![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.805555555555555in" height="1.3in"}

Release No. 0493.05

**TRANSCRIPT OF THE MONTANA FARM BILL LISTENING SESSION WITH DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CHUCK CONNER, SENATOR MAX BAUCUS, SENATOR
CONRAD BURNS AND GOVERNOR BRIAN SCHWEITZER WITH MODERATOR TAYLOR BROWN,
NORTHERN AG NETWORK THE MUSEUM OF THE ROCKIES BOZEMAN, MONTANA -
NOVEMBER 4, 2005**

MODERATOR: I think we\'ll be ready to get started here in a second. We
appreciate your patience and a chance to hear from Deputy Secretary
Conner and Senator Burns and Senator Baucus and Governor Schweitzer.
It\'s going to be a treat. I see so many leaders in Montana agriculture
around the room, and it\'s kind of a Who\'s Who in our industry.
Secretary Conner, if you know the names \-- and you know quite a few of
them already. These are leaders from almost every commodity group and
every ag organization and almost every \-- I\'d say nearly every county
in the state represented here, and it will be a good discussion.\
\
We\'re proud that USDA came to Montana with one of the Listening
Sessions. There have been quite a few Listening Sessions around the
county. By the way, are you here for the Farm Bill Listening Session?
We\'re not having that. This is the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act Listening Session \-- (laughter) \-- so if you\'re at the right
place, we\'ll love to have you stay for it.\
\
The way it will work this afternoon \-- we\'ll get things under way in
just a second. Each of you will have a chance to comment at one of the
two microphones. We\'ll explain the rules in just a minute. We\'ll also
hear from each of our leaders here on stage.\
\
Before we do that though, I\'d like you to please rise for the
presentation of the colors by the ROTC chapter here from Montana State
University.\
\
(Colors presented.)\
\
To lead us in the Pledge of allegiance, we\'ve asked James Brown, who is
a collegiate member of the Collegiate 4-H Program, and Leo Ogg from
Cascade, State First Vice President in FFA, to lead us in the Pledge of
Allegiance.\
\
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited.)\
\
And to perform the National Anthem we have Angela Mahoney. Angela.\
\
(National Anthem sung.)\
\
And then we\'re going to have Senator Burns read the Preamble of the
Constitution. (Laughter.) No, a very patriotic program here today.
We\'re all excited to be here, and it is a proud day to be Americans,
and we\'re glad you\'re here in part of the system, taking your
opportunity to have a voice in how our government shapes American
agriculture policy.\
\
Our first speaker this afternoon is our senior senator. We appreciate
both senators being here today, Senator Max Baucus of course in his
fifth term in the United States Senate after serving two terms in the
House. He\'s the ranking Democrat of course in the Senate Finance
Committee, and some of you may be aware of this, but this will be the
fourth Farm Bill that he\'s worked on, so he\'s got some practice at it,
of course comes from a longtime ranching family in Montana. Please
welcome \-- and, Max, you can have that center microphone, Senator Max
Baucus. Thank you. (Applause.)\
\
SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Thank you, Taylor, very, very much. I\'ll be very
brief. We\'re here primarily to hear from you, what your worries are,
what your hopes are, what you really think. This is a real opportunity
to ask those questions that are really on your mind. There might be
something kind of back in deep recesses of your mind \-- gee, that\'s
kind of a dumb question \-- I\'m not sure about that. That\'s probably a
very good question. Whatever you\'re thinking about is what you should
discuss or talk about.\
\
When we walk out of here this time is past, it\'s gone, it\'s
irretrievable, so let\'s make the most of it here right now and build
upon what we come up with here.\
\
A couple things. One, on the international front, we\'ve got some good
news. There are some concerns, but there\'s also some good news. For me
the good news \-- and this is a point to make I think to younger farmers
and ranchers in our state \-- is the huge growing demand in the world
for our products. The population of a billion in China, a billion
roughly in India, 10 percent annual growth \-- those people are now
going to want to consume a lot more food than in the past.\
\
A few years ago China tried to say, Oh, no, they\'re self-sufficient in
their production of wheat. Now they make no bones about it. They\'ve got
to import, and import big time. Their production just can\'t keep up
with the demand over there. There\'s the Gobi Desert or farmers don\'t
want to double-crop \-- there\'s all kinds of reasons. But the main
point is demand is going to be strong in the future. It\'s a real
opportunity for us.\
\
Let\'s remember if we Montanans were to consume all the wheat that we
produce only in Montana, it\'d be the equivalent of 400 loaves of bread
everyday. We produce a lot in Montana. And beef clearly is critical to
our export markets. Japan might open up \-- they\'re making noises
they\'re going to probably open up \-- we don\'t know for sure. We\'ve
got to at least keep the pressure on Japan to make sure what they do.\
\
So the good news is large potential, increased demand.\
\
The concerns on the world basis are other countries are coming to the
fore too. Brazil \-- largest agriculture exporter this last year, about
\$25 billion worth of ag products \-- that\'s beef products \-- that\'s
you name it \-- that\'s even the coffee in Japan. Brazil is very active
in agriculture.\
\
Which brings us to the opportunity we have in these world trade talks to
make sure we do a good job. We Americans have about 12 percent average
ag tariffs on ag products coming into the United States. Other
countries\' are immensely higher than ours \-- it\'s just wrong, their
tariffs \-- Japan\'s about 50 percent average, India is about 100
percent, and South Korea is about 70 percent, the EU is very high too.
So it\'s an opportunity to get those tariffs down. That means we\'ve got
to be aggressive we\'ve got to be tough, fair but firm, and get rid of
those export subsidies that the Europeans have.\
\
We\'ve got some allies. The developing countries are basically on our
side. They want Europe to back down too. They also don\'t like the state
trading enterprises; that is, the wheat boards of Canada and Australia.
So it\'s \-- those are big questions. Lot\'s happening in the world. One
book I\'ve read recently, which I think sort of gives a glancing blow at
how the world is changing so much, is a book by a guy by the name of Tom
Friedman, \"The World is Flat.\" And I urge you to read that book \--
it\'s not directly related to agriculture, but I urge you to read it \--
\"The World is Flat\" \-- because it gives us a sense of just how much
the world\'s changing. It\'s challenges, but it\'s also major
opportunities. There\'s opportunity in everything, and this is a chance
with these changes for us to find these opportunities.\
\
Domestically at home there is a Farm Bill coming up \-- not till 2007
\-- but it\'s great that Secretary Conner is here and you\'re here and
so forth. I\'m on the Agriculture Committee. I\'ll be at the table when
the 2007 Farm Bill is being written, and I\'ll make sure that we get all
the right information and know really what you want. There are lots of
different trade-offs here and there and so on and so forth, and it\'s
not exactly the same for everybody, but really keep in touch with us. I
remember we\'re just the hired hands \-- you\'re in charge. We work for
you. You\'re the employers. You\'ve got to act like employers and give
us your marching orders, what you really think and feel. We\'re there.
We\'re all lucky as Montanans of instant access both ways. And don\'t
forget this: you are 50 times more powerful, each of you, compared to
California, in influencing the United States Senate. They\'ve got 34 or
35 million people \-- we\'re 900,000. You have 50 times the voting and
access power as they have. So, like in life, you\'ve got to take
advantage of your advantages, and that\'s a huge advantage. And whether
it\'s me, whether it\'s Denny, whether it\'s Conrad - all of us \-- be
sure to take advantage of that advantage so that we can get a good
result. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming.
(Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Senator Baucus.\
\
Our next speaker, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. All of you are
aware Governor Schweitzer last November became the first Democrat
governor in the state of Montana since 1988 \-- our 23rd governor. He
was born in Havre. His grandparents homesteaded in Hill County there 100
years ago, and very involved in agriculture in Montana, farmed and
ranched in several counties in Montana. Of course the one thing I should
mention \-- there might be some people in the room, Brian, that had you
for a TA years ago, because he got his soil science degree, his
master\'s degree, right here at Montana State University, and of course
has served as our governor this last year, but also many will remember
he served in the state FSA committee for many years, since 1993. So
please help me welcome Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. (Applause.)\
\
GOV. SCHWEITZER: Mr. Secretary, welcome to Montana.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Thank you.\
\
GOV. SCHWEITZER: And I hope that you brought one of those charge cards
that you\'ve got from the United States government, and you can stay
over a few extra days, spend a little time, make it down to the park,
buy some thick steaks, drink some old whiskey, take a few people to
dinner. (Laughter.) Spend your tax dollars in Montana.\
\
I want to welcome all the producers who are here, because we need a new
vision for rural America. If we continue down the same road that we have
for the last 25 years, if we are just going to tweak the \'85 Farm Bill
and tweak the bill that came after it, and tweak another one, we will
lose an entire new generation of farmers in Montana. We need something
new and bold.\
\
If you would spend a little time \-- not in Bozeman, because Bozeman is
growing, a lot of new houses, big houses, people moving here \-- I wish
we would have had this in Circle or Glendive, or my birthplace Havre. I
wish we could have gone out to Glasgow and let you have a look around.
And then I would like to take you back in time and show you the number
of implement dealers, Ford dealers and Chevy dealers that we\'ve lost.
I\'d like to show you what the railroad has done in terms of closing
down those shipping points that we have. I would like to show you the
multiple generations that we\'ve lost, the best and brightest in the
history of this state, who are now running businesses in Seattle and
Austin, Denver. I would like to show you the resolve that we have in
Montana. We can do our job, but we need a vision, because if our vision
is to subsidize the multinational grain companies, the railroads and the
exporters so that we can continue to grow wheat and lose our next
generation without value added, without looking at new crops, without
looking at new opportunities, without creating new industries in each
and every one of our communities, we will lose another generation.
We\'re asking you, Mr. Secretary, be bold this time. We need you.
Welcome to Montana. Thank you to the producers. Thank you. (Applause.)\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Governor Schweitzer. Our next presenter
of course, Montana Senator Conrad Burns who, of course, is the person
who founded the company that I work with and sold it to me when he went
back to Washington. He is only Montana\'s second Republican senator
ever, and in his third term as the longest-serving Republican senator in
the history of Montana. Conrad has, of course, a powerful seat on the
Senate Appropriations Committee. Many of you know this week on the bill
that went to the president\'s desk, \$4 million in that bill for the
building of the new animal science facility that will be built here at
Montana State. And Conrad played a big role in that, along with Senator
Baucus. We appreciate both of you, Congressman Rehberg and the work you
did in getting that accomplished. It\'s going to mean amazing
developments for Montana State University. Conrad started his career in
politics at Billings, at Yellowstone County Commission, then ran for the
U.S. Senate. He might be the junior U.S. senator, but he\'s still the
senior member of the Northern Ag Network Farm Broadcast team, our
Washington correspondent. (Laughter.) (Applause.)\
\
SEN. CONRAD BURNS: Thanks, Taylor. I guess this thing is on, so we\'ll
take a chance on it anyway. Thanks, Taylor. And I think at times I
should be back in the broadcasting business.\
\
We passed a little bill when I first went back to Congress call FSCOR
(sp). It allowed agencies to take part of their budgets and spend it
with certain small universities and colleges for R&D. Up until then most
of the money for research and development, no matter what the agency
was, whether it be the Agriculture Department or the Commerce
Department, or whatever department it was or the Department of Defense
\-- most of those dollars would flow into the MITs and the CalPolys \--
not that they\'re not good schools. But we also found out here at
Montana State University that we had some pretty talented people who
knew how to do R&D. And when we invest in that, it helps all of us. We
can take a look and see the work that we did with the malt barley plant
in Great Falls, all the things we had to go through \-- and that\'s a
value-added thing that we have here in the state. But today we come to
listen to you. We\'re going to write down your suggestions, because
they\'re important as we move into this debate on the \'07 Farm Bill.
What direction or what kind of policy it takes to provide income so that
farmers can keep on farming? We\'ve been through some tough times \--
drought like you can\'t believe. Yet we got drought relief. But,
nonetheless, it is the policy \-- this is the reason why the Hong Kong
talks in December will really be important, because we may have access
to the market, but what about fighting high tariffs? It takes us out of
the competition. It\'s something that\'s hidden out there that we can\'t
break through, and we\'ve got to break through this high tariff \--
Japan, China, India. As India and China is driving the energy market,
they\'re also driving the agricultural products market. But the tariffs
are too high and these talks are very important.\
\
But let\'s talk about down home. Let\'s talk about here at home, on your
farms, on your ranches. And we want to hear from you. If we all don\'t
shut up, we\'re not going to have time to do that. So thank you very
much for coming.\
\
I\'d like to introduce Chuck Conner. He\'s assistant secretary of
agriculture \-- that\'s the number two man down at USDA. I\'ve known
Chuck ever since I\'ve been in Congress for the last 17 years; we\'ve
had some very spirited discussions \-- (laughter) \-- more than you
might imagine. And we didn\'t get down to name-calling, but we might
near did, and but nonetheless understands agriculture and understands
policy. And, let\'s face it: the policy that we set today will not have
a lot of effect on you and I tomorrow, but who it does affect is the
next generation. We always live for the next generation. Our parents
sacrificed for us, we will sacrifice for these young folks sitting over
here in the blue jackets in 4-H and FFA. That\'s the genius of this
great country, is the sacrifices that they made for us and we pass that
on as uniquely United States of America. And, as a result of that, we
have the highest standard and the highest quality of life of any other
nation in the world. You must never forget about that. And our freedoms,
everything else being questioned \-- all else is out the door if we
can\'t protect those freedoms to do what we want to do.\
\
So thank you for coming today. We look forward to your comments. Please
welcome Chuck Conner. (Applause.)\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Well, thank you all very much for coming today.
Taylor Brown, thank you for agreeing to be our host today. As you will
see, as we proceed with some of the comments, Taylor\'s got a tough job
keeping us on schedule and cut him a little slack, if you will. He
volunteered to do this, so he\'s gracious, and we look forward to that.\
\
Great turnout today from your Congressional delegation, and certainly,
Governor Schweitzer, thank you for coming. I appreciate your comments,
and I know you mean it from the heart. You\'ve got a strong agricultural
background, as all three of your members of Congress do. We appreciate
so much your input. I have worked for a long time with Senator Baucus on
the Ag Committee and Senator Burns \-- I think I met him before he was
even elected. And you\'ve got some great agricultural leadership here
represented \-- and Montana is fortunate to have that leadership.\
\
I also want to thank Nancy Peterson, your director of Montana
Agriculture. Nancy, if you\'re \-- please stand up. Thank you, Nancy,
for being here very much. (Applause.)\
\
To our folks from the Army ROTC, thank you for helping us with the Color
Guard, to bring due honor to our country so appropriately \-- also to
James Brown and Leo Ogg for the help in the Pledge of Allegiance. And
Angela, thank you \-- Angela Mahoney, thank you for leading us in the
singing of the National Anthem.\
\
Our state Farm Bill Forum Committee is here, and we thank them for all
their work in setting this up, and as well just appreciate the Museum of
the Rockies giving us this opportunity to have this forum in a very,
very comfortable setting. I can tell you that you are fortunate to be in
a facility like this. We were in facilities for Farm Bill Forums that
were not quite as comfortable as this. So we do appreciate very much
them allowing us to have this.\
\
I do want to bring you greetings really from all of USDA and from your
Department of Agriculture. And it is very, very much your Department of
Agriculture. We believe strongly in the commitment that we have to bring
help to rural America and help to the farmers and ranchers of this
country, and it is for this reason that we have taken the time I think
to bring these Listening Sessions to each one of you to make sure that
everyone involved in agriculture in some way has the opportunity to give
us their comments on this Farm Bill.\
\
The Farm Bill is a big piece of legislation, and it impacts all aspects
of farming, ranching and rural America. The last bill was about \$170
billion. Not too much goes on out here \-- not too much goes on at a
place like Montana State University that is not in some way very, very
directly impacted by a Farm Bill. And I think the president felt
strongly when Secretary Johanns came on board that he didn\'t want a
Farm Bill that was based upon a lot of input that was received at the
House and Senate Agriculture Committees. That may be important. It is
important. But, more importantly, he wanted us to get out to those
people that probably are not ever going to have a chance \-- nor want a
chance in their lifetime to come to Washington and present their views
on farm policy. And it is for this reason that this is actually the 50th
Farm Bill Forum. Secretary Johanns and I are both hosting one today.
He\'s in Missouri. He heard it was snowing, so he told me to come to
Montana. (Laughter.) Not really, he\'s a hardy Nebraska \-- bad weather
doesn\'t bother him. We\'re both finishing up the 49th and 50th forums
today, and this will be the last. We have been in every state, in every
region now, hearing producers\' input. And we are going to use that
input as we develop policies going forward. And your input is critical
to this.\
\
Let me just give you a very brief hint of my background \-- Conrad
touched upon it. But do know that I am a farm kid from Benton County,
Indiana \-- grew up on a farm. That farm is still in my family. My
father has passed away. It\'s owned by my mother, operated by my brother
\-- 100 percent of his income is derived from the farm. He keeps me a
little bit updated every time corn prices go too low \-- (laughter) \--
and I\'ve been hearing from him a lot lately \-- unfortunately.\
\
But we just \-- whether it\'s my brother or anybody else, I want to tell
you that we are very, very focused in this Farm Bill on the future
generations involved in American agriculture. The governor mentioned
this, and I give you high marks for the comments that you made. A Farm
Bill should favor a next generation involved in agriculture. We are an
aging population in American agriculture. I\'m told on average we\'re
about 59 years old. When I started working on Farm Bills \-- and this is
my sixth Farm Bill now \-- it was less than 51 years old was the average
age of a farmer. So it says we may have a problem with that next
generation. And we want to make sure that this next Farm Bill certainly
at a minimum doesn\'t hold back young producers, and I think ought to
provide a benefit and boost to get these guys and gals involved in
American agriculture, and have that benefit that all of us had in rural
America. Growing up there was a great place to grow up. Our next
generation should not be denied that opportunity. And this Farm Bill I
believe needs to focus upon that. And we\'ve been hearing a lot of input
from younger folks, from 4-Hers, from FFAers on this very, very point,
and we hope this Farm Bill does reflect upon that.\
\
Now, having said that, I will tell you we\'re hearing a lot of change
suggested to the Farm Bill. At the same time, I wouldn\'t be fair if I
didn\'t tell you that we\'re not hearing a lot of people come in and say
absolutely change the date of the Farm Bill from 2007 to 2012, and I\'ll
be perfectly happy \-- and we\'re hearing a lot of that too, and I
don\'t deny that. That\'s a strong producer sentiment that is out
there.\
\
We\'re hearing very, very strong support for all of our rural
development programs. These are programs that in your local small towns
will maybe be used to keep a rural hospital open, maybe used to buy a
fire truck, put in a sewer and water system. These are very, very
popular programs out there \-- all funded as part of the Farm Bill.
People say do more of this kind of stuff. We need help in rural America
to improve quality of life there. Do more of this type of thing.
Conservation \-- very, very popular programs out there to help producers
not in a regulatory way coming in and saying, You shall do this and you
shall do that. That doesn\'t fly. But our conservation programs which
come along beside you and say, if we can get you to move this direction,
we\'ve got a helping hand for you. Those are very, very popular
programs, and we\'ve been hearing that I think reflected in the comments
that we have received throughout this Farm Bill.\
\
Controversy - it\'s out there, you bet. The Farm Bill is the most
difficult thing that I\'ve ever been associated with in my working
career \-- and, again, I\'ve been through six of them. They are a
horrible, horrible process to go through, because there clearly are
many, many differences of opinion. But those differences also unite us,
bring us together, help us, I think, to write better bills as we move
forward on this front, and really again stress the importance that we
need of your input in this. When I say \"your\" input, ladies and
gentlemen, this is your Farm Bill Forum. You\'ve heard from us \--
we\'ve had the opportunity as your folks from Washington to have a press
conference, talk about this stuff. But now that\'s kind of done. I\'m
done talking now. This is about you telling me, telling your elected
members of Congress and elected members of the Senate, your governor,
what works and what doesn\'t work for you. You don\'t need to hear any
more from us. Tell us what you think. We\'re going to be taking a lot of
notes, writing down a lot of things.\
\
If for some reason you just don\'t feel like you want to get up and say
something, know that you can write us a letter. Know that you can go
online at usda.gov. You can click on right there \"Farm Bill Forums\"
\-- give us your comments. We really, really want to hear from you on
this, because it is such an important piece of legislation at such a
critical time in the future of American agriculture.\
\
So, again, I\'m going to take notes, but I\'m anxious to hear what
you\'ve got to say. So thanks so much.\
\
MODERATOR: Okay, thank you. (Applause.) I think they\'ll oblige you. I
think they\'ll give you an opinion or two before you leave here.\
\
We\'ve got water up here, governor and senators \-- we have water here
if you\'d care for a drink, if you\'re thirsty \-- no water for you guys
\-- you just have to do all the talking \-- you don\'t get any water.
But we are going to take a break. They tell me we\'re going to get a
break here in an hour or so. But we\'re almost at break time now, but
we\'re going to go ahead and take a few comments.\
\
The comments \-- we\'re going to ask you to be brief. We\'re going to
ask you to limit them to two minutes. If you\'ll notice down here next
to Senator Baucus we\'ve got a red and green light. The green light will
come on when you start talking. At the end of two minutes we\'re going
to turn on the red light, and they\'d like you to wrap up at that point.
You don\'t really need me that I can see, except for the color blind
ones that can\'t tell what color the light is I guess. But if it\'s
behind you or something I\'ll let you know. So, with that, I think
we\'re ready to get started. We\'d like to open it up for comments.
Those who want to say \-- they always tell me the first one you hear is
the last one you remember. So, anyway, we\'ll start out. There\'s a
microphone on each side. So if some want to line up at that one, some at
this one, we\'ll go ahead and get started and we\'ll try to limit it to
a couple a minutes. Any questions or any other comments from you guys?
Okay, let\'s get started and see how we go. Go ahead.\
\
MS. TRUDY PETERSON: Hi, I\'m Trudy Peterson from Judith Gap, Montana,
and as the prices the producers receive continue to decrease and be
affected by our ability to export our products, we must realize that the
rest of the world is looking more at environmental aspects. Being able
to reassure our customers that we are good environmental stewards needs
to be continually reinforced. Much like the presidential order for all
government agencies to implement an environmental management system, one
possible path would be to take a proactive approach to use this
recognized EMS system in the new Farm Bill. USDA could partner with
producers to implement ag EMSs much like a CSP program to overcome both
the subsidy issues and help reassure our customers that we are indeed
showing and documenting continued environmental improvements at the farm
level. The environmental management system approach provides a standard
environmental business model based on ISO 14000 templates that allows
all U.S. agricultural producers to label their products, their brands if
they wish, third-party-certified by a credible EMS audit system.
Furthermore, the EMS approach provides profit and efficiency measures by
which U.S. farmers can determine the benefits of good and superior
environmental management.\
\
The EMS approach to conservation and environmental goals is based on
environmental accountability. And I\'ll provide you with a copy of a
farmer-to-farmer network that\'s developing to increase environmental
management systems in agriculture. In discussions with farmers at the
Sacramento Farmer-to-Farmer conference in June of 2005, farmers cited
credibility as the single most important provision of the EMS tool. The
standards and audits, both pure audits and third-party certificates are
the EMS mechanism of environmental accountability and farmer
credibility. The mission of sustainable agriculture can be led by
farmers through EMS approach conservation.\
\
While we as producers feel we are good environmental stewards, we are
very poor in telling this, and have even less ability to document
improvement. Through the use of ag EMSs, USDA and U.S. ag producers
could maximize U.S. competitiveness and help our ability to compete in
the global marketplace, along with looking to the future by setting both
conservation and environmental goals in the new Farm Bill and future
Farm Bills. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Trudy.\
\
MS. TRACY HOUCK: Thank you, Delegation. My name is Tracy Houck, and I\'m
representing Montana Farmers Union this afternoon. We at this point
explicitly support maintaining the 2002 Farm Bill as it is until its
expiration in 2007. We\'re all aware that the 2002 was put together in a
surplus budget. We\'re looking at a deficit. We\'re very concerned that
current budget cuts will administer serious harm, and it will deal with
agriculture, but it will deal with Montana economy first and foremost.
Each year more and more family farms and ranches go out of business or
become part-time ventures because of the hard time we have making it
here in the state of Montana. In 1932, 6.5 million farms existed in
America; today\'s that\'s less than 2 million. We need to take a look at
that math.\
\
Montana Farms Union is hosting a young producers program next weekend
for free, and we\'re having difficulty finding producers between the
ages of 25 and 45. You know, they\'ll come, but where do we find those
producers? Reducing our domestic subsidies for small increases in the
market access to other nations will not really help the farmers in the
developing countries, but it\'s going to push us into a depression, and
we really need to watch what kind of business ventures we\'re making.\
\
We\'re a membership organization with over 2,000 producers and 12,000
affiliates in the state. At our 90th annual meeting and convention last
month, we passed a special order of business supporting key issues
proposed in the Farm Bill. The top three is an adequate safety net in
funding. Please stop the trend of whittling down our risk management
tool, increase our insurance payments. We\'re looking to establish a
working permanent disaster plan that works. I mean, that\'s the
foremost. Expansion of renewable energy. Governor Schweitzer supports
biodiesel going into a truck that I produced out of a little equipment
thing that I have, a mini refinery, and yet we don\'t have a large-scale
refinery in our state of Montana. If I as a soccer mom can produce
biodiesel, the state of Montana should be able to produce biodiesel.
(Laughter.)\
\
And last, but not least, we really wish that for a stable and fully
funding our conservation funding. We need that incentive. Thank you.\
\
MR. LEO OGG: Good afternoon, I\'m Leo Ogg, first vice president of the
Montana FFA Association. And part of our deal today was our invitation
included us commenting a little bit. And I\'m going to comment on some
of the challenges facing new farmers and ranchers entering agriculture.
And, first and foremost, I\'d just like to say that I am in a room
surrounded by support for not only my organization but agricultural
youth in general. I\'ve had the privilege this past year as an FFA
officer for the state to meet with many of you in organizations. And
while almost all of you began in production agriculture and got your
foundation in production agriculture, you are serving agriculture in a
different way. And in fact while during your meeting, while you have
bright hopes for agriculture, very few of you have mentioned bright
outlooks for young people getting into production agriculture. And I
think that Governor Schweitzer was exactly correct when he said that you
are losing a generation. And I\'m here to speak as a young person who is
trying to get started in production agriculture, and yet finding many
challenges within that. But we also have to look at why those challenges
are coming around. Agriculture was changing.\
\
As you look at our organization, we went through a complete
restructuring in 1988, changing from the Future Farmers of America to
the National FFA Organization, changing to a leadership organization,
not necessarily just an organization promoting farming and ranching \--
because we saw the need for leadership in the organization. Eighty
percent of agricultural occupations are not production agriculture.
They\'re the people leading the organizations that lobby for
agriculture; they are leading the organizations that help producers;
they are leading the United States Department of Agriculture in helping
those producers get in. But very few people are out there to help young
people get into agriculture.\
\
Agricultural inflation has not followed the national pattern for
inflation. We mention the quality of life, but as a young person looking
at a future in production agriculture, I look at the fact that
agricultural earnings and wages in a production agriculture operation
have not held the inflation and the rising cost of living that we see in
all other occupations. And I think that is definitely something that you
must look at when you\'re looking and trying to entice young people into
going into production agriculture \-- is that they see it as a way of
not necessarily making a living.\
\
I just got back from Louisville, Kentucky, where I saw over 50,000 blue
jackets. The passion for agriculture is there in young people, and yet
it\'s not going to be going back to the farm and ranch. It\'s going to
be leading in these organizations. Sixty percent of today\'s high school
students will be in an occupation that currently does not exist.
Agriculture is changing. Several people have mentioned the
consolidation. When you look at farms, there are fewer farms run by
fewer people, and they\'re bigger farms than they used to be.\
\
I feel that production agriculture is a \-- (inaudible) \-- feel that
it\'s a strong foundation, but there are many, many challenges facing
young people getting into production agriculture. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Let\'s give him a hand. (Applause.)\
\
Some of you in the back must think Taylor is a preacher up here, because
you\'re not willing to sit up front. We\'ve got a whole lot of seats
down front. Come on, sit down here \-- come on. They\'re all Lutherans.
(Laughter.)\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: I have to add something to what Leo was saying,
because I was one of the speakers at the FFA convention last week, and I
met, after speaking to the General Assembly, met with a cross section of
about 60 kids, and just had kind of a little roundtable discussion, and
they went around and told me what they\'re thinking about doing, what
their future is \-- that kind of stuff. Anybody want to guess how many
of those 50 or 60 kids intended to return to the family farm, or return
in production agriculture? Any guesses? There was one \-- the kid from
North Carolina \-- and he was going to go back and become a producer of
pack mules. And that was going to be \-- he was raising pack mules,
okay? So if anybody thinks it\'s not a tough go, it\'s a tough, tough go
to get involved in American agriculture today. So, Leo, thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Okay, who\'s surprised that I lost control of this?
(Laughter.)\
\
Okay, please go ahead.\
\
MS. CINDY BERTEK: I\'m Cindy Bertek, MSU extension Forest Stewardship
Program coordinator. My statement is also supported by the Montana
Forest Landowners Association. There are 22.4 million acres of forest
lands in Montana; 3.8 million are family forests; 50,000 families own
between five and 15 acres; 15,000 own 15 acres or more. Since 1991, MSU
Extension Forestry has offered 106 planning workshops with over 2,500
participants representing over 1,600 ownerships and about 950,000 acres,
25 percent of the total forest land in Montana. There is a rising number
of small acreage family forests as private industrial and nonindustrial
forest land is subdivided and sold. With this increase in numbers comes
an increased need to provide forest management education. After
attending the forest stewardship planning and other related workshops,
participants show increased confidence and knowledge to sustainably
manage their forest. Quote, \"When my husband and I completed the forest
program, we were no longer completely overwhelmed with the forest land
that we have on our property.\"\
\
Over the past 10 years, nonindustrial family-owned forests in Montana
have provided 30 percent of the annual wood harvested. It is an amazing
number, since these lands only represent 16 percent of the forest land
based in Montana. In addition to providing needed wood fiber, private
lands also provide clean water, often critical wildlife habitat,
recreational opportunities, aesthetic view sheds and, perhaps most
importantly, buffers between the often uncontrollable wildfires that
have been occurring on federal lands and the communities they surround.
All of these benefits are provided at the cost, both monetarily and true
sweat equity, of the landowners. This is why it is critical that the
Farm Bill continues to fund programs to help family forest landowners
through educational and cost-share programs that have a proven track
record of success. Through education we can have 80,000 well-informed
land managers in Montana that own family forests. With the functional
cost-share program, we can help these managers complete projects that
benefit everyone at a fraction of the cost of similar projects on public
lands. I urge you to increase funding in the new Farm Bill for the
nonindustrial private forest landowners and the programs that help them.
Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you very much.\
\
MR. JAMES BROWN: Thank you, Taylor. I\'m James Brown, and on behalf of
MSU Collegiate 4-H. I\'m elated to be with you this afternoon to comment
on the opportunities to expand agricultural markets, products and
research.\
\
The 2007 Farm Bill should serve as a porthole to a new era in American
agriculture in which producers are provided the mechanism to
strategically produce, process and market agricultural products, which
convey regional mystiques and offer consumers a superior quality
product.\
\
As I was traveling across Montana last spring conversing with
individuals involved in niche and value-added agriculture, I asked each
entrepreneur what their foremost impediment to growth was, and with
consistency they responded, \"The lack of marketing funds and marketing
expertise.\" In order to enable American agriculture to gravitate
towards an industry of self-sustainability, it is imperative that the
2007 Farm Bill escalate the level of support provided to programs such
as the farmer direct marketing program, marketing access program and
other programs which objectively provide producers with marketing and
technical expertise in order to propel their finished agricultural
products out of their infancy and into the mainstream market.\
\
Furthermore, it is essential that the 2007 Farm Bill provide
low-interest long-term loans or cost-sharing arrangements to individuals
and entities involved in niche and value-added agriculture.
Unfortunately, the astronomical cost of establishing product processing
infrastructure frequently deters producers from marketing a finished
agriculture product, an action which would enable producers to retain
the highest possible per unit value of their raw agricultural products.
Farm policy can simply no longer be viewed within the confines of
conventional food and fiber production, but as an industry of boundless
potential ripe for growth. Thank you. (Applause.)\
\
MR. BOB LEHFELDT: I\'m Bob Lehfeldt, sheep producer and currently
president of Montana Wool Growers Association. I appreciate the
opportunity to make some brief comments on the farm forum regarding the
new Farm Bill.\
\
Believe me, it is a challenge being involved in agriculture. My son just
returned to the ranch, and has strong interest in continuing our
operation of a family-owned ranch. Interest rates always bear on the
profitability of a ranch in operation, because money is borrowed for
nearly all operations. A growing non-rural population is also a
challenge. All people eat, but there\'s only a handful of people left in
production agriculture. These people also set policy in past lives that
are adverse to agriculture. I guess the introduction of wolves back to
Montana is one of these programs I disagree with due to the predation
effect on livestock producers.\
\
Montana sheep producers can compete in world markets, and we are
competing. Well over 60 percent of the wool grown in the U.S. is now in
the export market. The value of the United States dollar addresses the
price we receive for the wool, and right now that price is not very
good. Government policy concerning the value of the dollar is an area
that affects all agriculture for export.\
\
I have watched it closely and I am very distressed over the United
States negotiating cuts in farm programs while foreign countries are
slow in not dropping their support of their farmers, and we\'re not
taking off tariffs or import controls, which stop our sales to these
countries. Sheep producers in many of our competing countries receive
large subsidies based on each head they raise.\
\
The American sheep industry wants the 2007 Farm Bill to include the
present loan-deficiency on wool with some changes to reward growers who
are producing the best wool for the market. The industry wants to raise
the loan rate to \$1.20 per pound, which is the amount intended when the
LDP wool program was put in effect. We also seek a program designed to
expand sheep numbers in the U.S. We want a program that will reward
producers for holding back new lambs that was in the Farm Bill providing
monetary payments for keeping these new lambs. This program was in place
for four years, and we\'ve seen an increase in sheep numbers due to it.\
\
We need the strong support, Mr. Conner, of the USDA to reauthorize the
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. This center provides loans
to the sheep industry, infrastructure such as slaughter facilities, wool
warehouses and transportation issues. The industry also supports
mandatory price reporting and the industry also supports
country-of-origin labeling, a position long held by the sheep industry.\
\
In closing, USDA and senators like Senator Baucus, Senator Burns \-- we
need to continue to legislate programs to ensure Americans have a supply
of food. Relying on imports of food to feed our nation is not in our
best interests. We also need to address the high cost of energy. Thank
you.\
\
MR. BILL DONALD: My name is Bill Donald. I\'m a cattle rancher from
Melville, Montana, and I am currently serving the members of the Montana
Stockgrowers Association as their president. I appreciate you being
here.\
\
And my main concern is getting young people getting back into
agriculture. I think the two young gentlemen before me did a great job
of showing the interest that is out there. I\'m fortunate to have my two
sons back on the ranch with us, and my two nieces also. So I\'m well
acquainted with the challenges. Of course some of the major hurdles to
get young people back on the ranch are the price of land has gotten so
far from \-- or the price of production. That\'s just supply and demand.
They don\'t make any more land, and people want to put money into land
and invest, that\'s fine. Possibly through this Farm Bill \-- (end of
side 1) \-- another major enemy in this regard is the death tax. If you
have to sell a portion of your ranch to pay a tax then you lose a viable
unit, and then the whole ranch ends up getting sold. I\'ve had
conversations with both senators, and I think they\'re very much on our
side. But if we can\'t get something done through the Finance Committee,
maybe we can get it done through the Agriculture Committee and in the
Farm Bill.\
\
One of the ideas that might be helpful is to somehow index production
value of land back onto the land and use that in some sort of a formula
to get this land back into the hands of the next generation. Thank you.\
\
MR. ROGER SAMMONS (sp): I\'m Roger Sammons (sp), a producer from Cut
Bank, Glacier County. I\'m here to talk to you about barley issues. I
produce barley, and malt barley in particular, and we believe there\'s a
number of things we\'re losing our competitive edge in the barley
industry, the primary reasons being barley producers receive lower
program benefits compared to other crops that compete for acres like
barley. Barley must be comparable to corn as far as program benefits in
order for us to maintain our acreage. There\'s insufficient risk
management as far as crop insurance tools in the areas that experience
multi-year losses. Glacier County has been hit with drought for many
years through the late \'80s and early \'90s. We\'ll need better RMA
programs that would address multi-year losses, as well as provide a
safety net for high deductibles that we face under the current crop
insurance program.\
\
The Canadian barley acres have not decreased at all, and we believe that
the reason for that is the pricing mechanisms that the Canadian Wheat
Board uses. And we have a wonderful new facility in our state and it\'s
be a terrible shame to see it filled with Canadian barley. Thank you
very much for this opportunity to comment. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Roger.\
\
MR. BRUCE BUGBY (sp): Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Bruce Bugby
(sp). I\'m from Missoula, Montana, where I\'m a land-use and
conservation planning consultant \-- have been for about 30 years in
Montana, worked around the state with a variety of landowner agencies
and non-governmental organizations. I\'d like to just add to my
colleagues who have the very capable comment about the farm forum and
the Farm Bill perspective, that of conservation, an interest that is
shared with the producers. And I think the particular strength of the
2002 Farm Bill was the explicit emphasis on conservation and how that
has led to partnerships throughout Montana, throughout the country, that
have been very helpful, led to stronger support. And that kind of
support is essential for a good working environment for producers.\
\
I also appreciate the opportunity to speak with you here as opposed to
Washington. Thank you for coming out here. And I appreciate the
opportunity I\'ve had over the years to work with the various branches
of the Department of Agriculture, but in particular the NRCS with its
capable direction of Dave White, veteran of the 2002 Farm Bill. Glad to
have him here helping us with getting ready for the next.\
\
I would like to suggest that the Wetland Reserve Program, the Farmland
Protection Program, the Grassland Reserve program might be combined
under one umbrella as administered I think more efficiently, and might
open up some possibilities for new producers to come into the business
by affording an opportunity to pay for aspects of the land that are not
producing income. I think that program has shown a lot of promise and
could be made to work a lot better.\
\
The other thing that I think is important is that, again, I think
Montana has provided a good example of how to anticipate the
relationship to wildlife and doing good conservation measures that avoid
the need for more stringent regulations. I think that\'s again something
that ought to be emphasized, perhaps even made more explicit.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Bruce.\
\
MR. KEITH SCHOTT: My name is Keith Schott. I\'m a grain producer from
Broadview, Montana. I\'m currently the president of the Montana Grain
Growers.\
\
U.S. wheat producers want to be able to compete on a level playing field
in the global marketplace. However, producers in many other nations have
much lower production costs, putting U.S. producers at a disadvantage.
Therefore, MGG members support the full preservation of domestic support
within the \'02 Farm Bill, but recognize the importance of all countries
moving towards less trade-distorting policies. Montana exports nearly 80
percent of their wheat crop annually. MGG supports the continuation and
expansion of market access programs and the development of new and
creative export programs, such as tax credits, that provide a way for
producers to compete worldwide.\
\
MGG strongly supports financing programs for beginning farmers and
ranchers. MGG members also believe that if farming were profitable young
farmers would enter the field without needing extra encouragement.
Therefore, MGG wheat producers believe that there needs to be a focus on
making farming profitable.\
\
MGG feels an assistance program should be nonproduction based and
non-trade-distorting. The current direct payment clearly fits in with
these criteria and is a top priority for Montana producers in the \'07
Farm Bill debate. The loan deficiency payment, the countercylical
programs, are not participated in to the full potential in Montana,
while other states with other commodities participate extensively. MGG
feels this is unfair to wheat producers in Montana, and are a
competitive disadvantage nationally when our main commodity is wheat.\
\
With production in Montana is extremely variable, it is difficult to
participate in programs that are based on production. We also support
the current conservation program, if it were structured and streamlined
in a more simplified way. The biggest problem has been underfunding of
existing conservation programs. The Conservation Reserve Program needs
to be fully funded, as originally intended. Producers should be eligible
for participation. The Conservation Reserve Program should be refocused
on environmentally-sensitive highly erodible lands.\
\
MGG also believes that conservation program funding should not be used
to offset or supplant existing commodity program funding.\
\
Financial support farmers receive for their commodities go into local
communities, directly to local businesses and through local and state
taxes. By continuing to provide farm program payments, the U.S.
government is making a strong investment in rural America.\
\
In order to be able to compete in a world market, focus must always be
kept on quality, progress and quantity in regards to research. We should
have a strong presence in the next research title with an equal emphasis
on cereal disease research and new and improved traits and qualities.
Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Keith.\
\
MS. LAURA ZIEMER: Thank you for coming to Montana, Secretary Conner. And
I\'m so glad you did come to Montana, because I think Montana is maybe
the best place to have come to look for examples of watershed health.
Under the creative leadership of our state conservationist, Dave White,
we in Montana have implemented some of the best examples of watershed
restoration recovery in the West, and probably in the nation. And I
really think that you don\'t need to look much further than what Montana
has done to look what the 2007 Farm Bill potential for conservation can
be and indeed should be. My name is Laura Ziemer, and I\'m the director
of Trout Unlimited\'s Montana Water Project. And with the literally
decades of a track record of stream restoration across Montana, Trout
Unlimited has been well positioned to partner with Montana NRCS on
ambitious and basin-wide restoration efforts that have really looked at
and addressed the limiting factors for watershed health. And state
conservationist Steve White has made remarkable use of special
initiatives under the EQIP program to address watershed health on a
basin level. The Jefferson, the Big Hole, the Blackfoot have all been
subject to special initiatives under EQIP, but have already borne
results both for producers and for imperiled trout. And it\'s this kind
of model and the creativity that Montana NRCS has shown that has allowed
the popular Farm Bill conservation programs to invest in producers and
in conservation at the same time. And it\'s this kind of partnership
that has produced award-winning stream restoration projects while at the
same time boosting producers\' crop production. That is improving a
producer\'s land, improving the land and fishing for Montana, and
investing in the stewardship of Montana producers. I think as Governor
Schweitzer said, here in Montana we are doing our job. And what I have
included in my written comments are seven specific recommendations to
make Montana successes and encourage other states to replicate them.
Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Laura.\
\
MR. TONY BELCKER (sp): Tony Belcker (sp), Chippewa Cree Tribal Natural
Resources. I guess my testimony is going to be towards tribal
governments. We talk about government-to-government consultation, but
yet it\'s never been defined or written down. What is
government-to-government consultation? I think we need to get that
written down, with the millions and millions of acres in Montana here on
tribal land. You talk about \-- we need to deal with fractionated
ownership, you know how you get 1,400 signatures to do a CRP contract
\-- that\'s nearly impossible. So you don\'t see that. I agree with Mr.
Schweitzer: let\'s can the whole Farm Bill altogether, and let\'s get
our price of beef up to the price of diesel fuel for three bucks, and
you know we wouldn\'t be dealing with all these government regulations
day in and day out.\
\
Tribal government, you know, the center pivots \-- I guess irrigation
history is a big stumbling block for us. Center pivots have been around
for 50 years, but yet our tribe just got a center pivot two years ago.
So that\'s how far back tribes are in some of the USDA programs. And we
need to figure out some ways to change that. and with you guys\' help I
think it can be done. I know the tribes are willing to come to the table
and address these issues in a true government-to-government, but let\'s
define what government-to-government is. Give us a (pamphlet in ?)
government-to-government consultations, so with you guys\' help we can
change that.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Tony.\
\
MR. LEE RINEHART: Hello, my name is Lee Rinehart, and I\'m with the
sustainable agriculture program with the National Center for Appropriate
Technology based in Butte, Montana. Of course we are funded through the
USDA Rural Business Development. And our biggest project we have is the
ATRA program, many of you may know of, which is the national sustainable
agriculture information service with a 1-800 line and about 25 program
specialists who do research and writing for farmers and ranchers and
educators around the country.\
\
Essentially, on behalf of NCAT what I would like to do is address some
of the questions of the talking points that USDA put out, specifically
with respect to the Conservation Security Program. Under conservation
and environmental goals, we believe that conservation goals should be
synonymous with production goals, realizing that agriculture is
systems-oriented. Agriculture we know is the manipulation of a natural
system. Sustainable agriculture seeks to understand the inherent
linkages and the connections between people, plants, animals, soil,
livestock, crops and all of the communities that rely on all these
natural resources. By managing from a systems perspective we understand
agriculture can be sustainable as well as productive.\
\
An action that we would recommend for Congress and for the USDA is to
appropriate specific conservation working land programs that serve to
foster environmental conservation while developing opportunities to
sustain agricultural production to feed and clothe local communities,
particularly the Conservation Security Program. Dave White has been
working really well with many different \-- a very diverse group of
people in our state doing some serious outreach on the Conservation
Security Program, getting the word out, enlisting the help of many
different organizations and commodity groups to come together and figure
out ways to get the word out on the Conservation Security Program. We
believe that this program is the way that the citizens of the United
States should support its agriculture, and we wanted to ensure that not
only was it passed but it was appropriated sufficiently to allow that to
happen. So thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Lee.\
\
MR. JOHN TOFF (sp): Hello, my name is Joss Toff (sp) from Missoula,
Montana. My family moved into the state in 1860, and I\'d like to talk
to you about estate planning. My father is 89 years old. We had our
estate pretty well planned out. And last year the city of Missoula threw
a real loop to us, and put a sewer right through our property. The
banker came last fall, and said, John, what are you going to do about
your estate? And I said, We have \-- (inaudible) \-- don\'t we? He says,
No. He then informed me the value of my estate had increased by tenfold
during this time. We are now in trouble. Please get rid of the death tax
so that we don\'t have to subdivide and farm people out in the next
couple of next year. Thanks, bye.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, John.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Thanks, John.\
\
MS. BARBARA BROBERG: Hello, Barbara Broberg, Montana Women Involved in
Farm Economics, but I\'m also a farmer on a family farm, and that\'s
probably what I need to talk about most is on our farm we deal with
hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have been helped by your Farm Bill,
but we\'re also dealing with 5,000 acres, and only two or three people
to run the place. And when we read about family farms, we just want you
to know that it\'s a lot of work with very few people most of the time.\
\
We want to say thank you for doing your Farm Bill. I mean, I think when
you\'re talking in private to any farmer he\'ll say, I don\'t know what
I would have done without those farm payments. And I heard a chance
comment a few years ago. The man said, "When the banks start feeling the
pinch of the farms, then we\'ll start having action in Washington, D.C."
And I don\'t know if J.B. Penn or some of those people have helped that
to happen, but I personally feel that the farm banks have been
increasing young farmers, and there\'s at least two people in this room
who have their sons coming back to the farm. And I know of two others
\-- which maybe doesn\'t sound like a lot, but sometimes for new farmers
it\'s a big deal. Just I agree with you, Secretary Conner, that this is
a comfortable facility. It\'s fun to be inside just for a day or two,
and thank you for having these things to help us remember our passion in
farming.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Barbara.\
\
ROB ETHRIDGE: Thank you. My name is Rob Ethridge. I\'m with the
Department of Natural Resources, and I\'m here to speak in support of
maintaining the forestry title in the Farm Bill in 2007. Maintaining
healthy sustainable forests, a functional wood products infrastructure
and intact family forest land is a growing concern nationwide, as well
as here in Montana. We believe the pursuit of a healthy, sustainable
forest should be incorporated into the 2007 Farm Bill as a national
priority. A separate forestry title in the Farm Bill allows for the
recognition of forestry issue as its own entity and allows for the
possibility of solutions.\
\
Cindy Bertek explained \-- she gave you the statistics about
nonindustrial private forest landowners in Montana. But they do make
many contributions, many ecosystem contributions, such as clean water
and wildlife habitat. But these lands and these landowners are under
continual pressure of fragmentation, needing to sell their property,
parcelization. So really the next generation of family forest landowners
in Montana, as well as nationwide, are under the same kinds of threats
as we see in agriculture.\
\
Providing for information, education, technical assistance and financial
assistance to private landowners is an important component of
maintaining these healthy, intact, sustainable forests and the
associated ecosystem services. These are services that government can
and should participate in. Secure financial assistance to family forest
landowners is important in addressing these issues, and should be made
available through the Farm Bill.\
\
Placing family forest landowner financial assistance in the conservation
title is not a bad idea. Over the past year, NRCS and DNRC have had a
very successful partnership in providing financial assistance to
landowners, and technical assistance through the EQIP program. Actually,
Montana\'s NRCS program leads the nation with \$3.4 million in financial
assistance through EQIP, and DNRC has assisted through the technical
assistance part of that.\
\
I guess one other point. We\'d like to see biomass utilization for
energy and heat as part of the Farm Bill in the 2007 Farm Bill. Senator
Burns and Senator Baucus and Congressman Rehberg have been instrumental
in providing financial support to the fuels-for-schools program in
Montana. That needs to move beyond that kind of support into the Farm
Bill as well as the private sector. Thank you very much.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Rob. You guys are doing a great job of staying on
time. Does every group do this good? How about these brief comment,
getting to the point?\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Great.\
\
MODERATOR: Okay, we\'ve got to get a few more here.\
\
MS. JANELLE HOLDEN: Hi, my name is Janelle Holden. I grew up on a
Montana cattle ranch, and I now work with farmers and ranchers on
wildlife conflicts and conservation. And I first just wanted to echo
what other people have said about the difficulties of young people
getting back into production agriculture, especially when they\'re like
me and they\'re allergic to hay. So that makes things a little bit more
difficult.\
\
But I did want to put in my support for what NRCS has done in this state
in terms of wildlife and conservation issues. I think that there is
definite room for innovations within EQIP and other programs within the
Farm Bill, and we\'ve seen a lot of great help from Dave White and NRCS
specifically on predator deterrent practices. He set aside \$250,000
this last year out of EQIP to help farmers and ranchers put in electric
fencing, do carcass removal and other things that will benefit wildlife.
And so I just want to encourage you to consider that in the coming Farm
Bill, and to encourage best practices in the coming years. Thanks.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Janelle.\
\
MS. JILL LORANG: My name is Jill Lorang, and I\'m the administrator for
the Cascade County Conservation District. I also grew up on a family
farm 35 miles east of Conrad, and me and my husband are currently the
youngest ranchers in the Eden community.\
\
The new Farm Bill should continue to and devote more funding to programs
such as EQIP. Additionally, a key to the success of any programs with
NRCS, and in order for the producer to obtain the most efficient
service, NRCS needs a higher level of funding for staff and for
technical service providers, to assist in program implementation.
Programs such as EQIP provide a very good public image of agriculture.
EQIP is not a government hand-out, as some people would say about some
subsidy programs, but rather a cost-share program to get conservation
practices on the ground. For this reason, programs such as EQIP and CSP
need to be funded at an equal or higher level than what is currently
allocated.\
\
As a young rancher, another concern is the death tax. In order for us to
keep generations in agriculture, this tax needs to be addressed. It
places a huge burden on the agriculture sector, and is the demise of the
family farms and ranches.\
\
The last comment that I have is about political implications of the Farm
Bill. I would urge the farm organizations of Montana to lobby with a
unified voice, and the Congressional delegation \-- thank you for all
your hard work and all that you do back there \-- but think of us that
are back here on the family farms when you pass the 2007 Farm Bill.
Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: We\'re going to take just about the rest of you standing up.
We\'ll take those, and then we\'re going to take a little break. So
those of you that have more comments, we\'re not going to quit the
comments, but we\'re going to take about a 10-minute break here and give
our panelists a chance to relax just a second. And, also, MSU is
sponsoring the break, so I don\'t know \-- last time I was over to Dr.
Gamble\'s house for break, it turned into a lot of fun. So I don\'t know
if that\'s what he\'s got in mind for this time or not, but thanks, Dr.
Gamble, for MSU sponsoring the break. We\'ll take the rest of the guys
standing up. Then we\'ll take a break and then come back. So go ahead,
Tom.\
\
MR. TOM LOWRY: Thank you. Under Secretary Conner, senators, governor,
thank you very much for coming and listening to us, appreciate it. I\'m
Tom Lowry. I\'m a calf producer from Grass Range, Montana, and I\'m also
a regional director for the Montana Stockgrowers Association.\
\
I\'d like to talk to you, make a few comments about the incentive
programs in general. First off, I think it\'s very important we get them
a little more organized where they\'re more timely. It seemed like they
were very confusing. The paperwork is difficult and the payment
assessments were very slow coming in this last program. We need to, if
you will, put some kind of sideboards on the incentive programs, in our
belief, that it seems like they\'re able to damage neighbors and damage
small communities. For example, the CRP program, by putting so many
farms, turning the whole program into the complete farm and losing that
production, we feel that it should be kept strictly with production
agriculture lands. And, as you know, with the growing and definitely in
Montana and a lot of other states, with nontraditional ranchers and
farmers we feel that they can use up a lot of the incentive monies and
not keep them in productive agriculture. So with those sideboards we
think there\'d be a lot more help with your Farm Bill program. Thank
you.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Just a quick comment, if you would, on that
conservation. Conrad and I have talked about these issues at great
length from time to time, and I think we\'ve got an opportunity to do a
better job on our CRP issues going forward. I think perhaps too many
times some of that CRP and the whole farm bids enabled people to
actually put their entire farms in it and in some cases move out of the
communities altogether and go someplace else. That\'s probably not the
direction that our conservation programs ought to be headed, and I think
we\'ve got an opportunity \-- it\'s a great program \-- CRP is a great
program, but we\'ve got an opportunity I think to tighten this thing a
little bit and do a better job. Thank you, Tom.\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Tom. Dale?\
\
MR. DALE Mr. Secretary, senators, governor, I\'ve been a conservation
supervisor for 40 years. The governor will tell you I came with Lewis
and Clark \-- (laughter) \--\
\
GOV. SCHWEITZER: Before Lewis and Clark. (Laughter.)\
\
Anyhow, my wife and I spent \-- this last year was our 59th year on the
same farm in Cascade County, and we\'re proud of it. I\'d like to put in
a pitch for the funding for the Conservation Security Program. I think
it\'s a wonderful program, but I think it needs to be funded nationally
\-- throughout, not just on a watershed basis. But my real interest is
in the Farmland Protection Program. I\'d like to turn my place over to a
young family. The only way I can do that - -and I\'ve talked to many
conservation easement people, and they all say the farmers and ranchers
are land rich and cash poor. And if we could use the NRCS Farmland
Protection Program to better utilize our way of getting some income for
our economy, then part of the problem is NRCS will fund 50 percent, the
landowner is supposed to donate 25 percent, and then we have to find 25
percent from somewhere else. And that\'s where the catch is \-- we
can\'t find the 25 percent. Here in this county they\'re doing
wonderful. The county commissioner here saw fit to pass a bond issue,
and they are funding it at 25 percent, because they can see what\'s
happening out here. This place has grown by leaps and bounds, and so has
our area up in Cascade County. I live 15 minutes from Great Falls. I\'ve
got development on two sides of me, and they\'re surveying the third
side as we stand here. And I\'m not going to see houses on my place, if
I can help it. I want to see it in production agriculture, which it
should be. I produced 67 bushels to the acre this year, and I\'m a
progressive farmer, I no-till \-- I have for four or five years now. And
I\'d like to see a young family come in there and take over, but I
can\'t do it without some help. And I think the conservation Farmland
Protection Program is the way to go. So I appreciate any help that NRCS
could give or anybody else. (Applause.)\
\
MR. SCOTT BOCKNESS: Thanks, Taylor. My name is Scott Bockness. I\'m a
weed management professional out of Yellowstone County, and a
Conservation District Board member. And I\'m also the incoming president
of the Montana Weed Control Association. I\'ve had the pleasure to talk
to most our legislators in D.C. over this issue. I wanted to thank our
director at the Department of Agriculture, David White, our state
conservationist, for our support with noxious weed management issues,
and Governor Schweitzer for his elevated commitment to our issues. We
recognize that noxious weeds impact our rural natural resources and ag
economics. We hope that you consider that as part of this federal
partnership as we move forward into the future with the \'07 bill. Thank
you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Scott.\
\
MR. BRUCE WRIGHT: Hello, I\'m Bruce Wright. I\'m a family farmer from
north of Bozeman, and I\'m on the board of directors for the Montana
Farm Bureau, the largest ag organization in the state. I\'d like to make
six comments relative to the six talking points, and then just make a
few observations.\
\
The 2002 Farm Bill is working. It provides a safety net to farmers and
ranchers when commodity prices are low. When prices rise, farmers
receive a majority of their income from the market.\
\
Number one. Our ability to compete in global markets will be affected
greatly by the outcome of the ongoing Doha Round of trade negotiations
in the world WTO talks. The round is unlikely to conclude successfully
before 2007. The results of the negotiations must be known and taken
into account before we begin making public declarations about changes to
the current Farm Bill. Any attempt to modify the current Farm Bill prior
to the completion of the round will place U.S. farmers and ranchers at a
serious competitive disadvantage.\
\
Two. If movement is made away from traditional farm programs, that
movement will need to be taken over a period of time. A majority of
farmers\' own personal retirement investments include the value of
land.\
\
Three. We continue to oppose any changes to the current farm program
payment limitations.\
\
Four. If a voluntary incentive is offered for a desirable outcome,
farmers will overwhelm America with improved soil conservation, air and
water quality and wildlife habitat.\
\
Five. Rural America and production agriculture face two very serious yet
vastly different set of problems. While some areas are facing a
declining population, others face huge suburban sprawl. The
one-size-fits-all is unworkable.\
\
And six. One significant way of improving farm income is to increase the
investment by farmer projects that will capture more value-added
dollars. Such farmer-owned venture provide for rural development,
increase competition and increase farm income. An observation is that,
as the secretary said, the average age of farmers is 59. That puts me
almost 10 years younger than the average. (Laughter.)\
\
Statistics will show that almost 90 percent of farm income comes from
off-farm sources. One of the things to keep in mind for the way
agriculture is going, in the last, as I go \-- there\'s a farm green
growers convention here. They had a speaker there that said he had a
plan to double \-- he thought he could just about double the income of
every farmer in Montana. He said, Let them marry a second wife.
(Laughter. Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: Okay. You didn\'t write that last idea of Bruce\'s down?
Okay.\
\
We\'re going to take a little break now. Is there refreshments out in
the foyer? Okay, thanks to MSU for those. Remember, right after tonight,
this afternoon\'s program, James Mentor (sp) from Kansas State is going
to be speaking - one of the most respected livestock economists in the
nation. Please stay for that right after our program at five o\'clock.
Don\'t forget tomorrow Ag Appreciation Day at the football game. We\'ll
be recognizing some ag leaders. Please come back. We\'ll go again in
about 10 minutes. So take about 10 minutes now.\
\
(BREAK)\
\
MODERATOR: We\'ll let Jane go with our next comment. We\'ll need quiet
now. We\'re getting ready to get started, so please be quiet.\
\
MS. JANE HOLZER: Secretary Conner, I\'m Jane Holzer, and I\'m the
program director for the Montana Salinity Control Association, which is
a satellite of the conservation districts in Montana. And we think that
it\'s important that USDA funding place a very strong emphasis or the
strongest emphasis on working lands production and conservation. I have
a number of programs that we think are very successful that I\'d like to
talk about. In particular, EQIP, or Environmental Quality Incentive
Program, has enabled many farmers and ranchers to reduce their erosion
and non-point-source pollution. We\'d like to see that EQIP funding
maintained. The annual allocation should continue to be distributed on
the county level and not ever go back to just a priority watershed.
We\'d like to continue seeing the local working groups and the state
technical committee help advise how the USDA programs are used. They\'re
very successful. We\'d like to have the funding for the technical
assistance maintained at its current level and allow the flexibility for
all the agencies to use technical service providers.\
\
The Conservation Reserve Program should place its highest emphasis on
environmentally-sensitive land and practices that will improve the soil
and water quality in the long term. And the Conservation Security
Program should continue to expand \-- allow producers to continue and
expand their conservation practices. And try to increase that funding
level so it could be utilized across \-- and not just in watersheds,
although I do understand that to get that program started it needs to be
on a watershed basis.\
\
And I\'d like you just to remember that conservation districts are a
strong partner of USDA, not only in Montana but nationally, and remember
to use us whenever opportunities come up.\
\
So I will close with appreciation for all the USDA programs we have here
in Montana and our staff \-- not only Dave White, but we like Randy
Johnson too. (Laughter.) And thank you for coming to our state, and
I\'ll leave my written comments.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you very much.\
\
MR. ROGER LINCOLN: My name is Roger Lincoln. I\'m a small grain producer
from Hill and Toole County. I\'ve been at it all my life so far. I
don\'t know how much time I have left. But, anyway, I don\'t represent
any organization \-- excuse me?\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: You\'re a young guy. (Laughter.)\
\
MR. LINCOLN: I keep telling my grandkids that. I don\'t represent any
particular organization, but I think I represent a lot of everyday dirt
farmers. I\'ve served for nine years on the local FSA committee, and the
thing I keep hearing is farming is not getting any better. Farming is
getting worse. And I can remember when I started I was selling wheat for
\$1.30, but I was buying diesel fuel for 11 cents. Now it takes a bushel
of wheat to buy a gallon of diesel fuel. You know how long the granary
stays full at that rate? Not very long. So we\'ve heard a lot about
conservation here today, and conservation is good, but if I lose my farm
I could care less about conservation. The water might as well take the
soil with it if I\'m not farming it, if I can\'t make a living at it.\
\
So I have got some suggestions to make to you, and they might sound over
simplistic to you. But 50 years ago I went to Minneapolis, Minnesota \--
I was just a youngster out of high school \-- and went to the GTA
Convention. And the president of the GTA was M.W. Thatcher. Conrad, you
and I are the only ones that can remember that guy. But he kept saying
farm prices are made in Washington, and he was right. And he\'s still
right today: farm prices are made in Washington, because you guys set
the target price, you set the loan rate. And while that serves as a
floor, it also serves as a ceiling for the price for our commodities. So
let\'s make that \$6, and then you won\'t have to worry about all these
compensatory payments, because we can make a living. We\'re not going to
have to worry about our kids coming back to farm because they\'re going
to want to come back, because we\'ll reward them for coming back. I\'ve
got two boys. They\'re left the farm. They found it\'s a lot easier to
make a better living off the farm than it is on the farm. So their
grandma and I are running the farm, and we\'ve got \-- about all she can
do \-- and if it gets any worse I\'m going to have to start helping her,
and I don\'t want to do that. (Laughter.)\
\
MODERATOR: You guys are laughing on his time, now. Okay. We\'ll give you
a few more seconds here.\
\
MR. LINCOLN: I\'m so pessimistic I think that\'s probably all I can
accomplish here today, is make these people laugh. But I want to get
your ear, Conrad \-- and Max is gone \-- but we\'ve just got to have a
better return for our investment, because that\'s all I hear from my
neighbors is \-- yeah, and I have to sell the farm to be able to retire.
And Mertie here has got a young boy, left the farm because there wasn\'t
room for him. And he\'d like to be farming. I\'ve got two of them. They
should come back to the farm. And the only way we\'re going to do it is
sell \$6 wheat. Every one of my neighbors will tell me I want to get my
paycheck at the elevator \-- I don\'t want it in the green envelope that
comes from the FSA office. And that\'s Randy Johnson that sends that
out. It isn\'t Dave White \-- excuse me, Dave \-- Dave does a good job,
but Randy does a good job, because I see a lot of my neighbors have put
up two mailboxes so they can get twice, double their income, and I
don\'t think that\'s going to work.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Can I ask a question here? (Off mike.)\
\
MODERATOR: Use that microphone \--\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: I don\'t need a microphone. I can \-- (off mike) \--
this one. If we set it at \$6 \-- (off mike) \-- also set the ceiling.
(Off mike) \-- had no support \-- (off mike) \-- I mean, what\'s the
back side of that? I\'m just asking.\
\
MR. LINCOLN: Well, I think \-- I don\'t know the answer to your
question, but I am firmly convinced that if the market \-- what do I
want to say \-- the loan rate and the target price were \$6 \-- the
grain companies don\'t have a problem with that. The only thing the
grain company wants is not to have a competitor be able to buy it
cheaper than them. And they don\'t care if they pay us \$3 or \$6. So
you guys can make them pay us \$6. And for the last 75 years our policy
has been cheap food. And the farmers are carrying that on their back as
the cheap food. We feed our population cheaper than anyplace in the
world, and it\'s better food and we\'re glad to produce it. We\'d just
like to get rewarded for \-- Mertie has got the second half of my
speech. (Laughter. Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: Okay, stay tuned. Okay, that\'s 12 for Dave White and two for
Randy Johnson. (Laughter.)\
\
MR. NED ZIMMERMAN: Well, I\'m a lot more optimistic than the last guy,
because my wife is a lot younger and she can still work \-- (laughter)
\-- I\'m Ned Zimmerman. I\'m a rancher from Wilsall, and I\'d like to
agree with a lot of the things that were said here today. But I think
one thing that is important for me to point out is the importance of
land-grant colleges and the extension service as it plays in our role as
guardians of the land and providers of fruit and fiber. And in order to
do this job in a changing world, we need the best and the brightest to
do this job. And it doesn\'t matter whether they\'re 25 or whether
they\'re 65, they still need to be educated on the latest technology.
They need to have that technology, and to have an extension service
where the people are more interested in serving instead of having to
chase grant money in order to get the job done.\
\
That\'s one thing I\'d like to say. And then the other thing is it
reiterates some of the things on the death tax. My father passed away
about four years ago, and I\'ve spent more time dealing with accountants
and lawyers than I have \-- I swear \-- to making food. So I just hope
you\'d address that next go around.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Thank you.\
\
MR. MERTIE GRISMAN (sp): My Mertie Grisman (sp). I\'m from North Havre.
I farm. I\'m also on the FSA county committee in Hill County. I\'ve got
a son that\'s 33 year old, same age as our state ag director\'s son \--
they graduated together \-- and I think they\'d both like to be farming,
and they can\'t because what\'s hurt us in our area is CRP. He was out
on the farm with us until \-- well, I came back in \'96 from school and
he was out there until 2000. When CRP went into our area \-- we were
doing custom spraying, custom combining \-- when all that come in, they
took all that away from us. So he ended up having to go out and find a
job in town. And I can\'t regret it \-- he\'s got a good job \-- but his
heart is still in farming. He\'d like to be out there but he can\'t.\
\
And I think if the CRP payments weren\'t so lucrative there would have
been an opportunity. Hill County has got the most CRP in the United
States. And I think there\'s some opportunities there for these young
people, but those opportunities went out the door when they\'re paying
\$40 an acre for CRP rentals. We can\'t compete with that with grain
prices and stuff and keep farming. So thank you. (Applause.)\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Very good comments. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Good point. John?\
\
MR. JOHN LOCKIE: Mr. Secretary, my name is John Lockie. I\'m the
executive director of the Montana Cattlemen\'s Association, a fifth
generation Montana rancher, and I guess an alum of the Northern Ag
Network, and hopefully it doesn\'t happen to me what happened to Mr.
Conrad Burns and get sent to Senate. (Laughter.)\
\
I\'m here to talk to you a little bit as well about young people in
agriculture. In the state of Montana, 40 years ago we had roughly 25,000
cattle producers. As you can talk to Peggy Stringer with the Montana Ag
Statistic Service. We had 25,000 cattle producers in Montana. This year,
January 1, we were at 12,700. We were three million plus head of cattle.
Now we\'re at two million head of cattle in the state of Montana.
Profitability is a big thing. Keeping young people in agriculture \--
and, yes, it would have been better if you could have been in Circle and
see what happens to a small community when those ag dollars aren\'t
coming to town. It\'s a big deal for our state.\
\
One of the things that we were wanting to do, and we fought very hard in
the 2004 Farm Bill, and we\'re happy that it passed, is
country-of-origin labeling, and we\'re very disappointed in the
treatment of country-of-origin as the law of the land. Thank you very
much, senator, for your statement on the floor this week and your vote
as well. It\'s something that\'s near and dear to the heart of many
Montana producers. Ag groups across the state will tell you in the same
voice that we support mandatory country-of-origin. We\'ll be watching
the Farm Bill to make sure that we move that forward, do not allow it to
go to voluntary, because that\'s the wrong thing for our state, the
wrong thing for our nation. A and those young people that want to be
able to market their product and receive a profitable return for that
product.\
\
We appreciate the fact that you are here, and we\'ll be happy to work
with you on the next Farm Bill. Thanks. (Applause.)\
\
MR. LAND TAWNEY: I\'d like to thank the secretary and the good senator
for being here today to listen to us. I\'m a fourth generation Montanan.
My family is from the Bitterroot Valley, and I represent the National
Wildlife Federation as a regional representative. And I come here today
to talk to you as a hunter, and specifically about the CRP program,
conservation programs. And I think we\'re all aware what CRP does for
pheasant hunting. I\'ve got a black lab in the back of my car. After
we\'re done talking here tomorrow, I\'m going to go out and hunt
pheasants for the weekend out in eastern Montana. I can\'t wait to see
him work through that cover.\
\
The gentleman that came before me was talking about some of these high
rental payments. I can\'t pay those either. And one of the great
programs here in Montana is block management. And with block management,
that provides me as an average hunter the ability to go out on these
lands and hunt. And if there wasn\'t that CRP out there I wouldn\'t be
having the opportunities that I have \-- that I\'m going to be able to
have.\
\
Laura from Trout Unlimited talked earlier about EQIP and what that\'s
done. EQIP has been essential with grayling coming back in the Big Hole
River. So that\'s a program that\'s working. I think one of the things
is when these programs start to be cut at a national level conservation
programs take a bigger hit than the commodity side of things. So I\'d
like to see that equaled out a little bit.\
\
And, in relation to that, the WTO regulations are going to be coming
down, and those are going to be pretty heavy on commodities and not so
heavy on conservation programs. I see that as an opportunity for
conservation programs to get more funding. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: What was your name again?\
\
MR. TAWNEY: My name is Land Tawney.\
\
MODERATOR: Land Tawney, thank you.\
\
MS. CHRISSY MACMILLEN: Hi, my name is Chrissy MacMillen. I\'m
representing a new coalition of food and ag groups called Grow Montana,
and we\'re working to enable Montana food producers to meet more of our
state\'s food needs. Although we may not eat 400 loaves of bread a day,
people in Montana do eat a lot of food. We spend around \$3 billion a
year on food, and that actually represents a significant market
opportunity for Montana\'s farmers and ranchers. And a good example of
this local food connection is the Farm to College program at the
University of Montana in Missoula. That program buys oil, beef, wheat
products, produce, potatoes, all kinds of stuff from Montana producers.
And their new motto is \"\$1 million or Bust,\" because they\'re hoping
to spend \$1 million by the spring of 2006 in the state of Montana. And
we need a lot of support from USDA programs, particularly things like
the value-added producer grants, the SARE programs. The ag innovation
centers are a great opportunities. The Farm to Cafeteria program
actually could provide a lot of support, and it didn\'t get any funding
in the last Farm Bill, although it was recognized as a program. The
community food projects, as well as things like the WIC, farmers market
and senior nutrition programs that allow low-income folks to buy food
directly from Montana farmers and ranchers at farmers markets. Those are
both things that can help consumers that people in our state need to be
able to access Montana-grown food, as well as they can help Montana
producers tap into these potential markets. Thank you.\
\
MR. BRIAN HAWLEY: I\'m Brian Hawley from Harlem, Montana, and I\'m a
full-time commercial hay producer. I\'m a part-time FSA employee. But
I\'m also the president of the Milk River Hay Producers Association. And
on behalf of the hay association, I\'d like to address an unintended
consequence of the CRP program. Hay producers in the Milk River Valley,
as well as other parts of the state have been faced with the highly
flooded hay market mainly due the large amounts of CRP hay produced for
maintenance purposes. Since the opening of this practice, our hay prices
have fallen about \$15 a ton, which is equal to tens of thousands of
dollars just for my wife and I alone. Normally we have sold all of our
hay by now, yet we still have 85 percent-plus on hand for the last two
years.\
\
I know that the hay market has its ups and downs, but this practice has
removed the ups and increased the downs. Many hay producers throughout
the state, both young and established, are facing a financial crisis
brought about by this practice. We do not have any price support, loan
or deficiency programs to help us.\
\
For young producers such as myself, this is certainly discouraging. We
have taken several other avenues of approach, but our concerns seem to
fall on deaf ears. But I ask you as our representatives to please
reconsider allowing this practice to continue. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Brian.\
\
MR. BRIAN MARTIN: I\'m Brian Martin. I work for the Nature Conservancy,
and I\'ve got three general areas I want to talk with you about. The
first is to have the Farm Bill better address invasive species,
particularly modify the Plant Protection Act to increase federal
capabilities for new invaders coming into the country; and then second
is to increase the funding in EQIP and other programs to better support
producers in the control of invasive species.\
\
The second is to better fund the Grassland Reserve Program. Montana
receives somewhere around a million dollars a year, and the demand among
producers far outstrips that. We have a lot of folks coming to us and
asking us to help them deal with their issues of having to sell off
their ranches and deal with subdivision issues and things like that. If
we could put more funding into GRP, and if we could better focus GRP \--
right now it goes to all 50 states. Some of them like Rhode Island
don\'t actually even have any grasslands, so I\'m not sure why they\'re
getting dollars. But if we could bring that funding to impact ranch land
in Montana it would have a huge conservation benefit.\
\
And then the third area is in forest management. We work with a lot of
private landowners that have forests on the property, and we need to
come up with some better mechanisms for private producers to be able to
deal with forest health issues outside of cutting down commercial trees
and dealing more so with small-diameter trees and really getting our
forest stands to a place that will withstand wildfire and also meet
wildlife habitat objectives.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Brian.\
\
MR. LANCE JUHNUM (sp): Secretary Conner, I\'d like to whip the CRP a
little bit more. My name is Lance Juhnum (sp), and my wife and I are
making payments on some property in central Montana. And CRP, the rental
payment drove it beyond our ability to rent. And the value of the
contract over a 10-year period increased the price of the land beyond
what we could afford. The only good consequence from our point of view
\-- and it was unintended \-- was it allowed us to carry a higher value
on our land, so that we were able to qualify for loans to be able to
purchase the land. So I\'d like to warn you about Pandora\'s box. You
try putting CRP back in the box, you devalue the land, you devalue my
land \-- even though I don\'t have any CRP. I\'m not going to qualify.
And it could very well put me out of business. So it took all the
producers out of my area, it took all the kids out of the school, and it
took young ms and kept them from growing, and you still have one more
chance to whip us one more time. So be very careful with what you do
with that. Thank you. (Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Lance.\
\
MR. JEFF JACOBSON: My name is Jeff Jacobson. I\'m dean of the College of
Ag and director of the Ag Experiment Station here at Montana State
University. Welcome.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Thank you.\
\
MR. JACOBSON: I represent a longstanding partnership with the state and
federal government I guess. My comments specifically pertain to question
six, and actually one, two and four, looking at the program.\
\
Simply put, we teach, we do research, and it is part of a couple of
different things that are elements of those questions. With our teaching
programs, they\'re field, they\'re lab, they\'re greenhouse, they\'re
undergraduate, they\'re graduate students. I\'ve heard a comment about
the extension service. We teach in the broader classroom of Montana. All
those are critical. And that human capital that we\'re connecting with,
transferring technology and so forth is part of competitiveness. It\'s
part of the future of agriculture and natural resources in this state
and in the nation frankly.\
\
The second thing we do is research, and I think that in terms of the
kinds of things we do in the experiment station, in particular
competitiveness, stewardship, conservation, environmental practices,
specialty crops, organic and other practices, recent changes of
bio-based products, including ethanol biodiesel, are part of our
research landscape, including value-added opportunities, marketing
policy and so forth.\
\
I think we have changed our research programs as nimbly as we can to
meet society as well as Montana needs, and that\'s both from the federal
government all the way through producers in the state of Montana. And
we\'re ready to continue changing and evolving to meet future needs. We
also have active programs with USDA ARS that as a package I think are
part of the future in ag natural resources economic development in the
state. As several people stated \-- it\'s my job to state \-- research
is part of the future. I firmly believe that. We at Montana State
University and the College of Ag are strongly poised to participate in
that, and we hope it\'s part of a stronger 2007 Farm Bill. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Jeff.\
\
MR. CARL MATSON (sp): Thank you, Senator Burns, Deputy Secretary Conner.
My Carl Matson (sp) I\'m from Chester, Montana, and I\'m a recent
recipient of one of the CSP grants. And I\'m here to say that the
program \-- we have a lot of producers in this state that are worried
about their abilities to put the information together and actually
wondering whether conservation practices come into play. I\'m probably
testimony to the fact that it is possible to get the job done. And I
believe that this program is good for farmers, it\'s good for our state,
and it\'s probably good for the earth. And, in addition to that, it\'s
been nice to be recognized for the work that we\'ve done over the years
in implementing these kind of practices.\
\
I have testimony here from my son who is sitting in a line in the Shelby
elevator. So, anyway, I\'ll hand this off to you and thank you once
again.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Carl.\
\
MR. CURT DIEHL: Hi, my name is Curt Diehl. I\'m a board member of the
Grain Growers and an irrigated farmer from Broadwater County. And I\'d
like to put in a real pitch for drip irrigation. Every year I go down to
the farm show in Tulare, California where down there you know they\'re
quite concerned about their water \-- I see some good land down there
that they can\'t irrigate because they don\'t have enough water to do
it. And I think that over the past three or four years that I\'ve been
going down there I\'ve watched how they have increased the technology. I
think that this is something that \-- I looked into an NRCS program
there in Townsend, and I think there is some money available, but I
think it\'s kind of hard to get. But I think we need to do that. I think
we need to really look for that. I think it\'s a real water conservation
plan and I really think that it\'s a way better way to irrigate than
blow it up in the air and hope that the wind don\'t blow it away.
Thanks.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Let me just put a comment on the back of that,
because you\'ve hit upon a thing that we\'ve got to face on the Milk
River and everywhere we live. And let me just say that we\'re working
very hard with the West end California people and what they did to cover
their ditches, and they went to a completely different system, because
you\'re right, California is running out of water. They\'ve got too many
people, and a huge ag industry. And so you\'ve hit on a note that we
have to do here. And when we got to work with these irrigation
districts, and I mean not just on the Milk River \-- I mean every one of
them, because water conservation will be the key to our survival in our
irrigated areas. Now, (it gets broken ?) and we\'ve got to face that. We
thank you for bringing that up.\
\
MODERATOR: Dave?\
\
MR. DAVE KELSEY: Thank you for coming Deputy Conner and Senator Burns.
My name is Dave Kelsey. I\'m a producer in Stillwater County. I raise
small grains and cattle. We think it\'s just real appropriate that you
are here today on what we call Ag Appreciation Weekend. And we also
think it\'s wonderful that it\'s right here at Montana State University.
We need the research that comes from this university system, and we need
the extension service to help us get that research out. We have a real
strong program, but it can be improved upon. We\'ve worked very hard
with a million dollar match program to stabilize our research centers.
We have a strong support system at each one of the research centers, and
we just need to continue that and we need the federal support for those
programs. Without research, we\'re not treading water, we\'re going
under. So we need to have that continue.\
\
I\'d like to get back to how we can be competitive in today\'s
environment and in a world global individual. First of all I\'d like to
state that it\'s pretty hard to be competitive in a global environment
when we\'re not competitive in a national environment here. We are a
captive ship of state here. Our rail system is holding us hostage, and
we are paying higher freight rates than producers from Kansas and
Nebraska that ship wheat and products up through here and go to the same
destination as our products. I want to congratulate Senator Burns for
spearheading the Rail Competition Act. We have to have something done
with that. Both Senator Baucus and Representative Rehberg are involved
in that, and we appreciate that.\
\
Going along with that, when we get into some of these trade negotiation
talks, we think that there\'s a little bit of negotiations that are
throwing things out before we even have a Farm Bill. For example, giving
away a bunch of subsidies here before you know whether you have access
to a another country. For example, the French do not want to relinquish
their protected products, and so until we know what the access is, it\'s
pretty hard to give up the ship here, folks. And I think we\'ve got to
be very careful about that.\
\
One other comment that may be a little negative, but it\'s not very
productive to have our Secretary of Agriculture tell us that the price
we\'re receiving for our cattle is too high. (Applause.) You\'re not
going to get a lot of support from producers in this state with a
comment like that. Thank you very much. (Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Dave.\
\
Bruce?\
\
MR. BRUCE TUTVIN (sp): You go to the auction and buy some, you might
think so. (Laughter.) Anyway, I\'m Bruce Tutvin (sp), and I\'ve got a
feedlot. I\'d like to get the Department of Agriculture back, Taylor,
like our old fraternity brother Earl Butz where they were an advocate. I
mean, this Japanese thing \-- we wouldn\'t be \-- we know Earl would
have said what the help we would need on Japan. We would have been in
there. I mean, he would have \-- we would have gotten some protection
from all the regulations. I mean, we\'ve got CAFO coming down on our
neck, we\'ve got fuel tanks we\'re moving. We\'ve got to move them \--
put the containment centers. We\'re getting all these expenses. I mean,
you talk about a young farmer \-- it\'s going to kick them out. They
don\'t have enough money to build that, or else they\'re going to have
to go to town with their 100-gallon tank. I mean, we keep making more
and more regulations. I spend more and more time not farming but
fighting regulations. So we need an advocate back \-- we need a strong
advocate for agriculture that says, God, wake up \-- no. And we\'re
doing \-- I\'ve heard all these programs in Flathead County, the wetland
reserve program is a disaster. So we\'ve got these programs that need to
quit. I mean, they\'re taking land out of production, we\'re losing our
critical mass, and it\'s just a misuse of government funds. So I think
we need to look real careful with do no harm and be an advocate \-- get
out there in front, like Earl would be. Thank you. You remember Earl?\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you. (Laughter.) A guy like that sticks with you.
Thanks, Bruce. Steve?\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Earl Butz was a professor of mine in college.\
\
MODERATOR: Oh, that\'s right, he was at Purdue, wasn\'t he? Sure.\
\
MR. STEVE PILCHER: Thanks, Taylor. Deputy Secretary Conner and Senator
Burns, we appreciate you making this opportunity available. I\'m Steve
Pilcher, executive vice president for the Montana Stockgrowers
Association. And I\'d like to touch on a couple of issues that haven\'t
been raised so far today. And the first one is Title X of the Farm Bill,
the miscellaneous title. And my comments I hope will be taken down by
the senators well, because they relate to what Congress might do. You
know, my concern is with the potential for mischief in that title. It
doesn\'t get a lot of attention \-- most of the attention is on title 1,
the commodities chapter and stuff like that. But during the debate of
the 2002 Farm Bill I think there were 14 amendments offered on this in
this title, and without any hearings or input. Fortunately most of
those, thanks to a number of people, got derailed. But it just points
out the serious potential of bad things happening to our industry very
quickly behind the scenes in that process.\
\
There are many out there who really don\'t understand our industry, and
they have a habit of advancing ideas that they may think are good, but
they have devastating impacts to this industry \-- issues such as the
humane treatment of animals could easily find its way into that title of
the Farm Bill and could be a real nightmare for us. You know, as we see
some of the attempts to impose unreasonable requirements on swine
production, poultry production and stuff like that, it really sends
chills up my spine. I think as livestock producers \-- all of us
involved in agriculture \-- realize the responsibility we have for the
care of the animals in which we are entrusted, and we take that
responsibility very seriously, but we\'re the ones that ought to be
driving the ship instead of the do-gooders. And I hate to be that blunt,
but I only have to offer as one example the recent fiasco over the horse
slaughter ban. We don\'t even know what that\'s going to mean to our
industry.\
\
Another issue that I\'d like to raise relates to the question of
agriculture product marketing. You know, several years ago Congress
appropriated something like \$4 million to do a very thorough and
complete analysis of agricultural marketing in this country. Where is
the report? Our industry has long expressed concerns with concentration
in some aspects of the industry. We\'ve also expressed some concerns
with enforcement of the Packers of Stockyards Act. This analysis has
taken so long that I guess I have to question the value once the report
is out. You know, conditions are changing fast in this industry, and I
think honestly the conditions that were evaluated as a part of this
study may have changed so much that the results and the finding of the
study are not going to benefit us as much as we would like. We need to
take an honest and effective look at today\'s market structure and make
some adjustments as necessary in order to position this industry to move
forward.\
\
The last thing I want to talk about is just very quickly there\'s been a
lot of discussion of the conservation programs and the conservation
title of the 2002 bill, and I think we\'re on the right track with those
programs. And I would just like to encourage you to take a serious look
at a program that has been initiated here in Montana called the
undaunted stewardship program. It\'s a very unique partnership that has
been very successful in recognizing good conservation practices. And I
think that the concept of this program could easily become part of the
Farm Bill in the conservation title. Thank you for your time.\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you, Steve, very much.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Thanks, Steve.\
\
JOHN HALEY (sp): Hi, John Haley (sp) from Dillon. Thank you for coming
and listening to our comments. Two quick comments. I participated in
some of the conservation programs. They\'re, from my perspective, fairly
inflexible. We on our own ranches and farms know what things will work
and how we can better the environment. They have good objectives and
goals that we\'re trying to get to, but I think we need to be able to
have a little bit more input on how these things work. We\'ve done some
feedlot modifications and that for discharges and stuff into the
streams, and we\'ve got some ideas, but it seems like the flexibility is
not there to make them work and to make them more cost-effective for us.
Another thing is we\'re on the East Bench Irrigation District. There\'s
a lot of these irrigation districts that are in dire need of some
renovation and work to prevent some of the leakage and stuff, and
they\'re getting old. It\'s hard to apply for these EQIP contracts when
you\'re in an association or water users group, and it\'s impossible to
do it on your own to work on your farm, because it serves the whole
area. So if we could get some flexibility in some of these conservation
programs to where we could put some money into these deteriorating
irrigation systems, make them more efficient and help the younger
producers of our area.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Great, thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Tom.\
\
MR. MATT FLICKUM (sp): Mr. Secretary, senator, my name is Matt Flickum
(sp). I farm here \-- still farm here in Gallatin County \-- it\'s
amazing \-- (laughter) \-- but there\'s still some farmland left here.
But as I\'ve heard some comments here this afternoon about the ability
of the young farmer to survive, and we\'re talking about the \'07 Farm
Bill, and last week the corporate profits came out for the energy
companies \-- we may not be here in \'07. And I think something has to
be done to address that. I know I contributed \$15,000 more to my
fertilizer bill in \'05 than I did in \'04. Wheat prices are not going
up. If that happens again in \'06, guys, what going to be the sense of
having to work on \'07? These people are sitting in their glass offices
back on the East Coast and taking all this money out of rural America,
and it\'s not a good sight. My brother serves on a local co-op board.
They just had a region wide cynics meeting. All they\'re talking about
is there\'s no money left out here and it\'s all going to energy, and
it\'s going to affect us in a whole lot more ways than just fertilizer.
I mean, all our stuff comes in freight-wise. It\'s all going to be \--
and they all added their surcharges on. There\'s no surcharges going
back out. Columbia won\'t give me a surcharge, so can\'t seem to get it
through their heads that I need more money, but it won\'t happen. So we
need to look at something there real drastically and quickly.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: We hear you, thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Matt.\
\
MR. BILL COKE (sp): My name is Bill Coke (sp). I\'m a local dairy farmer
\--\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Dairy?\
\
MR. COKE (sp): I\'ve been dairying for \-- I\'m a third generation dairy
farmer. My dad started and his grandpa started. We ship to Dairy Gold.
And the concerns I have on the Farm Bill are \-- well, I really want to
appreciate you guys for helping us on the income loss payments, because
for two years we worked totally at a loss. Our cost of production was
higher than what we were getting paid for it. And without you guys
helping us we wouldn\'t be here today as dairy farmers. I guess we would
have been, but it would have been even tougher. But currently we\'re
spending quite a bit of money on energy, and I think your focus on your
Farm Bill should be about energy. And like the dairy industry, we\'re
high energy users. So I think if there\'s a way to get solar equipment
to us or any way to save money through that kind of energy, I think
it\'s a good deal.\
\
And if you want to get younger \-- like when my kids, when we were
milking cows two years ago and we were losing money, my kids, they
don\'t want to milk cows. They say, Well, shit, dad, you\'re losing
money \-- why do you want to milk cows for anymore? You know, every
paycheck we\'re losing \$2,000 bucks. So if you want to get kids into
agriculture you\'ve got to raise the support prices and get them up
there. If you\'re going to raise the price of wheat to \$6, you\'ve got
to raise the price of milk to \$17.\
\
Another thing I\'d like to see you do \-- okay, one of the reasons that
our milk prices were so low is because these big companies were
importing milk protein concentrates, and they can import them cheap from
New Zealand with no duties and they can put those in all the milk
products and they don\'t have to buy it from the American farmer, and
that has to be stopped. And that would save you a whole bundle of money
if you could just stop those people from flooding the market with cheap
imports. I can see the red light is on. So thank you very much.\
\
MODERATOR: That\'s okay. You\'re our only dairy farmer so far \--
(laughter) \-- so we\'ve got to give you all the time you want. Thank
you. And I am kind of letting people go a little longer, because we\'re
getting kind of down toward the end, there aren\'t too many people lined
up, so I\'m not being quite as strict on the clock.\
\
Alan?\
\
MR. ALAN (sp): Taylor, I might be the only banker then too. But I\'m
with Rocky Mountain Bank. I\'m an ag loan officer. I also serve on the
Ag Committee for the Montana Bankers Association. With 26 years of being
a lender and riding through the \'80s, seeing the tough times, we
started to see the stabilization of some of the farm programs that came
out of the 2002 bill. We had some drought here in Montana that in some
years in looking at tax returns we were seeing in excess of 30, 35, 40
percent of their income under Schedule Fs was coming from the farm
program payments and from federal crop insurance. That\'s the floor that
helps keep some people alive until we could get moisture and better days
ahead.\
\
So if you\'re looking down the line at the 2007 bill, we\'ve got to,
like we\'ve heard some of the comments today, we\'ve got to figure out
how we can raise some of those floors, because that is a safety net and
that\'s what kept producers around, and that\'s what we need in
Montana.\
\
MODERATOR: Perspective from a lender. Okay, Pachy?\
\
MS. PATTY BURNS: Howdy. I\'m Patty Burns (sp), and I\'m a sheep
producer, and I\'ve been running on noxious weed projects since 1986,
and I\'m not really understanding what the Farm Bill is all about. I
usually don\'t have a whole lot of time to read unless I\'m reading
while I\'m driving because I\'ve got sheep across the whole state. I\'ve
\--\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Hope you don\'t do that too often. (Laughter.)\
\
MS. BURNS: I\'ve tried it \-- it just really doesn\'t work very well.
But I have \-- and, in fact, I don\'t even know how to ask for money,
and I know all these problems that these people have talked about really
have merit. But what I am here to ask for is a little pressure on public
lands. I really care about this state, and we have a magnitude of
noxious weeds across this entire state. And I take it personally that I
would like to help resolve some of these issues on these noxious weeds.
And as a sheep producer, the cost that we incur trying to graze on these
weed projects is a pretty exceptionally high cost. And if we had some
cooperation with BLM, Forest Service and other public lands, it would
help our industry and also help the state. So that\'s the comment I
would like to make.\
\
Oh, and incidentally, all these guys talking about having an extra wife
helping them on the farm \-- (laughter) \-- where does that leave me? I
don\'t want to go there. Okay. Thank you very much.\
\
MR. DAN LEAK (sp): Hi, my name is Dan Leak (sp). I\'m a seed potato and
seed grain farmer in Ronan. Conrad, Mr. Conner, thank you, Taylor Brown,
thank you for this chance today. I\'ve been kind of writing, sitting and
listening. So I\'ll just kind of let you have what I wrote. It might be
a little out of context as we\'ve gone through this.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Fire away. Fire away.\
\
MR. LEAK (sp): Everybody seems to want more assistance money legislation
from the government. This program seems to be extremely top-heavy. It
seems to me the free market system really isn\'t free anymore. With the
commodity traders, the tariffs, NAFTA and CAFTA, all those guys messing
around with our pricing and movement, it\'s no wonder the prices are
low.\
\
The government seems to use ag commodities as leverage \-- as a tool to
control or dictate behavior in other countries with export issues. We
have a huge production machine in the U.S. ag industry, and it just
feels like there\'s a lot of hidden barriers and things there that are
out of our control as producers. It results in our ability to ever
really get ahead. We\'re in this ceiling, we\'re in this box, and we
just can\'t seem to figure out how to get out of it.\
\
Our biggest challenge in ag is not production anymore. I feel like we do
produce. We can increase yields and enhance, and the research is there
and we can crank it out. The trick anymore in the last five, six years
is how to pay the bills within this system and the way this thing
operates. There just isn\'t any dollars in there. We\'ve heard about
fuel and energy prices and fertilizer prices. Those guys, they can all
raise their price. We can\'t. We\'re a farm commodity, and we just seem
to have our hands tied. So, like I say, it\'s how to pay the bill while
existing in a system controlled by so many outside influences that have
no roots in the land. These people write the rules, but they\'re not
tied down to this thing at all.\
\
America, and especially the Montana farmers, are strong and resilient
people, but we\'re wearing down. Everything costs us more, but
increasing our prices is not an option in the system. Thank you very
much.\
\
MR. DAVE BROBERG: Mr. Secretary, Mr. Burns, I\'m a producer from Cut
Bank, Montana, Dave Broberg. Just a couple observations. I\'d like to
specifically address item six on the talking points. Your question there
was how should agriculture product development and marketing
research-related issues be addressed in the next Farm Bill. One of my
observations is that if the government would concentrate on creating the
environment and the research \-- the environment for marketing and
infrastructure development, and the monies to do the research, that\'s
all that\'s required. You can \-- if like our land-grant universities
are ready and capable of doing all the basic and applied research you
need. Just get out of the road, we\'ll produce it. And I\'m talking
specifically about trade development, trade marketing. You know, we have
the technology to treat insulin with a loaf of bread tomorrow. The
biggest problem that I can see with the government today is that we can
do that but how do we get it through the EPA, all the other agencies
that are involved in it? And that\'s where I see the Department of
Agriculture taking the biggest step.\
\
Another observation I have is I was reading a document that quoted the
secretary of Agriculture, and he was almost apologizing it appeared, it
sounded to me, that corn, wheat and beans are getting the bulk of the
supports. I mean, those \-- to me that\'s a no-brainer. Those
commodities are being produced at submarginal levels. The things that
are being able to be produced at profitability obviously don\'t need
supports. To me, yes, there are a lot of inequalities in the system. But
for right now, today \-- when I started farming, it was only in \'92
that I started farming \-- and my crux came out, but I was going to do
this without government input. I was wrong. And I was doing pretty good
at the start but seven years of drought cured that. And I hope we\'re
over that. But that\'s the name of the game. Thank you.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Good comments. Thank you.\
\
MODERATOR: Thanks, Dave.\
\
MR. CURT CAMERSELL (sp): Hi, I\'m Curt Camersell (sp) from Chester,
Montana. I\'m a small grains grower there. Thank you, Senator Burns and
Secretary Conner for being here today. I\'d just like to talk about a
trip that we made a month ago to Tabor, Alberta. It\'s 70 air miles from
Chester, Montana. They basically have the same climate and everything
that we do, but their industry is vastly different than ours. Back in
the 1920s their government \-- they had a vision \-- they looked at what
they could do with their economy, what they could do with their
agriculture. They started developing irrigation. And along with that
they started to help support value-added commodity industries in their
province.\
\
When we got there, we stopped at a sunflower seed plant that\'s
nationwide throughout the United States all the way throughout Canada.
It\'s become a national. There was a dried bean plant, there is canning
facilities for sweet corn, there\'s packing plants, and they were
shipping frozen beef into the United States \-- when they couldn\'t live
cattle they figured out how to do that \-- lots of them too. These are
not just small mom-and-pop operations \-- these are huge industries all
the way throughout Tabor, Alberta.\
\
Then we get back, we\'re on our tour bus, we toured all these places,
checked it out, came back into Montana. The line was drawn, things
started to change. We get back into Chester, Montana, it was dark. We
had to turn the lights back on in our little town \-- there was nobody
there. All of our implement dealers are gone. You know, our car
dealerships are gone. We have a blueprint 70 miles away. Somebody had a
vision. They went with it. Every dollar they put into their ag economy
they get \$8 back \-- proven fact. We need to do that for \-- I mean, it
happened, they\'ve done it. The government can make money at this
project. Let\'s just go with it and make it work. Thank you.
(Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: Any more questions or do we let them wrap up? If we want to
finish up by 5:00 we\'ve got a few more minutes. Okay, let\'s give
Deputy Secretary Conner an opportunity to make a few wrap-up remarks.
And, Senator Burns, if you want to say something as well that would be
fine too.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: Well, really these have been fantastic comments.
And, Taylor, thank you again for your work. (Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: You bet.\
\
DEPUTY SEC. CONNER: This has been a really interesting forum, and you
can see just by some of the differences of opinion why a Farm Bill is no
easy task. We did see a lot of commonality here, but some differences
too. And I just kind of think back of some of the comments.\
\
I want to mention estate taxes, because that came up several times. Farm
Bills generally do not deal with estate taxes. Farm Bills are written
through the Agriculture Committees, through the Appropriations
Committees. And then typically estate taxes are done in the Finance
Committee, where Senator Baucus has some seniority there as well. But I
have to just encourage you to continue to pursue that. I mean, you guys
know it, and it came up several times, but agriculture \-- we\'re land
rich and cash poor. And when you\'re talking about any kind of an estate
tax that is a tax upon the value of an estate, you know, you really are
hitting agriculture by far the hardest in any kind of situation like
that. President Bush, as you know that was one of his pledges when he
came into office to get rid of the estate tax. We got rid of it,
unfortunately in the compromising with the Congress just through 2011,
so it is scheduled to come back at that point. We need to permanently
get rid of the estate tax. And I know in my own mother\'s situation she
lives on Social Security and the money from the farm, and I suspect by
land value standards she has a lot of assets. But I can guarantee you
she makes ends meet about every month, and that\'s about as good as she
does. But we need to keep focusing on that, and I\'d just encourage you
to keep up that cause. The president is with you. I know Conrad is with
you on this. And we just need to keep beating that estate tax drum,
because agriculture is the first in line to get shot whenever that
happens.\
\
Now, conservation. I will tell you this was a little bit of a different
feedback, Conrad, than we\'ve been hearing in other sections on
conservation, particularly CRP. And I appreciated the perspective of
those who have said that CRP has had a big impact and not always a
positive impact, because we\'ve gotten a lot of positive comments on CRP
\-- I\'ll just tell you that \-- Minnesota, places like that, they were
very, very high on CRP. I appreciate though the perspective that you\'ve
got in those counties, particularly in the more eastern part of Montana.
Too much of those countries was put in the CRP. I don\'t think any of us
would probably disagree with that. We need to evaluate that in the Farm
Bill and make sure that these counties remain viable as well as
conservation-minded.\
\
Good support obviously for EQIP, a lot of those other
conservation-related programs. You\'re going to see a strong Farm Bill,
in my opinion, that addresses those conservation activities, and then
we\'ll put a lot of dollars into promoting those.\
\
Agriculture research. Obviously it\'s clear \-- and this has varied a
little bit from state to state, but it\'s clear in Montana that you\'ve
got a strong land-grant college here at Montana State, because we got a
lot of good comments about agricultural research and that I think
reflects the support that this university has among its producers, both
the research as well as the extension side. That is Title XVIII of the
Farm Bill, I believe, and would and should be a strong component of what
we do going forward. So I just appreciate the comments that we had as
well on the research and your support for it.\
\
Commodity programs. I just \-- you know, there\'s a clear difference of
opinion occasionally, but it\'s clear from you guys as well that energy
prices have to be a big factor in our commodity programs. It\'s clear to
me that other countries need to come forward first and talk about what
they\'re going to do before we start talking about commodity program
changes as well. That message is coming through loud and clear from you,
and I understand that message pretty strongly.\
\
So those are just a few of my takeaways. Again, a lot of good comments.
We\'ve got a record here that we\'re going to review. I\'ve got a lot of
good notes to go back and study as well. And just know that Mike Johanns
and I are very, very interested in what you\'ve got to say. We want the
Department of Agriculture to be your agency. We both were born and
raised on a farm. Agriculture is all really we\'ve ever known in our
lives that have been different, but in a way still very, very focused on
agriculture. We want this next Farm Bill to be a good one. We want it to
be a good one for all producers, including the next generation of
agricultural producers out there. And we want to work with you on that
in a very bipartisan way, and work together, because that\'s what
agriculture is about. When they divide and conquer American agriculture,
then they\'ve really done a lot of damage to us. Let\'s don\'t let them
divide and conquer us. Let\'s work together, let\'s produce a good bill,
and I think we\'re going to see a brighter future out there for all of
us. So thank you all again for welcoming me. Thank you for your
comments. They were terrific.\
\
Conrad, close this out if you would.\
\
SEN. BURNS: First of all, we want to thank you for coming, Chuck, and
listening to these. And I think we picked up some areas in here where
there\'s areas we can compromise and there\'s areas where we can\'t
compromise. And some of them are not in these comments today. We\'ve got
to pass \-- now, I think that little thing that happened last Tuesday,
just between you and I, probably helped us on captive shipper more than
anything that\'s been around for a while. Little things that happen in
Congress that opens up doors where they weren\'t open before, and one of
these days we\'ll talk privately about that. But we\'ve got that and we
got energy.\
\
We have the research that was done in Butte, Montana - think about
this - to make biodiesel. He took his technology and went to Green Bay,
Wisconsin and is making it \-- produced here \-- the technology produced
here in Montana. We have to find a way to establish not only the supply
\-- we know the demand is there, but how do we get started in producing
the supply? Because the investment is not small. And we make it through
these rules and regulations of citing and to understand what our needs
are and allow our regulations and our rules to make it happen. That\'s
our challenge in Montana. Will that be reflected in this Farm Bill? I
think it will be, because if we can give credits for alternative forms
of energy and renewables, then we can sure give some tax incentives on
other areas to produce different kinds of products. And I believe in
that. We have a wind farm going up over there south of Judith Gap. It\'s
there because of tax cuts. That\'s the only reason it\'s there. The only
reason. So we\'ve got to seek out these areas and work with Max \-- and
Max will work with us on the Finance Committee to seek out those areas
where we can lay a base to doing business a little bit different on our
farms and ranches, finding niche markets and producing it, because I
tell you it\'s there. It is there, folks, and all we have to do is find
it and give the incentives to do it. But I will also tell you there\'s a
lot of old people around that said, Well, that\'s the way my daddy did
it, and that\'s the way my granddaddy did it, and that\'s the way I\'m
going to did it. (Laughter.) And we\'ve got to get out of that mind-set,
because there\'s going to be new ways. We seek them out, give them
incentives. And we\'ve never had a better opportunity or opportunity or
landscape to do that. And we do it for them guys right down there. Right
down there. That\'s what it\'s all about. When you boil all the fat out
of it, it\'s right there. It\'s these young people. Thank you.
(Applause.)\
\
MODERATOR: Thank you all very much. (Applause.)\
\
First of all, I\'d just like to thank Conrad for staying. I know it\'s
hard to find time to be here. But thanks to Conrad. Nancy, thank you for
staying right down here in the front row to the very end \-- we
appreciate that.\
\
END