunity for sugar producers. While this has intrigued us
and we are researching this issue, we do not want to lose focus
on maintaining a sound sugar policy like the one found in the
current Farm Bill. This is our No. 1 priority.
We are gravely concerned about talks of buying the U.S.
sugar program and converting it to a traditional row crop
program, especially in times of tightening Federal budgets. The
yearly cost of a conventional program possibly as high as $1.3
billion would be in addition to the billions of dollars that
the buyout itself would cost.
I can't go without noting that the sugar is the single most
distorted commodity in the world. Because so many countries'
treasuries are involved in sugar policy, the WTO is the only
forum where true and fair reform of the world sugar market can
take place.
In addition to discussing sugar policy, I feel I would be
remiss if I did not take the time to thank you, the Senator,
for leading the charge to provide needed disaster relief for
the Gulf coast producers in the wake of the hurricanes. On
behalf of the sugar farmers in Florida, I'd like to thank you.
The current sugar program is working well. It keeps prices
low and stable for grocery shoppers in times of national
emergencies. It is not costing taxpayers anything. It makes
sure that we are not dependent on foreign supplies, and it
helps support thousands of sugar farmers and factory workers
across the country. As Congress looks to reauthorize the new
Farm Bill, we humbly ask that the current sugar program be
extended. Thank you.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Tom?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry can be found on page
118 in the appendix.]
STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON PRESIDENT, GEORGIA MILK PRODUCERS,
INC.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Senator Chambliss and members of
the Ag Committee, Senator Roberts. I'm Tom Thompson. I am a
dairyman from Eatonton, Georgia. I'm also president of the
Georgia Milk Producers, who represent all Georgia dairy
producers.
Georgia dairymen and indeed dairymen located in the
Southeast are in danger of extinction. According to trend lines
from the Federal Milk Market Administrator's office in Atlanta,
without a change in the rules, the present trend lines would
indicate that virtually no dairies will exist in the Southeast
in the next 10 years. And it is not drought, heat, and high
humidity that are the culprits, although all of those certainly
make dairying in the Southeast a challenge.
In an area where population growth is one of the fastest in
the United States and our deficit grows greater each year--by
the way, Georgia is now importing 1,000 tanker loads of milk
per month--we find that the system is taking a lot of the sales
dollars paid by these local plants that should be going to
dairymen who are supplying those plants on a daily basis.
Through pooling and touch base provisions, these dollars are
then redistributed to producers who in many cases may be riding
the pool.
A look back at the history of milk marketing in Georgia
will be informative. In the late 1960's, the Georgia Milk
Commission was ruled unconstitutional and Georgia subsequently
got its own Georgia Federal order. Co-ops were local and
represented Georgia dairymen, and the Georgia Federal Order
served the industry well. It included a base excess plan that
rewarded dairymen who supplied milk when the market needed it
and penalized those who produced excess when it was not needed.
Class I utilization was normally in the high eighties and the
low nineties. Subsequent years added a state here and a state
there to the order that originally was the Georgia order.
Plants merged. Co-ops merged. Each geographical increase in the
former Georgia Federal Order, now called the Southeast Federal
Order, resulted in small declines in Class I utilization,
primarily because the states added had a higher ratio of milk
to their population than did Georgia.
Disaster struck first in 1995 when Congress failed to
reauthorize the base excess plan that had been in existence for
almost 30 years. Now there was no incentive to produce milk
when the market needed the milk, and the door was open for
producers to ride the order, dumping excess milk on the order
when it was not needed.
Disaster struck a second and even deadlier blow on January
the 1st, 2000, when USDA added a huge geographical area to the
Southeast Order, extending it to include a portion of Missouri.
It is interesting to note that this was done without any public
discussion, and it is probably just coincidental that a
national co-op with a small minority of its members in the
Southeast is headquartered in Missouri. The drop in utilization
from pre-January 2000 to the subsequent months shows a dramatic
Class I utilization decline of 15 to 20 points on a month-to-
month comparison. This has been widely viewed as a $1.50 to
$2.00 per hundred pounds of cost to Georgia and other
geographical Southeast producers. The combination of these two
disasters have cost Southeast producers untold millions of
dollars.
Which brings us to the issue of: How could this happen?
Don't co-ops operate in a Democratic manner and represent their
producers in Federal Order hearings and on Capitol Hill?
Absolutely. Just as plants have merged, co-ops have also merged
due to economic pressures. The problem is that the majority of
milk in the Southeast is controlled by co-ops whose majority
membership and directors live outside the Southeast and whose
farms are in less populous areas with subsequently lower
utilization. You can be sure that they understand that working
the system to get their milk pooled on a higher utilization
market puts money in their pockets.
Management is only too happy to oblige working the system
to accomplish that, for that is their job security. They
understand only too well the importance of representing the
majority interest of their boards. The problem is compounded by
the move by some co-ops to lock up supply contracts with major
processors, thus locking out other producers and their co-ops.
The present system of using a formula that locks Class I
pricing to manufactured pricing is adversely affecting markets
that are primarily Class I. The expansion of milk production
west of the Rockies propelled by the explosion of megadairies
results in an adverse impact on dairymen producing for fluid
markets. A system needs to be developed that would partially
decouple Class I.
Our nation is rightfully concerned with our dependence on
foreign oil, air pollution, highway congestion, and
biosecurity. I would submit that the current system of milk
pricing and marketing is increasing our dependence on foreign
oil, increasing air pollution and highway congestion, and
placing our nation at greater risk of biosecurity. Locally
produced fluid milk for local consumption just makes good,
common sense.
In summary, we recommend: Number 1, Geographical reduction
in the Southeast Order, restoring the relationship between
plant utilization and production in the geographical proximity
to those plants; 2, Tightening of touch base provisions and a
review of order rules that would discourage riding the pool; 3,
Congressional restoration of the authorization of base-excess
plans in the Federal Order system that was omitted in the 1995
Farm Bill; and 4, Development of a plan to partially decouple
Class I.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our plea for help
and a call for drastic change, both for the survival of Georgia
and Southeast dairymen as well as for the ultimate benefit to
our consumers, our region, and our nation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found on
page 133 in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Tom.
Murray Campbell is, again, as are all of these gentlemen, a
longtime good friend of mine. And Murray is a producer in
Mitchell County, Georgia. He grows a variety of crops there and
has for many years, comes from a longtime farm family. Murray
has embarked on a new project that is novel to the Southeastern
part of the United States. And we asked Murray to come today to
talk about this new project rather than talking about row crop
production. So, Murray, welcome to the panel, and we look
forward to hearing your comments.
STATEMENT OF MURRAY CAMPBELL CHAIRMAN, FIRST UNITED ETHANOL,
LLC
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss. And we really
do appreciate the invitation. I'm here today on behalf of the
33 founding Board members, representing 13 counties, of First
United Ethanol LLC, which we like to call by the acronym
F.U.E.L. Our company, which is based in nearby Camilla, is one
of the first in the Southeast to embrace ethanol production.
Our friends in the Midwest have been focused on renewable fuels
for several years. Fortunately, the economics have finally
aligned for other regions of the country to contribute toward
our nation's energy independence.
As Congress considers various policy initiatives regarding
renewable fuels, it is important to note that the incentives in
current law are working. Some will argue that the industry has
moved beyond the need for Federal assistance; however, this
line of thinking is premature. The United States remains
dependent on foreign oil, and companies such as ours are in the
beginning stages in various regions around the country. Bankers
and investors that are financing the industry need a certain
amount of stability as they expand this homegrown industry.
The passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act provided new
incentives for renewable fuels through the renewable fuels
standard. These incentives, coupled with the growing consumer
demand for domestically grown energy, lead us to believe that
ethanol and renewable fuels have a great future. Although most
of the current ethanol plants in the country are located in the
Midwest, opportunities are emerging for other regions.
It stands to reason that demand for ethanol will track
large population centers across the Nation and the Southeast
will offer numerous marketing opportunities. I'd like to
caution Congress to avoid the rush in investing in every new
renewable fuel technology that comes along at the expense of
the existing industry.
Do not misunderstand me on this: We firmly support new
technologies and welcome opportunities for more efficiency.
However, many of the new renewable fuel technologies often
discussed in the press are far from commercially viable. And if
and when new options are available and prove commercially
viable, F.U.E.L. tends to embrace and implement them. We are
currently investigating a biomass gasification component of our
project that will be fired by juvenile pine tops. For now,
we're focused on the traditional conversion of corn to fuel and
urge Congress to continue to support this industry.
Many myths have been spread about ethanol increasing in the
country. And what I'd like to tell you today is that corn
yields are increasing and ethanol production leaves a
substantial portion of that corn as a feed byproduct that goes
back into the animal feed markets. Even though our facility is
not in the Corn Belt, we have a viable plan to meet our supply
needs to operate a 100 million gallon facility by bringing in
corn on rail shipments and hoping over time to encourage local
production. And we think within five to 7 years we'll be able
to meet our goal, and this will be a huge benefit to our row
crop farmers in southwest Georgia. The continued trend in
increased ethanol efficiency, coupled with increased corn
yields, and new genetics for highly fermentable corns is
leading to tremendous gains in ethanol per acre.
By including a new energy renewable fuels title in the next
Farm Bill, Congress is sending the appropriate signal to the
agriculture community and the nation. Farmers can and should be
supportive in their efforts to provide energy independence for
America. We are ready to answer the nation's call.
For now I encourage Congress to stay the course on RFS and
tax incentives. I also encourage Congress and the Committee to
resist the push to lift the tariff on imported ethanol. Such a
move is shortsighted and sets back the domestic industry at a
time when we are finally turning the corner on success.
Instead, the Federal Government should be enhancing the support
of the domestic industry by working with the industry to solve
the distribution problems that have occurred and to get over
some of the hurdles that we have to overcome to accomplish
energy independence.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the
industry's positive impact on world communities is huge. And
that is a part of my written testimony. And, Mr. Chairman, I
think, knowing Southwest Georgia as well as you do, you would
understand the importance of those kind of numbers and what it
would mean for our rural economy down here. With that, I thank
you all for coming to southwest Georgia to hear about it. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell can be found on
page 64 in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Murray. Bill Brim,
in the Brazil cotton case, a ruling panel found that direct
payments are not green box because the planning and flexibility
provisions restricted fruit and vegetable production on base
acres. This provision affords market protection to producers of
fruits and vegetables. And if we move toward Farm Bill
reauthorization, I expect considerable discussion will occur
around this provision of the Farm Bill and the finding from the
Brazil case.
Do you have any thoughts about relaxing or eliminating the
planning restriction or to reduce the likelihood of future WTO
challenge? What would be the impact of relaxing or eliminating
this provision? And how does this provision benefit the fruit
and vegetable growers.
Mr. Brim. No, sir, I wouldn't relax it at all. Basically,
what it would do is destroy the fruit and vegetable industry if
it's relaxed and just an open market. We're open market based
already as supply and demand. And, of course, we have too much
supply as it is already, because you've heard about the pricing
we received this spring on all of our production. It's been
devastating. It's probably been the worst spring we've ever had
as far as the cost of production being high and our sales being
cheap. So I would say flexibility, if you open the door for
everybody and still be able to receive their payments, then it
would devastate the fruit and vegetable industry.
Senator Chambliss. Proposals have been made to provide more
money to the specialty crop industry. These proposals range
from state block grants to research money to counter-cyclical
programs. Which of these ideas or others would benefit the
industry the most? And what ideas do you have for funding such
proposals?
Mr. Brim. We'd like the money to come from you. Basically,
I think the state block grant gives us a little bit more
flexibility as far as what we do our research on in Georgia,
whether it be California, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Florida, or whatever. With the state block grants, it gives you
that flexibility, if you have different problems, to be able to
work on marketing problems or disease problems in specific
vegetables. Of course, all research is very important to us in
the vegetable industry. And, unfortunately, we have a lot more
disease pressure and more problems than most of the cotton and
row crop people because of humidities and variability in rain
and so forth and all. So I would think that the state block
grant would give us a little more flexibility. And as far as
where the money comes from, I'll let you work that one out.
Senator Chambliss. To you, Mr. Perry and Mr. Thompson,
both, with respect to trade, the reported aggregate measure of
support for both dairy and sugar total 5.5 billion. If the WTO
negotiations are successful, the United States will be
restricted to 7.6 billion in what we call the amber box or the
most trade-distorting domestic support. The 60 percent proposed
reduction will require proportional cuts in all commodities
requiring structural changes to the traditional program crops
of dairy and sugar. How would dairy and sugar producers adjust
to such a new scenario? Mr. Perry, we'll start with you.
Mr. Perry. Well, as noted, we do not grow enough sugar in
this country to sustain us already, so we are importing sugar.
The program operates at a no net cost to the government. We
have to have the program in place to continue farming like we
are.
Senator Chambliss. Tom?
Mr. Thompson. Senator Chambliss, the support program, of
course, is a safety net for the United States dairy industry.
The program has worked well. It works at a level way below the
cost of production, so it basically does not stimulate
production. Milk production, as you know, is a perishable
product. We cannot store fluid milk, which the Southeast and
especially Georgia is focused on.
And the program certainly needs to be compliant, but at the
same time we have to provide a safety net for the volatility in
the market. Not many people understand that if we have a 2
percent national surplus, the price at the farm drops 30
percent. And that 30 percent takes us below the cost of
production because we don't normally have a margin above just a
few percent. So we would have to be compliant, but at the same
time, we have to be respective of the fact that there can be a
devastating effect without a safety net.
The industry has come forward through the National Milk
Producers Co-op, which represents about 70 percent of the milk
in the United States. We have a producer-funded program called
the CWT, Cooperatives Working Together, that is very, very
efficient in promoting the exporting of products. And it does
it in a world trade framework that is compliant and is legal.
Our problem there is that there is 30 percent of the milk in
the country that does not support that, that are not members of
the co-ops, and, therefore, get a free ride. Nevertheless, the
program is working well, and hopefully we can expand it.
As far as the government program is concerned, the primary
program, I think, that is a safety net, especially to small
producers, is the MILC program, which is direct payment when
prices drop below a certain level. We don't think that, from
Georgia's perspective, that we need to have a few megadairies
across the country producing milk. It's good for the land, good
for the people, and good for our nation to have small dairy
farms scattered across the country. And as I said in my
prepared remarks, it's especially important to have local milk
for local consumption. And all this is inextricably tied
together.
Senator Chambliss. So are you in support of an extension of
the milk program in the next Farm Bill?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, we would be.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Perry, what's the sugar industry's
outlook for commercial production of ethanol from sugar? And do
you envision a market for ethanol from sugar ever, particularly
in this part of the country?
Mr. Perry. Well, the sugar industry is looking into that;
however, they have not decided whether it is a viable option
for them. Therefore, we need the current Farm Bill as is for us
to survive long enough for us to look into the ethanol.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Thompson, currently only dairy
producer cooperatives have the ability to forward contract with
their members. In 2000, USDA established a pilot project to
examine forward contracting. This voluntary program, as you
know, ended in 2004; however, there has been continued interest
in the making of forward contracting a permanent option for
producers and processors.
Does forward contracting provide producers with an
additional risk management tool to manage price and income
volatility in the marketplace? And should this option remain
available only to dairy producing cooperatives, or should
processors and non-cooperative dairy producers also be able to
utilize this risk management tool?
Mr. Thompson. Senator Chambliss, I have some personal
experience with the forward contracting. Our dairy used it on
two different occasions. On the first occasion, I think we came
out with a net of a few thousand dollars. And on the last
occasion that we used it, we, along with most everyone else
that I know, had substantial losses in it. That could have been
a timing issue. But it's a tool that probably should be made
available, but at the same time, we don't think that it should
undermine the basic pricing system that exists. And under the
minimum pricing of the Federal Order system, that can be used
to subvert and negate the effect of that. So it does have its
drawbacks.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Campbell, there is significant
potential for all segments of agriculture to help supply this
nation's energy needs. Where should Congress focus its efforts
and limited resources in the Farm Belt to try to help farmers
across the Nation participate in this potential growth?
Mr. Campbell. Senator Chambliss, I think that we need to
sort of follow along the lines of recommendations of former CIA
Director Jim Woolsey, who says that this is an integral part of
national defense and the war on terror that we have in dealing
with our energy independence. So agriculture is ready and is
poised on many different levels. We can make biodiesels out of
cottonseeds. We can make biodiesels out of soybeans. We can
make corn-based ethanols now. In the future, we hope to be able
to make cellulose-based ethanols. We have a lot of different
opportunities that we can focus on.
I think what most people would be concerned about is that
we don't approach it as a whole and that we try to, you know,
promote one technology over another. I can grow soybeans. I
grow other things. I can grow corn. I can grow cotton. I have
timber. Senator Roberts, we don't have any switchgrass in the
area on the prairies, but the prairie and the switchgrass is a
viable alternative at some point in the future.
Our project grew out of a Mitchell County Development
Authority project about what we could do now. And we focused on
the corn-based, and I think that's the proper thing to do at
this time. But I think we need to look at it as a whole and
just do it as an entire agricultural industry, as a challenge.
Senator Chambliss. How should we balance agriculture's
potential in renewable energy production with wildlife,
environmental, and feedstock concerns? And I emphasize the last
issue as the most important.
Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir, I understand. I read an article
just this week on some of the potential if CRP lands come out
or switchgrass goes into more production and we have a
reduction in some of the, you know, wildlife habitats. That's a
real issue. It becomes something that you all gentlemen are
more eminently qualified than I am because that's a political
issue where we have to make the hard choices as to what's
important to our country. We certainly don't want to be
decimating our wildlife. I have 300 acres of timber. I want to
have a market for it. But I also hunt that timber. And I want
to be able to take advantage of it.
So it becomes somewhat of a national decision as to how we
want to pursue it as a balancing act. I think that we've had
these type of challenges in this country before, and I think we
can balance it and move through our agricultural land base
toward more energy independence.
Senator Chambliss. Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts. What CIA director was that?
Mr. Campbell. Sir? Jim Woolsey.
Senator Roberts. Oh, Jim Woolsey. He's from Kansas, by the
way. Well, basically, he had troubles, you know, gaining access
to the White House. And there was always that story that when
that little plane, you know, flew into the White House, that
was Woolsey trying to get in. Saxby and I have had damn near
intimate relationships with the last CIA directors here for the
last several years. But at any rate, your point is well taken.
Bill?
Mr. Brim. Sir?
Senator Roberts. You have voiced your support for
establishing crop insurance for the products. My question in
regard to this is twofold: What risk management tools do you
currently employ? And, furthermore, crops currently using crop
insurance are involved in some very significant conservation
and land management practices that are mandatory. Could you
elaborate on how the fruit and vegetable industry might take
similar steps to improve management practices--I'm saying sort
of beware what you ask for, be careful what you ask for--in
working toward a participation in a crop insurance program?
Mr. Brim. Yes, sir. Well, as far as conservation, there are
some growers--my particular operation doesn't. We do
conservation as far as doing cover crops and so forth. But
we're on plastic with drip irrigation. It's kind of hard to do
conservation with that. We do have watermelon growers that do
no-till watermelons and other crops that tried no-till. But
with the pressure, disease pressure, with no-till, it's too
hard to grow and too costly to grow fruits and vegetables, or
especially vegetables, with no-till.
We would like something from RMA. I've worked with RMA in
the past, and we've tried to ask them to see if they could
define some kind of cost of production coverage, just to cover
our cost of production, not any profit in our production but
just the cost of covering our losses of what our cost of
production is. And that's what we've been working on in the
last few years.
Senator Roberts. What's been their response?
Mr. Brim. We haven't gotten much.
Senator Roberts. Well, we fired the guy that was there for
a long time. Or fired. We asked that he perhaps seek other
employment.
Mr. Brim. That was a good idea.
Senator Roberts. And we've got a new fellow in there now,
so I urge you to go in there. And that would be basically just
your basic coverage as opposed to buyouts that we have in other
programs.
This sort of gets into the farm program in the field. And I
always hear from the Senators and Representatives who represent
specialty crops, ``Hey, how about us? We don't have any farm
program payments.''
And I always say, ``Are you willing to go through all the
regulations and paperwork at the FSA office''--thank goodness
we don't have as much as we use to--``and conservation
compliance?'' And that's the other--you know, that's the rest
of the story, as Paul Harvey says. So be a little careful in
terms of what you're asking for. But I do think that you have a
good concept in there for basic coverage.
Carl, we've gone over the WTO business here, I think,
enough. I think the Chairman covered that. I've got to tell
you: I'm a little concerned with the posture of farm country
when it comes to these free trade agreements. And it used to be
we either, you know, hung together or hang separately or swam
together or sank together. But there is a growing trend toward
singling out one industry and asking for exceptions. And I'm
talking about the Australian trade agreement and then CAFTA.
And I can tell you that when sugar was exempted--and I
understand why you want it to be exempt--our cowboys and our
corn producers and our wheat producers said, ``Whoa, wait a
minute. I thought we were in this all together.''
So I guess my question is: If you come to Kansas and
testify there in Dodge City--I won't drag you out there. But at
any rate, I think the question would be: What is your industry
doing to really try to collaborate a little better with the
other commodity groups within the agricultural community to
work together?
Mr. Perry. Well, the sugar----
Senator Roberts. You seem like a reasonable fellow. I think
you can do that.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. Some of the other commodities aren't
quite as distorted as sugar is. Sugar seems to be--well, as I
said earlier, it is the most distorted commodity in the world,
I believe. And, therefore, we do need special consideration
when it comes to trade agreements with other countries that are
distorting it. We are a very fragile commodity.
Senator Roberts. All right. I'm not going to press you on
it.
Let's see here. I'm ready for Tom. Tom, I like your suit, I
like your shirt, and I like your haircut.
Mr. Thompson. We make a good team, sir.
Senator Roberts. You show eminent taste and great wisdom.
You, in your prepared remarks, are discussing some potential
changes to the existing dairy programs, including the
modifications of Federal milk marketing orders. And I can
certainly understand your frustration with the distribution,
the pricing, the challenges associated with the current dairy
program. I am concerned about making some significant changes
like modifying the geographic size of the price functions
within our current set of programs through legislative action
rather than running through the typical course of hearings at
the USDA.
Legislative action in dairy are an oxymoron. I've been
through six Farm Bills. At the 11th hour and 59th minute, we
have to sit down with Pat Leahy and make a deal. He's from
Vermont. He's got that little three-legged dog named Lucky. He
doesn't even come to the rest of the farm hearings. He just
shows up with dairy. We stayed in Washington, in 1996, over the
weekend for 3 days, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. That's back when
Newt Gingrich and Khmer Rouge were part of the revolution. And
we were trying to settle dairy. And the balanced budget and
saving Western Civilization and everything else took second
place to dairy, especially with New York.
And I finally just said to Newt--he says, ``Roberts, you've
been in this business a long time. How do we solve dairy?''
I said, ``You don't. You punt.'' And we did. We punted to
the Senate.
And at the 11th hour and 59th minute, here came Leahy with
a deal. He said, ``I've got a compact. It's really not a
compact. But if you pass it, it's OK because I can say it's a
compact.'' And then you have a revolution in the industry,
where you have dairy factories. You don't have dairy farms. You
have dairy factories. Some people have farms, and they have a
damn tough time making it.
Mr. Chairman, I don't do dairy anymore. There's a lot of
things I don't do at my age, but one of the things that I don't
do is dairy. It is very, very, difficult to do, very difficult
to get all the sections of the dairy industry to get together.
And you face some of the most complex regulations of any of the
commodity programs--makes my head hurt--in regards to the Farm
Bill. So I'm going to suggest that the answer to some of the
issues you've raised is not a matter of making modifications to
the existing structure but rather to try to streamline the
programs, workforce, and limits on the regulation of your
industry, which I know are very counterproductive.
So what are your thoughts about such an effort to reduce
rather than to change regulation?
One other story: Herb Kohl, Pat Leahy, dairy, we're on the
floor. I think you were there then. We couldn't get out. We
couldn't adjourn based on dairy.
Trent Lott came to me and said, ``You've got to come in
here.''
I said, ``OK. What do you want me to do?''
He said, ``How do I get out? How do we adjourn? How do I
fix dairy?''
I said, ``Punt, put it off, do something, because, you
know, you're just not going to get, you know, that put
together.'' And he did, finally punted and we finally worked
out something down the road. But, boy, is that difficult. And I
don't want to put the industry through that. And I don't want
to put the declining dairy industry in Kansas, who are having a
real tough time, through that ever.
So what do you think about my suggestion, streamline, less
regulation, do a USDA expositive plan, don't toss that in
Saxby's lap?
Mr. Thompson. Senator Roberts, I totally understand where
you're coming from. I was also involved in that 1996 Farm Bill
and the frustrations that were involved in that. In fact, we
had a subcommittee chairman from Wisconsin who had a plan to
pool all the revenues of all the Class I sales across the
country and divide it up evenly. And we were very concerned
with that.
Senator Roberts. Yes, I remember that. And he's no longer
there. And he made that ultimate sacrifice, and he ended up on
the altar of not being in public service.
Mr. Thompson. As far as Congressional action, I think we're
the victims of a couple of things that happened in that 1996
Farm Bill. One was the Congressional mandate to reduce the
number of Federal Orders, which gave USDA a license to
basically extend the geographical area of the Southeast Order,
which costs the producers in the Southeast--in the geography
that I learned as a fifth grader, there was a Southeast--tens
of millions of dollars. That was, I think, probably an
unintended result. But, nevertheless, it gave the license for
that to happen. I think Congress can perhaps rectify that as
well.
There was also an oversight, either intentional or by
omission, of not including the authorization for USDA to
include base excess in the orders. That still has to go back to
USDA to have the hearings, to gather the evidence, to
substantiate whether or not that is needed. And we would
certainly beg you to reauthorize that so that it could go to
USDA for the hearing. USDA tells us that that cannot be done
without Congress acting. And it was just a one-liner that was
left out. And Congressman Solomon realized that after the bill
had been done, gave me a call and said that it would be
corrected, but unfortunately he had health problems and it was
not done.
Senator Roberts. Yes, he did. I appreciate that.
Murray, thank you for your efforts in regards to
alternative fuels. We have seven operating ethanol plants.
We've got probably two or three more coming on board. We have
an outfit that wants to do the same thing with sorghum. We have
a university, Pittsburgh State University, which is probably, I
think, on the cutting edge of what we call polymer science with
soybeans. You're right, the President is into switchgrass big
time, came out to Kansas State. Saxby, that's the home of the
ever optimistic and fighting Wildcats. But at any rate, he was
very impressed with all the prairie grass. And he's into
cellulose and all that. So I think we've got a lot of
opportunities for some biodiesel plants. I said it was going to
be the biggest thing to hit our country since the railroad.
Kansans are facing sticker shock at the pumps. E-85,
equipped stations are selling E-85 as much as 60 cents a gallon
higher than regular unleaded gasoline. Many stations are
struggling to get any supply at all. Much of the ethanol that
is produced is going to California. In states that have ethanol
mandates, because there is a limited supply of ethanol, states
that must use it are willing to pay a higher premium. That's
understandable. Our Kansas ethanol producers can sell ethanol
for $2.50 in Kansas or $4.50 in California.
Who is going to buy ethanol when it's more expensive than
gasoline? I realize that in the long run, increased production
and additional infrastructure will solve the problem. This
Chairman brought in all the automobile manufacturers and
brought in all the retailers and said, ``How can we get this
infrastructure working together? How fast can you bring these
automobiles online that are hybrids?'' Then to the convenience
stores, ``How can you set up these pumps so that people can get
fuel?'' I think Saxby told me that these convenience stores
said, ``Well, costs $100,000 a pump.'' Oops. So I'm a little
concerned about that.
What is the incentive for folks to pay up to 60 cents a
gallon for E-85? What efforts can be made to promote the
consumption in face of higher prices? And then what can this
discrepancy do to undermine some advances we've made in getting
consumers to accept the ethanol land fuels finally? And do you
share these concerns?
Mr. Campbell. Well, Senator, I respect your understanding
and agree with you as far as the prices we have now. A lot of
that is a disruption in the market. We're suffering from
somewhat of a bubble that was caused by the oil industry
deciding to drop the MTBE's. They had hoped to get the MTBE
liability protection in the Energy Policy Act and they did not.
And I don't think anyone anticipated that they would just all
of a sudden say, ``OK, we're not going use any more.'' That
took about 4 billion gallons of MTBE out of the mobile fuel
molecules that are used within this country.
And it's really a little bit unrealistic to expect that the
ethanol industry could move fast enough to be able to take up
that much slack. The industry at that time was only producing
about 4 billion gallons of ethanol. And so it was, you know,
basically saying that we need to double our production
overnight. And it really is not practical, is not doable.
I think as we begin to move some of the new plants online
and as we move forward and have more ethanol available, this
bubble will come down. That's why our numbers are based off
historical averages. We're certainly not making any business
decisions based off the price of ethanol right now. To quote
Alan Greenspan, the irrational exuberance in the tech bubble,
we think it is going to pull back and fully anticipate it to
pull back. But we think it will still remain a problem.
This country is using about 142 billion gallons of gasoline
a year. It's a mobile fuel molecule. We think that over time
ethanol is going to pull back, but we think as long as oil
prices stay high, we can go out on the futures markets.
December 1909 crude oil futures are trading at around $69 a
barrel. So you're not anticipating any immediate--the
Department of Industry is saying we're going to stay around
those prices for at least five or 6 years, not expecting any
immediate pullbacks.
I think that as we produce more ethanol, it will move back
toward the price of gasoline. And as it moves back toward the
price of gasoline, the E-85 will once again begin to have a
premium, as far as being cheaper, you know, to the consumer.
And I think then you'll see people choose it because it will be
a preference. That's what they've had happen in Brazil.
Senator Roberts. I appreciate that answer. And I certainly
hope you're right. And I don't mean to be Mr. Doom & Gloom in
regards to alternative fuels. I think it's an exciting field,
and I think it's going to have a big economic impact.
Audience, I want you to raise your hand: If you're growing
corn, OK, what's the primary mission of you or what's the
primary goal? Why are you growing corn? And I want you to list
it. Is it because of, in terms of priorities, human
consumption, feed stuff, or fuel? Who believes our No. 1
priority is for human consumption? Gee, nobody raised their
hand. Eat any corn on the cob around this country? OK. Feed
stuff? Some cowboys in here, are you? Fuel? Still no hands.
Well, my cowboys are going to be really happy. What happens
if we have droughts? Actually, in Iowa and Illinois, they don't
happen very often. They just put the seed in the ground and
farm. Now, out in Kansas, we have to farm because of the
moisture we take in. But what would happen if we had a drought
in Illinois and Iowa? Would we import from Brazil? What do you
think?
Senator Chambliss. I think we would.
Senator Roberts. That ain't going to be very popular.
Senator Chambliss. No.
Senator Roberts. I'm glad that's your deal, not mine. I
just think we have to stop and think a minute and hope, as the
gentleman has indicated, that the infrastructure catches up
with this exciting new concept. And I'm all for it. I just
don't want to be back in the 1970's when the Alcohol Fuels
Commission and a lot of farmers got burned. So let's do it step
by step, and I think you're right on the money.
Mr. Campbell. Could I comment on that?
Senator Roberts. Certainly.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Senator Roberts. We have certainly
looked, as far as risk management, in dealing with those
issues. And eternally we've been dealing with it through a
hedging program. But as a farmer, we're also looking at
downhill we may begin to grow more corn. December 1907 corn
futures traded as high as 3.13, a 50 cent positive basis. That
would put us in the 3.50 range. And I would think we might have
more acres of corn that would be devoted to this, you know,
effort of the country to have more corn.
We have an awful lot of interest in our area from our
vegetable producers about putting grain sorghums, which can be
used to make ethanol, behind sweet corn and such and, you know,
having more production through that. A lot of the companies are
developing more drought-resistant varieties now. And you're
seeing more of the corns move back into some more arid regions,
areas that have not been the No. 1 corn producing areas but
they have the capability to produce quite a bit of corn, with
good varieties and if the price dictates it.
So it's going to be market driven as far as the price,
because on my farm, I'm going to grow on my acre what I can
make the most money for my farm. And that's just the way every
farmer in this country thinks about it. And we love the
flexibility of being able to do that.
But there's some opportunities for us to increase corn
production in this country. We were talking about conservation
a while ago. I understand there's 344,000 acres, I think, comes
out of CRP next year, about 16 million acres. I know all of
those are not suitable lands, and we certainly don't want to do
away with any of our highly erodible lands and our conservation
gains. But there is a great reserve of land out there that
could go back into production if this country needs it to. And
so I think we can begin to grow more corn that could be used as
a fuel.
And as one last point, it seems to always be lost in the
equation that 18 pounds of a bushel of corn will be returned
into the feed markets as a distillers' market. It can be used--
we've had dairymen already contact our economic developer in
Mitchell County about the possibility of locating some large
dairies in southwest Georgia because of the availability of a
modified wet grain that can be used as a feed ingredient.
So it's not a tit for tat. You don't use up every bushel of
corn in producing fuel. You are going to return at least a
third of it back into the feed markets. And I think that's
important. Thank you.
Senator Roberts. Thank you for great confidence in this. I
think that pretty well does it for me, other than to say I do
recognize that Georgia is a premier producer of cattle and
poultry and I'm not surprised by the hand raising. Thank you.
Senator Chambliss. Well, thank you. And, gentlemen, thank
you very much. Before we switch panels out, there are a couple
more introductions I'd like to make. First of all, a longtime
good friend of mine, the president of the Georgia Agribusiness
Council is here, Gary Black. Gary, if you'll stand up. Where is
Gary? Somewhere in the back there.
Unidentified Speaker. He had to leave.
Senator Chambliss. He had to leave. All right. Well, I
mentioned the Agribusiness Council earlier when I was talking
about our ag intern program. They have been vitally important
to us, have been a very good partner in that.
Two other folks I want to introduce: First of all, a lady
who has been with me since I first got elected to Congress. She
was my ag LD back in my original years in Congress, Martha
Scott Poindexter. She now is the staff director, might add the
first female staff director, of the Senate Ag Committee. Martha
Scott, stand up.
Senator Chambliss. The Ag Committee has always been very
bipartisan. We have to be. We work very closely with members on
the other side of the aisle because agriculture is one of those
industries that if you don't stick together, you're going to
really see the demise of agricultural programs. And it's
certainly true with my ranking member, Tom Harkin, and myself.
Tom is from Iowa. I'm from Georgia. We have different
interests, but he is very supportive of programs that I
desperately believe in from a parochial standpoint, as am I of
his. His minority staff director, Mark Halverson, is down with
us. Mark, stand up and let us recognize you.
Senator Chambliss. All right. Gentlemen, again, thank you
all very much. We appreciate you being here, and we look
forward to staying in touch with you.
We're now going to call our third panel, Dr. Jim
Strickland, Mr. R.C. Hunt, Mr. Mike Giles, Dr. Elizabeth
DesPortes Dreelin, and Mr. Jim Ham, if you all will please come
forward.
We'll continue with our next panel. First of all, Dr. Jim
Strickland from Glennville, Georgia, representing the Georgia
Cattlemen's Association; Mr. R.C. Hunt from Bailey, North
Carolina, representing the National Pork Producers Council; Mr.
Mike Giles from Gainesville, Georgia, representing the Georgia
Poultry Federation; Dr. Elizabeth DesPortes Dreelin from
Columbus, Georgia, representing The Nature Conservancy; and Mr.
Jim Ham from Smarr, Georgia, representing the Georgia
Association of Conservation District Supervisors and the
National Association of Conservation Districts.
So welcome to each of you for being here today. Again,
we'll take your whole statement for the record, but we look
forward to any opening comments you wish to make. Dr.
Strickland, we'll start with you, and we'll move right down the
row. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES E. STRICKLAND, DVM PRESIDENT, GEORGIA
CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION MEMBER, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
ASSOCIATION
Dr. Strickland. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss and Senator
Roberson for being here. Thanks, Senator Roberson, for feeding
our cattle. So we appreciate you holding hearings and allowing
us to be a part of it. I am----
Senator Roberts. I think you said Roberson, now. That's Pat
Roberson.
Dr. Strickland. Yes. OK. It's Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Yeah. He's the preacher. I'm the Senator.
Dr. Strickland. OK.
Senator Roberts. But if you all want to tithe in a brown
paper bag up here for Saxby Chambliss, I'd sure be happy to
hold it. And God bless you, sir.
Dr. Strickland. Thank you. We'll try not to turn this into
a 500 Club. But I am Jim Strickland. I have been a practicing
veterinarian and then served 15 years with the University of
Georgia as a beef cattle specialist. And, of course, back in
semiretirement doing some food animal practice and, of course,
have the honor now of being a cattleman and severing as the GCA
president and also an opportunity to be in other agricultural
enterprises, a member of NCBA Georgia Farm Bureau. So I thank
you for this opportunity.
And as cattle and beef producers, our livelihood is tied to
many other agricultural commodities. And we stress the
organized and united effort as we try to produce the food for
the people of the world. And livestock consumes three out of
about four bushels of the major feed grains that are produced.
And cattle in feed lots account for one-fourth of the total
grain-consuming animal units, and all beef cattle count for
about 30 percent of this. So cash receipts from cattle and
calves in 2005 almost went to $50 billion. And these sales
account for nearly 40 percent of livestock sales and, of
course, almost half of farm receipts.
In Georgia alone, there are about 1.2 million head of
cattle on about 21,000 operations. Of that group, roughly two-
thirds of them operate herds of less than 50 cattle and 17
percent have between 50 and 100. So a lot of ours are made up
of small operators. It's the largest diversified enterprise for
Georgia, and cattle are found in almost every county in the
state in conjunction with the other enterprises that we have.
And, of course, we feel like cattle are not only a farming
operation but there are areas where they can be used as an
agricultural operation and keep this opportunity before our
young people as they carry out their projects in this urbanized
society that we live in and looks like is increasing.
As cattlemen and beef producers, we understand and embrace
the fact that open and free market is powerful and it's
necessary and we can survive on that. But cyclical ups and
downs of this market can be harsh. But the system works and we
remain steadfastly committed to this as a free, private
enterprise and competitive marketing system. It's not in the
nation's farmers' or cattlemen's best interest for the
government to implement policies that set prices, that dictate
or manipulate our domestic supply or demand and cost or prices,
and underwrites inefficient production in other areas that
affect our marketing area.
In the conservation and environment area, we see two areas
there in the CRP program and also in the EQIP. In the animal
ID, we are aggressively engaged in an issue of working with the
southeastern area marketing. And, of course, we want to be sure
that the data's held in an area there where it's confidential
and the producers are assured that that's so. And, of course,
we can use it in times of disease in other areas.
Research, we want to be sure that we continue research,
especially in the animal area, where we can keep down any
health emergencies that might occur and see a need to keep a
strong research component--and this could relate into zoonotic
diseases--and, of course, especially ensure the safety of our
food supply. Property rights, that has been spoken there.
So in concluding, we are continuing to see pressure from
economics on ours and want to be assured in the Farm Bill that
we can be a part of the U.S. agricultural enterprise and work
with the others. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland can be found on
page 124 in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Dr. Strickland. Mr. Hunt?
STATEMENT OF R. C. HUNT PORK PRODUCER, WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA
PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA PORK COUNCIL
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss and Senator
Roberts. I am R.C. Hunt, a pork producer from Bailey, North
Carolina. My family and I operate Andrew Hunt Farms, raising
cattle, swine, and tilapia fish. My operation produces feeder
pigs and finishes market hogs.
I am currently the president of the North Carolina Pork
Producers Council, and I'm here this morning testifying on
behalf of the National Pork Producers Council. We are very
grateful for you for holding this field hearing and for the
opportunity to provide you with the pork industry's views on
what is working and what we need to do to improve as we
consider reauthorization of the 1902 Farm Bill.
Pork producers have been actively engaged in discussions
relating to the 1907 Farm Bill. We have organized an 1907 Farm
Bill policy task force that is in the process of reviewing and
evaluating many of the Farm Bill issues that will affect our
industry. As pork producers, our livelihood is tied to many
other agricultural commodities.
This morning I would like to share some general comments
and thoughts of the nation's pork producers and what we have
for the 1907 Farm Bill. Pork producers make an investment in
the industry to maintain a competitive edge domestically and
globally. The 1907 Farm Bill should make that same investment
in allowing us to stay competitive. Taking these important
steps will maintain a vibrant agricultural sector that provides
a safe and secure food supply, innovative fuel options using
our natural resources, and a continued abundant feed for our
animals.
We know the members of this Committee understand better
than anyone, you know, the significance of the economic
contribution that pork producers make to the U.S. agricultural
sector and how important it is to grow our international
markets and maintain our global competitiveness. The U.S. pork
industry enjoyed its 15th consecutive year of record exports in
1905. We exported 905 million metric tons of pork and pork
products that were valued at over $2.28 billion. In addition,
we exported 164,000 metric tons of pork and variety meats.
These shipments amounted to approximately $25 per head
processed.
Pork producers, along with other livestock and poultry
producers, are the single biggest customers of the U.S. feed
grain producers. Our single largest expense by far is the feed
that we purchase for our animals. USDA estimates that the
livestock feed will account for 6 billion bushels, 54 percent
of the total corn usage this year. While USDA does not have a
specific estimate on the soybean meal used for livestock feed,
we suffice it to say that the livestock will use the vast
majority. Of the total, pigs consumed just over 1 billion
bushels of corn and meal from nearly 418 million bushels of
soybeans in 1905. Pork producers are strong and vital
contributors to the value-added agricultural economy in the
U.S., and we're deeply committed to the economic health and
vitality of our business and communities their livelihoods help
support.
Pork production has changed dramatically in this country
since the early 1990's. Technology advances and new business
models changed operational sizes, production systems,
geographic distribution, and marketing practices. The demand
for meat protein is on the rise in much of the world. Global
competitiveness is a function of production economics,
environmental regulation, labor costs, and productivity. The
United States must continue to be a leader in food production
to meet the increased consumer demands.
As the U.S. pork industry evaluates reauthorization of the
1902 Farm Bill, we have formulated some guiding principles for
consideration: Principle Number 1, We must maintain a
competitive advantage; Principle Number 2, We must strengthen
our competitiveness; and Principle Number 3, We must prevent
harm from our industry.
The next Farm Bill should help U.S. pork industries
maintain current points of competitive advantages. These
include low production costs, unparalleled food safety, and
further advancements in animal health. In addition to
maintaining our competitive advantage, the next Farm Bill
should strengthen that position by expanding and including such
elements as trade assistance, research, risk management tools,
and science-based conservation programs and environmental
regulations.
Finally, the next Farm Bill should not harm the competitive
position of the U.S. pork industry by imposing costs on the
industry by restricting the ability to meet consumer demands in
an economical manner. Government intervention must not stand in
the way of market-based demands.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we must be
cautious of allowing activist groups which do not represent the
best interests of our livestock sector to push their particular
agenda by adding regulations to our business practices. This
will severely alter the intent of the Farm Bill, a piece of
legislation that has worked for the past 50 years.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,
while my comments today have been preliminary, together I
believe we can craft an 1907 Farm Bill that meets our objective
by remaining competitive both domestic and in the world. And on
behalf of the National Pork Producers Council and many pork
producers around the country, we thank you for the day.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunt can be found on page 96
in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Mr. Giles?
STATEMENT OF MIKE GILES SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GEORGIA POULTRY
FEDERATION GAINESVILLE, GEORGIA
Mr. Giles. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss, Senator Roberts,
Committee staff for the opportunity to present the views and
recommendations of the Georgia Poultry Federation regarding
reauthorization of the Farm Bill.
My name is Mike Giles, and I am senior vice president of
the Georgia Poultry Federation. The Federation's primary
mission is to advance the position of poultry producers in
Georgia by advocating the interests of poultry growers,
companies, and allied industries.
Georgia is the top producer of broilers in the United
States, last year producing more than 1.3 billion broilers
weighing over 6.7 billion pounds. These figures translate into
farming opportunities for approximately 4,000 poultry growers
throughout the state. We are hopeful that the next Farm Bill
will set the foundation for expanded opportunities for existing
and future poultry growers.
We have been pleased with the focus on conservation
programs over the life of the current Farm Bill. The most
common direct connection with the Farm Bill for many poultry
growers is through conservation programs such as the
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) through USDA
NRCS. Well-managed farms, we believe, are our best hope to
ensure clean air and water for generations to come. Cost-share
programs such as EQIP allow poultry producers to be proactive
in practices that have a benefit to the public.
Access to exports are vital for Georgia poultry growers and
companies. Competing in international markets is becoming more
intense, especially for U.S. poultry producers who see lower
cost countries, like Brazil, gaining in the world market. At
the same time, meeting international obligations and
responsibilities of being a leader in the World Trade
Organization will be even greater in the future.
Given these factors and other concerns, such as energy and
the environment, we think it is time to think broadly about
crafting a new Farm Bill that provides a different approach to
helping protect a farmer's income while expanding agriculture's
ability to meet new marketing opportunities. A farm policy that
is more compatible with World Trade Organization rules and
obligations, while very challenging, as we discussed and
acknowledge, is prudent and necessary.
A critical component to help ensure cost competitiveness of
U.S. animal agriculture is encouraging sufficient cropland to
meet feed grains and oil seed users' needs for domestic demand
and export sales, especially considering increased demand for
grains and oil seeds due to biofuel production. With continuing
loss of land to urbanization around major cities and the large
amount of farmland currently enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program, the ability of U.S. agriculture to expand crop
acreage is limited. We think the use of land enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program should be an option available in
the event the market signals for more production. Deciding
between crops for fuel and crops for animal feed is not a
decision that needs to be made in a time of crisis.
With regard to the Federal crop insurance program, we think
it is appropriate to build on the evaluations already begun by
USDA's Risk Management Agency in the area of insurance products
for animal agriculture. Various hazards, such as weather and
disease, pose a risk for animal agriculture producers. We
believe that insurance products designed to protect against
these risks would be helpful to poultry growers and other
animal producers.
Underpinning these recommendations and considerations is
the ongoing need to adequately fund USDA's critical
responsibilities, including the Foreign Agricultural Service's
role in enhancing farm exports and the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service's role in responding to animal disease
threats and foreign governments which use non-science based
veterinary provisions to slow or halt U.S. agricultural
exports.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share the thoughts
and recommendations of the Georgia Poultry Federation. We look
forward to working with the Committee to assist in crafting a
new Farm Bill that not only meets the current challenges and
opportunities but helps set the foundation for generations of
American farmers to thrive and enjoy the success of an
expanding world demand for food and fiber. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giles can be found on page
84 in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much. Dr. Dreelin?
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH DESPORTES DREELIN
Dr. Dreelin. Mr. Chairman, Senator Roberts, and members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
the Committee today. My name is Beth Dreelin. I'm a private
forest landowner, one of about 650,000 here in Georgia where my
family has been growing trees for several generations. Together
these individual families own about 60 percent of Georgia's
forests.
Georgia's forests produce our highest valued crop, timber,
supporting over 68,000 jobs and generating nearly $23 billion
for our state's economy. However, today the owners of our
forests are facing a crisis. It is becoming increasingly
difficult to remain in business and to keep our forest land
forested. This is because we no longer have adequate markets
for our products to sustain ourselves along the way to growing
a full rotation of saw timber for which we still have a market.
Growth, which I consider a good thing for Georgia, is
driving land values up. And, hence, we're paying much higher
property taxes than ever better. Therefore, it costs us more to
grow our timber and we have fewer products that we can sell,
resulting in many private forest landowners being forced to
sell their forested land for development usage. This is
occurring at the rate of about a million acres per year
throughout the South. Certainly, for some forest owners,
selling their land is the right choice. But I fear that we're
rapidly traveling down a road that will lead to no other option
than to sell out.
Only forest land and growing trees is a deeply ingrained
family tradition and one that I personally love. However, I
think most of us private forest landowners are asking
ourselves: How long can we keep doing what we are doing? We
need to know that every acre of timber that we plant will be
worth something some day.
I have a great deal of hope for the future of our forests
in Georgia, and much of this hope is riding on the 2007 Farm
Bill. The 2007 Farm Bill will critically impact if not
determine this future. Our current crisis can be resolved, I
believe. Let me suggest four broad strategies.
First, forest landowners should earn a return for all of
the products they produce, not just the ones that we can chip
or saw. We desperately need to create and facilitate real
markets for ecosystems services, ranging from carbon to clean
water. It is only right and responsible that the public help
support the benefits they enjoy. We need robust cost-share
programs that both assist and reward forest owners who make
investments to improve water quality, protect wetlands, and
provide wildlife habitat. Many Silva-culture practices, such as
planting longleaf pine, are a great ecological benefit,
providing important wildlife habitat as well as hunting and
other recreational opportunities. But asking forest landowners
to provide these benefits for free while they wait 80 to 100
years for any return is simply unrealistic.
Second we need to do a better job coordinating the alphabet
soup of Federal programs. We need to identify and prioritize
critical forest resources and make sure programs support each
other and don't duplicate each other. These programs need to be
aimed at the highest priority conservation goals and need to
mesh well with the state and local levels.
Third, I hope the 2007 Farm Bill will re-energize existing
vehicles and spur development of new and creative delivery
systems for outreach, education, and technical assistance. A
well-funded forest stewardship program will be critical, along
with new approaches to knitting together the work done by the
Forest Service, NRCS, Extension Service, and the various State
agencies that connect with family forest owners. This will help
us sustain our forest and conservation practices.
Fourth, we need to take a hard look at what is working and
what is not, making certain that every dollar we invest in
public for family forests does at least a dollars worth of work
where it counts, in the woods, for the good of us all. We hope
Congress will seek ways to assess the impact of programs based
on outcomes, not just number of acres or contracts. It is the
only way to see where we're doing the best job and where we
might have unnecessary duplication.
I am a realist. I know this is going to come down to money
and there's not much of it, if any, to spare. But I also know
that investing in Georgia's forests is not a zero sum game. It
benefits everyone who cares about strong and robust rural
communities, a growing economy, and a healthy environment. I
cannot think of a more important goal for the 2007 Farm Bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dreelin can be found on page
78 in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. Thank you. Mr. Ham?
STATEMENT OF JIM HAM, GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION
DISTRICT SUPERVISORS AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Mr. Ham. Good morning. I'm Jim Ham. I'm a middle Georgia
farmer, Monroe County commissioner, and president of the
Georgia Association of Conservation District Supervisors. I'm
pleased to be here today representing not only Georgia
conservation districts but also the 3,000 districts nationwide.
For over 60 years, conservation districts have played an
important role making sure local leaders help make decisions
regarding the use of natural resources. Districts across the
country just like mine are active in the delivery of Federal,
State, and local conservation policies and programs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank you for holding
this hearing today in Albany and for including conservation
issues on the agenda. I fully understand much of today has been
and should be focused on the farm programs and the Farm Bill.
However, I'm pleased you and the Committee understand the value
and importance of the conservation title.
The conservation title has grown over the last decade to
now represent significant funding and meaningful technical
assistance to farmers and ranchers across this country. This
commitment allows farmers like me to not only protect my soil
and water but also be a better neighbor and citizen. The 2002
Farm Bill has also resulted in new participants coming to the
conservation table and has created new partnerships both at the
local and national level.
I farm in an area that is changing. My friends from the
city are moving out to enjoy our open spaces, fresh air, and
wildlife. While most do want to live in the country, many are
not ready to be neighbors with a chicken farmer. Applying
nutrients on my farm, it can be a little interesting at times,
a not-so-pleasant activity for some of my new friends. My
neighbors understand this but are also pleased that I use the
latest technologies and most current and best management
practices to complete the application process as well as other
activities such as spraying.
I have an EQIP conservation contract that has allowed me to
cross-fence pastures to better utilize my grass, fence out
ponds and streams to protect water quality, install stream
crossings, renovate heavy use areas to prevent soil erosion,
and manage animal waste. Row crop producers in Georgia have
benefited from such practices such as conservation tillage,
pest management, and irrigation management plans under the EQIP
program, resulting in better management of land and other
resources.
The conservation programs and policies in many ways help
keep me on the farm. While I get other support from the
commodity programs, the conservation tools, both technical and
financial, have helped me and many others avoid regulation and
continue to be able to farm in an ever changing environment.
I know my time is limited here today, and there is much
more to say on the conservation. So with the Chairman's
permission, I'll submit more details in March for the record.
But I do want to leave you and the Committee with several
thoughts regarding the conservation provisions in the Farm
Bill, because they are critical to the success and productivity
of agriculture.
First, there must be a continued commitment by Congress to
provide much needed and much used technical and financial
assistance to farmers and ranchers. We appreciate the
increasing awareness that there needs to be a balance of
programs that both address lands that are in active production
of food and fiber as well as lands that are retired and
protected. Lands need and use both, and we hope Congress will
continue to recognize that no one program meets the needs of
all farmers and ranchers.
The Committee should also remember Federal conservation
programs that allow local and state conservation groups and
governments to multiply the benefits. Program dollars are
leveraged many times over. For example, the state of Georgia's
investment in agricultural water metering is being leveraged
with Federal funds to provide farmers with cost-share
opportunities to upgrade their irrigation systems, properly
schedule application of irrigation water, and construct
offstream reservoirs to provide supplemental irrigation. We
also have an initiative working with State government providing
an increased commitment to farmland protection.
Also, Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of talk that the next
Farm Bill will include a strong renewable energy title. We,
too, recognize the needs and benefits of energy production in
the U.S. on our lands. However, we just caution the Committee
not to minimize the conservation gains in all programs we've
achieved over the last 20 to 25 years. We see potential for
renewable energy production in Georgia through our forestry
resources that could be a valuable source of cellulosic energy
production with available biomass. We support continued
research and development on the viability of these renewable
resources.
And, Mr. Chairman, while conservation Farm Bill programs
have often been championed by your colleagues in the Midwest
and other parts of the country, I want you to know that we in
Georgia see you as the next leader on these issues. I know you
love the land just like I do and so many others here today. I
know that you are committed to make sure the conservation title
stays strong and vital in the 2007 Farm Bill. So I thank you in
advance.
We all have a great opportunity in the 2007 Farm Bill to
build on the good programs and policies that were advanced in
2002. I pledge to you that the Georgia conservation districts
and those of us around the country, too, want to do and be an
active player in this next Farm Bill process. We want to work
with you to make sure the next conservation titles provide some
meaningful assistance to producers and results the taxpayers
can appreciate and enjoy. Thank you. I'm sorry I went over.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ham can be found on page 91
in the appendix.]
Senator Chambliss. That's all right. Good stuff, Jim.
Let me direct this first question to Mr. Strickland, Mr.
Hunt, and Mr. Giles. What's your most pressing environmental or
conservation concern, such as soil erosion, air emission, or
manure management. Do the existing conservation programs help
you address your concerns? And how could they be improved to
help you? Dr. Strickland, we'll start off with you.
Dr. Strickland. One of the most pressing we had was the
recent conflict between Arkansas and, I think, Oklahoma, when
they were trying to sue one another. And maybe this didn't have
much effect on the Farm Bill, but I think it shows us the
extent that the between-state standoffs can be a problem. And
we need to put something maybe in the Farm Bill that will
address this, where this is covered and won't be thrown in the
hands of other people that maybe interpret our laws.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Hunt. Specific to the pork industry, I think our
pressing issue environmentally would be manure management
today. We've made a lot of strides in that area, making
tremendous improvements, but that still is a pressing issue for
our industry.
Senator Chambliss. OK. Mr. Giles, farmers in Georgia have
seen a huge increase in poultry production. And folks like Mr.
Ham have been utilizing some of your excess material there. And
that's a growing problem, I know, around the state. Is that
your most pressing problem or one of these others?
Mr. Giles. I think it would probably be. For the last five
or 10 years, it has been an issue that we've addressed and it
is pressing. We all know that chicken litter, manure, is a
valuable fertilizer. It's a great organic fertilizer. Sometimes
it's not produced in the state exactly where it needs to be. So
one thing that the NRCS State Technical Committee has developed
a pilot project last year through EQIP to develop a program
that provides incentives for moving the litter from an area
where it's high production to an area where it's in greater
need. And this has been, I think, good timing because of energy
costs and commercial fertilizer costs. It has provided another
option for manure transfer for farmers in south Georgia.
Another emerging area there are also in terms of manure
management, innovative ways to address and utilize manure
energy production, which there is a plant in north Georgia
which has announced that they will use chicken litter to
produce energy. And we have some other opportunities in that
way, so research is important.
I think an issue that is growing in importance and on the
horizon for us is ammonia. As you know, there was an air
emissions agreement that was proposed by EPA. And that process
is ongoing. There will be a study that will be looking at risks
associated with ammonia emissions and what are the actual risks
and what are the actual emissions. So that's an issue that we
think is something we really need to keep an eye on. And
research, again, is going to be important there.
And third, I'll just echo what Dr. Strickland said about
the manure, the court case in Texas and Oklahoma and Arkansas
which characterizes manure as a hazardous substance. I realize
this may not be a Farm Bill issue particularly, but it is a
very important issue, not only for our animal agriculture but
also for any farmer who uses manure as a fertilizer. The risks
associated with Superfund laws, we think, are tremendous, and
we don't think it was initially intended to cover manure.
Senator Chambliss. To Dr. Strickland and Mr. Hunt, during
the last Farm Bill debate, there was considerable discussion on
competition in the livestock marketplace, and this included
marketing issues such as bans on packer ownership of cattle and
forward contracting as well as mandatory country of origin
labeling. What effect would these sorts of restrictions or
mandates on marketing have on cattlemen and pork producers?
Should Congress reauthorize the livestock mandatory price
supporting program? And if so, are there any needed changes to
that program?
Dr. Strickland. Well, we believe in a free market system.
And there's been some suits on some of those. And, of course,
some of those might have been settled. But we feel like that
right now, there's not really anything that needs to be in the
farm program as far as the market controls there.
Senator Chambliss. How about the mandatory price support
issue, though? Do we need to reauthorize that, in your opinion?
Dr. Strickland. Well, I don't know as we necessarily do. We
have a marketing reporting system that gives us information.
That might be more important in some of the feed lot areas, you
know, than maybe it would be with ours.
Mr. Chambliss. OK. Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Hunt. Your question on the concentrated livestock with
packer bans, you know, just look back over the years and look
at the evolution that our industry has taken. It didn't happen
by choice. It just was predicated on different issues dealing
with our antitrust laws. Every industry that I know of today,
there's just a tremendous amount of consolidation,
unfortunately.
In our business today, I think food safety is our No. 1
priority. And what we see is a company or a packer out there
producing pork products, their goal is to ensure the quality
all the way from the bottom line, from the farm. And that's, I
think, been a major contributor to our consolidation, having
that product produced, having a hands-on impact through the
whole step of production all the way to the table.
So it's certainly an interesting structure that we have in
our country today, and it would be detrimental to change that
at the current times. Specific to mandatory pricing, we would
not be in favor of that, just simply because of the economics
and expense involved in that process.
Senator Chambliss. OK. Dr. Dreelin, everybody's going to
have to keep in mind that any new program efforts will most
likely take away from existing programs, given the fact that
the Federal deficit obviously continues to be a problem. You
alluded to that. But given these budget constraints, what can
we do, in your opinion, that's going to be most helpful for
landowners? Is there any kind of new concept, new idea, that we
should look at as far as developing or take some of our
existing programs and do a better job with those programs?
Dr. Dreelin. In terms of incentives?
Senator Chambliss. Yes.
Dr. Dreelin. I like the programs that are there. I think do
a better job in coordinating what's there that so we know
they're being used efficiently and not being duplicating and
coordinating with the other agencies. I think, also, there are
other organizations, for example, The Nature Conservancy, that
has been extremely helpful in coordinating these types of
programs.
Senator Chambliss. Do you use CRP at all in your personal
family operation?
Dr. Dreelin. We have received incentives to plant longleafs
and prescribed burning through the conservation program, yes,
sir.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Ham, what's the right balance
between land retirement programs like the Conservation Reserve
program and working land programs like EQIP? How do we need to
look at this both financially as well as otherwise in the next
Farm Bill?
Mr. Ham. I think we're pretty close to the right balance
now. Most of our land in my part of the county is already in
CRP and will remain in CRP. I don't think it will ever come
back out. You're dealing with mostly beef cattle in my area of
the state and poultry producers who can take advantage of EQIP
real easy, in-fence and outstreams and trying to help the water
quality. So I think you have the balance in my area of the
state. I'm not as sure nationwide, but I'd be glad to get that
information to you.
Senator Chambliss. OK. Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts. Jim and I want everybody in the audience
and all members of the panel to know that Saxby Chambliss has
been leading the way to convince the Japanese, from a sound
science standpoint, that they should reopen their markets to
the American beef industry. And that applies as well to other
countries in Asia, not only Japan but China and also Korea. And
we've got a problem. You have the Japanese government--is he a
prime minister or premier? I can't remember which. But at any
rate, Koisumi, is going to be stepping down. They've got an
election in September. And they've got two outfits. One is very
similar to the USDA and AFIS and FDA but looks at it from a
sound science standpoint. And then you've got this other outfit
that runs around the countryside and holds town hall meetings
and basically says do you want zero risk or do people want zero
risk and there isn't such a thing as zero risk in the talks on
trade technology.
They've had--what, Saxby?--23, 26, 28 cases of BSE. They
import their cattle from China, and you know that's really
safe. And we've inspected 700,000 critters, and we're headed
for 800,000 and possibly a million. So he's been meeting with
the Ambassador and working overtime to open up those markets.
That's cost us $3.2 billion----
Senator Chambliss. Right.
Senator Roberts [continuing]. A year. That's just really
not satisfactory. And then you get back to the trade talks on a
level playing field, and you take a look at that and you really
scratch your head and say, ``Wait a minute here. This just
isn't right.''
And I'm going to make this quick. But Saxby even went over
to Russia and dragged me along. And I'm his Doberman. I can't
say anything on the Intelligence Committee. And I get very
frustrated. So he has a chain and he has it around my neck, and
I'm the Doberman. And so when he needs somebody to get
obstreperous, then he just takes the chain off.
And he was in St. Petersburg. And we were talking to the
oligarch and the guy in the Armani suit who intelligence
indicated was not a friend of the United States. And he wasn't.
He was a hot dog, and he was rather sort of a jerk. And he was
in charge of the export-import licenses. And he was going on
and on. And we're helping them. We're helping them with AFIS to
clear up their BSE problem. They import the same kind of cattle
from other countries that have not been inspected, but we can't
seem to break through with Russia.
And so the Chairman was being very gracious and, like you
are supposed to do on a Code L, said, ``What can we do to help
you in regards to BSE, and how can we resolve this issue?''
And this oligarch stood up and said that basically he had a
lot of problems with the United States because of the recent
infestation of BSE. And I said, ``Why? We've only had one
Canadian cow out of 700,000.''
And he said, ``Well, in 1998, several mink''--mink, you
know, fury animals, coats--``had, you know, BSE.''
And I was a little stunned by that. And I had read the
intelligence report. And I didn't much care for him, anyway. So
I just said, ``Are you feeling all right.''
And he said, ``Well, of course.''
And I said, ``Are you sure? Is your eyesight OK?''
And he said, ``Well, yes.'' And he was getting a little
perturbed with me.
And I said, ``Well, I just wondered. I didn't know if you
could tell the difference between a mink and a cow.''
And Saxby gave me a fast look and tried to kick me
underneath the table. And that didn't work. And so I said,
``Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I've heard an awful lot of this. And
you've given our position. And, Mr. Minister, I don't think
you've been really cooperative at all. I just have other things
I can do with my time, so I'm leaving.'' And I just got up and
left. And just before I slammed the door, I said, ``By the way,
I'll send you a picture of a mink and a cow so you can know the
difference.''
I slammed the door. And I turned the wrong way. And I had
on a pass. And I was walking down a hallway with an awful lot
of Russian women who had red hair--they dye their hair--and
other people who certainly wintered well. And I was trying to
get out. And I said, ``How do I get out? Who speaks English?''
And finally somebody said, ``Try the staircase.'' So I went
down the staircase and got out, finally.
And I looked way down the way, and I had gone way too long.
And there was the white van. And then by the time I got there,
out came the Chairman and our whole delegation. And they looked
at me, and Saxby said, ``Look, OK. You're the Doberman. But the
next time you go off the chain, let me know.''
And that just sort of indicates our efforts to try to get
some fair trade there. You know, there's a process announced
here just yesterday with Japan. But some of us felt that we
should be introducing sanctions legislation. And we did. And we
said, ``OK. Through the U.S. trade representative, if not by
September 21, if we don't have an agreement here and if the
beef is not moving, we want sanctions across the board to cover
the 3.2 billion.''
So if that's what we have to do in order to get tough and
play fair for the farmer, that's what we're going to do. That
was a speech, not a question. Jim, thank you. I'll make this
quick.
Dr. Strickland. Let me take this opportunity to thank the
entire Committee and also, of course, the secretary. I think he
mentioned those sanctions when we were up there early in
Washington. But the autos, we know, have flaws, and one of them
can't seem to stop the import of others. So----
Senator Roberts. I'm going to pass on some of the questions
that the Chairman has already answered, with the exception
that, Mr. Giles, you indicated and all of you indicated that
you want to tap into the Conservation Reserve Program. Kansas
has more CRP acres than any other state. We have a working
relationship with hunters and with conservationists and with
environmentalists. And it's not productive land. And there is
concern in many counties where you have a lot of acreage that
is tied up, some of which could come back into production. That
is not an instant answer, but it is a possible answer. And I
just wanted to put that caveat in there. Let me see if there's
anything else.
Dr. Dreelin, you mentioned The Nature Conservancy. I don't
know what we'd have done without your help in regards to the
Cheyenne Bottom, which is over by Gray Branch, Kansas, and one
of the largest migratory waterfowl bus stops coming from the
north to the south. And it's worked out, you know, very well.
Do you have any criteria by which you can measure carbon
sequestration, more especially along the forest ground that you
have?
Dr. Dreelin. I don't have a good answer for that, but I'd
be happy to research it and convey that information to you.
Senator Roberts. We've got a guy name Dr. Jim Rice out of K
State. And I went down to the South Pole with Ted Stevens,
which was quite a trip. And I looked at all the ice corridors.
And, yes, we are going through global warming and, yes, it's a
challenge and, yes, agriculture can be part of the answer.
And one of the things you want to think about is you can't
explain carbon sequestration much to anybody expect carbon in
the air, bad, carbon in the soil, good. And if you go through
certain cropping practices that you ought to go through anyway,
you can achieve that. And I never thought about it in terms of
the forest land. But if you could quantify that in any way,
that could be part of the farm program and part of the energy
section of the farm program. We've done a lot of research on
that, but we haven't been able to quite quantify it to justify
it to the taxpayers. But it's something you ought to think
about. Let's see if there's anything else.
Jim, your testimony mentions the problems that gross income
restrictions have on conservation program participation caused
since the 2002 Farm Bill in Georgia. I assume this has been a
major issue for your poultry producers. In Kansas this has
restricted the ability of our cattle feed lots to use the
program and our cattle feeders to use the program. Any
suggestions on any modifications we could make to those limits
that would allow these producers to make the conservation steps
they desire to make and they should make with their operations?
Mr. Ham. Well, I think if they're going to play, they're
going to have to play by your rules. I think it needs to be
more flexible and it needs to be more driven from the locals.
If there's a way to move some of the control down locally, then
I think that would help tremendously. That would let the
participants know that they're being judged by their peers and
not so much being judged by people from outside the area. I
think that would help.
Senator Roberts. Well, that works pretty well for the whole
damn Federal Government.
Mr. Ham. I didn't mean that in the sense of everything
else, but I think you get the gist of it.
Senator Roberts. Well, yeah. You know, we're means testing
these programs, and the people who really could make use of
them and really make a difference are means tested out of the
program. I know that's always a tough thing to fight because,
you know, people look at the amount and people say you have a
large operation, obviously you can afford it.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed this a ton. I
think we're probably a little late. But I want to thank the
witnesses for taking the time, thank all you folks for taking
the time out of your valuable schedule to come and listen. It's
been very educational for me, and we'll work very hard for you.
And, obviously, I'm going to work very hard with your
outstanding Chairman.
Senator Chambliss. Well, Pat, thank you very much. Thanks
to all members of this panel for being here. Again, your
insight has been very helpful. We look forward to dialoguing
with you as we move toward next spring and the physical writing
of this Farm Bill. And we'll be calling on you folks, I'm sure,
from time to time.
I, too, want to again thank all of you all for being here
today. We've had a great crowd, and for the most part everybody
has stuck around for the entire hearing. And we appreciate that
very much.
Sanford, thank you, my good friend. We appreciate Vivian
letting you off today to come spend the morning with us. And I
thank you for all your good work. Thanks for your friendship.
Mac Collins, Mac, thanks for your being here and sitting
and listening to these folks that are the hardest working folks
in Georgia. And they're great people, men and women.
I'm not sure whether Richard's still here or Gene is still
here. Yeah, Gene, there we go. Thank you guys, again. Thanks
for your hard work in Atlanta and thanks for being here to pay
attention to an issue that is critical to all of America but
particularly critical to our state.
To all the witnesses, I want to thank each panel again.
Your testimony has been very valuable to us. I want to
encourage anyone, and that's anyone here today or if you know
of anybody who has an interest in what's going to be written in
the next Farm Bill, that you can submit a written statement to
the record. All you have to do is visit the Committee's Web
site, agriculture.senate.gov. And you can get the details on
how you submit that statement. We can accept a written
statement that will be included in this hearing for up to five
business days. We'll keep the record open for 5 days for the
submission of that.
Just looking out there, I hadn't seen him before, but I see
Jody Redding out there. Jody is the representative for this
part of the state for my close personal friend, good friend of
Pat's, Senator Johnny Isakson. Jody, thank you for being here,
buddy. Johnny is a great friend of agriculture, and what a
terrific guy to have to work with.
Thank all of you for your interest in agricultural policy.
We look forward to, again, staying in touch with all of you as
we go through the preparation for the next Farm Bill. And this
hearing is now adjourned.
[Hearing Adjourned]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 23, 2006
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.076
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 23, 2006
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30131.126