![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="1.4534722222222223in"}

Release No. 0331.05 Contact: USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623

**TRANSCRIPT OF THE WYOMING FARM BILL FORUM WITH MARK REY, UNDER
SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT AND MODERATOR JUSTIN
MILLS OF THE NORTHERN AG NETWORK AT THE WYOMING STATE FAIR IN DOUGLAS,
WYOMING ON AUGUST 18, 2005**

MODERATOR: Thank you for joining us here in Douglas this morning as we
get kicked off with our Farm Bill Listening Session. It is a pleasure to
have you all here with us. And of course for Barney Cosner and all the
folks at the Wyoming State Fair, they\'re very appreciative of you guys
being able to have a chance to come down here and see. Unfortunately,
they were kind of wishing they probably had more of those buildings done
down there. But, unfortunately, with some of the activities that
happened earlier this summer, we\'re kind of in the middle of
construction. But, nevertheless, you can see the future of what this
State Fair Complex is going to be, and it\'s really exciting for the
State of Wyoming.

Before we get started too far, I just want to remind folks if you have a
cell phone, if you just out of consideration of everybody here and
everything, if you could please either put that on vibrate or go ahead
and shut it off, we would greatly appreciate that. I went ahead and did
that to mine a little bit ago, because mine crows like a rooster if I
don\'t, so that\'s a little bit intrusive to our meeting here today.

But, again, it\'s good to have you here with us. My name is Justin
Mills. I\'m with the Northern Ag Network. And we do provide radio and TV
agricultural markets news for here in Wyoming. We\'ve been doing that
since about 1975, and it is good to be here and to be able to have this
opportunity to moderate something that is as important as this, as the
next Farm Bill for United States, and how important this sis for
developing policy and the future for the next generation of agriculture.

We really appreciate Under Secretary Mark Rey for joining us here today.
And, in addition to that, for being willing to change the location of
that meeting from where it was originally scheduled in Jackson, and to
be able to be here in Douglas with us, where so much of the agricultural
industry is here this week. And so we do appreciate that flexibility in
his schedule. And, again, we do thank you for that very much.

Again, it\'s very important, these Listening Sessions of the Farm Bill,
it\'s very important. It\'s been several years since we\'ve seen the
development of a Farm Bill starting from the grassroots level. And I
think when you think about it in that aspect, it plays a lot of
importance that we have the administration coming to us, asking us what
do we want to see in this Farm Bill.

The 2002 Farm Bill of course established some very progressive ideas in
terms of providing some sort of an incentive for producers on
conservation-based efforts, and that\'s been very -- something new that
we haven\'t ever seen. I know for some producers here in Wyoming, it\'s
some of the things we\'re starting to uncover ourselves. But it does
provide that financial incentive, and really gives us the opportunity to
start planning on how we can continue the agricultural industry, not
only for the generation at hand but for the next generation that we see.
I think it\'s important.

I see a quote by a guy by the name of Brian Tracy says, \"Action without
planning is the cause of failure. Action with planning is the cause of
success.\" And I think that clearly indicates -- gives us a very clear
aspect of where we are with the Listening Sessions and why we have these
as they are.

At this point in time, I\'m going to introduce Mr. John -- actually,
before we do that, we\'re going to go ahead and start things kind of on
a patriotic note, and I\'m going to bring forward Christine Dona to come
forward. She\'s with the Converse County 4-H, and she\'s going to lead
us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance is recited.)

Thank you, Christine.

I\'ve already introduced Under Secretary Mark Rey, and in a little bit
you\'ll hear some comments from him. But before we go too much further,
I\'m going to bring forward Mr. John Etchepare, who is the director of
agriculture for Wyoming, to give us some opening remarks for this
Listening Session here today.

\[Applause.\]

WYOMING DIERCTOR OF AGRICULTURE JOHN ETCHEPARE: Thank you, Justin. I\'m
going to be very brief. The secretary didn\'t come to listen to what I
have to say; he\'s come to listen to what you have to say.

I want to start off by encouraging all of you, please, don\'t sit there,
\"Gee, I wished I had said that.\" Everyone will have plenty of time.
You\'ll have the time to say what you need to say. Please use this time.
This is an opportunity, a rare opportunity you have. Use it. Make
benefit from it.

I just want to take a second and thank my staff for all their efforts in
getting this pulled together on very short notice, so that we could do
this. I\'m sorry we couldn\'t have gotten the word out sooner. I know
I\'ve talked to the secretary and Justin, and Justin will address the
means by which those of you who have friends at home who couldn\'t get
here and couldn\'t do this, as to how they can play a part of this also
by submitting comments and so forth to the secretary. And it will be
handled just as if they had been here. So be sure and get that
information -- Justin will give it to you -- so that you can use that.

The 2007 Farm Bill is of utmost importance to the State of Wyoming, the
preservation of our past and our continued agricultural strength into
the future. You can see for yourselves the future of Wyoming agriculture
in these fairgrounds, and in the people in the room this morning.

Our top priority must be to the continued productivity, viability and
existence of the family farm and the ranch operations within our state
and across this country. Wyoming is a state firmly rooted in
agricultural production. It is the sustaining element of our struggling
communities and their economic survival. We are an aging state in
multiple respects, but perhaps the greatest consequence is the loss of
our young farmers and ranchers to keep our communities sustained.

In the 2007 Farm Bill, it is imperative we continue to bring forth
programs designed to assist beginning producers and young adults with
the incentives and mobility to enter the industry and remain viable. We
must keep agriculture education programs in our schools and colleges,
and maintain our level of commitment to funding agricultural extension.

The new Farm Bill should be focused on the continued existence of
agriculture as a visible and sustaining industry in the United States,
and our citizens we cannot continue to sacrifice American agriculture
for greater trade relations in other areas. Instead, we must build from
within, extending and strengthening our industry to keep the American
way of life that our country was founded upon.

We must also focus more attention on the animal health threats and
disease issues. Funding research and education of insect and diseases
must be a high priority for the continued health of our livestock and
livestock industry.

When we tackle the Farm Bill, we must continue to support our youth
involvement in programs in agriculture. We must find ways to improve our
young adults into having agriculture careers, giving them the incentive
and necessary training. We must continue to protect and screen our
borders from foreign disease and invasive species threats. And we must
promote programs that work to benefit our land and serve multiple
conservation goals that are not financially detrimental to the men and
women who have committed themselves to the dedication of agriculture.

Thank you, Under Secretary Rey, for being here today, and thank you for
my short time. And, again, I encourage all of you, please, take this
time and use it.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: We also have some distinguished guests with us here in our
audience this morning. I believe we have some representatives from some
of our other Congressional delegation. From Representative Barbara
Cubin\'s office, Josh Carnahan -- is he here? I haven\'t seen him yet.
There you are, Josh, how are you? Thank you for being here.

\[Applause.\]

Also, from Senator Mike Enzi\'s office, his state director, Robin
Bailey. Is Robin here? Thanks, Robin, for being here. You bet.

\[Applause.\]

And of course we also want to introduce a very familiar face, I know a
lot of you will recognize up here on the stage, and that is our senior
senator, Mr. Craig Thomas. Give him a hand -- you bet -- as he comes
forward.

\[Applause.\]

You know, he sits on a very powerful committee, that being the Senate
Finance Committee, and it\'s important that we have a voice in Wyoming
on that committee, and we really appreciate the work that he\'s done for
us back in Washington. And, again, Senator Craig Thomas.

SENATOR CRAIG THOMAS (R-WY): Thank you, my friend. Good to be introduced
by the junior representative for the broadcast corporation.

Well, thank you all for being here. We\'re really very, very pleased.
All of you I think were here yesterday, when we had a good meeting, and
we\'re delighted to have you here.

I think it\'s particularly important. You know, sometimes we have to
remember that the federal government, the Department of Agriculture, the
secretary and the vice president, all of them, have national
responsibilities. So as they look at things, they have to look at the
whole process. And if you\'re on the Ag Committee, as I am, you
understand how much pressure we get from cotton and tobacco and those
kinds of things. So it\'s particularly important that we talk with our
particular interests to the Secretary and to the assistant secretary,
and I think it\'s great.

I\'m very pleased that we have a secretary of Agriculture now from
Nebraska, who is more accustomed to the things we are, as opposed to
others. So I think that\'s great.

So I\'m very, very proud to be able to introduce to you, and to have
with us today, making a special effort to go around the country, and
made a special effort to come here, to come to Douglas -- flew in this
morning -- has to go back to Douglas this afternoon to go about his ways
-- is Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the
Environment, Mark Rey. That\'s the responsibility that Mark has, number
two in the Department of Agriculture. I\'ve worked with him for some
time. He was on the staff at the Energy and Public Lands Committee,
represented there particularly the interests of public lands and
forests, and has had a good deal of background in those kinds of things
-- also in the private sector, where he worked in the forest industry
and has done all these things. Mark has a background in education, in
the area of forestry and environment. And so the things he\'s
responsible for have a great deal of impact on what we do in Wyoming. So
it\'s with a great deal of pride that I welcome and introduce to you
Under Secretary of Agriculture Mark Rey.

\[Applause.\]

UNDER SECRETARY MARK REY: Thank you, Senator Thomas. This is actually my
second trip to Wyoming in the last month or so. On both trips, I met
with Senator Thomas. And on both occasions, he chided me for being in a
suit and tie. And last time I was here I told him the story about why I
always travel in a suit and tie: it\'s because about the fifth month
into this job, I went on a field trip in California that was sponsored
by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to look at conservation
practices in the Central Valley. And we all arrived at the appointed
time, early in the morning, to start the trip. And a guy, a local NRCS
employee who was running the trip was very nervous and excited, and
looked at his watch and said, \"My goodness, we\'re already behind
schedule. Let\'s just all get on the buses and we\'ll do introductions
at the first stop.\" Okay, everybody got on the buses. We drove to the
first stop. And he was so eager to get into his conservation
presentation that he forgot about introductions and launched right into
what he wanted to show us. And then looked at his watch when he was
done, and said, \"We\'re still late -- let\'s get on the bus and keep
moving." And introductions were forgotten. By the second stop, I noticed
one old fella sort of hanging in the back, as I was doing. But he was
craning his neck around. He was obviously looking for something or
somebody. And so finally he kind of sidled up to me, and he said,
\"Which one of these guys is the new knucklehead from Washington?\"
(Laughter.) And I\'m fairly certain, dressed as I am, none of you will
be at risk of a similar situation.

But thank you, Senator Thomas, once again, for introducing me. As a
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Wyoming has an ardent,
passionate supporter of agriculture in the United States Senate in Craig
Thomas.

I also want to recognize the State Fair director, Barney Cosner, and his
staff, for the hospitality that they've extended to us to put this
session together. It\'s my pleasure to be here this morning on behalf of
Secretary Mike Johanns to hear directly from you -- Wyoming\'s farmers,
ranchers, and rural residents, about issues of concerns.

In preparing for the development of the 2007 Farm Bill, Secretary
Johanns announced in June the first in a nationwide series of Farm Bill
forums to be held across the country. The first forum was held in
Nashville, Tennessee -- and Secretary Johanns has conducted seven more
since then, and has planned several other forums reaching into the first
part of next year. The secretary and the various undersecretaries, like
myself, will also be conducting forums such as this, all in the hope
that no voice is left unheard as we develop this next Farm Bill. And I
want you to know we are listening to your views. Justin here can attest
to that. He wrote me an e-mail telling me where this Farm Bill forum
should be held, and the next thing you knew, he was moderating it. So
you can see we are listening.

As Senator Thomas mentioned, I am the Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and the Environment, with jurisdiction over the Forest Service
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. My career has been spent
working on conservation. And, as you may know, the Farm Bill is one
mechanism that helps us do that.

The previous Farm Bill was considered landmark legislation for
conservation funding, and for focusing on environmental issues. The
conservation provisions of that bill have assisted farmers and ranchers
in meeting environmental challenges on their land. That Farm Bill also
simplified existing programs and created many new programs, all seeking
to enhance the long-term quality of conservation on our working farms,
ranches and forest lands.

What goes into a Farm Bill can have long-lasting effects on our
nation\'s natural resources, and that\'s why we\'re here today: to hear
your thoughts, comments and concerns on what should be included in the
next Farm Bill.

To that end, Secretary Johanns and we have developed six specific
questions that we\'re seeking dialogue on here today.

The first question relates to challenges to new farmers: How do we
prepare farm policy to provide a future for new entries into the
agricultural community? Our policy should welcome the next generation of
farmers and avoid unintended consequences, like higher land prices, that
make new entries into agriculture more difficult.

The second question relates to how we stay competitive in the world
marketplace. Over 27 percent of the cash receipts for agriculture come
from abroad. That\'s a very, very large piece of all farm income across
the country. And in order to see that trend continue, we must remain
competitive in both domestic and global markets to succeed, because our
rate of consumption is only half of our rate of production -- or the
increase in our rate of consumption is only half of the increase in our
rate of production, I mean.

The third question relates to Farm Bill farm program benefits. Is the
current distribution system the most effective way of distributing
benefits? Benefits should stabilize incentive farm prices and incomes.
The current programs -- crop insurance is a good example and we\'ve had
some conversations about that already -- distribute assistance based on
past and current production levels.

The fourth question, the one nearest and dearest to me, relates to
conservation: How do we do our conservation policies in a way that
provides for cooperative conservation? I continue to believe that our
farmers are the best conservationists in our nation. Some suggest
anchoring farm policy around conservation and tangible benefits produced
-- like cleaner air and water and a less developed landscape.

The fifth question relates to rural economic development. How can
federal rural and farm programs provide effective assistance in rural
areas? If you look back at the Farm Bills of the past, there wasn\'t
much there relative to rural economic development. But in the 2002 Farm
Bill it was a pretty significant piece of the puzzle. Farming and rural
America were once synonymous, but demographic and economic
characteristics of some rural areas have changed, and some believe that
farm policy should invest more in infrastructure in rural areas.

And then the last area is expansion of agricultural products, markets
and research. We have great resources at our disposal in the research
area at USDA. What are we doing right with those positions in terms of
research? And, if we\'re not doing things right, what should we be doing
instead? Because agriculture is rapidly changing, and some say our
policies should do more to help develop new products and new markets.

You may have seen as you walked in that we have a help desk just beyond
that doorway. Those folks manning that desk are USDA employees who are
on site to assist you if you\'re here for help on a specific issue
that\'s not related to these six Farm Bill areas. Please utilize that
service if your interest falls in the category of fixing a specific
problem on your operations.

Also, if we run out of time, or if you simply think of something you
forgot to say, please know that you can always go to www.usda.gov and
click on \"Farm Bill Forums.\" The comments submitted on the Web in
writing or voiced here today are all given the same weight and the same
exact amount of study and analysis.

Finally, before I wrap up, I notice a fair number of young people here
in the audience. You\'re the reason that President Bush asked Secretary
Johanns and senior agricultural leaders to conduct this listening tour.
Because we hope the ideas and advice that we get pave the way for your
future success in agriculture. So don\'t be shy about stepping up to the
microphone and letting us know your views as well.

Again, thank you for being here today and I look forward to a productive
discussion this morning. I\'ll turn the microphone back to Justin.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Under Secretary Rey. And I do kind of
have to comment about the -- when I found out it was going to be in
Jackson, I immediately sent a -- I found his e-mail on the Internet --
it\'s amazing what you can find on the Internet -- and I went to work
writing an e-mail, and which I got a quick response back that says, \"We
are in the progress of moving this to Douglas or Casper -- stay tuned.\"
So we do appreciate him listening on behalf of that aspect of it.

I\'m going to outline maybe just some of the rules here on our Listening
Session just a little bit. As Under Secretary Rey pointed out, we have
six questions in which we\'d like your comments to kind of be contained
under answering those six type of questions. Did everybody get a copy of
those questions? If you didn\'t, raise your hand, and I think they\'re
going to try to get some to you. Raise your hand real high. It looks
like everybody\'s okay on that. And those are the questions. I\'m not
going to reiterate those at this point in time. I think if you all have
a sheet, you can look at those, and Under Secretary Rey just went
through those. So I\'m not going to repeat those at this point in time.

Again, one of the things on this is that with this format we\'re going
to have three minutes. We\'re going to have three minutes in which you
will be able to provide comment. We have two microphones -- there\'s one
there, and there\'s one there. If you would please come forward to the
microphone and when you give your comments -- and we will have -- also
one of the things you\'ll notice up here on the front of the stage is a
light system -- kind of works like a stoplight: green means \"go\";
yellow means you better wind her down; and then red means we\'re going
to -- there\'s an electric shock that comes out through the microphone
and gets you. Okay? So be very aware of that, and be very respectful too
of that, because that\'s the aspect and respect of the USDA coming
forward to present this Listening Session. Let\'s be respectful of that
time limit that we have in place.

Under Secretary Rey mentioned there\'s a help desk outside that if
during this or afterwards you have additional comments you\'d like to
have -- a lot of you will have written comments of what you\'ve already
said, and you want to go ahead and submit those, you\'re more than
welcome to. Keep in mind this whole Listening Session will be taped and
will be transcribed into scrip, which will also go towards the comments.
But, again, you can take the comments -- you\'ve already written them
out and you\'ve already spoken. Feel free to go ahead and put them out
there. There will be a box out there in which you can put those
comments. Or if you don\'t want to feel like you want to speak today,
you can put them in there. And, as Under Secretary Rey said, you can
also go to the Website, if you get home later today and you have some
comments, extra comments you\'d like to add in, you can go to the
Website and do that as well -- very easy Website -- you go to the
usda.gov. It\'s there on the bottom, right-hand bottom side of the page.
It\'s easy to get to, very easy to understand.

Again, the help desk is for that area too, for comments that may not
relate necessarily to Farm Bill issues -- put those comments in there,
we\'d appreciate that as well.

As I said, we have two microphones for you, in which you can come
forward to give your comments. One of the things we\'d like you to do,
as with any good style of communications, means you kind of need to
identify who you are. So we\'d like you to give your first name and
where out here in Wyoming you\'re coming from, your city -- probably
they\'re going to recognize the state. And of course also explain your
involvement in agriculture, because that\'s important. That gives the
influence about the perspective you\'re coming to in these comments. So
it\'s very important to give what your perspective is or your
involvement in agriculture and connection to the Farm Bill. And also
maybe, if you have a mind to mention what question you\'re talking about
and what question you will be doing in that.

So, again, the two microphones. And I think we\'re just about ready to
get started. We\'re going to have a break later on, and we\'ll kind of
get things going. But let\'s go ahead. And at this point in time, I
believe that we will go ahead and open the floor for the first comment
that anybody would like to give. And you can just come forward to one of
the microphones. Nobody wants to be first. Oh, there we go.

MR. RANDY STEVENSON: We thank all of you for being here. I\'m Randy
Stevenson. I\'m a cattle feeder from Wheatland, and I would like to
address I believe it was question 2, on U.S. competition,
competitiveness. And I was encouraged that you tied both foreign and
domestic competition together, because that is what I would like to see,
is that we have a competition title in the Farm Bill. Many of us\--
there\'s some that compete nationally or globally\--but most of us sell
locally, and we sell to corporations that compete globally. And if there
isn\'t competition amongst those corporations, domestically we suffer.
The producer suffers. And that is what I really encourage, a competition
title in the Farm Bill. Thank you.

MODERATOR: All right, thanks, Randy.

We\'ll take our next comment.

MR. SCOTT ZIMMERMAN: I\'m Scott Zimmerman, and I\'m representing Rocky
Mountain Farmer\'s Union this morning. First of all, I would like to
thank you, Mr. Under Secretary, for being here today in Douglas and
accommodating Wyoming\'s agricultural producers. Our organization has a
long history of supporting family farmers and ranchers, as well as rural
communities. We feel it is imperative that the next version of the Farm
Bill recognize the relationship of producers to rural communities and
vice versa. For too long federal farm programs have shifted payments
towards larger, and in many cases, producers both individuals and
corporations who don\'t reside in these rural communities, and away from
the family-sized producer who resides and shops locally.

Throughout our great nation\'s history, these rural communities have
been the backbone of our country. Today, many Reservists serving in Iraq
call these communities home. We must refocus the next Farm Bill --
whether it\'s the commodity, conservation or rural development
title\--back to family farmers and ranchers and the rural communities
they sustain. These rural communities have long provided the training
ground for tomorrow\'s agricultural leaders. Federal farm programs have
provided the safety net to cushion the hard times inevitable in
agriculture. We must continue to provide that net -- not shrink or
abandon it totally. We recognize the budget pressure the next Farm Bill
will face on Capitol Hill, and that\'s why it is imperative to target
these financial resources to family-sized operations in our small rural
communities. Thanks for the opportunity to comment today.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. JIM MAGAGNA: Jim Magagna with the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association.
Welcome back to Wyoming, Mark, good to see you again.

The cattle industry has not historically been a significant player in
the Farm Bills. We\'ve not been dependent on commodity programs. As the
current Farm Bill moved more into environmental type and conservation
programs, it\'s become far more important to our industry, and therefore
we anticipate playing a much larger role, and appreciate the opportunity
to help guide this bill.

A couple of general comments I would make. First, is it\'s important
that the Farm Bill, and particularly the conservation provisions, be
targeted to the ag industry. I know that there are a wide array of
constituencies out there who would like to see these programs work
directly to meet some of their needs. I think that their needs are
legitimate, but they will best be met by providing the funding to our
working farmers and ranchers to implement the conservation practices
that lead to a healthy environment that meets the broader societal
needs.

The second general point I would make is the need for increased
flexibility in the various Farm Bill programs. We\'ve seen much more of
that in the current Farm Bill. I think we have not yet reached the level
where they provide the -- particularly the flexibility to your people in
agencies such as NRCS working at the state and local level\--to adapt to
meet the local needs.

With that, looking briefly at a couple of the key issues or questions
that you\'ve identified, as far as competitiveness in global markets:
One of my members summed it up very well, I believe, with the statement:
\"Don\'t ship U.S. agriculture overseas.\" In other words, give us the
tools we need to remain competitive. One of the primary tools is to
reduce the regulatory burden that we all face in production agriculture
today. Another one is to ensure that not only that we have trade
agreements, but that those agreements are vigorously and consistently
enforced as against the other nations that are trading partners.

And finally, an area that I believe that USDA has certainly let our
industry down, and can be an important tool in making us competitive,
and that would be we\'re asking that USDA get firmly on board with
implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling. That\'s
essential if we\'re going to be competitors, that we be able to identify
our product.

Mr. Under Secretary, you mentioned research -- that, too, is critical.
And here in Wyoming we depend very heavily on our University of Wyoming
research and the formula funds that they receive from the Farm Bill. And
we would ask that those be strengthened and continued.

In terms of the conservation programs, I believe the flexibility that I
talk about is important. The incentive part is important. We have
producers who are still reluctant to use these programs because of the
federal nexus and the mandates with regard to endangered species,
cultural resources, et cetera, that they might impose. We need to have
some of those burdens removed.

Last point, with regard to our rural communities, let\'s not forget the
social aspect of this: rural health care, affordability and availability
is one of the most serious issues facing our producers.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Jim.

MR. JIM MAGAGNA: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Jim.

Just a reminder here, that as you see him, sometimes it\'s kind of hard
to talk to somebody that\'s not looking at you, but trust me he\'s
taking notes up here, so just continue to carry on your conversation.

We\'ll take our next comment.

MR. BOB KIDD: I\'m Bob Kidd from Casper, and I ranch a little bit and am
involved in other businesses so I can afford to ranch. And Jim
Magagna\'s comments about formula funds is a great segue for what I have
on my mind.

I would say that the reason we are here and comfortably clothed and air
conditioned and well fed is because of our land-grant colleges of
agriculture. And I would offer that Abraham Lincoln didn\'t make a
mistake when he signed the Morrill Act in 1862. The colleges of
agriculture have evolved into what they have evolved into very carefully
over a long period of time, and it\'s given us our standard of living
and competitive edge in the world.

Housed in USDA is CRSEES, the Cooperative State Research Economics --
how many E\'s are there? -- Education and Extension Service. And they
have the budget that funds the land-grant colleges of agriculture. It
seems to me that last February, when the president\'s budget was made
public, some of the base funds that Jim Magagna spoke to -- for example
Hatch and McIntyre-Stennis -- were zeroed in the president\'s budget. I
would like to allow that the president probably doesn\'t know a lot
about Hatch and McIntyre-Stennis, so it wasn\'t something that he
specifically requested. It was just overlooked, as these base funds are
being transferred into competitive grants.

We, the small states specifically, are going to have a very difficult
time obtaining competitive grants working against the larger states that
have colleges of agriculture with greater research capacity than we
perhaps do. So the base funds are critical to us. It seems like CRSEES
is being relegated to a less important position. We can\'t -- I\'m sure
Senator Thomas recalls hearing about this. He was very supportive, as
well as our other members of Congress -- but it\'s something that we
really need to be sensitive to, because it would probably -- just the
loss of Hatch and McIntyre-Stennis -- reduce our college of agriculture
budget here in the State of Wyoming by about one fourth. And so I would
say that all six of these questions are addressed in a stronger college
of agriculture.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

All right, we\'ll continue to take comments.

MR. RICHARD CROSS: My name is Richard Cross. I\'m a local rancher in
Converse County. I\'d like to address number one and number two.

In this county we have a real problem now with the value of land,
because wealthy people from out of state are coming in and buying it up
and making it almost impossible for a young person to purchase land, or
for a legitimate rancher to expand his operation. I would like to see a
lot of these wealthy people coming in from out of state\-- and they take
up fake residency in Wyoming, and therefore they don\'t pay income tax
from the state they come from\--I would like to see more stringent
regulations put on their residency. And also, as you know, Wyoming
doesn\'t have income tax, so they don\'t pay income tax here when they
say they\'re a resident of the state. I don\'t think that\'s fair. I
think if they don\'t reside in Wyoming, and if they only fly in
occasionally in their jet and look at their land, and they\'re not
actively involved in the management, their land should be taxed at
residential and not agriculture rates. I think this would discourage a
lot of these people coming in from out of state and buying up land and
paying outrageous prices for it and making it difficult for the
legitimate person to get into it.

On the second one I think I want to commend our senator for staying fast
and voting against CAFTA. I think that\'s a real detriment to
agriculture and the beef business. It\'s ironic we\'re around the world
fighting for democracy, yet when a poll was taken in this country 98
percent of the people polled on CAFTA were against it. Yet our
Department of Agriculture supported it, pushed it through Congress. Now
that it is a law, I think that we deserve at least the respect and
dignity to have our beef labeled where it comes from. I think it\'s very
important that COOL be implemented in the new Farm Bill.

Recently I was in Nicaragua and saw how they slaughter beef down there.
It\'s disgraceful. And to think that that beef is going to come into
this country and we won\'t even know as an American consumer that it
isn\'t American beef. I would sure like to see COOL incorporated into
the Farm Bill. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Richard. Go ahead, Bobbie. And, Juan, you can wait
there and we\'re ready to go.

MS. BOBBIE FRANK: Thank you. Thank you for coming to Douglas. I\'m
Bobbie Frank. I\'m with the Wyoming Association of Conservation
Districts. I\'m going to speak specifically to question number four, in
terms of achieving how best to achieve environmental policy and goals.
First, we\'d like you to explore the option of consolidation of some of
the Farm Bill programs. Still allow them to meet the different resource
needs and goals for which they were established -- such as EQIP, WIP,
but for efficiency sake at the field level, I think there\'s legitimacy
into looking at streamlining those programs and consolidating them.

Nancy, I hate having my picture taken.

Second is we believe that looking at that option would allow for more
time for field people to actually be in the field working with the
producer.

There are certain programs that we believe need more local conservation
district input and involvement in, such as grassland reserve, farmland
protections, so that there is a local review and local priority view of
those programs.

Third, I spend a considerable amount of time talking to our local
conservation district that was the first CSP sign-up in the state. They
believe that the program was successful. It was extremely
time-consuming. One bit of input was to ensure that we have adequate
staff to deal with the sign-up period and the workload involved in that,
considerable amount of paperwork -- we understand why -- to ensure that
the program is defensible, accountable. The average I was given was
approximately 12 hours per producer to get through that sign-up.

However, on CSP one of the challenges we\'re facing in Wyoming is due to
the need to have a soil survey to qualify for CSP. Forty percent of the
state is still not mapped in Wyoming. Thanks to our Congressional
delegation and financial commitments from out county commissions across
the state and our districts, we\'ve been able to accelerate that, and we
would like to see that continue. Half of the state wouldn\'t even be
able to participate as a watershed in the CSP until that is completed.

Eliminating the program payment limitation, the annual limitation
that\'s placed on some of the programs; where if a producer wants to
actually do the work in the first three years of a 10-year contract, let
him do that, and just keep a contract limit without the annual
limitation.

In the last Farm Bill, EQIP placed a priority on the livestock producers
to help them meet the regulatory needs, and issues that we were facing
from EPA through the animal feeding operation and concentrated animal
feeding operation. We believe that\'s an important priority still. We
don\'t believe that work is completely done.

And to address the issue of cooperative conservation, we need to make
sure that there\'s not a misunderstanding of duplication between EPA
programs and USDA programs. And with that, thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Bobbie.

Come on forward.

MR. JUAN REYES: My name is Juan Reyes, Southeastern Wyoming
farmer\\rancher. And what I would like to comment on is maybe none of
the rules and maybe all of them that you\'ve gotten written down, to
comment. And what I would like to see is more vigilance in protecting
our private property rights. Without them we wouldn\'t be competitive;
we wouldn\'t be what we are. We would just be another country. So please
look into the erosion of our private property rights. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Juan. You forgot to stay for your photo op there.

All right, we\'ll go over here.

MS. MARY RANDOLPH: Good morning, Mr. Secretary, and a warm welcome to
the rural state of Wyoming. My name is Mary Randolph, and I\'m executive
director for the Wyoming Rural Development Council. In addition, I\'m
chairman of the executive board of the National Rural Development
Partnership. I\'m going to focus on question number five.

In 1972, the Rural Development Act gave the Secretary of Agriculture the
responsibility for coordinating federal rural development programs. In
1990, the Presidential Initiative on Rural America created the National
Rural Development Partnership and state rural development councils. In
the Farm Security Act of 2002, the National Rural Development
Partnership was authorized, giving state rural development councils and
the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee unique and
unprecedented authorities. The Farm Bill\'s conference report set high
expectations for the partnership. \"We expect the NRDP,\" Congress said,
\"to make significant progress toward the goal of better coordinating
the rural public policies and programs of federal agencies, and
developing greater collaboration between the federal government, the
states and others with resources to invest in rural areas.\" The
challenge we have -- rural America faces many challenges -- challenges
resulting from economic, demographic and social elements such as low
population density, out migration, poverty, and lack of community
capacity and advocacy. The rural population, both older and less
educated than its urban counterparts, is deeply impacted by changes in
agriculture and the loss of industry and manufacturing. Additionally,
rural communities are distance- and geographically-separated, rendering
uncoordinated programs and services ineffective. Policymakers must
understand the elements that make rural America unique before they
address their needs.

Constrained resources. Rural America must have adequate financial and
human resources to address the challenges faced by its communities and
residents. But more money in the same old one-size-fits-all
uncoordinated program is not the answer. The answer is the National
Rural Development Partnership, a national rural development organization
made up of state rural development councils and the National Rural
Development Coordinating Committee as already recognized in the 2002
Farm Bill as an organization with strong linkages at both the
governmental policy level and with rural communities and residents.
Enacting the NRDP provisions, Congress did not intend to create a new
delivery system, but to empower a state-federal network to help public
officials and local rural leaders as they address local needs.

The National Rural Development Partnership is the natural vehicle
through which challenges may be addressed. The state rural development
councils, by working with the NRDCC, will provide an important and
unique means through which the federal government can constructively
interact with other public entities and the private sector to
efficiently and cost-effectively serve rural America.

What we are asking of USDA for the 2007 Farm Bill is to continue to
reform and improve the delivery and structure of rural development
programs to better serve the well-being of rural communities;
reauthorize the National Rural Development Partnership language; and for
USDA to support funding for the National Rural Development Partnership
through an appropriation. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Mary.

MR. KEN : (In progress) -- Conservation Reserve Program, the
Conservation Security Program. The Conservation Reserve Program,
particularly in the large blocks, has found difficulty in finding its
end use. We\'re going to be 20 years on some of these acres pretty soon,
and we haven\'t totally come to an end-use idea on them. Putting them
together would lead to a longer-term management plan that doesn\'t just
dump them back in production and give away all the conservation benefits
we\'ve spent the money to build up. But you could find some end use for
those as a part of a managed CSP. However, that does require CSP has
better funding and a lot more emphasis. You can wait watershed by
watershed. If you\'re going to put those together, you\'re going to
either have to speed up that process dramatically, or create a separate
tier in the CSP for the current contracts so that they would stay alive
and work their way into that transition. So there are a couple of ways
to do that. But my first choice would be that you put more emphasis and
more money into the CSP to get there quicker for everybody. But the
second choice would be -- or maybe required anyway a separate tier
initially to proceed down that line.

In addition to that, that kind of also points to where the money flows.
One of my problems with current CRP large contracts is that the money
tends to flow -- you see the Wall Street investor walk in and buy land
that he\'s never seen, wants a CRP check, because the whole block is in
the CRP, and he needs a map at the county office to go find his property
when he\'s in to sign it up. I have a problem with that, folks. I have a
real problem with that. I like to see the money flow to managing
operators. And landlords are always going to benefit by good operators,
good conservation, good management. But we need to try to resolve it so
that the money flows through the operators to achieve our goals doing
that. So, with that, thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ken.

MS. PAT HORTON: Hi, I'm Pat Horton, and we own and operate a small
family farm outside of Riverton. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today. I would have been home picking up bales, if I hadn\'t come down
to chaperone kids. So I\'m glad of the opportunity to do this.

I work outside the home, and the main reason I work outside the home is
to provide health insurance for our family. And I think that\'s a
critical issue for farm families. I\'ve got three sons I would like to
see in the agriculture field. It takes -- you know, to insure my family
it\'s \$1,200 a month. And I know that\'s not -- that is just the tip of
the iceberg for many. And you know where I work, for a school district,
I can get on a group plan or family plan, and I still have a chunk of my
check go towards that. But that\'s -- most of us have to supplement that
family farm somehow to be able to survive.

The other issue I\'d like to bring up: Our legislature addressed the
split-estate issue this year. We\'re in an area where we run the surface
rights, but we do not own the minerals. I don\'t know if the farm plan
is the place to do this, but I know that the regulations are real loose
with how many wells can be drilled within a certain amount of acreage.
And I would really like to see that addressed somehow. We have taken
advantage of the conservation things to do many improvements on our
farm, but we find ourselves farming around wells. And so I would just
like to see the fact that there are some things that -- trying to drill
on existing well sites instead of -- because it\'s pretty liberal right
now where they can drill and how close, because we don\'t have those
mineral rights. Thank you for this opportunity.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Pat.

Again, I\'ll have the young lady go first, and then \--

MISS JESSIE BERRY: Hi, I\'m Jessie Berry. I\'m from Wyoming. I live on a
registered Hereford ranch about three miles northeast out of Cheyenne,
and right now I guess my big play in agriculture is not only living and
working on that ranch, but I\'m also the president of the Wyoming FFA
organization here today.

And when I came to this, I saw it more as maybe a question process more
than just comments, so I\'m just going to leave you guys with some
questions, and hopefully some answers will come out in the Farm Bill.

Now, first of all, I\'d like to address number one, and how you talked
about new farmers and the next generation and how you want to see this
come into play. I see a huge problem with urban sprawl, and I want to
know if the private property rights encompass the urban sprawl. Where is
the land going to come from for these new farmers to get involved with?
This farming I know is a lot of work, watching my dad work, watching
former generations work. I don\'t see the same work ethic in this next
generation coming up, and I\'m wondering how you are encouraging and
motivating people to stay in agriculture, especially where, as the last
lady just spoke, my mom also works at a school that has the insurance
and that\'s a sure thing, because the agricultural industry just does
not provide that right now for our local ranchers.

Next I had a question for number two, with competition domestically and
needing country-of-origin labeling, and having that mandatory. I want to
know how we\'re going to go ahead and implement it to be mandatory. But
also, following up into question number three, the cause of that for the
farmers and the ranchers, because I know as they\'re struggling right
now to deal with the drought and other issues that are going on, I do
not see how cost effectively this is going to work, especially if it is
mandatory. I would like to see it mandatory, but I do not know how you
are going to provide the funding for that to happen.

And then finally to wrap up with number five, how can federal and rural
farm programs provide effective assistance in rural areas? -- that\'s
just reemphasizing another question -- that I didn\'t know exactly what
was in place right now and how we\'re going to better that for the next
Farm Bill. So just to know where that land is going to be, how we\'re
going to stay competitive domestically, where we don\'t have a lot of
land right now, and how we\'re fighting with that for farm policies.

So I thank you for your time today and hopefully those questions will
somehow come out in the next Farm Bill. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Jessie. I think that\'s a pretty good example, I
think, of the younger generation that has \--

\[Applause.\]

You bet. Even myself, you know, a few years older than she is, but
several years younger than many of you probably -- there is a question
-- that\'s probably the best way to describe what the younger generation
is thinking about the Farm Bill, and just the questions of how do we get
back into production agriculture.

So, Ken, go ahead.

MR. KEN HAMILTON: Thank you, Justin. My name is Ken Hamilton. I work for
the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation. I\'d like to welcome you all here
today, and thank you for coming to a central location. I live in
Laramie, and I appreciate not having to drive seven hours to get to
this.

The American Farm Bureau Federation has policy on farm programs, and
we\'ll be deferring to a lot of their policies. The Wyoming Farm Bureau
Federation members have had a long-standing policy asking that farm
programs be ratcheted down. We feel that this is an important thing. And
I think perhaps it\'s related to the make-up of the agricultural
community in Wyoming. I think it was mentioned earlier that several
agricultural operators don\'t have a stake in the farm programs and
don\'t see them as something that plays a large role in their operation.
You asked for several questions, and I\'ll talk to a couple of them.

The unintended consequences. There\'s been several economic studies done
nationwide that indicate farm programs do drive up the cost of
agricultural land. Capital requirements have been identified in several
surveys of young agricultural producers as impediments for them getting
into the agricultural operation. One study that I\'m familiar with
indicated that 14 percent is roughly what happened with the 1996 Farm
Bill for inflating land values.

Having said that, though, I would say that Wyoming is not typical, and
this impact doesn\'t really relate to Wyoming. Several studies done by
the University of Wyoming indicate that other external factors drive the
ag values in Wyoming -- scenery is one of the big ones. And I think that
some of those folks have addressed those today. I\'m not sure a farm
program or a farm bill has any way to address those.

One of the other unintended consequences one of our members was talking
about an LDP payment that they received on malt barley, roughly 25 cents
a bushel. The next year the contract for the malt barley came in 50
cents a hundred weight less, or roughly 25 cents a bushel less than what
it was the previous year. The implication obviously is that once the
USDA steps in then some other entities -- corporations -- will take
advantage of that. The money going into that farmers pocket was zero,
even though they did receive some money from USDA, they also got their
name put up on the Environmental Working Group\'s Website.

Some of the impacts in Wyoming that do affect our producers and I think
need to be addressed are drought and fuel costs. Drought -- we\'ve got a
hydrologic drought and a agricultural drought. We need to address
irrigated agriculture in the farm program. Many of our members I think
have complained -- Lois VanMARK, our state head, and so I won\'t bore
you with the details there.

The last thing I want to touch on though is I think one of the things
USDA can do and needs to be aware of is the impact of other laws. Right
now we\'re looking at ammonium nitrate being pulled off the market
because of homeland security. USDA needs to step up to the plate outside
of the Farm Bill. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ken.

MR. OLIN SIMS: Justin, my time starts now. All right, good morning, Mr.
Under Secretary Rey, Senator Thomas, Director Etchepare. My name is Olin
Sims. I\'m an ag producer here in Wyoming, a rural supervisor on my
local conservation district, but speaking today as the second vice
president of the National Association of Conservation Districts. I\'m
here representing the nation\'s 3,000 conservation districts, and over
17,000 elected and appointed officials that are in place charged with
protecting the nation\'s soil and water resources at the local level.
I\'d like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of the
conservation title in the \'02 Farm Bill, and also the importance in the
\'06 Farm Bill.

The ag industry, working collectively with their local districts, and
the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, has done an outstanding
job of enhancing our soil and water resources, utilizing the
conservation programs available in the current Farm Bill, and we need to
see that these are maintained in the next Farm Bill.

It\'s critical that we provide our ag producers with adequate
conservation technical assistance through the NRCS to help produce an
ample food supply, while protecting and enhancing our soil, water and
air resources in this nation. Many producers utilize this assistance
from the NRCS without requiring financial assistance to make
conservation-minded decisions when working their lands. This type of
assistance is critical. It seems that the conservation technical
assistance is often overlooked. But, please, let me assure you it\'s an
extremely vital component to a viable conservation delivery program.

Our job is twofold. The first is we must see that adequate technical
assistance funding is available for NRCS for Farm Bill conservation
program work; but just as important is adequate assistance for non-Farm
Bill program work. The ability for a producer to be able to call the
local field office to ask for technical assistance outside of a program
is critical in our mission to being stewards of this land.

The current Farm Bill programs have helped ag producers develop
thousands of acres of wetland, protect millions of acres of highly
erodible lands, irrigation efficiency projects in times of drought here
in the West, has helped producers develop sustainable grazing systems --
and all these programs have worked well to conserve our natural
resources, and have been fully embraced by our ag producers.

The Farm Bill conservation programs currently available, such as the
EQIP program, has helped producers bring their operations into
compliance with federal rules such as the AFO/CAFO rule to meet the
demands of the federal Clean Water Act. This technical and financial
assistance helps both the stability of the ag industry, and also is an
investment into the enhancement of our natural resources for the future.
These programs are sound for the environment and for our local
economies.

Mr. Under Secretary, the National Association of Conservation Districts
has formed a Farm Bill task force. We\'re working with our member states
across the nation -- such as Wyoming right here -- in developing an
outline blueprint for the next Farm Bill, and we stand ready to work
with you and Senator Thomas, with the members of Congress, in drafting
this next Farm Bill.

Lastly -- and I see the red light is on, Justin, but one last comment.
Mr. Rey, I want to commend you and your staff, your leadership team,
Chief Bruce Knight, for being such good partners working with the
conservation districts across the nation and the ag producers. Justin,
it\'s all yours, bud.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Olin.

All right, we\'ll take more comments.

MR. TED TOOMBS: My name is Ted Toombs, and I\'m an ecologist with
Environmental Defense, the Rocky Mountain Office. And I work with land
owners and other conservation organizations here in Wyoming. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment today, and I\'m going to address question
number four.

The 2007 Farm Bill could do much more to help agricultural producers and
the environment. Shifting the focus of the Farm Bill toward conservation
would help a greater number of producers by rewarding stewardship,
helping operations remain profitable, and enhancing the communities they
live in. Last year, only 12 percent of the Farm Bill funds were used for
conservation in Wyoming. Most of the land in Wyoming is rangeland.
Healthy rangelands provide clean, plentiful water, maintain healthy
soils, purify the air, protect open space, and provide abundant wildlife
habitat. The citizens of Wyoming and the nation benefit greatly from
these services, but many producers are economically vulnerable and
cannot bear the entire expense of conservation.

Livestock producers are not eligible for commodity subsidies, but they
are eligible for conservation funds. Currently these funds are not
enough to meet demand and, as a result, many producers who want to take
steps to help the environment have gone without support. At the end of
fiscal year 2004 in Wyoming, almost \$25 million of applications were
left unfunded. A Farm Bill that invests money in conservation will help
Wyoming producers meet the state\'s most pressing environmental
challenges. For example, more funding for EQIP could reduce the backlog
of applications and help farmers and ranchers improve the health of
rangelands, mitigate for the impacts of drought, fight the invasion of
noxious weeds, and restore wildlife habitat. A significant increase in
support for grassland reserve and farmland ranch protection programs is
needed to allow farm and ranch families to keep Wyoming\'s most
important lands in agriculture so that they are not developed.

And, finally, boosting funds for the Conservation Security Program would
further reward the ongoing stewardship of agriculture producers of all
types. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ted.

MR. JOE WARWICK (sp): Mr. Under Secretary, my name is Joe Warwick. And
before I spent 40 years in agriculture hoping for a profit, I was as
tall as the last guy that spoke. But it\'s wearing me down. (Laughter.)
I appreciate your time here, and the opportunity to have input. I have
three points that I want to speak to: concentration, which has been so
ably addressed by Mr. Stevenson already; energy, which hasn\'t been
addressed; and then the side that\'s always been a big part, and that\'s
administration, which has in some parts been addressed. My comments will
be brief in that concentration I believe is inevitable, and I am a free
market entrepreneur. But I believe the government\'s role shall
continue, and should continue to make sure that the concentration
happens with the greatest amount of integrity possible and the greatest
benefit to our nation in the competitive area that we heard about
earlier.

On the energy side, I would refer you to comments given by Dr. Dwayne
Acker at the Iowa Hearing Sessions, and the 25-by-25 Agriculture
Alliance on Energy. Wyoming stands to gain a great deal from energy
sources other than coal and oil. We know that our cattle will do very
well in the shade of oil wells. It may be well that they do -- it maybe
is true that they do as well in the shade of windmills. And I hope that
the energy title in the Farm Bill can understand and respect the
potential for diversification from crops and meat to energy as a source
of income for family farmers.

My grandfather homesteaded, one of the last, in 1907, in southeast
Wyoming. My grandsons would like to be in agriculture if in fact my
eternal optimism doesn\'t turn to pessimism.

The administration side. I would hope that we clearly understand that
the best Farm Bill written is only as good as the administration and the
staffing of the offices that serve the producers is critical, that it\'s
at the appropriate level with the appropriate technology. And as we
transition from the programs of the \'30s to the programs of 2050, that
we make sure that the technology and the training is appropriate, and
that the staffing levels are not reduced inappropriately prior to the
transitions. Thank you very much for your time.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Joe.

MR. TIM PAXTON (sp): Good morning. Welcome to Douglas. I\'m Tim Paxton,
third generation rancher from south of Douglas -- that way. I\'m at the
northern edge of the Medicine Bow National Forest. My ranch includes
about 2,000 acres of forested land. Today I\'d like to address some
forestry issues as they relate to the Farm Bill. It\'s probably
something you haven\'t heard a lot about in any of these forums.

As you know, the old SIP and FIP programs were phased out in the late
\'80s. They were both specific to management assistance to private
forested lands. In 1992, SIP and FIP were replaced by FLEP, a very good
program, which was again designed to assist private landowners manage
their forests. The problem is the Forest Service has been borrowing from
the FLEP account to cover fire suppressant costs over the last several
years. In fact, cost-share funds that were available under SIP and FIP
have been reduced by as much as 80 percent today in Wyoming under the
FLEP program.

Now, with this reduction in funding, we have been encouraged to utilize
other Farm Bill programs, such as the EQIP program. Although it does
allow for the funding of forestry related practices, it is seldom
utilized for that, due to limited funds and the prioritization of other,
mostly water-quality related practices. Now, water quality is of high
concern to us, as it should be; forested lands provide water for many
Wyoming communities and are the headwaters for many of the major rivers
in the U.S. As such, these forests, both private and federal, serve as
the initial resource to protect water quality. So it would seem to make
sense that we raise the priority of funding for the management of these
forests.

A lack of management has contributed to the forest health concerns in
Wyoming, such as the mountain pine beetle, the Douglas fir, the white
pine blister rust. Timber stand improvement practices can serve to
address these issues. However, these practices are very expensive and
require long periods of time before a return on investment is realized,
if ever.

To that end, the search for and the development of alternative markets
for the biomass that is produced by forest management practices at least
needs to continue, and ideally could be expanded.

I\'m impressed with the stewardship contracts that the Forest Service
and BLM have begun to use, and I think that program would be beneficial
to private landowners as well. Perhaps tax credits and other incentives
could be used to help with all these issues.

As is the case with the rest of the nation, we are facing changing
landowner demographics and forest fragmentation issues. Landowner
education is extremely important, and is a key factor in increasing
forest management practices that meet the public\'s demand of our
forest. To that end, extension programs should be strengthened to
provide direct technical assistance.

I believe we need the Farm Bill to endorse the idea that private
forested landowners can provide clean water, carbon sequestration,
wildlife habitat and other ecosystem services if their forests are
managed accordingly. Perhaps the Forest Service could study this
concept, educate others, and incorporate it in their plans for private
forested lands.

In closing, I believe there is a need for stable and adequate funding to
assist non-industrial private forested landowners with their management
practices that will be beneficial to society as a whole, while
addressing concerns related to the potential for catastrophic wildland
fire and insect and disease occurrence in the nation\'s forests. Thank
you.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you, Tim. Thank you for those comments -- a
different perspective that\'s very applicable to here in Wyoming.
Appreciate that.

At this point in time we want to take about a 10-minute break -- kind of
stretch your legs a little bit. The restrooms are out, as you kind of
came in there, and you can go use the restrooms. There\'s some booths
set up outside there as well, and we\'ll be back in 10 minutes. Thank
you.

(Break.)

MODERATOR: Joining us here now is our senator\'s lovely wife, Susan
Thomas. We do thank you for joining us. \[Applause.\]

As everybody kind of finds their seats, Director of Agriculture John
Etchepare wants to make a few quick comments here regarding some of
these comments here today.

MR. JOHN ETCHEPARE: There were a number of you that I talked to during
this break. I can assure you the secretary and his staff will be able to
figure out which one of those six categories the question you have may
fit in. I know there are some of you sitting there not wanting to come
up because you\'re not sure it will fit. Please, come up, ask the
question, what\'s bothering you, the issue you have. I can assure you
they\'ll find out where to put it.

There\'s also a number of you who have come to me to ask me to ask
things of the secretary -- don\'t go through me -- this is your chance
to go direct to the source, so, please, use this opportunity. Thank you.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you. And, again, does everybody have those
six questions? If you don\'t, raise your hand, they\'ll get some to you.
And, again, we\'re going to go ahead and get started again. So there
were some people, some folks -- Brittany, you have some comments? -- so
go ahead and come forward to the microphone and we\'ll go ahead and get
started again.

MISS BRITTANY WESTLAKE: Well, thank you very much for this opportunity.
My name is Brittany Westlake. I grew up in Kemmerer, Wyoming, where we
are active in the cattle industry, and we also own a meat-processing
plant. But I also have, as well as Jessie, have a different view on the
agricultural industry, as I am taking on a new endeavor: I was just
selected as a state candidate to run for a national FFA office. So
national ag issues to me are very, very, very important right now.

And so as a young agriculturist, there are a few issues on our radar
screen that I feel are not being discussed here, and that concerns me in
a sense. Some of the topics that are being discussed are relevant and
direct, and affect several of us directly. But I\'m also noticing that
some of these topics have been some of our FFA extemporaneous speaking
topics for the last four years. And I think while some of these issues
are still relevant and still important, I think that there are other
issues that are coming onto the radar screen. That concerns me that we
are not discussing those types of issues either.

Some of those include -- I am glad to see that we are talking about
global trade policy. That is something that our generation is very, very
concerned about. The face of agriculture is changing drastically. Yes,
we are losing family farms. Yes, urban sprawl is an issue. But we also
have things like biotechnology, nanotechnology and agriscience is a huge
part of our generation. And I would really like to see something like
that incorporated into the Farm Bill. I hope that when we are working on
legislation like this we are preparing for the long run and not just the
short run. I think the Farm Bill is very important for us to take into
consideration the long run, and not just solve the problems that are
right directly affecting us now. I would just really encourage us to try
and have a positive and encouraging and welcoming attitude for young
agriculturists. And I was actually just speaking with some of the other
folks here this morning, and one of them said, \"I think it\'s very
important that we have an encouraging and positive outlook for young
agriculturists and invite them into our industry.\" And we have lots of
-- several ag -- where we go out into the industry and we tell them ag
issues that are affecting us as producers and consumers, but lots of
times those have a negative effect. And I would like us to focus more on
a positive note of agriculture and all the great things that we do as an
industry, and also some of those ag issues that are, as a young
agriculturist, are on our radar screen. I thank you for this
opportunity, and thank you for being here.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Brittany.

All right. Right here.

MR. ED WERNER: Good morning. Welcome to Douglas. My name is Ed Werner. I
work for CANDO, local economic development organization here in Converse
County. And we have worked with the USDA now for a year or two in
helping promote some of the Farm Bill programs, in particular the energy
efficiency and renewable energy portions. And I just want to go on
record in support of those programs and in fact, like everyone, would
like to see greater expansion and support for those.

Wyoming in some ways is just now catching onto the benefits of renewable
energy, especially on the farm or ranch. And with ever-increasing fuel
costs and energy costs, it\'s going to become much more important, and I
think it\'s a great opportunity to help some of those producers out in
the country to lower some of their bills and to see the light, as well
as the obvious situation: becoming a revenue stream as the bigger
projects become more viable in the State of Wyoming, and we get the
transmission here in place and stuff like that.

I do have one concern in that as we\'ve held some workshops on the Farm
Bill is that there seems to be quite a lag time between the rulemaking,
which ultimately allows for the funding, and the deadline required to
get those grant applications in. This last year I think it was down to
like around two or three months, and for many people that\'s quite a
process to go through that grant writing. And as much assistance as we
can to offer them, it still takes time out of their busy schedule, and
especially in the springtime, which is a very hectic time for producers,
it became very difficult, and we\'ve seen that in the results in Wyoming
in the lower number of applicants and successful grants that have been
released here in the state as compared to other areas in other states.
So I encourage in some way if possible to give more time for those grant
applications to get in, or more appropriately to extend the period of
time, so we\'re not doing a year-by-year, wait for the rulemaking to see
what the grant requirements are going to be. If we could extend that so
that the same rules could extend for more than just that short period of
time in some way, I think it would be of great assistance. And, again, I
just want to offer a real sound round of support for that program. Thank
you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ed. You bet, with CANDO, one of the experts in
what is in the Farm Bill now in energy development and renewable energy,
and they\'re very good at that. Thanks, Ed.

Any other comments?

MR. SCOTT GEORGE: I\'m Scott George from Cody, Wyoming. I\'m a farmer, a
dairy farmer, and a beef producer. I\'m going to talk about a dirty
word. It\'s called entitlements or subsidies. I\'ve served on the Farm
Service Agency Committee in our area, and we\'ve had some -- an issue
has come up that I want to bring to your attention. Back in 1985, the
Farm Bill required that all farmers that wanted to participate in
government programs, direct loan payments or direct payments to the
farmers, had to sign up their acreage and yields. That program has been
carried forward now for 20 years already. A lot of farmers in those days
didn\'t sign up. And because they didn\'t, then in order to have any
payment go towards those lands, the farmer had to take a non-irrigated
yield base for his yield in the calculation. This is kind of difficult
to explain, but they take the yield base times the payment times the
number of acres.

In Wyoming, all of our land, or most of our land, the majority of it, is
irrigated, and in many parts of this country the land has to be
irrigated, or there is no yield. So in our county, yields for corn is
zero -- and you put zero in a multiplication equation, and you get zero
payment on a direct payment. Our yields for barley or corn or small
grains were set like 7 a bushel or 8 a bushel -- miniscule payments --
but we were required under that Farm Bill in 1985 to require to take
that non-irrigated yield, and it\'s not fair to these farmers. Now we
have young farmers coming in and taking over some of these lands, and lo
and behold, their land was not enrolled and they\'re stuck with this
yield, because they\'re not given an opportunity to change it. And that
needs to be -- there\'s an inequity there that needs to be addressed. I
have a paper about it that I\'ll give to your staff that you can look
at.

I want to talk to you too about dairy. Our government seems to be just
overwhelmed with free trade agreements, and they love them, and I
understand you know you mentioned that 27 percent of our income comes
from export markets. And I understand the need for trade, but we need to
have fair trade. Now, I\'m only going to address the dairy issue,
because that\'s what I\'m mainly dealing with -- there are a lot of
others that are dealing with the beef and the lamb and the wool and
things. I want to talk about the North American Free Trade Agreement
with Canada. Canada, in their dairy industry, has a set production
level. Each dairy farmer can produce so many gallons of milk, period.
Anything else, he has to dump, or he has to go away with. So he cannot
grow his herd. So what he does -- every year they will cull about 25
percent of their herd. They will have a 50 percent heifer calf crop, and
they\'re only going to use 25 of that or half of that calf crop. So
they\'ve been dumping those other half in the United States. And I
realize since 2003 that shut off, but that\'s going to open again. They
were dumping 6,- to 7,000 head of dairy cattle into our country every
year. And it led to a huge surplus in our dairy industry. And back in
2003 -- I see it, Justin -- I\'m hurrying -- in 2003 our prices just
plummeted. We saw \$8 milk -- prices lowest I had ever seen in 30 years
of dairy farming, and it\'s a great inequity. If we\'re going to have
free trade agreements, we need to have fair trade agreements. And
that\'s what I\'d like to say on that issue.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Scott. And, of course, he\'s a representative on
the Wyoming Beef Council, the dairy industry. And we want to thank the
Beef Council for postponing your meeting this afternoon so you could
join us here this morning -- Ann Wittmann and the board sitting over
there.

We\'ll take our next comment. Leo?

MR. LEO MCDONALD (sp): Well, thank you. I\'m Leo McDonald (sp). We ranch
and have a feedlot in Montana -- also have a ranch in Bowman County,
North Dakota, and an interest in a seedstock herd here in Wyoming. And
we didn\'t get it from inheritance -- my wife and I built it from
scratch.

I\'m glad to see that USDA is looking at trade and our global markets.
It\'s awful timely, especially since we went from, what, a \$29 billion
trade surplus in agriculture to I believe this year a trade deficit.
We\'re in the cattle business. Historically we\'ve had a trade surplus
on value and a trade deficit on volume. Now we have a trade deficit on
both value and volume. We\'ve seen our cow herd go from 110 million in
the \'80s to around 90 million today. And during the \'90s we lost about
10,- to 15,000 farmers and ranchers a year. Now, some of it, as this
gentleman explained, is due to concentration. Others of it is because we
have a failing trade policy. We have a contracting industry, both in cow
herd and producers.

So it\'s great to see you looking at this. Some of the things I\'d like
to see USDA address through the Farm Bill -- obviously -- and I met with
Dr. Butler here a couple of weeks ago out in D.C. -- is one of the
problems we have in the global market with beef is the tremendous
distortions of TRQs or tariffs. You know, the average tariff on beef
across the world is 85 percent. Here in the United States it\'s
basically zero, especially on our inbounds. How are you going to compete
with that? Basically we\'re locking our market open, free access, while
the other countries are shutting it out. It not only directs it to us,
but it also lowers -- those kind of high tariffs lower the demand for
beef in those countries. So we need to address that somehow, and the
sooner the better, because we\'re losing right now. And one of the
things we might look at as we look at all these distortions we have in
the global beef market through the Farm Bill is trying to find some
offsets: How do we offset these things to keep ranchers in business
until they\'re addressed globally? Maybe it\'s through capital gains
breaks, maybe it\'s through an exclusion just for ranchers for the death
tax -- you know, to keep the death tax in there. But something is going
to have to be done to level that playing field.

The other thing that\'s caused tremendous damage to us in the last two
years is the lack of harmonization on SPS issues. BSE has been a prime
example, and I know we visited with the senator about it. But we need to
harmonize these standards. This whole idea that we give access to gain
access, such as giving access to Canada and hope other countries will
follow, is not working in agriculture. That\'s why our trade deficit --
why we went to a trade deficit.

Those actions alone have cost the U.S. cattle rancher nearly \$3
billion, according to KSU, Kansas State University. That\'s a tremendous
loss for U.S. cattle producers. We also have the SDEs, the export
subsidies and numerous things. Right now we\'re trying to get special
rules through. So those are some of the things we\'d like to see
addressed. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Leo.

MS. HELEN JONES: Good morning. My name is Helen Jones, and I\'m the
chairwoman of the Wyoming Board of Agriculture, and I would like to
discuss with you today the livestock assistance program timeliness
payments. One of my responsibilities is to represent the constituents in
my districts. And Wyoming, as you well know, has had a sustained drought
for many years, and those people are hurting. They\'re calling me,
asking, \"Helen, where are our livestock assistance payments? We signed
up for them, we hear that the computer software is outdated, something
is wrong.\" My question to you is: What can you do to process those
payments timely? Those people need them immediately. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Helen.

MR. GENE HARDY: Good morning. I\'m Gene Hardy, lifetime rancher here in
Converse County -- raise cattle and sheep. I also serve on the Board of
Ag, and I also serve on the state PAC Board. That\'s Predator Animal
Control.

I\'d like to speak to you on a slightly different issue, but I think it
applies on three of your questions there, three, four and five, how you
can best help rural agriculture. It can be done by addressing predator
management. This is an issue that is totally out of control here within
the state, and it\'s only getting worse. I can tell you that over the
years sheep numbers in the State of Wyoming have gone down in the last
30 years from maybe somewhere around four million to less than a half a
million, basically because of predator predation, and also by some
regulation that\'s kept sheep off of some of the summer permits -- and
that\'s a different issue that I\'m not going to address.

But I know that there\'s been efforts in the past to take predator
management funding out of USDA. I hope that you will look carefully at
that, because without it we are in deep trouble. We already are, and we
need all the management we can get, all the help we can get. I can tell
you there\'s people right in this room today that have had severe losses
from the wolf. That\'s the big issue that\'s coming down on us, and we
have no way of knowing at this point in time what the management of that
animal is going to be, if and when it ever gets taken off of the federal
control.

So I urge you through the USDA don\'t cut any funding for wildlife
services. They\'re already struggling. They\'re getting more and more
calls for assistance than what they have either the personnel or the
funding to take care of today. So that\'s the issue that I think is
imperative at this time, and I\'d urge you to make every effort you can
to see that we can get more help in that respect. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Gene.

Any other comments?

MS. LOIS HERBST: Lois Herbst with Wyoming Stockgrowers Association. I\'m
president of the group. But right now, since Jim so eloquently stated
our positions, I would like to speak to you as a cow-calf producer. And
I represent the second generation only on a 100-year-old ranch. And I
think being responsible for this ranch has made me aware of the
knowledge that people have when you speak to ranchers who have been in
business for many, many years. Believe me, you\'re going to learn that
we know what is right for our industry. But before I get into that, I
want to thank you, Under Secretary Rey, for the support we get for
animal health issues. We need all the research and involvement by your
department that can be made to protect the health of all animals in our
industry.

Also, in the forest management planning process, I hope you will be very
careful that the grizzlies and wolves not be allowed to impact us any
further than they have. We are working on delisting these animals, but I
understand the forest management planning could have -- there could be
better arrangements for the grizzlies and wolves than what we\'re
wanting to see. If you would please watch that.

What you can do to help young people would also help old people. I thank
you for the assistance you have given us in the drought program.
Stockgrowers normally for years did not want government subsidies. We
didn\'t accept them. Many of the old-timers still do not take government
subsidies. And I consider the drought programs you have gave benefit to
us, I really appreciated them. I have learned to sign up for anything
that will put a dollar in my operation just about, including the
conservation EQIP programs. I really appreciate being able to develop
water. John\'s department told us several years ago, Get ready now for
the next drought. We\'re in one now, but the next one will occur. So
I\'m working to develop water.

But what really will help the young and old: watch the trade agreements.
I read the minimum risk rule, the process, followed it, and I think USDA
worked overtime opening the Canadian border, and not giving enough
consideration to the negative impact to producers. And they have the
statistics in the minimum rule.

Thank you for this opportunity.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Lois.

MS. BUTTONS JACKSON: Hi, I\'m Buttons Jackson, and I grew up and have
lived in Wyoming most of my life. And what I would like to say are
several things. And anybody who knows me very well knows that I speak my
mind. And what I would like to see the USDA, is get Canada instead --
instead of saying U.S. -- United States Department and Canadian
Department of Agriculture, please remember that hits is the United
States Department of Agriculture.

The -- (tape flip, short audio break) -- people up the food chain may
get income from trade agreements, we do not. So when you work on those
trade agreements, you need to keep in mind that the people in here, the
effect that the trade agreements have on us.

I think that producers can withstand drought. We can withstand predator
problems. We can address some of those issues ourselves. We don\'t
necessarily have to have handouts from the government, provided we have
the ability to be profitable -- profitability works every time it\'s
tried. When you walk into an establishment or you walk into a farm or
ranch that is profitable, the corrals are fixed, the barns are fixed,
the houses are painted, the livestock is in good shape. But when there
is no profitability, those things are not always addressed. And the
trade issues, at least for the rest of my lifetime, and I think my
children\'s lifetime, are going to be the trade issues and the impacts
that those have on production agriculture. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. CASEY MADSON: My name is Casey Madson, and I\'m president of Wyoming
Wheat Growers, and also a wheat producer in Southeast Wyoming. And you
know you said earlier about this being for the young people coming up,
and I think there needs to be some programs that are more friendly for
the younger producers to get these guys in there, make it -- give them
some opportunity, some optimism on future markets, a way that they can
make a living, and be comfortable in their living.

I also want to say kudos for the white wheat incentive program. I think
it was a good program, and maybe some of them would be a good deal to
get people doing it. Thanks.

MODERATOR: Thanks, Casey.

I\'ll do this one, and then, Keith, I\'ll go to you. Go ahead.

MR. LES BARKER: Thank you. My name is Les Barker from southern Wyoming,
a rancher for several generations, and I\'m proud to be that, and I hope
to continue that -- grandkids growing up. And with that we\'ve been
asked to become more competitive, and question number two relates to
that. We\'ve also been asked to become more efficient to offset the
higher regulations and restrictions that\'s been imposed on us, and that
increases our cost of operations, as well as all the other factors that
have brought the costs up that make it hard for us to compete with other
nations. And now CAFTA has opened that up so that it\'s going to be
quite hard for us to do that. In other words, we\'re going to have to
tighten our belts in other ways. And I\'m proud that you have come to
listen to us, and I hope that our comments will be of some value to you,
because it is important that as Jackson, Buttons has mentioned that,
that it is the base of this country, and our country was found with the
grassroots, and the decisions were made by grassroots, and that\'s
what\'s made it who it is and what it is.

But as I see USDA starting to make decisions that seem to be the answer,
and not listen to us, it becomes hard for us to understand how the two
work together. Secretary Johanns made the comment that beef was too
high, and it was very hard for us to understand him: How can that be, if
we\'re to keep from going out of business, the 13,000 of us per year
average? And so my point to this would be it\'s great to have the Farm
Bill in some ways, but then to sell us out in another way seems very
hard. So we\'re going to need to have country boards and labels so that
we can identify our product, so that we can work hard to maintain those
standards, and I appreciate you coming and listening to us, and thank
you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Keith.

MR. KEITH KENNEDY: Good morning, Mr. Under Secretary, Keith Kennedy with
the Wyoming Ag Business Association. There\'s always a great deal of
uncertainty surrounding every Farm Bill that comes up. But there is one
thing that we\'re reasonably certain of in agriculture, and that is that
technology will be playing an ever-increasing role. In connection with
that, the formula funding for the land-grant colleges is the most
important independent evaluator of those technologies. And as these
technologies come along, and we\'re sure that they\'ll come at an
increasing rate, it\'s very important that we continue -- if not
increase the funding for the land-grant colleges and for the research
that enables small producers -- and even the largest agricultural
producer on the land, would be unable to fund the type of research
that\'s necessary to be an independent arbiter of these technologies.

Secondly, to develop our rural communities, I think we also need to look
at where technology is going, and we may also need to consider something
similar to rural electrification of 70 years ago. High-speed Internet
and comparable technologies are something that rural America has to have
to maintain a pace with urban America. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Keith. I just want to add as you\'re coming
forward that if you do have comments, and you know it\'s in regards to
the Farm Bill, but you\'re having a hard time assigning it to a
particular question, let\'s -- you know, you\'re more than welcome to
share those comments as well. So --

MS. KERRY HENDERSON (sp): Good morning. My name is Kerry Henderson, and
I\'m a cow calf producer on the eastern side of Converse County. I have
two items. One of them is communications. In a sparsely populated area
like Wyoming, cell phones -- a lot of them -- are going to digital. Most
of us still need to use our analog band phones, and they\'re making them
illegal in the future, taking more and more of the analog off the
towers. We are left with no communication. We even use our cell phones
now in our fire trucks, because of the low-band, high-band radios are
not fully effective.

So with no resource for communication, we also have no access to
Internet. And it\'s not just -- the towers are in your population
centers or your towns. And once you get outside of town, you\'re lacking
that communication. And it has to do with both economics and numbers, we
realize. But in sparsely populated areas, it\'s a big issue --
communication is a problem.

The second -- I keep hearing a lot of this -- we need to help young
people. The average age of our producers is constantly going up in the
United States, and a lot more people are trying to retire. So I have a
possible suggestion that might be worth looking at. If you could provide
some sort of an economic or tax benefit to retiring farmers and ranchers
who are willing to sell to young producers -- most of these farmers and
ranchers have had this land and their ranch for decades. When you look
at capital gains, when it comes time to sell, if they can get an
economic or tax incentive to help at that point with the capital gains,
to provide it to young producers, that would be a possibility.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Kerry.

All right, we\'re going to take one more question here, and then we\'re
going to get ready to kind of wrap things up in just a little bit. So if
you do have comments, you might kind of make your ways to the
microphone, so we kind of know how many are left. And, go ahead.

MS. CINDY GARRETSON-WEIBEL: Mr. Under Secretary, Senator Thomas,
Director Etchepare, thank you for the opportunity to comment today. My
name is Cindy Garretson-Weibel, and I\'m the Agribusiness director for
the Wyoming Business Council. The Wyoming Business Council is the state
entity in Wyoming dedicated to economic development, and within the
Agribusiness Division we work on agriculture marketing and
sustainability of agricultural enterprises.

I\'d like to focus comments on the first area, with the next generation
of farmers. It\'s no secret that the average age of farmers in the
United States is well over 65 years of age. And even in Wyoming, from
the years 1997 to 2002, 25 percent of Wyoming ag producers were under
the age of 45, and 5 percent of those were under the age of 35. This,
ladies and gentlemen, is very concerning to us. But, recognizing this
concern in the last Farm Bill, Congress did pass the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Development Program, which was a competitive grants program
directed at new farming opportunities for these young farmers and
ranchers. However, they failed to fund this program. In addition, the
last Farm Bill authorized funding to link beginning farmers and retiring
farmers. What a great concept. But the funding was withheld.

The second area I\'d like to talk about is under question number six,
and that is the USDA value-added producer grant program that was created
by the 2002 Farm Bill, which funds efforts to link consumers with family
farmers. This is a great concept, but funding was cut 60 percent for
that program.

As you can see, there seems to be a pattern here: there were some very
exciting programs that were developed through the last Farm Bill. I
would encourage these programs to be reauthorized. And, Senator Thomas,
if you could encourage Congress to fund these programs that are so very
exciting, so USDA can then implement them, and help all of our farm
families. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Cindy.

MR. JIM ARNOLD: Well, to reiterate, thank you for the opportunity. My
name is Jim Arnold. I\'m the rural forestry assistance coordinator for
the Wyoming State Forestry Division. I just wanted to reiterate some of
the things that were brought up earlier. I\'d like to hear more
discussion on the forestry issue. First of all, I do appreciate the
support that we\'ve received in Washington for the forest stewardship
program. As you are aware, that provides technical assistance to
non-industrial private forest landowners in management activities.
However, with the advent of the Forest Land Enhancement Program, and as
was mentioned previously, in Wyoming we have seen our landowner
cost-share assistance drop by as much as 80 percent. To put some numbers
to that, in 2003, we received \$100,000 in Wyoming under the Forest Land
Enhancement Program. In 2004, we received \$32,000. You could imagine
trying to address 1.6 million acres of private forested land. And
although this is a good thing, over the last several decades there has
been a good job done on fire suppression. However, what that has
resulted in are overstocked forests coupled with the drought and the
insect and disease problems that were mentioned earlier. Certainly there
is a need to be able to address these. So my comments go to question
four, as to how to implement these programs. And I think consistency of
funding. As I look through my files and see the number of deferred
applications that I have for timber stand improvement practices, for
example, that are three years old, it makes it rather difficult to get
people to sign up for these programs when they understand the
possibility of successful funding of these particular applications. So I
appreciate the opportunity,. and thanks again.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Jim.

Another comment over here.

MS. NEDALYN TESTOLIN: Good morning. Under Secretary Rey, Senator Thomas,
Director Etchepare, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I
appreciate the fact that you have come to us. And I\'ve certainly
listened carefully this morning.

I just wish to speak to one program, and I think I can fit it into
number five, and that is the mediation program. In Wyoming we have the
Wyoming Agriculture and Natural Resource Mediation Program. I\'ve had
the opportunity to chair that, and I\'ve had the opportunity to work
with it for many, many years. It is widely used in Wyoming, well
supported, and one of the most effective and efficient uses of your
dollars that could come about. It is so much cheaper than lengthy
litigation, and it opens up avenues of communication. We are working
with the Forest Service, we work with the Bureau of Land Management, we
work with minerals, mineral development -- many kinds -- excuse me, I
don\'t know why all of a sudden I became nervous -- I spent a lot of
time behind the microphone -- but I guess it\'s because I want so badly
for all of you to support the mediation program and to continue to see
that it is written into the next farm plan. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And, sorry, what was your name, again?

MS. TESTOLIN: It is Nadelyn Testolin.

MODERATOR: From?

MS. TESTOLIN: Wheatland, Wyoming.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you very much.

MR. ROBERT CLAWSON (sp): Thank you for listening to us today, and I come
up here in support of the two young ladies back here, the next
generation, the number one question that you have. And in the last few
months there\'s been a tremendous amount of negative press towards the
USDA and their opening of the borders, the CAFTA thing, the Canadian
thing, the after-midnight vote for the CAFTA thing. And there\'s a lot
of things that are negative for us. And what we need for these young
people -- and I\'m speaking also for a son and daughter that really want
to be in ag. One is just -- works alongside of me every day, and the
other one wants to be there. But they need hope, they need a light at
the end of the tunnel. And when they load up their product and go to
town, they need to be able to bring home a check large enough to pay the
bills, and not have to stop by and pick up another check from the
government to make it work. And so I think what we need to do is we need
to start rooting for the hometown team, and that\'s our youth, and look
ahead as to how we\'re going to do that. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Could you state real name real quick.

MR. CLAWSON: Robert Clawson ,and I\'m a rancher from south of town here
in Converse County.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you.

All right, is there any more comments out there? It\'s your last chance.
I guess if there\'s no more comments, we\'ll offer Senator Thomas,
Director Etchepare, do you guys care to make any final comments?

SEN. THOMAS: I just want to thank you. I think it\'s been very
important, and I think you\'ve done a great job of talking about some of
the things that can go in here. You understand that an agriculture bill
doesn\'t deal with all the issues in the world, and particularly of
course agricultural bills authorize spending, but the spending is
actually developed by the budget and the other activities. But I think
it\'s important that you\'ve talked about the things for the future. I
think you\'ve talked about conservation, I think you\'ve talked about
some of these other items.

We usually think of agriculture as being farm subsidies directly for
crops and so on, but it is much broader than that. So I\'m just very
pleased that you were here. I appreciate it. Let\'s continue to work
together. We\'ll certainly work with the secretary, and we\'ll look
towards the future.

MR. ETCHEPARE: Thank you. Remember, we still have a couple minutes, so
if there\'s any of you -- I still see a few out here who came and asked
me questions -- you still have this opportunity to ask it direct. So if
you\'ve got all your questions answered? Is that what I\'m hearing from
out there?

MODERATOR: I think what he\'s trying to do is he\'s trying to avoid all
these questions being targeted at him, yeah. (Laughter.) He\'s just like
-- keep shoveling this on over.

MR. ETCHEPARE: That\'s exactly what I\'m doing, so help me out. Come on.

But thank you all for coming, and again I wanted to thank the staff and
my staff, both here at State Fair, and the staff at the office, for
helping getting this set up so that we could have this here, and bring
it to the State Fair. And, again, thank you for all of you coming.

MODERATOR: And of course we\'re going to have Under Secretary Rey.

MR. ETCHEPARE: I just -- you know, you always say some things and then
think more later. I just want to tell you how good it\'s been to be able
to work with the secretary. We were up to Wapiti Ranger Station a while
back, here he was in his tie. But, you know, it\'s just great to have
somebody there who\'s receptive to the things that we\'re talking about.
So I just wanted to say to the secretary, thank you -- not only for
being here, but for what you do and your willingness to listen. I think
that\'s great. \[Applause.\]

UNDER SECRETARY RAY: Well, first, thank all of you for being with us
today. And I want to particularly commend you for being respectful of
the time limits that we put on your presentation, if not all of the
programs that USDA administers. I know, because I often have to sit at a
witness chair before Congress -- how hard it is to crystallize what it
is you want to say in a short period of time. And you all did a very
good job of that, and respecting the time.

You might have noted that I did not respond to your comments, although I
did take five pages of notes, and we will have a transcript of the ideas
and the thoughts and the questions that you provided. One of the reasons
I didn\'t respond is that this is a Listening Session. We\'re more
interested in hearing what you have to say, particularly those of you
who wouldn\'t otherwise have the opportunity to travel to Washington,
D.C., or to participate in the more formal process associated with the
development of a piece of legislation. So the principal purpose here
today was to hear from you, not to speak to you. And we did get a lot of
good insights about what we should be looking at in the next Farm Bill.

Secretary Johanns feels very strongly about these sessions. He\'s
committed himself and us to try to do one or more in every state of the
country, so that we can get as much information as possible. He believes
that it\'s probably not possible to draft a good piece of farm
legislation without those insights, because of the diversity in American
agriculture, and how rapidly our agricultural industry and our rural
communities are changing, and how rapidly the global agricultural
markets are changing. So we are going to be doing a lot more of these as
the year unfolds and as we get into early next, before we sit down and
then try to look through everything we\'ve received, and decide how best
to proceed. So the insights that you shared with us today are helpful,
and we do appreciate them.

I noted one common thread, and that was a concern for younger people,
and for people entering agriculture. My most immediate concern for
younger people is that they\'re going to want to use this room in a few
short minutes to have lunch, so probably the best thing we can do is
wrap up on time. With that, Justin, I\'ll give it back to you.

MODERATOR: You bet. And I want to reemphasize some of the aspects. If
you do have written comments, or you\'re thinking of something later on,
you can go out here and deliver those comments to the help desk out
here, and always the Internet. And we\'ve talked about the development
of technology and the Internet that\'s started to take place -- in fact,
I just did a program on that for our network here this morning -- and
how we\'re starting to see that. So you can go online to www.usda.gov.
There\'s a link down there to get into the Farm Bill and add your
comments. And also in a week or so you can probably go in there and see
what you said, if you have any questions about that.

But, finally, before we go, before we do adjourn, I do want to thank
Secretary Rey. Thank you very much for coming to Wyoming. We hope you
enjoy your time in Wyoming, and see the Wyoming State Fair. And again to
all of you, thank you for coming, and thank you for being a part of the
future of agriculture.

\[Applause.\]