![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.429861111111111in"
height="1.4409722222222223in"}

Release No. 0428.05

Office of Communication (202) 720-4623

Transcript of Idaho Farm Bill Listening Section with Under Secretary for
Natural Resources and the Environment Mark Rey And Moderator Doug
Andersen Blackfoot, Idaho, September 6, 2005

MR. ANDERSEN: Good afternoon. It looks like a great crowd on a Tuesday
afternoon. We appreciate you being here and welcome to the Idaho USDA
Farm Bill Listening Session. We\'re also pleased to have with us the
Undersecretary, Mark Rey, and Idaho Ag Director, Pat Takasugi with us
this afternoon. We want to go ahead and begin this listening session
with the most important act, the Pledge of Allegiance, and with us we
have from the Idaho State Future Farmer\'s of America, president, Brad
Hale, and state secretary, Jill Dalton who will lead us in the pledge.
Brad and Jill.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Brad and Jill. We\'d like to go ahead and at
the onset here make a couple of introductions so that everybody knows
who some of our esteem guests are this afternoon. I\'d like to welcome
our gracious host, Don Dixon, president of the Eastern Idaho State Fair
board of directors for some welcoming comments. Don.

MR. DIXON: Thank you. Just very briefly, let me give me a very heartfelt
thanks for coming to this listening session. We certainly welcome you to
the Eastern Idaho State Fair. This is our 103rd year as a state fair.
Almost a continuous operation. There were a couple years during the war
when we didn\'t have it, but let me say just briefly that we do
represent 16 different counties here in Eastern Idaho. As such, we are
the only state fair in Idaho. But, once again, let me welcome you on
behalf of our board of directors. Doris Wallace, who is our fair manager
and her staff and all of our fabulous ground crew. Welcome to Blackfoot
and the Eastern Idaho State Fair. We thank you, Undersecretary, for
coming, Pat, for being with us. Thank you very much.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Don. At this time we\'ll also take a minute to
introduce the members of our congressional \-- Idaho\'s congressional
staff who are visiting with us today and if you would stand so that we
can recognize you and see those that are in attendance. From Senator
Craig\'s staff, Mike Matthews, Steve Brown, and Mic Webster. From
Senator Crapo\'s staff, Don Dixon, and Leslie Huttleston. (Phonetic)
From Representative Mike Simpson, Charlie Barnes. And from
Representative Butch Otter, Lane Jolla. Thank you for being here. It\'s
now my opportunity to introduce Idaho\'s State Director of Agriculture,
Pat Takasugi. Pat.

MR. TAKASUGI: Thank you, Doug. Well, good afternoon. Those of you who
are in \-- oh, I see the chairman\'s in the sun. You need to move back.
We want you to last the whole three hours there, Stan. I\'d like to
welcome everybody here to the 103rd fair. Don, you never elaborated
about what it was like when you started the fair. Well, you got that.
I\'d like to welcome all the farmers and ranchers that I know. Like me,
you\'re harvesting right now, and to take the time to come out and voice
your opinions on the next Farm Bill shows how important it is to you, so
I\'m glad to see those of you that were able to make it.

I\'m going to talk just a little bit. And those of you that know me know
that that\'s a real challenge. Is that wind or is that somebody giving
me a message? The Farm Bill is going to be a different one. A lot of
talk around the Hill is there\'s going to be some changes. And I think
for those of you know that know the old Farm Bill, those of you that
wanted a new Farm Bill, this is the time to voice your opinions as they
go into those dark rooms and start crafting the Farm Bill. Changes, we
see it out here in rural Idaho, from small farmers, to big farmers, that
middle ground, the family farms, are kind of disappearing. The industry
itself is changing quite a bit. We\'re dealing with an international
marketplace. We\'re having to compete overseas and domestically against
international producers. The future I think is one that lies in several
different areas that I\'m hoping that you elaborate on.

The future I think lies in marketing. We made it for years knocking on
the doors of foreign countries trying to move our product overseas. But
I think we have to recognize that domestic marketing is just as
important. While we\'ve been overseas, the Europeans, the South
Americans, and others have been moving produce in competition with us
domestically. And I think we have to address that in this Farm Bill. I
think it\'s also true that food is something that we have to reacquaint
people with. Those folks down there in Louisiana and New Orleans realize
how important food is. It\'s not just a matter of food safety. It\'s a
matter of food availability. And I think this is a time for us in the
Farm Bill to address that issue. But along with that, we\'re seeing
prices for fuel that are unprecedented. And I think agriculture has the
opportunity to step forward and fill that gap. And I think in this Farm
Bill we\'ll be able to help address that even more. And last, but not
least, agriculture has the opportunity to produce fiber that can be used
for the very shirts you\'re wearing and other things, the technology out
there. I just read this morning, they\'re going to be producing eggs
that create an antibody that will attack cancer cells. The biotechnology
I think is another one of those points that will help us in agriculture
to transition and survive in this next millenium. So, again, I would
like to thank you for taking the time from your harvest and from your
cattle to come in and talk to the Under Secretary and let him know what
you think the next Farm Bill will be. And thanks, Don, for holding this
the 103rd year and from year one it looks like it\'s getting better
every year. Thank you all.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Pat. I\'d now like to introduce Mark Rey. Rey
has served as the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources
and Environment since October of 2001. He has an extensive background in
conservation and resource policy, serving for a time on the staff of
Senate Energy \-- on the committee on senate \-- on the Senate Committee
of Energy and Natural Resources. That\'s the same committee that our own
Senator Larry Craig held a seat. In fact, Senator Craig spoke in favor
of Secretary Rey\'s nomination before the United States Senate in 2001
at those confirmation hearings. Please join me in welcoming Under
Secretary Mark Rey.

UNDER SECRETARY REY: Thanks for that kind introduction. It occurs to me
that as I look out at you that some of you may think I\'m a bit
overdressed for a state fair in Idaho, and there\'s a reason for that:
About four months into my tenure in this job, I agreed to participate in
a field trip in California to look at some conservation practices that
we were applying in the Central Valley.

So I arrived at the appointed time and place to commence the trip, but
many people were delayed because it was January and the weather wasn\'t
ideal, and so our area conservationist there, was quite excited to get
the trip started and underway and stay on schedule, so he said, well,
we\'re getting a little bit of a late start, let\'s all get on the buses
and we\'ll handle introductions at the first

stop. So I shrugged my shoulders and got on the bus and we drove off,
and we got to the first stop and he was so excited about launching into
the good conservation practices that we were helping encourage there
that he forgot about introductions and went right into the presentation.
He got through the presentation, looked at his watch, and said, my gosh,
we\'re still late. Let\'s get moving and so we all got on the buses to
the second stop.

By about five minutes into the presentation at the second stop, I
noticed one old fellow, a Central Valley grower was kind of craning his
neck looking around for something. Obviously trying to search something
out, and I was kind of hanging in the back by myself in the back of the
crowd. As this fellow looked around, he finally sidled up to me and he
said which one\'s the new knucklehead from Washington, D.C.? And I
decided that day that if I wore a suit and tie it would be very unlikely
that anybody would ask me that question again because everybody would
know who the new knucklehead from Washington, D.C. was. That would be
the guy wearing the suit and tie at the Idaho State Fair.

But thank you for the introduction. I\'d especially like to thank Don
Dixon and Doris Wallace, for allowing us to hold this event this
afternoon. It\'s my pleasure to be here this afternoon on behalf of
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns to hear directly from Idaho\'s
farmers, ranchers, and rural residents about issues of concern in farm
policy and in farm legislation.

In preparing for the development of the 2007 Farm Bill, Secretary
Johanns announced in June the first of what has become a nationwide
series of Farm Bill forums held across the country. That first forum,
which he chaired, was held in Nashville, Tennessee, and we\'ve conducted
11 more and plan several other forums through the end of this year. If
you\'re paying attention, that would make this the 13th Farm Bill forum.
Hopefully you\'re not superstitious. Various undersecretaries will also
be conducting forums in the hope that no voice is left unheard as we
develop this next Farm Bill.

As was mentioned in my introduction, I\'m 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 practice and encourage good working lands
conservation.

The 2002 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. The 2002 Farm Bill also
simplified existing programs and created new programs all seeking to
enhance the long-term quality of conservation on working farms, ranches,
and forest lands.

What will go into the next Farm Bill will have a long lasting effect 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
has developed six specific questions that we\'d like you to reflect on
today. The first question relates to challenges for new farmers. How do
we prepare farm policy to provide a future for new entries into the
agricultural community? The policies that we develop in the next Farm
Bill should welcome the next generation of farmers and avoid unintended
consequences such as higher land prices that make it

more difficult for new entries into agriculture.

The second question relates to how do we stay competitive in a world
market place? Over 27 percent of the cash receipts from agricultural in
this country come from abroad. That\'s a very, very large piece of all
farm income across the country. The next Farm Bill must assist us in
remaining competitive in domestic and global markets in order for
American agricultural to succeed.

The third question relates to farm program benefits. Is the current
distribution system the most effective way of distributing benefits?
Benefits should stabilize farm prices and income. The current programs,
crop insurance is a good example, and we\'ve had some conversation about
that already in our previous Farm Bill forums, distribute assistance
based on past and current production levels. Some argue that those
programs favor larger over smaller farms.

The fourth question, the one that I hold nearest and dearest, 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 the nation. Some suggest that
the next Farm Bill should anchor farm policy around conservation and
around the tangible benefits produced like cleaner air, and water, and
less developed landscapes.

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 Farm Bills of the past, there wasn\'t much
there relative to rural economic development. In the 2002 bill, it was a
pretty significant piece of the legislation.

At one time farming and rural America were synonymous, but the
demographic and economic characteristics of some rural areas have
changed dramatically in the last decade or so. Some believe we should
use the Farm Bill to invest more in infrastructure in rural America.

And then the last question involves the expansion of agricultural
products, markets, and research. We have great resources at our disposal
at the Department of Agriculture. What are we doing right with those
resources in terms of research, and if we\'re not doing things right,
what should we be doing instead? Agriculture, as you know better than I,
is a rapidly changing business. And some say our Farm Bill policy should
do more to develop new products and new markets.

Those are the questions that we\'d like to hear about from you. And what
you\'ll find here momentarily is that when I\'m done speaking, I\'m
going to say relatively little during the balance of this forum because
our objective is to hear from you, not have you hear from us. I will be
taking copious notes as I have at previous Farm Bill forums. And all of
your comments will be transcribed and published in the federal register,
so if you\'re thinking of using non-family friendly rhetoric, be aware
that it will be published in a journal of public record. Given the
course of your remarks, if you run out of time, or simply think of
something you forgot to say, please know that you can always go to
www.USDA.govand click on Farm Bill forums. Comments submitted on the Web
in writing, or voiced here today, are all given the same weight and the
exact amount of study and analysis.

Finally before asking questions today, please \-- or making your
statements today, please

state your name, city, and state, and your involvement in agriculture
and connection to the Farm Bill. Also speak as loudly and clearly as
possible so our transcriber, and people like Pat and I who are getting
on in years, can accurately hear and capture your thoughts. Before I
relinquish the podium, I would like to express in advance my
appreciation for what all of \-- those of you who are USDA employees
have already done and what all of you who are interested in agriculture
may yet be called on to do to assist the victims of the hurricane
disaster in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. It is without doubt the
largest natural disaster in our nation\'s history. I feel fortunate that
Secretary Johanns released me for a day to come out and conduct this as
scheduled. I\'ll be flying back all night tonight to the east coast to
resume the work that we\'re doing in trying to assist in that disaster
recovery.

Like any large natural disaster, the ways of impact spread out where as
time progresses, and I know that many of you both in the USDA and those
interested in agriculture will be assisting in the disaster recovery
effort over the next several weeks and months.

The final word, I\'d like to offer a message to our FFA people here and
to all the young people here at the session today, President Bush
indicated that you are the reason for this Listening

Session and for this tour. We hope that the ideas and advice that we
receive pave the way for your future success in agricultural, so if you
have some thoughts you want to share with us today, don\'t be bashful,
step up to the microphone and let us know what you think. Thank you for
being here today. I look forward to a productive discussion this
afternoon. And now I\'ll turn the microphone back to Doug.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Rey. Before we hear from you, each of you,
maybe, I\'d like to go ahead and cover a couple of house cleaning items.
Behind you and to the left, as you\'re walking out it will be to your
right, is the ag building, exactly behind where you\'re seated. In there
you will find many display booths from the agencies that comprise the
Department of Agriculture. There\'s a lot of information there. It would
be beneficial to you in your professional lives, we suggest that you
make a walk through there and take a look at those booths. Also
immediately behind the grandstand, you\'ll find a white-clothed desk
that runs the length of the grandstand where members of the USDA
help-desk are seated. They can answer, again, a lot of questions, those
that you may have. Again, this particular Listening Session is specific
to the listening of the Farm Bill. If you\'ve got a question on some
other bill, some other legislation, some other issue not related to the
Farm Bill, we would direct you to that help desk, and they can direct
you there. Again, in the interest of hearing from as many as we can,
we\'re going to limit comments, questions, statements, whatever you have
to three minutes each. We\'ll have a little stop light timing system:
Red, yellow, green lights. We\'re all familiar with those. Hopefully we
pay more attention to this light than what some of us do on our streets
when we\'re driving, but a red, yellow, and green street light system
will hopefully kind of add a little bit of order to the comments that we
will have here this afternoon.

And so that we\'re aware, when the light turns yellow, that will be an
indicator to you that there\'s one minute left in your particular time.
Again, that will be stationed here when we get to that point in the
session. Now, as the Secretary mentioned, if you\'re not able to make a
comment, or you simply forget, or you think of something when you\'re
driving home, or you\'re out in the field and something comes to you,
there\'s another opportunity for you to submit those questions. You can
do so on line at USDA.gov. Click on the Farm Bill Forums link and you
can make those comments there. Again, the comments that are made through
the Web site are no less important, no more important than the comments
that will be made here today. All will become a part of that federal
register and will be given the same weight, analysis, as the comments
that will be made today.

Finally, again, if you\'d like to make comments today, and we would
recommend that you do so, please step to either of these two microphones
on the front. We\'ve got some chairs. If there\'s a mad rush to the
microphones, there\'s plenty of time, you can come and sit down and take
your place in line. We would only ask a couple of things: Again, to
reiterate, if you would give us your name, your city, and state, and
your role in agriculture. It\'s helpful if you could also state the
question, which you\'ll be commenting on. Those questions are the ones
that Secretary Rey listed for you. If you\'re having trouble trying to
categorize that comment, don\'t worry. We can figure that out after the
fact. We\'d ask again, we\'ve got some competing noise here. I think
that the agriculture industry can compete very well, so speak up, speak
into the microphone so that our transcriber, who\'s got a huge task
today, can do her job. Again, if you did not receive a handout with the
Farm Bill questions on it as you entered, if you\'d raise your hand,
we\'ve got a number of people in burgundy shirts that I\'m sure can make
sure that you have one of those in your hand. And with that, who would
like to be our first person to comment? Don.

DON DIXON: Thank you. If you\'d let me to digress just a moment. I see
our Eastern Idaho State Fair Manager, Doris Wallace, is with us. I\'d
like to recognize her. Doris. She\'s over in the shade under the blue
Cellular tent. Thank you. And if I could approach this microphone with a
different hat on. If you notice I don\'t wear hats very much, but you
can imagine. I\'m State Director for agricultural issues for Senator
Mike Crapo. And as such I\'d like to express his regrets

that he cannot be with us today and attend this Listening Session, he
wants to express his appreciation because he did extend an invitation to
Secretary Johanns to hold one of the Listening

Sessions in Idaho. He appreciates that very much.

Let me say that as a member of the Senate Ag Committee, we will be
listening very closely to the remarks that are made here today and we
will be working with the USDA and the Congress in trying to craft a Farm
Bill that will serve Idaho\'s agriculture industries and also her rural
communities. With that, thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Do we have another? Okay. We\'d like to try to alternate
these if we could. Go ahead, please.

BRAD HALE: My name is Brad Hale from \-- I\'m representing 3,500 members
from Idaho and the Future Farmers of America, FFA. I\'m from Rigby,
Idaho, just down the road. And as I travel across the state talking with
FFA members, most of them really do want to get involved in agriculture.
The only concerns they have are the price of land to get started if they
are not on a family farm already, fuel, machinery, and the unstable
crops. And one thing that we\'d like to be addressed in Farm Bill is
with the retiring farmers, if there could be a program that us new
generation of farmers and the retired farmers can get together and with
an incentive to \-- so we can have the land, or buy the land from them
at a cheaper price, and just help us get started in the generation that
we are, the new farmers, that would be a great opportunity for many
farmers that are young to get started.

And also with that, the new farmers need help with the price of
machinery, fuel, and crops. There are many different opportunities in
agriculture, and we realize that as the Future Farmers of America, that
with the contests and different things that we are involved in. And
farming is not the only thing that can (inaudible) production in
agriculture. However, it is one of the most popular that \-- especially
in Idaho, kids want to become farmers and help support their families
and the community in Idaho. This would be a great opportunity for them
to do what they want as their dream and become farmers. Thank you.

MR ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Let\'s go over here to this
microphone.

JIM EVANS: My name is Jim Evans. I traveled from the Idaho\'s Panhandle
to be here today. I raise wheat, most crops near Genesee, Idaho, which
is just inside the Washington border about a 100 miles south of Spokane,
Washington. These south Idaho folks don\'t know where we are. I\'m a
fourth generation farmer, and our family\'s been farming for 127 years.
Good farm policies could encourage farmers to take advantage of
marketing opportunities, and reward them for crop diversity management.
They\'re good for the environment. Every country supports their
agriculture in some form or fashion. Despite our best efforts in WTO
negotiations, we\'re still outspent by the Europeans five to one. I do
not see other countries leaving the farmers unprotected any time soon.
If U.S. farmers are expected to compete against subsidized competition,
the following farm tools must be sustained in the next Farm Bill. The
Marketing Loan Program, MLP. The Marketing Loan Program is probably the
single most important tool on my farm. This program provides me with
protection when the prices are intact and pays me when prices are good.
And it costs nothing when prices are good. I like this program because
it allows me to take advantage of marketing opportunities, crop
diversity, and the bankers can see that I now \-- risk coverage. This is
a good program that needs to be continued because it allows me to
include environmentally sound crops and target market opportunities. The
direct and countercyclical program payment, I fully support your
continuation and have sustained my farm operation at local businesses.
Money from these payments go back into the community. Flexibility, the
best part of the 1996 Farm Bill, was the freedom \-- was the freedom to
plant on crop-based acres. Especially for us in the Pacific Northwest
that grow a lot of garbanzo beans, and chick peas that are a very high
value crop, but right now they are not in the based acres. Peas and dry
beans are. In closing, I would like to say that one of the critical
issues is the energy situation. I bought diesel fuel on June 2nd of this
year. I bought diesel fuel last week. It\'s up 66 percent. My fuel
supplier in Genesee, Idaho ordered a load of gasoline. Before it got to
him, it went up 15 cents. We can\'t farm with these diverse conditions.
Anhydrous ammonia went up \$45 a ton, so these things have to change.
And my last comment, I\'d like to say I appreciate you folks coming out
from Washington to listen to us, and I want to leave the last thing with
saying is that the only fair thing in farming is a state fair. Thank
you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. And a reminder, we appreciate you
traveling here to Eastern Idaho. This is the only Listening Session in
the State of Idaho, so you have a wonderful opportunity to make your
comments. Again, to this side.

RICHARD HESS: My name is Richard Hess and \'m here representing a number
of growers, and our national lab and universities, and I have some
prepared remarks here that complete \-- I\'ve already submitted into the
record and I\'ll just pick through this. Mr. Under Secretary, I\'d like
to address my comments to question five, which is how can federal and
farm programs provide effective assistance in rural America? And
specifically I want to talk about a success story here in Idaho. For
several years Idaho producers have been working to have energy products
like ethanol for (inaudible) of Idaho agriculture products. Capitalizing
on merchant sales, and ethanol technology, combined with Idaho\'s
abundant and stable supply of cellulose and bio-mass, in the form of
straw, we got our straw bales right here even today, provides an
opportunity for Idaho to become a pioneer in the cellulose ethanol
industry and become a cellulose ethanol producing state. However, the
uncertainty of this new ethanol technology and the financial investment
and backing required for such an adventure makes it so that people
don\'t want to get involved in these. You can\'t get the financial
backing, and this is not an unusual situation for many value-added
producer type efforts.

The USDA value-added producer grant program provided the needed
financial catalyst for

moving Idaho producers forward in this cellulose ethanol venture.
Funding from the value-added

producer grant program provided the resources to organize and bring
growers together for a common business objective. And I want to pause
here and say that the organizations have been statewide. All the way
from our Secretary of Agricultural here in the state down to our grass
roots growers. It\'s just been phenomenal how the state\'s come together
around this. Once organized, the straw supply feasibility studies were
conducted and straw production assembly business plans are now being
developed. Additionally, largely because of the work being funded by the
USDA program, Southeastern Idaho has developed into a top U.S. location
for siting the straw- to-ethanol facility. And that can just be the
start for this state because even up into the panhandle and other
places, we have great opportunity. In short, the USDA value-added
producer grant program has been directly responsible for making straw to
ethanol venture in Idaho a possibility. And finally USDA rules business
service programs like the value-added producer grant program and a
renewable energy system and energy efficient programs will be essential
in assisting U.S. producers and world communities throughout the nation
contributing to this nation\'s future energy

security through the developments of domestic agriculture base
bio-energy business. And so while I won\'t address all of our fuel
issues today, this kind of program, and these programs, are going to
help agriculture be part of the solution to this energy problem we have.
Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Over here. Please, and welcome.

HOWARD JONES: Thank you very much. I\'m Howard Jones of Genesie, Idaho.
I represent the pea and lentil industry there. My family\'s farmed for
five generations in that region. I want to address questions one, three,
and five.

For question one, in the floos (phonetic) we have many issues that
affect our region over the past ten years of funding for basic crop
production at state level. We have not seen new varieties coming
on-line. And we have not seen our producers funding equal that of Canada
and Australia. And we compete directly with those nations in our legume
industry.

We have seen tremendous advances in food safety and, yet, if we don\'t
produce food, that food safety won\'t produce \-- or won\'t be
transferred over to the consuming public. We need new varieties of good
agronomic potential. We need more research into end uses and much more
for crop protection.

We\'ve seen our crop protection possibilities or alternatives diminished
rather than increased, even to the point of where lentils are becoming
\-- weed pressure in our lentils is such that we may not be able to grow
lentils in the future. We need crops that grow well in cool soil with
more residue and crops that are more competitive with the less chemical
protection as we move to direct seeding and conservation tillage.

In addressing questions three and five, one area that has potential for
us is the harmonization of chemical use and chemical regulations across
North America. Our neighbors to the north can use materials prohibited
to us and the only difference is that imaginary line that marks the
border.

We found that commonly used materials change price as they go across
that border. Our growers in Montana, Montana and the Dakotas have to
spend more money for the same materials as their Canadian neighbors
spend. And those Canadian growers that produce those things, or use
those materials, have captured a lot of our traditional market.

And I would like to thank Mr. Secretary. Thank you for coming and
listening. I share many of the concerns that my neighbors and
competitors have, but thank you very much for coming and listening.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you. Please.

TOM BOYER: Tom Boyer from Coalville, Utah. It\'s a pleasure to be here
today and it was a pleasure to have you this morning over in our sheep
show and participate in that. I\'m a third generation sheep rancher. And
my concerns center from that view as well as from my role as president
of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.

We have members in every state in the country. And it\'s our concern
that on two or three levels that I might discuss with you for a moment.
One is that we \-- and when I say we, we\'ve worked with the National
Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants. We\'ve worked with the
American Society of Agriculture Consultants, with the Irrigation
Association. All of us kind of teamed up to work and visit with Chairman
Bruce Knight to talk about and develop this technical service provider
program.

And I think that we were very excited about that program at the outset
and today I think all of us would be united in saying that it\'s just
not functioned the way our vision had been at the outset. Perhaps
something could be done to refine that program and make it a more
workable program so that services could be delivered perhaps in a more
timely basis and in a more effective economic way.

The other parts of my concerns, folks, center around, and I\'m talking
to those of you behind me as much as to those of you in front me. We
have the following concerns: One is that the infighting in Washington is
a serious concern of ours as we come to develop this new Farm Bill. The
fighting between the two parties has spilled over into now we think into
the agricultural world where perhaps it hasn\'t been before and we think
that may be an issue when it comes down to trying to get something
accomplished in this next Farm Bill.

We don\'t have an answer for that, of course, but we would hope that
both parties might try to work together for the benefit of American
agricultural as we come together in this Farm Bill debate and try to
work on that.

Second, we have a concern about \-- the public image that\'s going to
come out of this recent survey that I seen in Indiana indicated that a
very high percentage of farm income came from the mailbox or from
government payments in this past year. Those kinds of concerns \-- and
when those kinds of percentages hit the American public, we think
there\'s going to be a substantial backlash in terms of what we\'re able
to accomplish in this next Farm Bill. That\'s an issue that we think \--
that we need to be preparing for now, all of agriculture, which leads me
to my third point that is that we think it\'s important that all crop
commodities, all livestock entities get together and develop where we
can cooperatively work together. We need to develop policy that\'s good
for everybody.

It may not be the very best for the sheep industry, or for the cotton
industry, or for corn, or soy beans, but if we can all give a little bit
and make this thing work, we think we can come up with a tolerable Farm
Bill because we think it\'s going to be dramatically harder than it was
last time. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you and welcome to Idaho State Farm in Eastern
Idaho. Please.

AUGUSTINE WALKER: Good afternoon. I\'m Augustine (phonetic) Walker. I\'m
an agricultural producer out of Orofino, Idaho, that\'s the panhandle.

MR. ANDERSEN: You may need to get a little closer to the mike.

AUGUSTINE WALKER. Earlier this year I attended a continuing farm
education class in Austin, Texas. Among the classes that were taught
there was starting new ventures in agriculture.

One of the concepts that was taught in class was something called
barriered entry. The guy who gave us a finished successful venture,
there was a hurdle not easily overcome. Well, as I look around my farm
this fall and I calculate a 30 percent rise in fertilizer and fuel, and
I calculated a 12 cent rise in my cost of production of a bushel of
wheat. I believe I can truly understand the concept.

If the government is interested in keeping young farmers that are
currently operating and attracting others to the profession, I can make
the following recommendations: Please limit the CRP Program. As a young
farmer, I compete directly against the CRP Program that\'s inadvertently
set the rental rates for the ground that I go to compete against. So I
have to outbid the USDA and I have to outbid my competition just so that
I can get ground to farm.

Young people in agricultural will seek a stable environment to build a
future in agriculture. Farm programs need to have a long-term vision, be
understandable and helpful to the farmer. CSP is a good example of a
program that does this. Long-term programs rewards producers for using
good production techniques and encourages them to get better.

But the nebulizations of CSP is continued by the last minute program
changes and inaccurate \-- inaccurate \-- let me try that
again\--inaccurate information causing confusion within the farmers. And
that program is implemented to help, and I think this needs to be
avoided.

Beginning producers also need flexibility to grow crops that are outside
the norm for his or her area if the opportunity arises, along with the
ability to limit risk to exposure when doing so. The government LDP loan
program along with affordable crop insurance are very important tools
for my program to limit my downsize risk.

The next generation of agriculture producers in this country will not be
different. We have to be. Despite our small numbers, we\'re smaller,
energetic, and flexible. All that we ask, when it comes to agriculture
is that you give us a chance to be that. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Please.

DON BUELLER: Thank you. Don Bueller, (phonetic) I\'m a wheat producer
from Malad, Idaho. I just have a couple of comments on question No. 4
that I hope will be helpful.

I agree with this last fellow. I think for the conservation program, a
much better approach are the incentive programs such as the Conservation
Security Program before it kind of got messed up. It was better than it
ended up being but I think those programs are the way to go rather than
the penalty ones, the dollar amount wasted and the time wasted in all of
the, you know, policing and that. I think that money could be better
used on the ground.

The second thing I thought might be helpful with conservation, as it
stands now when we go in to bid, we bid possibly against a neighbor in
the same water shed who has similar practices, I think maybe a better
way to go would be to have a USDA checklist of practices available and,
you know, what the government would do, and then the farmer if he\'s
willing to do that, and then fund that, if that makes sense, rather than
the competitive bidding, but just have the practices and then have them
available to do. And I think we\'d get a lot of more conservation work
done that way.

I appreciate you being here very much. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much, sir.

TED HENDRICKS: I appreciate taking the opportunity today at this forum.
My name is Ted Hendricks. I\'m with East Central Idaho Planning and
Development Association. We\'re a certified economic development company
here in Southeastern Idaho. We represent nine counties in 45 cities.
Most of those cities are agriculture in nature; small farming
communities that need assistance with economic development opportunities
as well as your waste water and water programs that are addressed in
your question No. 5.

Without those programs continually being funded, these small communities
will not be able to facilitate their economic development needs as well
as their water and sewer upgrades that are required. Some 30 years ago,
the federal government and state government came into these small
communities across this nation, put these systems in at 90 cents on the
dollar, and now more and more of the burden is being placed upon the
communities themselves, which is fine.

But without some assistance, the programs of improving the water systems
and sewer systems for these small rural communities are going to become
extremely unbearable. Water rates are going up from 10 and \$15 a month
in some of these communities to over 40. And so with everything else
that our residents in Southeastern Idaho are dealing with that have to
deal with those costs as well.

To give you a direct example on economic development in the way that the
USDA rural development programs have worked in Southeastern Idaho, we
have just currently funded a project that would create 100s of jobs over
the useful life of the facility. We cooperated with the State of Idaho,
the Department of Commerce, which Pat is familiar with, and also not \--
the USDA Rural Development Direct and Guaranteed Loan Programs, but we
were also able to use those moneys and receive a grant from the Economic
Development Administration for a health education facility as well as an
incubator or a business development center. But as I indicated, over the
life of that facility, there will be 100s of jobs created for
Southeastern Idaho.

And I would encourage your continued support of the economic development
programs in the Farm Bill to assist in the farming communities that lie
here in Southeastern Idaho. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Sir, please.

MARTY ANDERSON: My subject I\'d like to present is on trade policy. My
name is Marty Anderson. I\'m a marketer, processor, and exporter of
dried peas, lentils, chickpeas, and specialty grains. I\'m based in
Lewiston, Idaho.

As a processor and exporter of pulsed crops, I\'m concerned about the
ability of U.S. farmers, processors, and exporters to compete in the
global market place. Concerning WTO, I\'ve spent many years trading
grain and pulses and watching trade negotiations like the WTO. I believe
our U.S. negotiators have a responsibility at the level of the playing
field and deliver an agreement that allows U.S. agriculture to compete
fairly.

The last WTO agreement allowed our competitors of Europe to receive \$5
of domestic support for every \$1 received by our U.S. growers. The last
WTO agreement allowed the continued use of export subsidies, state
sponsored trading enterprises, extremely high tariffs in developing
countries, and weak disciplines on bio-sanitary requirements. The WTO
negotiations do not even address currency manipulation by our
competitors, which is one of the biggest obstacles we face as U.S.
shippers.

I support the current WTO negotiations if the result is an agreement
that puts U.S. agricultural on an equal playing field with other
countries. In a perfect world, there should be no agricultural
subsidies, tariff barriers, bio-sanitary restrictions and currency
manipulation. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world and from
the beginning of civilizations, societies have protected their food
supplies.

I applaud the President and yourself for aggressively pursuing free
trade and fair trade for agricultural products. Bring us a WTO agreement
that truly levels the playing field. Anything short of true parity
between countries should not be considered.

Marketing Loan Program: Assuming that the WTO negotiations do not
achieve parity, I believe it is critical that U.S. producers maintain
the Market Loan Program to compete with the restrictions and subsidies
in competitor countries.

Concerning Cuba: Cuba imports over 200,000 metric tons of pulses each
year, and mostly from Canada. It is my hope that by the next Farm Bill
all trade restrictions from Cuba will be dropped and we will be able to
compete without government interference.

The MAP and FFD programs, the Market Access Program, Informed Market
Development Program have allowed our industry to penetrate new markets
around the world. This program should be enhanced in the upcoming Farm
Bill.

I\'d like to thank you for visiting Idaho and listening to my
suggestions.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. I watched these two gentleman writing
feverishly over here and we may need to alert the office supply store,
we\'re going to need some more paper. Great comments. Let\'s go over
here.

DIANNA HEMMER: I, too, am very pleased about the fact that you\'re here
in Idaho to listen to comments about the Farm Bill. My \-- the angle
that I have \-- my name is Dianna Hemmer. I am the executive director of
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency. We administer the mutual
self help (inaudible due to background noise) program (inaudible)
through USDA rural development.

I want to just thank you for that program and let you know based on what
we\'re bringing to that project right now that we\'re going to be
building 20 homes here in Southeastern Idaho, or I should say the
families are building 20 homes. I just want you to know I hope you
support \-- continue to support this program. It\'s a vital program for
those that may be of lower income. They\'re able to build their own
home. They\'re able to take pride in that project.

And I would encourage you if there\'s any cuts, of which I hope there is
not, that it won\'t be in that program. It\'s a very valuable program.
It fits in well with HUD as well as, of course, the USDA to build homes
in rural communities like ours for people who may not be able to afford
a conventional loan.

Basically that\'s all I want to say is just thank you very much for your
support. And I hope you continue to give us that support. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you. Over to this side.

TAMMY GALLUP: Hi, I\'m Tammy Gallup from Eastern Idaho Special Services
Agency and I\'m addressing question No. 5. Also I work with Mutual Self
Help Housing and would like to see the funding continue and even more
funding at such at vital program. I would say probably 90 percent of our
families could not qualify for a conventional loan.

Some of the contractors in the area feel like it\'s a competition for
Mutual Self Help Housing, but the families could not qualify for enough
of a loan to get \-- to buy a new home with a conventional mortgage. The
mortgage is subsidized and it\'s \-- their payments are tied to their
income, so instead of having a \$659 payment, they may have a \$375
payment. So for a very low income family, they\'re able to get into a
home that they would never otherwise be able to get into.

It helps in so many ways: It benefits the community. It helps in the tax
base. It helps promote the community. They\'re workers here that stay
here. They don\'t move anymore. The stability for the family is
phenomenal.

In the six years that EISSA\'s been doing this, we\'ve built \--
family\'s have built 86 homes. We have 16 currently under construction.
We\'re getting ready to start six down here in Blackfoot, so we\'ll be
coming down here soon. Hopefully this fall.

We just hope that they will continue funding this program and not cut it
at all. There\'s \-- more funding is needed for this program. I\'d like
to thank you for coming and listening to it. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you. Over to this side. Welcome.

BLAINE LOWERY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I\'m Blaine Lowery, the county
commissioner. As I am certain this responsibility \-- first of all, I\'m
a farmer and also a commissioner. I think that rural Idaho really does
need the help from the USDA and the office that gives that in many areas
for improvement in infrastructure.

As we went through the \'97 flood in Bingham County, one of the things
that kind of jumped out to me was the fact that when we addressed
emergency issues, and I realize I\'m crossing the line now here between
what used to be (inaudible) and USDA dollars could not be spent on
business \-- excuse me, if you had businesses in the area, they would
look at the actual valuation of property to determine if it was \--
needed to be protected.

When we addressed agriculture, it was a non-issue. They wouldn\'t talk
to us about agriculture being, quote, a business. We found that very
interesting as far as commissioners because it is a business in Idaho.
It\'s a business in the United States. And whether you put those
potatoes in the factory and process them and call it a business, or if
you are growing that product ready for processing, in our opinion it\'s
still a business.

And I would like you to address maybe the disparity between government
agencies to help alleviate perhaps some of that process in the event of
disasters and emergencies that we have. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. You know, if any of you are freezing
up there in the shade, you\'re more than welcome to come down here in
the sun. Please, ma\'am.

EDITH STANGER: They\'re welcome to my chair. I\'m Edith Stanger. I\'m
from Idaho Falls, just up away. I represent several thousand of
constituents, but I have to make a brief explanation. We\'re part of the
agricultural community that are stepchildren in that in the 1950s, the
USDA in its infant was chose to disband what was referred to as as
national (inaudible) board and no longer continue to enroll any kind of
equines in statistical materials.

I\'m actually here under the auspices of I guess four of the six, and
it\'s already been addressed; primarily the environment and rural
development. Rural development in the State of Idaho is tremendous in
this day in age.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon your viewpoint, rural
development leads to ever continuing \-- it used to be acquisition
primarily of our smaller valley floor farms. Now, it\'s going on up the
hill to the ranch \-- ranch and cattle industry.

I think what I\'m asking for is primarily for the USDA to consider, and
this is in light of a number of issues you\'re facing, including animal
identification, to consider re-enrolling, and what the process is I\'m
not real sure, but even if it can be included in what I hope isn\'t too
late a date, to include horses at least in your statistical gathering.

It would be so helpful on the state level. Our director of the state ag
department there would know what we have in our horse trailers. I had to
explain that to him last January, remember that Pat? But it\'s critical
that you do that.

I want to also talk very briefly about the gentleman from Utah that
spoke about the political situation. Again, being a bit of a maverick,
I\'m a democrat. I believe that the political atmosphere and climate,
not only on the federal but the state and encroaching down to our level
is becoming totally unbearable for the people of this nation and
untenable. It\'s not doing anyone any good but to get this Farm Bill
through and to address the issues that truly need to be addressed. We
can\'t afford this kind of approach.

Thank you very much.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you. Please, welcome.

BRENT RITCHIE: I appreciate the opportunity to address a few remarks to
you this afternoon. I\'m Brent Ritchie from Rexburg, Idaho. Fourth
generation of dairy farmers, probably the very last generation at least
on the farm up there.

I\'d like to address the U.S. (inaudible) as a global community aspect
here. I guess I\'m more concerned about the overall big picture. I
understand several years ago during the Clinton Administration, Vice
President Al Gore attended a national FFA convention in Kansas City and
informed the students they are not to go into the agriculture
profession. That there\'s no future in America anymore. That they
intended to move all agriculture overseas.

And I think that\'s \-- if you look at the big picture, that seems to be
what\'s happening. We\'ve got these so-called free trade agreements.
They\'re not free. They\'re heavily regulated. Thousands of pages of
regulations that\'s all slanted against the United States.

We import people, illegal people as well as a lot of their product, but
very little of ours is able to go overseas. As just an example, my son
works for one of the largest potato farms. Here in this country, they
have four farms here in the United States, and one down in Mexico,
they\'re not even allowed to send seed potatoes that they\'ve produced
here in the United States down to their farm in Mexico to be planted.
It\'s one-way trade, unfortunately.

A by-product of all these imports, of course, are ballooning. The trade
deficit I understand is around \$15 billion dollars per month now. It\'s
eroding the value of our dollar. You see that and increased costs here,
gasoline, our fertilizer, all the things we use on a farm. The dollar is
becoming worth less and it costs us more to farm here in the United
States and receive less for our products.

If this is going to be the plan, more and more trade agreements that
favor the other nations, it looks like, you know, we\'re going to have
to degrade ourselves to third world title, the standard of living just
in order to compete here. It just doesn\'t (inaudible)

I\'d like to stay that I love agriculture and I\'m glad you folks are
concerned about it. I hope you can find some way to rectify its problems
and keep agricultural strong. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

DIANA COLDWELL: Good afternoon. Welcome to Idaho. I\'m pleased that
you\'re here in the state that grows more bean seed than any other state
in the nation. And that\'s whom I\'m representing this afternoon. My
name is Diana Coldwell (phonetic) and I am the administrator of the
Idaho Bean Commission. One of my commissioners would have been here, but
as you may have noticed as you travel throughout the state, they\'re in
the middle of bean harvest.

On behalf of the U.S. and Idaho dry bean industry, the Idaho Bean
Commission requests funding for the following programs in the 2007 Farm
Bill: Specialty crop grants. Commodity crops such as beans have limited
focus to develop markets for their products. With specialty crop grant
money, the Idaho Bean Commission would not be able to initiate
development of a market for the state\'s dry bean seed in Mexico, or
promote the increased use of beans in school and universities food
service.

FMD and MAP: This funding is essential if efforts to open new markets or
maintain existing oversea markets for beans is to continue. We strongly
support continued funding for these valuable programs at the (inaudible)
level of \$200 million from MAP and \$34.5 million for FMD.

Bean County Crisp: It took me about three years to learn what County
Crisp \-- Bean County Crisp was. This program is one of the few sources
of federal money dedicated to long-term bean research. Without this
funding source, universities will be unable to maintain faculty research
positions in plant (inaudible) plant pathology, conservation
agricultural, food science, and nutrition, et cetera. These research
programs require sustained long-term financial commitments for up to 10
years.

ARS: The bean industry has seen a steady erosion of bean research
positions, both within ARS and cooperatively. And ARS funding has also
been reduced overall. The Idaho Bean Commission and industries supports
maintaining and increasing both ARS general funding and specific
earmarking of funding for bean research positions.

In kind food donations for both emergency and non-emergency food aid:
The Idaho Bean Commission supports donations of food for U.S. foreign
aid programs versus cash only donations as currently supported by the
WTO and EU. The bean industry believes that the current food aid program
is a highly effective and humanitarian program. Thank you. Safe journey
home.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Sir.

STAN FOSTER: Thank you. I just want to first thank you people for being
here in Idaho today and giving us a chance to give our comments and
concerns and this Listening Session, so thank you for that.

My name is Stan Foster. I\'m the executive director for the Idaho
Association of Soil Conservation Districts representing 51 conservation
districts here in Idaho. I don\'t know exactly which of the \-- I got
here a little bit late this afternoon. I didn\'t get your questions in
advance, so I don\'t know if we have have three comments, or comments to
make, and I know they\'ll fit into some of those questions someplace.

I\'ve been instructed by my board to pass these on to you today. First
of all, the 2007 Farm Bill needs to continue offering a strong program
of conservation opportunities. Secondly, looking at the agriculture
economy with stagnated commodity prices, successive years of drought,
increased regulations for water and air quality, dealing with ESA
issues, continual increases of production costs inputs \-- like
equipment, fertilizer, and fuel \-- many farmers are finding themselves
struggling to survive.

Without some improvements and/or government assistance to help stabilize
the agriculture economy, we feel like many producers may be unable to
participate in Farm Bill Programs when 2007 comes around with the
exception of possibly the Conservation Security Program.

There is a need to improve the farm/ranch income net. And we believe the
U.S. foreign policy needs to be developed to address the future of
agriculture in America.

Another comment on energy conservation. And several others have
mentioned this previously, there needs to be more emphasis put on the
development of a program to utilize alternative fuel \-- sources of
fuel. Bio-fuels such as bio-diesel, vegetable oil fuel systems should be
explored and encouraged in the new Farm Bill.

These new systems would help to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
They would also give our farmers additional crops they could put into
the rotation potential to improve the conservation program and it would
also give them a chance to increase their net. Thank you, again.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Please.

DALE DIXON: Good afternoon, Mr. Undersecretary. My name is Dale Dixon
and I am the executive director for Idaho\'s Rural Development Council.
We call it the Idaho Rural Partnership. Welcome to Idaho. And I come
from Greenleaf, Idaho. I grew up on a farm there. That\'s where my dad
and brother are right now back. In fact, we farm right next to Mr.
Takasugi, so a long history in this state.

But I\'m both humbled and excited to be part of Idaho\'s long history of
partnership and collaboration in support of rural Idaho. And we are
grateful to our congressional delegation, including Senator Larry Craig,
who played an important role in authorizing the partnership of the 2002
Farm Bill.

The Farm Bill and Governor Kempthorne\'s executive order continues a
strong spirit of working together to accomplish great things for rural
Idaho. And I\'d like to spend just a moment talking about rural economic
growth. The stakeholders around this table we call the Idaho Rural
Partnership are actively involved. In fact, Director Takasugi, Mike
Field, who\'s the state director for USDA RD., Mike Hammon with FSA, and
Bingham County Commissioner Harold Hemington are all here in the
audience today and are members of the Idaho Rural Partnership Board of
Directors and they are very active in the process. They are \-- all of
our members are truly vested in the partnership along with our private,
local, state and federal representatives.

And I want to recognize the people because it truly is the people
working together, joining resources who are able to address the
challenges facing our neighbors throughout rural Idaho. In fact, 88
percent of Idaho is rural. Much of that land is federally owned. The
profile of rural Idaho, which is a joint project of the Idaho Rural
Partnership with our partners, sums up the issue. Growing urban
populations are seeking to use rural resources for multiple purposes
other than those that have sustained rural economies in the past.
Discussions continue about how to give rural Idahoans a greater voice in
managing the state\'s abundant public lands.

One of our partners, Idaho\'s Counties, is actively involved in the
process of making recommendations to Governor Kempthorne regarding
roadless designation in Idaho\'s wilderness areas.

However, we must foster the evolutionary process. It will keep
agricultural and natural resource based industries, vital parts of this
economy, and a way of life for so many who call rural Idaho home.
That\'s why partnership between the Idaho National Laboratory, and ag,
and natural resource groups is critical.

New technologies, and crop production, domestic energy creations, and
bio-technologies can easily vibrate from the Laboratory just north of
here to fields throughout the state.

We ask USDA to continue its tradition of supporting these types of
collaborations. Please reauthorize the National Rural Development
Partnership language, and we ask for USDA to support funding for the
partnership through an appropriation.

Thank you for your time.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Please. Welcome.

HARRY NEILMAN: Mr. Secretary, thank you for the opportunity to meet us
and hear our thoughts as we prepare to address the contents of the next
Farm Bill. My name is Harry Neilman (phonetic) and I\'m a third
generation farmer from Rupert, Idaho. I presently serve as president of
the Idaho Sugar Beet Grower\'s Association.

Idaho\'s the nation\'s second largest producer of sugar beets and
through our own company supplies over 10 percent of the nation\'s sugar
beets. I would like to focus my comments on a talk of \-- foreign policy
to be designed to maximize U.S. competitiveness that our company\'s
ability to effectively compete in global markets, and how this relates
specifically to our sugar industry.

Idaho and U.S. sugar producers are very efficient by world standards.
But unlike many other commodities, our product is import sensitive
throughout the export system. Also unlike other American farmers, we are
lined up behind subsidized foreign producers to supply our own market.
Existing trade agreements guarantee access to our foreign producers.
Whether we need the sugar or not, meet supply, whatever market is left.

Governments of all foreign sugar producing countries intervene in their
production, consumption and trade as sugar. This makes sugar one of the
most heavily subsidized and distorted markets in the world. The world
dump market for sugar bears no relationship to the actual global supply
and demand conditions. Therefore, it is essential that we have a sugar
program that effectively responds to predatory trade practices of other
nations.

U.S. sugar policies have been designed to operate at no cost to the U.S.
taxpayers. We derive all of our income from the market place and receive
no income support from the government when market prices fall. The
policy operates under the (inaudible) three of Economics 101; balance of
supply and demand.

Rebate tools are used to operate the (inaudible) tariff rate quotas, No.
2, marketing allotments, and No. 3, non-reforcible payments.

When properly managed, the U.S. sugar policy is working. The policy
supplies U.S. consumers with a basic food staple at affordable prices.
In other devout countries, consumers pay on the average of 30 percent
more for their sugar than American consumers do.

The policy operates at no cost to U.S. taxpayers. Over the past 15
years, the government outweighs for other commodity programs that total
215 billion dollars. The government net revenues from sugar policy
(inaudible) have brought in 110 million dollars.

The policy provides a stable market for U.S. sugar producers and
addresses the threat of subsidized foreign product unfairly flooding our
market. The U.S. sugar policy is working. The U.S. consumers and
taxpayers are giving the American sugar producers the opportunity to
survive and compete in the world of highly subsidized foreign sugar
producers.

The successful no-cost sugar policy would be allowed to supply and
should be included in the next Farm Bill. Thank you for coming here to
listen to our positions.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Before we hear our next comment,
let\'s give you a little heads up. Let\'s go through these last five and
then we\'ll take a quick 10-minute break, allow you to get a drink of
water, maybe just exercise those sitters a little bit. So let\'s go
through these last five and then we\'ll take a 10-minute break. Sir.

CLAREN COPELIN: Undersecretary Rey, thanks for coming. Pat, good to see
you as usual. My name Claren Copelin (phonetic) from American Falls,
Idaho. I farm with my brother on a family farm at American Falls. We
raise potatoes, sugar beets, corn, and wheat, barley, a few peas.
Anyway, we\'re well diversified amongst \-- in the area that we live.

I\'ll quickly go through the points that I\'ve put together. I\'m also
the past president of the Potato Growers of Idaho, as well as on the
board of directors of the National Potato Council, so obviously potatoes
are very important to us along with wheat, and sugar beets, and all the
rest of them.

On the first \-- your first question, Undersecretary Rey, unfortunately,
I\'m afraid consolidation and dissolution of farms are consistent with
American agriculture and have been for the last 150 years. I think if we
look back at the history from the mega-farms in the late 1800s and 1900s
to today, it\'s a continual liquid involving environment that is
controlled somewhat by the U.S. government, but mostly by economics.

And I believe the best way that you can help all young farmers as well
as agricultural America is to make sure that there\'s realistic low
interest loans for these young people to be able to qualify for, and
when I say realistic, I don\'t believe \$10 or \$15 or \$20,000. We\'re
talking \$100s of thousands of dollars as well as potential tax breaks
for farmers that wish to go that direction with their farming operation.

On the second question I believe transportation is the largest issue
that we have in rural America. And as a \-- you know, appointed, it
raise \-- it costs us about \$6 to raise 100 pounds of potatoes and
it\'s right now costing us \$12.50 to get them to our largest market.

Now, we can overcome that with value-added here at the local level and
that can be addressed in, you know, how can you help rural areas. I
think grants for value added products that are meaningful, and, again,
when I say meaningful, I mean dollars that you can actually do something
with and enough that you can get them done.

Whether that be administered through the State Department of
Agriculture, which would be a good way to do it, or through the local
FSA office, which I might add is your most efficient system that the
U.S. government has not only in the USDA, but in all of government.

And no matter what program we put together here, if we don\'t have any
way to get it back to the rural America and back to the farmer, it
doesn\'t do us or you any good.

The transportation, we wired rural America and there was a big effort
there, but I\'ve got to be able to push a button and get 100 of pounds
of potatoes to New York. It takes real fuel and real transportation and
diesel\'s expensive, but if we can go back to \$1.20 diesel, which
wasn\'t that long ago, or \$1.00 diesel where everybody thought it was
real cheap, it was still an \$8.50 ride to New York.

So without infrastructure or law changes where we can go to bigger
trucks \-- and homogenize all the laws within the state on the federal
highways, just that in itself, something as simple as that, would create
some competitiveness and some efficiencies in the system that we have,
but we need a tremendous amount of money put into that, and we need it
now. Our railroads are absolutely critical with obviously monopolizing
power from one end of the country to the other.

I see really no reason for them to get any better. So far a lot of their
solutions have been decrease the service and you do that by increasing
the price, and so the problem takes care of itself. You try to get them
some place else. FedEx is looking pretty good right now.

Also \--

MR. ANDERSEN: If we could get you to try to wrap it up here real
quickly.

CLAREN COPELIN: Yes. On \-- to distribute the multiple crop insurance,
RMA\'s a very good program needed in the United States, but I believe we
can better administer the RMA through the FSA within the USDA
government. I believe it would be more efficient. It would be available
to more people as well as more people would use it, and I believe there
would be less fraud creeping into the system than we have with the
private insurance companies.

Those are basically it, other than block grants administered through the
State Department of Agriculture, are very effective and work very well.
Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Over here to this side. Welcome.

RON CRESS: Welcome. All I know is sitting over here waiting to use the
mike is a lot more uncomfortable than sitting at the stands or I\'m sure
even for you people, so it was a real hot seat.

I think everything that I\'ve wanted to say has already probably been
said. My name is Ron Cress. I\'m from Rockland, Idaho, American Falls.
We are a third generation farmer. My grandad homesteaded in the Rockland
Valley, and I am concerned about trying to maintain the farm so that my
son, who has an ag engineering degree at the University of Idaho, can
maintain. He does most of the work now, but we just have a heck of a
time farming on \$3 wheat.

We appreciate our USDA Department. We think that they\'re invaluable. We
try to take advantage of all that they have available to us and we are
educated people. We try to understand where the program moneys are, but
still for us we had one of the greatest crops we\'ve ever had this past
fall, and we think that we\'re awfully good farmers today.

A year from now without any moisture to seed into this fall, we might
not be nearly as important a farmer. We\'ve suffered through drought
years that is \-- three years down the road, that there\'s more money in
the insurance program and drought programs than there is in raising a
good crop right now.

And I remember back when I was a youngster just learning to drive the
combine, my grandad would come and ride with me and he was the \-- loved
\-- a follower of FDR, and maybe the LDP programs and the others will
take the place of the loan program, but I am still convinced that the
loan program sets the basis for the market price of wheat.

You say, well, the government doesn\'t want to be wheat buyers. I can
see that and I can understand that, but I still think that that market
price is going to follow that loan price and wherever it\'s at, it\'s
going to be very near me.

We saw cattle reach an all time high this last year. We raise cattle. We
saw the Canadian border open back up and what happened to the cow price,
but it hasn\'t fallen to pieces, but it\'s certainly come down. And
we\'re going to \-- we\'re going to sell on a depressed market this
fall, and we would just like to hope that you can figure something out
to make us competitive in the world, whether it\'s market-wise or
whether it\'s support-wise, but that price of wheat has to get up more
than where it has been the last two or three years. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Sir, you\'re up.

EVAN HAYES: I haven\'t been called sir in a long time. Mr. Secretary,
Mr. Takasugi, thank you for coming down today. My name is Evan Hayes.
I\'m a barley producer. I farm in Soda Springs, Idaho, but today \-- and
I apologize for wearing my hat, but the sun is hot on bald heads. Today
I wear several hats; not only am I a producer of barley, but I\'m an
Idaho barley commissioner and I\'m president of the National Barley
Grower\'s Association.

We\'ve been hearing some pretty good stories today, and some success
stories of the 2002 Farm Bill. I\'m sorry. I cannot give you that same
success story. We have a very real and very serious concern that barley
can remain a competitive crop in the United States. These charts will
bear out this concern. USDA is now estimating the 2005 harvest acres at
just under 3.5 million bushels. The lowest since 1890, when U.S.D.A
began recording acreage statistics.

U.S. barley production is now pegged by USDA to be about 228 million
bushels. The lowest production since 1952.

We believe this sharp reduction in U.S. barley acreage and output can be
directly attributed to inequities in the current federal farm program
that favor competing program crops grown in the traditional U.S. barley
regions, particularly wheat, corn, and soy beans.

I would like to take this brief time today to address the question you
posed on how farm policy should be designated to maximum U.S.
competitiveness because that is the most presenting \-- pressing issue
facing U.S. barley industry today.

I am submitting more detail, written testimony that addresses the other
major questions you have raised concerning future U.S. foreign policy.
Let me also state that on the onset that because of our declining
production, U.S. barley has lost foreign markets over the past 20 years
and we face the prospect of increasing imports.

We do not see the situation turning around until the domestic
competitive issues can be addressed. Why is the U.S. losing this
competitive edge in barley production? The primary reasons are, one,
lower farm program benefits compared to other crops with which barley
competes for acreage. No. 2, insufficient risk management tools in
production areas that suffer from multi-year weather related crop
losses. And three, the monolithic pricing practices of the Canadian
wheat board, which is a North American competitor that has not
experienced similar declines in barley acreage.

First, barley needs to have a more level playing field than the U.S.
program; specifically the barley support system. Whether it becomes more
decoupled or not must be comparable to corn, the principle feed grain.
Second, we need better risk management processes that will adequately
address multi-year losses as well as provide a safety net for the high
deductibles that we face under current federal crop insurances.
Currently we have a barley risk-management task force working hand in
hand with the risk management agency to innovate ways to address these
challenges.

Third, we need a flexible safety net that will help offset sharp rate
and input costs that can either be absorbed, not depress market prices,
or passed along to the market place. We strongly recommend that the
administration of Congress immediately investigate a tax credit that can
immediately address rising energy costs.

You are certainly familiar with the rising fuel and fertilizer costs
that must fit into our already tight budgets. Allow me to share some of
my own numbers. This year I have seen a 70 percent increase in
fertilizer costs. A 30 to 50 percent increase in farm diesel fuel costs.
Now, this is my tractor costs. And a nearly 90 percent increase in
diesel costs to haul my crops to market, my truck fuel.

For comparison, my multi-barley contract price fell four to 10 percent
this year due to oversupply. These rapid escalating costs and sluggish
markets will certainly wipe out any farm crop profits for the
foreseeable future.

I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you for a few minutes. I
would certainly answer any questions that you have at this time.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much for your comments. Welcome.

KEN EASTEFF: Mr. Undersecretary, Mr. Takasugi, thank you for being here.
My name is Ken Easteff. (Phonetic) I\'m a farmer and a rancher from
Power County. I\'m also a county commissioner. And I have a couple of
points just to bring out some information on Idaho, but first of all the
ag program I think is the only stabilizing effect that agricultural has
to compete. We\'re going to a world economy admittedly, but all
countries aren\'t treating agricultural equally, and the only thing that
can stand between that, whether it be with chemicals or with pure cash
is the government.

Another issue, which can be either good or bad depending on who you talk
to is the Conservation Reserve Program. I can tell you, Power County is
the largest, has the most acres in the Conservation Reserve Program in
the state. And just a few facts on it. One is that it has done, what
started out to be a heck of a job cleaning up the water and holding the
soil in place.

But the other parts that the county commissioners had is in Idaho we
have what they call a cash flow type tax on agricultural land. Now, what
that means is that right now it\'s being taxed like farm ground raising
grain anywhere in the area in the county in the state. If, as I
understand it, that the farm program payments have been lost in the last
signup with CRP, that ground I\'m very confident will never be farmed
again.

If the program goes away totally that means in the county standpoint,
you\'re going to see as an example \$300 dry land farm land go to \$25
to \$30 dry land \-- or dry land grazing land, and the taxes will be
accordingly. It\'s going to be anywhere from a 75 to 90 percent
decrease, and that\'s just following state code the way it is. And so
please, please review that.

One other one, and most of it\'s been hit on, but I know for me and I
think for most of my fellow farmers in Power County, we count very much
on our FSA and our our NRCS to help us move through the programs and
move through the troughs. And I know the trendy thing right now is
downsizing the government, but they can only be cut so much and provide
the services that I always thought government had the responsibility to
provide. There\'s a fine line there.

And as was mentioned on the city water systems, or the sewer systems,
and that, they are very important. They make the difference in Idaho
whether or not if a lot of it gets done. It\'s hard to say because
you\'ve got 33 percent of our population is in Canyon and Dade County,
which is fine. And their economies are really booming and, you know,
probably from Power County I\'m only envious, but remember there\'s
about another 35 counties that don\'t have the same situation. Thank
you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you. I want to go ahead and use a football analogy.
We are at the proverbial two minute warning, so you have the final
comment and after this we\'ll take a 10 minute break.

RAY BUTTERS: Mr. Secretary, Ray Butters, Weston, Idaho. I farm 90 miles
south of here with my wife and four children. We\'re extraordinarily
grateful to you that you\'re conducting this session, but first I would
to address all six questions. I have 12 comments that hopefully you will
find applicable.

Decades and decades ago, the first Farm Bills were written with the
goals of food security and land stewardship as priorities.
Unfortunately, Americans learned some hard lessons during the Dust Bowl
Era and the soup lines of the 1930s. In fact, the administrative arm and
offices were appropriately named Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service.

These days stewardship of the land is still just as important. Meanwhile
the threats to our ability to feed ourselves and to assure the security
of our food and fiber supplies and storage have increased exponentially.
The 2002 Farm Bill, though it has some weaknesses, is probably the best
Farm Bill we\'ve had for a long time.

America can better protect these critical production assets and
economies through the following improvements to existing Farm Programs.
First, direct support to rural America. Policy and program stability is
critical. Second, don\'t limit the support to young beginning farmers
just because he and his father work together under a partnership or
other name. They\'re still a family farm.

Third, historical base means a fair \-- is a fair means of distribution.
Fourth, direct vouchers for the purchase of insurance for crops and/or
crop revenue. Fifth, risk management accounts will wisely encourage
farmers to set capital aside matched by the USDA to help cover the
uninsured or underinsured portion of crop and crop revenue.

Six, establish food security incentives for storage at the farm gate.
Seven, balance the loan rate between crops. Eight, continue the add-on
conservation security program. Nine, role the administration of NRCS
into FSA. Ten, promote the safety, logic, and health benefits that
bio-technology can bring to the world\'s consumers.

Eleven, free trade must mean fair trade; equal, open access. For a
country that controls 80 percent of the world\'s orange juice and nearly
a third of most all other commodities really be considered a developing
country, and, therefore, limit U.S. access to their markets while they
undercut ours? Finally, 12, food fiber transportation. The best way to
do this is to increase truck stability to efficiently haul food and
fiber to the markets.

As you well know, the dollar multiplier effect and federal support is at
its greatest in rural America. Don\'t bend a certain media or other
(inaudible) who don\'t have the best interest of America, her people,
and her bread basket in mind. Thank you. Two minutes.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Again, let\'s go and take a 10-minute
break. Stay hydrated. Stay cool. Stay in the shade. Walk around a little
bit. We\'ll see you back here in 10 minutes. And please come back.
Again, we look forward to another group of questioners. Thank you.

(Recess)

MR. ANDERSEN: We welcome you back, and appreciate those and look forward
to hearing from the remainder of you. I want to go over a couple of
ground rules for those of you that were not here this morning. Again,
we\'re limiting comments to three minutes per person. I have a little
street light placed up here on the stand. When it hits yellow, you have
one minute remaining. I want to try to keep the flow going here relative
to your comments.

And again, we have a distinguished guest today, Under Secretary of
Agriculture, Mark Rey, and also the State Director of Agricultural, Pat
Takasugi. And, again, all of you who are actually the stars of the show.
We look forward to hearing from you and your comments. Again, noting
that that will be included in testimony published in the federal
register. Those of you that do not have the opportunity or do not take
the opportunity to make your comments known today, you can also submit
those at USDA dot gov. There\'s a link on there for forum comments. You
can submit your comments there, so if you think of something on the way
home, or if your wife reminds you of something, or one of your
employees, you can go ahead and submit those comments in that place.

So with that being said, let\'s go ahead and have our first commenter.
I\'ll turn the time over to you.

KIM GOODMAN: Hello, Mr. Undersecretary Rey and Mr. Takasugi. Thank you
for joining us here in Eastern Idaho. I am pleased to represent Trout
Unlimited\'s name. My name is Kim Goodman. I was raised in Pocatello and
I currently work out of Idaho Falls.

Trout Unlimited has over 2000 members in Idaho that support
conservation, cold water fisheries, habitat, (inaudible) projects in
Idaho. As agriculture is the back bone of Eastern Idaho, water is the
common denominator versus stability throughout our state.

I\'d like to address the fourth question on how we can best address
conservation goals through the Farm Bill 2007. Trout Unlimited has
worked with many farmers and ranchers throughout Eastern Idaho and
central Idaho through EQIP, WIP, and continuous CRP. In addition, other
conservation groups have successfully used FRPP and GRP.

I\'d like to address a few ways Idaho can benefit from the conservation
measures in the next Farm Bill. First, in the ground and surface water
conservation program, we\'d like to see a requirement increasing stream
flows in lands using those programs. Second, increase incentive
programs, like the Conservation Security Program, and also add
enhancement of in-stream flows conservation practice.

Third, remove the inability of leasing water rights either permanently
or temporarily in the easement programs to give farm and ranch land
protection program. Fourth, under the Conservation Reserve Program,
please allow access \-- allow access water to be returned to streams to
benefit aquatic species.

Fifth, please allow further flexibility with the Farm and Ranch Land
Protection Program, from MAP Program in counties \-- for counties and
land trusts. Currently which allows a 50/50 match in private entities
\-- if private entities raise half the funding within \-- with the cost
of land and the lack of state-wide funding, in states like Idaho, we\'ve
been able to use very little of this funding.

Six, add adjacent land and streams and rivers, or \-- add adjacent land
to streams and rivers to qualify land under EQIP. This would add a lot
of flexibility within conservation group\'s abilities to use EQIP
funding throughout the state.

And, seventh, please allow the Grass Land\'s Reserve Program to become
more available in the State of Idaho. As you might be familiar, in the
State of Idaho over the last two years, there has only been about a
one-tenth funding of projects in the State of Idaho, and there are so
many farmers and ranchers throughout the state who really would be able
to benefit from the use of Grass Land\'s Reserve Program.

And, finally, on a personal note, my husband and I are investors in a
bio-diesel coop in Driggs, Idaho. And right now bio-diesel is 20 cents
cheaper than normal petrol diesel. And the Farm Bill would be a great
place to add extra incentives for buying diesel throughout the U.S.
Thank you very much and than you for coming today.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. By the way, there\'s been a rumor
flowing around that these seats are actually hot. That\'s not true.
There\'s a nice breeze down here, so those of you that are ready to
bring comments can come down here to either of our microphones. We\'ve
got some chairs lined up, if there\'s somebody ahead of you.

And, again, Kim did it perfectly without my even prodding. If you\'ll
state your name, your city and state, and who you\'re representing and
maybe what question you\'re responding to that would also be a big help
for those who are listening up here.

Again, do we have another person ready to comment? We would invite the
rest of you that are waiting up there that are wondering if you should
say something because you\'re thinking something, to come down and do
so. Please.

KEITH ESPLIN: Thank you. I\'m Keith Esplin from Blackfoot, Idaho. I\'m
the executive director for the Potato Growers of Idaho. I think we\'re
the only state-wide farm organization located here and I\'d like to
welcome you to Blackfoot.

There are several things I would like to mention. I\'ll go through them
fairly quickly. One thing concerning conservation, we believe that EQIP
funds can be used to provide incentives for growers \-- more of crop
land growers to adopt more environmental friendly practices.

We developed an integrated pest management program, and feel that if
growers can receive some funding to encourage better practices, longer
rotations, (unclear), and other ways of integrated pest management, it
would be a wider adoption. But also it should be used as a way to
encourage growers to prepare for the Conservation Security Program.

Other issues that are important to us in the potato industry, we want to
maintain the fruit and vegetable exclusion on program crop land
(inaudible) a fair advantage for growers to be paid payments for other
crops while they\'re planting potatoes. We \-- the marketing program, or
\-- funding program reports to MAP, but I would also like to see some
money for domestic marketing especially for commodities that are
competing with imports.

We also feel that specialty crop grants that are given at the state
level especially helps minor crops to compete. It helps those crop out
\-- or growers out that have not been benefited by past Farm Bill
programs. We support the sugar program. Many of our growers are sugar
producers. If that land were to be removed from sugar beet production,
much of it could go into potato production and cause a surplus in that
area.

Federal crop insurance is important in the industry. There needs to be
some improvements. We are \-- we do have concerns with the adjusted
gross revenue pilots. I wanted to make sure that those aren\'t market
(inaudible), but also feel that they need to be \-- more growers should
have access to them if we\'re going to be an ongoing private program.

We are concerned about the fuel prices. One grower called me this
morning and wanted me to say that it\'s at same as cooperate looting
that\'s going on right now. The amount of money that will be taken out
of rural America because of the high fuel prices. Energy issues are
important. Increase incentives for bio-diesel or other ethanol issues
that would be important to the agricultural industry.

We do favor a country of origin and labeling. In fact, the potato
industry in Idaho label all of our potatoes from Idaho, but not all of
us do that. Recently we received help under the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program, TAA, that has been beneficial, especially in
providing educational benefits to our producers. There are some things
that need to be improved, such as not using income tax records to prove
profitability and then some other import issues on that.

And then \-- and then on trade issues we also mention, as others have,
fair and equitable trade is important. And finally, research. We need to
maintain our research programs so that the U.S. can be stay competitive.
Oh, and finally, the president of the National Potato Council is from
Idaho, Dan Moss. He couldn\'t make it today. He\'s in harvest. He wanted
me to mention that funding homeland security to be able to adequately
inspect importing of vegetables is very important to keep pests out of
the country. Thank you very much.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you. Anybody else? There\'s a lot of issues out
there. I don\'t think they have all the input they need for this Farm
Bill. We realize that a lot of the growers and the producers are out
there actually in the field, so those of you that we representing those
organizations, we appreciate your comments and your input.

I leave it open for anybody out there that\'s got comments they want to
make. Any? It\'s not an option. I\'m not going to start counting it
down, so. Anybody else have anything to say? This is a long way for the
Secretary to come from Washington. If we have his ear, we can bend it
just a little bit more. Anybody want to make a second comment? Here we
go. Thank you very much. Please.

WILLIAM POVEY: What do you want me to do, tell who I am.

MR. ANDERSEN: Name, city.

WILLIAM POVEY: Okay. My name is William Povey. I\'m from American Falls
and I\'m a farmer from down there, and I need to know if and when the
leading of the farm (inaudible) when the American farm is going to
cease. You put NAFTA in, and I can\'t imagine one person wanting CAFTA
in here after our experience with NAFTA. I lost more money in raising
potatoes by starting in \'95. NAFTA was put in right then, and I lost
enough money that will take me 20 years to recover from that.

CAFTA \-- I don\'t know what it\'s going to do, but I have the same
feeling. I\'m a sugar beet farmer. I\'d kind of like to stay in
business. I\'ve got some young boys who would like to farm. I don\'t
know whether to tell them, let\'s get done with this and get it or what.
And I don\'t know if anybody\'s said this, we just got here. One bushel
of wheat for one gallon of fuel.

I started in 1975. I got \$4.30 out of my wheat and I can\'t get \$2.75
out of it today. I don\'t know where America figures we\'re going with
this. Pretty soon we\'re all going to be broke or it\'s going to be
corporate farmers. And I can guarantee you that they\'re not going to
pay as much attention to the land as environmentalists want as what we
do to actually see what\'s going on here.

And the bottom line is what they worry about. They don\'t care about the
land or what they keep in production or how good it is. And I think
environmentalists ought to be on our side trying to figure out how to
keep these things going. And I don\'t have any faith in the government
right now with things I see going on. And I realize that we\'re in a
world economy, but textile is gone. Steel is gone. You name it, this
country doesn\'t do a dang thing. I go in to buy bearings the other day
and where do they come from? China. I can tell you, those bearings are
going to be out of my harvest or halfway through harvest because
they\'re not good stuff.

There\'s no American companies left. We\'re to the point now I
understand in November the trade deficit in agriculture went flip flop.
Forced them \-- more money on foreign food than what we produce on the
outside. And I\'m not real sure that if the USDA doesn\'t come up with
some good farm program this time, that this country is going to have
some big problems here and I really hate to see this.

And the sugar deal, you know, we kind of \-- we said we\'d quit dumping
sugar on the government if they would keep the low level and price where
we could make some money. This thing (inaudible) for two or three years
now. We\'re barely making enough money to even keep going. I mean, look
at the price and stuff that\'s going on. If I paid my people what most
of these foreign countries are paying, I\'d be going to jail.

And I just \-- I don\'t know where the end of this thing is and I just
hope we can survive, but I think the 2007 Farm Bill can be a very
important thing to keep America alive in agriculture and we need to work
together.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Anybody else. I\'ll take this
opportunity to just kind of \-- while I have the microphone, as a former
congressional staff, while those of you who are ready to make comments,
please come down and you can sit in the chair and I\'ll turn the
microphone over as soon as you come down, but often times before we can
get to the point of developing policy, we look for facts, but I\'ll tell
you in order to move people to action it takes stories.

It\'s environments like this that allow you the opportunity to come down
and share your personal stories. Those things that you see day in and
day out so that those can be crafted to that policy to make your life
better.

Again, we open it up. An opportunity for you to make comments again on
the Farm Bill. Good afternoon.

NANCY ESCHIEF MURILLO: Good afternoon. On behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes of Fort Hall, Idaho, I am pleased to present these comments on
the 2007 Farm Bill. I\'m Nancy Eschief Murillo, Vice Chairwoman of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and we thank you for this time.

We are the largest Indian Tribe in Idaho. Currently the membership is
approximately 5000 enrolled members with an additional 3000 non-members
who reside on our reservation. We are located about just a few miles
outside of Blackfoot, Idaho.

The Fort Hall Reservation has a current land base of 547,000 acres of
land which is 97 percent tribally and individually owned by Indian
Tribal members. Our peace treaty was signed with the federal government
at Fort Bridger, on July 3rd, 1868. It also established the trust
responsibility buying between the United States federal government and
its agency such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

We believe new farmers and ranchers \-- we believe there should be a
mandatory 90 percent cost share rate for beginning farmers and ranchers.
Congress allows up to 90 percent, however, the agency \-- the USDA
agency decides whether or not to do the 90 percent. We believe it should
be mandatory.

The farm policy can achieve conservation and environmental goals by
recognizing all federal political boundaries inclusive of Indian
Reservations boundaries. Most of the state and county boundary lines are
used. We would like to have it seen on our reservation the reservation
boundary line.

Producers in one part of the reservation can participate in programs
while producers in another part of the reservation cannot because
they\'re in a different county. They already hit their ceiling. We
believe that all tribal producers should receive 90 percent cost share
for the following reasons: The tribal producers have been traditionally
an undeserved population. USDA has only received \-- recently taken the
initiative to inform the Tribal producers about the programs and
eligibility. The Shoshone-Bannock Reservation is a traditionally low
income area with a high unemployment rate of approximately 52 percent.

Conservation contracts should allow for inflation. Recently the prices
of irrigation systems have increased dramatically. We farm over 100,000
and some odd acres of land that\'s (inaudible) Tribal producers. Because
of this, some producers that have contracted at the 75 percent cost
share rate still cannot afford to install the system because of the
increases.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe believe that the income amount for limited
resource producers is way too low. A producer can exceed the limited
resource guidelines and still not have enough money to install
environmental conservation on their ground even with a 50 or 70 percent
cost share rate. We feel that mandatory 90 percent share should be here.

The Conservation Reserve Program should be renewed at the higher rate,
rental rate should be given for wildlife and a resource enhancements. We
realize that extra points are given.

Under the Conservation Reserve Program alfalfa should be considered a
crop. When deciding on control burns and other fire reduction practices,
the U.S.D.A as a trustee for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe should closely
consult with Indian Tribes. Many of the plants that are disturbed are
culturally significant to our members. Tribal members that harvest and
use culturally significant plants are also agricultural producers.

Funds need to be allocated to Tribes for training and implementing
wildland fire control protection and mitigation on Indian Reservations.

The amount of money in the Rural Development Grant System for Indian
Tribes needs to be increased. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe that
more research should be conducted on ground water issues concerning
contamination by farm and ranch chemicals and the mining industry.

Currently the Tribe is seeking \$3 million to continue construction of a
community water system. The need for safe drinking water has reached a
crisis stage on our Reservation. The Reservation with a population of
8,000 Indian and non-Indians is contaminated by EDB, ethylene dibromide.
We\'ve received appropriations from Congress in the past and USDA Indian
Health Service (inaudible due to background noise) but we cannot
continue to piece meal this operation. With the high cost of oil, the
barrel the increase can only produce so much water.

So what I\'m (inaudible) we need initial moneys for these programs with
grants or a loan. And we did ask the Congress to (inaudible) We expect
that if we have to piece line, (inaudible) 20 years to complete the
water line. No American should have to wait for safe drinking water.

I appreciate your time. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Rey. Yeah, I\'m
a farmer. I farm north of here in the Idaho Falls area. What I\'d like
to talk about is the cost of fuel. You know, we buy \-- our fuel has
gone up, everything we buy is associated with a fuel surcharge.

The government somehow, you know, with the big grain companies, could we
ask them, you know, in a nice way, to help us out with, you know, an
extra bit of money for our wheat? You know, wheat is so low, and then if
you have is a little bit of a protein loss, you know, you get paid per
quarter, you know, one point down is 88 cents you get knocked off
(inaudible) for the \$3 you get in the first place, but with that the
farmer is really farming for nothing. He\'s out there working and
spending money and he\'s actually getting nothing.

You know, it\'s just a tragic situation. Our children, they don\'t want
to go back into the farm. The don\'t want to be farmers. We\'re losing
all our small farmers, Mr. Rey.

Another thing I see is we appreciate the help from the government and
the subsidies available, but what\'s happening it\'s going over the
small farmer\'s head. It\'s going into the hands of the big corporate
farmers. The farmers that have outside income, they\'re taking over
farms nowadays. And they don\'t \-- their sole income isn\'t from
agricultural, isn\'t from farming.

That\'s what I see is a sad thing that\'s happening in this agriculture
industry. We\'re getting \-- it\'s getting just to be a few big
corporate farms surrounding in our area nowadays. They\'re farming 10,
20 thousand acre farms. They\'re just eating up the little guys, and yet
they\'re getting the bulk of the farm subsidies that\'s meant to help
the small farmers stay in business.

You know, that needs to be looked at. You know, to curb that subsidy
trying to help the farmers, to go into the hands of the farmers who
really need it.

And I just \-- that\'s all I have to say other than what you \-- I
second and agree with about everything that\'s been said, and I
appreciate the opportunity that you came to listen to the farmers here.
I appreciate it.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. You\'re up.

WAYNE KENDALL: Thank you, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Wayne Kendall. I live over in Aberdeen across the lake. My son is
(inaudible due to background noise) now manage our family farm, which is
a pretty sizeable operation. They love it. It\'s their heart and their
life, but they know that (inaudible) continues (inaudible) Aberdeen and
that is the concern that I have today, above and beyond that.

I haven\'t heard anybody say today get up here and say let\'s have less
programs. Let\'s do more. And it\'s my opinion that doing more and more
is what\'s causing more and more of the problems in our country. They
give away programs we\'ve had in our trade policies. Our trade policies
create more programs. And I don\'t know how we get away from that
concept, but I spent six years down in the legislature in Boise and I
got to know Mr. Takasugi pretty well and I was on the ag committee and
we seen him often, and after six years he said, "Wayne, how come you
hate us people in the ag department so bad?" I said, "I don\'t hate
anybody in the department (inaudible) particularly, but I hate
government programs."

And that is part of what everybody is discussing today, is that
everything we do and everything that goes on, there\'s another need for
another agency. We\'re going to (inaudible) what the heck went wrong
down in New Orleans and that will probably still be in place many years
from now.

But anyway, something else \-- just a few ideas that hit my mind. Twenty
years ago I was reading one of the top Life Magazines and it said top
economists have determined that the time has now come for America to
become the high tech exporter. Turn the Third World \-- turn the basic
industry over to the Third World masons. And if we haven\'t been going
down that road at 90 miles an hour, I don\'t know what we\'ve been
doing.

And down in Boise I would go to the ag committee, and I kept complaining
what NAFTA is doing to us, so they had a couple people come in from
different agencies and talk to us. And they said, well, at the beginning
of NAFTA, we knew there\'d be winners and we knew there would be losers.
Well, I think by in large here, the family farm of America have been the
losers, bit by bit. Around my area the smaller farmers are being gobbled
up by the bigger farmers, and I have a question where their finances
come from? I don\'t think it\'s the local bank. And eventually I think
the bigger farmer is going to find himself not only in the property of
working with the people that they\'re borrowing money from. That\'s what
I figure our nation \-- we\'re going to lose that common sense of
identity and reality that the American people to have and hold, and hold
everything.

So as far as our family, we worked, I worked hard. We built a pretty
good size, that\'s the reason our son and our son-in-laws have expanded
that, but I sometimes wonder if we\'re really doing our kids a favor by
leaving them a farm to farm. We\'ve been growing potatoes and
(inaudible) crop potatoes for the last \-- ever since NAFTA. I don\'t
know that we\'ve had three years where we\'ve had a crop on potatoes.
Most years we were growing them for \$5 and selling them for 3.

My son said, dad, it costs us \$3 million bucks to grow potatoes in the
last eight years. Well, what are you going to grow to compensate for
that, barley, beets? Beets, we even mentioned that to the president of
the Beet Growers Association, I don\'t know of anything that\'s in the
balance that could hurt Idaho worse than CAFTA, and turning open
donations to the world of our sugar \-- our sugar base.

Well, I better quit, but I would just say to you people back in
Washington, like one of the comments that was made, I watch Congress on
the TV quite a bit, and some of these judicial hearings, and I\'m
looking forward to this new appointment for the supreme court \-- my
bottom line conclusion of all that was, if you\'re fully qualified for
the job, there is no way you can be selected. It just seems like that\'s
the way things work in Washington.

I think the American people are getting disgusted with all the
complaining between the two parties, and it\'s been my conclusion that
if the minority party, whichever one it is, would rather see our
government fail than to have the majority succeed, and I don\'t care
who\'s in office.

So I think we need to take a look at what\'s going on back there and
whose interest are being served and hopefully \-- hopefully big money is
not having much to say about what\'s goes on in government (inaudible)
and I don\'t know where that red light is. It\'s probably about burned
out. Well, it won\'t do that (inaudible) some help here.

But anyway, gentlemen, I\'m proud to be a farmer. I\'m proud of our
nation and our lands, but we\'re not living up to the potential we have,
and more government is not the solution. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

ANDY POVEY: Hi, my name is Andy Povey. My father was up here a few
minutes ago.

MR. ANDERSEN: Where are you from?

ANDY POVEY: I\'m from American Falls.

I want to talk about the first thing on your agenda of how to keep new
farmers on the farms. I believe the answer is pretty simple and that\'s
to help make it profitable. As a young farmer, I use the FSA guaranteed
loan program. I recently was able to purchase my first piece of ground
with the help of it. I also found it very, very helpful.

Although, when I bought this piece of ground along with my operating
loan, I\'m up to the ceiling with what I can loan through it, and where
I haven\'t been able to build equity too good, I can\'t get \-- it\'s
hard to \-- well, (inaudible) I\'m up to the ceiling on the guaranteed
loan program, and if I want to expand like I need to to stay
economically viable, I\'ve got to keep expanding. I think the loan\'s
hitting around \$880,000 or somewhere in there.

If I got to go \-- you can\'t go when you\'re 50 years old because then
you\'re too old to pay for it by the time you want to retire, so I think
it might help with \-- if they raise the ceiling.

Along the same lines, I think that ceiling might be fine for (inaudible
due to background noise) less than agriculture. You know, I can\'t speak
for them, but here in where we have irrigation systems, higher costs of
farming, you know, grow crops, you get to those ceilings pretty fast.

I also have an experience with Sugar Beets (inaudible) Program that I
felt is \-- was built more for the midwestern producers. Their costs \--
you know, they\'re looking at 20-ton average beets with rent \-- you
know, I\'m sure their rent on their acreage is a lot less.

I was really close to being able to qualify with a 35 percent loss. Was
right at it, and if we could have with a (inaudible) I was in there to
qualify for disaster assistance, but since it was such a one-sided
(inaudible) program, I was unable to qualify. I swam through it, but it
\-- you know, it\'s only because I had some good crops and a lot of
help.

The other areas of concern I have are CAFTA and NAFTA. That stuff\'s
already been addressed. And last \-- the last thing I\'d like to end on
probably is the national headlines say the nation\'s farms are making
record profits. This is simply not true. Our oil sector skews the
headlines by saying the oil prices are not at an all time high when
adjusted for inflation.

I think it\'s time for the commodities farm bids to be treated with a
little more respect by the rule makers and up the prices we receive up
near record levels of inflation, and try to help us make a little money.
I appreciate your time.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you.

ANDY POVEY: Can I give you give these written comments somewhere?

MR. ANDERSEN: Written comments?

MR. REY: Sure.

ANDY POVEY: Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Anybody else? I have one person that was reserving their
comments until the very last. We have a clean-up hitter. Please,
welcome.

CAROL VOIGT: Well, I didn\'t really need to be last, but I wanted to say
that the (inaudible due to background noise) fall of the Russian Empire,
the farmers were done away with. They went on their farms and
slaughtered these Russian people and destroyed and burned their crops.
The same thing happened at (inaudible) in World War II. They went in
there and destroyed their crops and killed people. Czechoslovakia and
many other countries were harmed severely. And the war was very strongly
fought by these aggressive NAZI because they had weakened people who
wanted freedom, but they had so many things against them, but this huge
army. And we\'re dealing with needing to keep freedom in America.

Food is freedom. We have to make sure that our family farms flourish
because if the big farmers have some reason they can\'t continue, even
if (inaudible) the family farm should be helped. I understand they get
less for subsidies. The big farmers are getting the big subsidies and
that way they can afford to be bigger farmers and swallow up others.

Market connections are very important. And if you look at CAFTA, we\'ve
all been CAFTA\'d and NAFTA\'d and what\'s the other one \-- NAD\'d? And
nobody seems to recognize that because that has an influence on our
lives. And we need to balance trade. A bushel for a bushel. A hundred
for a hundred. We don\'t want to just have an imbalance of trade.

The farmers need to be paid a parity price for their crops. I see these
potatoes here and we go to the grocery store, and what are they, a
dollar or a dollar and a half a pound? There\'s got to be a better way
to feed us, so that we can afford it. We grow potatoes, but we can\'t
afford to buy them. The fuel price, I don\'t know what they\'re going to
do with that, so I won\'t even mention that hardly.

But I think that these policies are encouraging a new world disorder. We
hear about the world\'s \-- the new world\'s order. And I voted for
Bush, but I\'m really disappointed in him in a lot of ways. But what
choices did we have? It was between him and Gore. We just somehow need
to find people who care. I might get spit on or something, but when Pat
Buchanan was running for president, it made sense because he was aware
of the farm issues plus other grass roots issues, and I thank you for
your time. I didn\'t say my name, Carol Voigt from Menan, Idaho.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Last call. Please.

CHEYENNE SUCAN: My name is Cheyenne Sucan (phonetic) from Paul, Idaho. I
also work in Burley, Idaho for DL (inaudible due to background noise) as
a loan officer there. Not only that, but I live and work on the family
farm, which has \-- I believe it\'s a (inaudible) generation there. With
my my husband trying to get on (inaudible) with my son to try to make
sure that we can stay there and do what we love to do, and me being able
to keep my job in town as well.

And the interest rates, there used to be a program that helped the
farmers, but the margins from what the bank has to charge for them to
make a profit and the government\'s set to make a margin feasible to the
farmer so that\'s still there. That is no longer an option for
(inaudible). And the box is still there to mark, but it\'s unusable.

There\'s a \$250,000 cap on beginning farmer purchases and then you\'ll
also end up with guarantees above that. That\'s not even (inaudible)
back east when they have their five and 10 acre farms with all of their
food and that, they can get \$70,000 and get five or 10 acres. We can\'t
make a living off of that here. Those have to be increased. I can\'t put
together a budget for farmers \-- for beginning farmers or existing
farmers to purchase those lands.

That\'s \-- you know, you\'re looking at to even get a farm (inaudible)
maybe make a living with a one set family, you\'re looking at a million
dollars just to purchase the farm with maybe a small house on it. The
machinery payment that our farmers are ending now, maybe they have five
year payments, and whatnot, and then once they get to the end of those,
they aren\'t able to get more loans to update their machinery because
it\'s all going back to make up the deficit in the margin from the year
before.

My grandfather in 1949 could sell wheat, well, 15 percent more than what
my husband and father-in-law can sell it for more. I don\'t know \-- and
then the fuel, and fertilizer, and power, those are our three main
expenses in farming. And they keep going up and our prices keep going
down. We just can\'t make it.

And we \-- my husband and I tried to stay in a budget to buy our own
farm. Even if my father-in-law bought the equipment, we can\'t make the
farm payment. We can\'t make the budget fly. I work at a place where I
can go through and I can use all of my budget resources. I can use all
of my computer programs. I can literally crunch numbers all day long. I
can\'t make it work. And we\'re not going to have any younger farmers
being able to come into. And you can\'t just start them up. Once a
generation has grown up on the farm, farms are gone, you can\'t rebuild
that. They have to live and work on a farm from the beginning in order
to make it work for the future. Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. Last opportunity to comment on the
2007 Farm Bill. From the Idaho State Fair, Eastern Idaho. Anybody else?
I don\'t want to see a mad dash down from the grandstands. All right.
Let\'s go to close. I want to give our visiting guests an opportunity to
make some final comments. Maybe we\'ll go first with Pat Takasugi from
the State Ag Department.

MR. TAKASUGI: Again, thanks, for coming out and enduring, those of you
that stood in the sun.

It\'s a lot easier when you\'re in the shade, but the comments I think
were appropriate and direct. And I think the Secretary appreciates that.
And I know Mark Rey has taken \-- he\'s taken as many notes as I did. It
looked like there was a contest there for a minute, but I hope that the
legislature as well as congress, the president, and also the government
look at these comments that we\'ll be compiling for the governor of the
State of Idaho and all the other comments that go into the USDA

But I think Idaho\'s producers are concerned about the sustainability of
the market, and sustainability is tied to the infrastructure. It\'s tied
to transportation and it\'s tied to energy, but the bottom line is it\'s
tied to profitability. And we can do anything you want, but if you
don\'t have profitability in agricultural, and unfortunately I know it
because my banker lets me know it all the time, we\'re not going to have
farmers.

I appreciate the last comment in talking about how younger farmers no
matter what they do, no matter how many times they turn that Excel
worksheet upside down, it doesn\'t fix it. I think unfortunately that\'s
the truth.

Four acres, you can have all the tools,

but they may not have the farm to go to. And I hope that in this Farm
Bill with these comments that the Undersecretary has heard and the
Secretary\'s heard around the country, we\'re able to fashion something
that\'s not designed for the midwest, but it\'s designed for farmers and
ranchers across the country.

So, again, thank you for presenting those comments and thank you
Undersecretary Rey.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you very much. And, again, Mr. Undersecretary we\'ll
turn the balance to you.

UNDERSECRETARY REY: Well, thank you very much for moderating this
session, and thank you, Pat, for participating as well. I thank all of
you for your thoughts and comments. I was particularly impressed by your
ability to instill what you wanted to say within the time frame that we
imposed.

I have to do that a lot myself as a witness before congress and I know
how hard it is to get your thoughts in order and to express them in a
very short period of time.

This is, as I indicated earlier, it\'s the third Farm Bill forum that
I\'ve done personally. I want to assure you that we are going to take
what you had to say into account as we begin to think

about where we want to advise congress where the next Farm Bill should
go. I took five pages of very small, very tightly written notes about
your comments.

Some of what I\'ve heard, I\'ve heard it at previous ones that I\'ve
participated in. A couple of things that were knew here today. We have
some degree of despair about the tenure of the political discourse in
Washington, D.C. and how far this has become. My personal view is that
if people would just agree with my point of view, we could eliminate all
of that and make it a lot easier.

But I will tell you that farm policy generally over the years has been
one area where Democrats the Republicans have been able to put their
partisan differences aside and work for the good of rural communities
and American agriculture. And I don\'t think that\'s going to change. I
think what you\'ll see in the 2007 Farm Bill, as you saw in the 2002
Farm Bill, is going to be bipartisan work for Democrats and Republicans
alike, will work to do their best for American agricultural.

The cost of fuel is something that I\'ve heard a little bit more about
today than we have in the previous forums. That doesn\'t surprise me
given

where we\'re at with the gasoline prices today, but I hope where we\'re
at with regard to gasoline prices today, it\'s a bubble in the market
that will receive to some degree as we overcome the disruptions in the
supply line caused by Hurricane Katrina.

I know that with some of the issues that we have underway resulting from
the 2002 Farm Bill is some of the initiatives that will emerge from the
Energy Bill that Congress passed just a little over a month ago that we
will see a substantial increase in the use of bio-based fuels and
bio-based technologies.

And I have to believe that while that won\'t change things overnight, it
will in a period of three or four or so years begin to moderate fuel
prices as alternatives from biological base products start to take a
larger share of the market as they must and will as fossil fuels remain
high in price.

Trade policy is probably the most complex area of American farm policy
today. On the one hand, in the fiscal year 2004, we exported \$62
billion dollars worth of farm products. That\'s an all time record, and
11 billion dollars in farm products that we exported in 2000.

By the time we close the book on fiscal year 2005, I believe that we
will come close to matching fiscal year 2004\'s record. At the same time
we know that that trade activity is not (inaudible) in the quality
across all sectors of farm economy. But there is one important statistic
that I think drives what we have to do, and that statistic is this: The
increase in our rate of consumption of farm products as a country is
proceeding at half the rate of increase of our production. So we can\'t
consume enough farm products to make our farm economy welcome because
our production is out stripping our consumption.

And so we\'re going to continue to have to seek access on a fair and
equitable basis to foreign markets in order for the agricultural sector
as a whole to succeed, even in certain cases for certain periods of time
that make this advantages in particular circumstances, so it\'s a very
complex area where nothing \-- no general statistics necessarily answer
any specific questions.

Lastly, the one thing that I\'ve heard consistently throughout all the
Farm Bill forums we\'ve had today is the concern over what the next
generation of American agricultural will look like. The median age for
the American farmer is about 55 years. Interestingly, ironically,
that\'s the median age of the U.S. Department of Agriculture employee
today, so we\'re both in the same bag, I guess in terms of planning a
succession in the transition to a new generation.

So I think what you\'ll see, and I don\'t have any answers yet for you
today, but I can commit to you that we will spend a lot of time seeking
those answers because what you\'ll see in the 2007 Farm Bill is a
significantly greater amount of attention to programs that are going to
help the transition to the next generation of farmers and the next
generation of USDA employees.

So with that, I thank you very much for you attention, your advice, and
your thoughts today, and I look forward to hearing more from your
counterparts in other parts of the country who will no doubt share some
of your same concerns as well as have concerns that are unique and
peculiar to their individual states as well.

Thanks very much for your time and your thoughts.

MR. ANDERSEN: Again, thank you Mr. Rey and Mr. Takasugi for being here
with us today. It\'s nice to have them in attendance. Also one of the
things that hasn\'t been really seen is most of the support personnel
and staff wearing burgundy shirts for their efforts for their helping of
sending us some information and getting people where they need to go and
for handling all the logistics. We appreciate your help as well. Our
stenographer, who I\'ll stop talking momentarily, so that she can stop
typing.

But most importantly to you for your comments, and again, we will remind
you that you can have additional comments. I know people that want to
make them, you can go to USDA.gov and there\'s a link there for you to
add your comments to what\'s been stated today.

Again, we wish you a good afternoon. Enjoy your afternoon at the fair
and a bountiful harvest to you all. Thank you.