![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.873611111111111in"
height="1.3166666666666667in"}

Release No. 0482.05

OF VERMONT FARM BILL FORUM WITH UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
TOM DORR AND MODERATOR CHRIS GRAFF BURLINGTON, VERMONT, OCTOBER 26, 2005

MODERATOR: We\'re really honored that you\'d take the time to come to
Vermont on your way to Hawaii. They get snow there too. We really do
appreciate your taking time to come here to listen to the people of our
state and to learn about how you can be even more helpful as we continue
to work together, state and federal governments as partners to ensure
that we maintain the strength of our rural economy and most importantly
the quality of life that we want for our kids and future generations of
Vermonters. Thank you very, very much. Mr. Secretary.

\[Applause.\]

No one probably in Vermont knows more about diversity of agriculture
than out secretary of Agriculture. In a year in which you can be taking
cows and apples to Cuba and debating genetically engineered seeds, Steve
Kerr has managed to be in the middle of just about every debate that\'s
going on at some level in the states. So please welcome our Secretary of
Agriculture, Steve Kerr.

\[Applause.

SEC. STEVE KERR: Good morning. It appears that Old Man Winter has
decided to remind us that autumn, delicious though it was this year,
must eventually come to an end. Tom observed, since he\'s from Iowa,
that in fact this isn\'t really winter; this is just an ugly autumn day.

Thank you all for making the trek to join us. We are here today not to
talk about endings, but beginnings; not to scratch for signs of life
under the snow, not just yet; but to ponder the buds that will blossom
next spring. Every five years our country reviews its public policy
regarding the investments that we make in our farms, our rural areas,
our natural environment, our basic and applied ag research, our stands
regarding foreign trade, aid to our poorer brethren, and the diet of our
fellow Americans. This listening session is one in a series that
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has scheduled throughout the country
to gather ideas and opinions about the 2007 Farm Bill.

I worked for Jim Jeffords in the \'80s and went through the 1985 Farm
Bill, so I\'m going to just take my few minutes and give you a sense of
what a Farm Bill really is because it\'s a whole lot more than just a
piece of legislation for farmers. Its policies and spending extend well
beyond the footprints of our nation\'s farms.

The lion\'s share of the Farm Bill spending is today still dedicated to
the stabilization of farm income derived from the sale of staple food
and fiber crops dependent upon volatile commodity markets. We know that
in our dairy industry. This is an important and an increasingly
market-oriented function but with one fundamental flaw. Although this is
not true of the federal dairy program, the lion\'s share of the
commodity payments is paid to a small number of large farm operators.
Since Farm Bill funding is invariably finite, this practice continues to
limit other opportunities for investment in rural America. And I suspect
this will be one of the great controversies in the upcoming debate.

Fortunately there is a growing recognition of this flaw and how it
constrains investment in what we call diversified agriculture as well as
the green box opportunities that farm environmental conservation
programs may offer. Ironically most of those who live in rural America
do not farm. In fact most of the income generated in rural American
counties comes from a diverse array of small and medium-sized nonfarm
businesses some of which are tied to their local agriculture, some of
which are dependent upon other natural resources, forestry in our case;
and some of which have no link whatsoever to the natural landscape.

Many of the Farm Bill\'s programs are therefore geared to the broader
needs of rural economies such as affordable housing, community water and
waste treatment facilities and telecom infrastructure.

The Farm Bill is a major environmental bill whose programs and funding
help farmers pay for the adoption of ecologically sustainable practices
that improve the quality of water and air that millions of Americans
drink and breathe. It is a research bill whose funding for basic and
applied scientific inquiry influences how technologically competent we
remain in a very competitive global economy and who will own and
therefore control the intellectual property of that technology.

It is a trade bill whose subsidies and restrictions have much to do with
how our country walks its talk regarding free trade and fair trade in a
world of haves and have-nots.

It\'s a food and nutrition bill that influences the health and
well-being of our population and will over the next 20 to 30 years
determine whether we take responsibility as individuals and as a nation
for the healthcare crisis that our diets have in large measure created.

It is perhaps most importantly a food aid and technical assistance bill
for poor nations that demonstrates how much we as a wealthy nation truly
care about the lives of others.

In sum, the macro and micro-economic consequences of these Farm Bills
are enormous. They influence long-term investments in the lives of
families each day. As much as any federal policy, they signal to what
degree the economy serves our society or our society serves the economy.

I would note that Farm Bills are truly the epitome of the old saw \"You
don\'t want to see legislation or sausage, how it\'s made.\" There are
35,000 lobbyists in Washington, DC, today\-- double the number only six
years ago. They have their constituencies and an outsized role in the
debate, the deliberations and the conclusion. They tend more often than
not to be guardians of the status quo, whether that be good for farmers
and rural America or not.

Finally, be aware that there will be two relatively new and to a degree
unknowable elephants in the House and Senate Agriculture Committee rooms
in DC this time. Prodigious budget and trade deficits and the
contentious but morally imperative global trade negotiations. The
considerations that these constraints may impose will undoubtedly
complicate our already difficult domestic negotiations.

Happily, we are here today however not to worry about these
complications but to dream about an even better future for our farms,
our rural economies, our citizenry\'s health, our obligation to the
environment and the rest of humanity. We are here to offer what no K
Street lobbyist can, grassroots recommendations grounded in experience
and common sense for consideration by those whom our democracy has
appointed and elected to listen to our thoughts, analyze the economic
and social implications, and weigh in the balance what will be the
greatest good for the greatest number.

Vermont is blessed with a richness of agriculture that few states enjoy.
We feed much of New England with nature\'s most perfect food, milk. We
still call it that. We satisfy the nation\'s sweet tooth with the
premier natural sweetener, pure Vermont maple syrup. We are in the
vanguard of the rapidly growing organic dairy, fruit and vegetable
businesses. We are ambitiously encouraging Vermonters to choose a more
healthful diet of Vermont grown foods by integrating our buy-local
program into the governor\'s Fit and Healthy Kids and Healthy Aging
Initiatives. We are demonstrating our commitment to clean waterways
through the Governor\'s Clean and Clear Initiative, a series of
preventative actions managed by Vermonters who understand the importance
of environmental quality and the equivalent importance of farm
profitability.

We are aggressively working to develop business plans that will ensure
that our farmers have the tools necessary to farm profitably in the 21st
Century.

Finally, we are capably confronting the need to preserve our rural
landscape while building more affordable housing for those who live on
that landscape and while creating sustainable opportunities for both the
farms and businesses that are critical to the well-being of the
communities that are our rural homes. This is the scope of the Farm Bill
and the scope of the opportunity that we have before us as a group today
and as a nation.

I am honored that we have an individual with us whom I believe can bring
a degree of intellect and candor to the discussion that is often rare in
DC. Your ideas will presumably pique his interest. Your passion will
undoubtedly hold it. I had the pleasure to meet Tom Dorr just one month
ago in Cooperstown, New York, where he addressed a gathering of ag
secretaries from across America. Tom\'s remarks were forthright and
persuaded me that he would be just the right person to come to Vermont,
a little state with big ideas and strong passions, where he might hear
some unconventional wisdom.

Tom is from Iowa where he has spent virtually all of his life as a
farmer and a businessman, so he knows whereof he speaks. As Under
Secretary for Rural Development, he oversees \$14 billion of annual
funding authority for loans, grants and technical assistance to rural
residents, communities and businesses and an \$87 billion portfolio of
housing, infrastructure loans, and other business loans to rural
America. Mr. Dorr played critical roles in the USDA disaster relief
efforts in response to the hurricanes in Florida, so he\'s apparently a
man who\'s willing to get his hands dirty. He worked closely with the
assistant secretary for Civil Rights to reach out to minority farmers,
and he provided key leadership on various activities to improve program
management and business practices throughout the USDA. That latter point
is very important if you know anything about how effective government
can or cannot be.

Prior to his current service at the Department of Agriculture he was, as
I said, an Iowa farmer and businessman with family operation. He served
on the board of directors of the Seventh District Federal Reserve Bank
of Chicago, which I guess means he\'s responsible for inflation and
interest rates, huh? The Iowa Board of Regents from \'91 through \'97,
and is a member and officer of the Iowa and National Corn Growers
Association.

Tom, welcome to Vermont. It\'s a great pleasure to have you here.

\[Applause.\]

SEC. TOM DORR: Well, thank you very, very much. Those were warm
introduction, Governor. It\'s great to have you here. I had the good
fortune last evening to be able to stop in and say hello to the governor
before we started the event today not realizing that I knew his in-laws
well before I knew the governor. Bob Foster and I have had the good
opportunity to know each other for several years, and so I don\'t know a
lot about your governor but I know that he married into good stock. But
I\'ve heard many good things about the governor.

Steve Kerr clearly is a leader amongst the ag commissioners across the
country. He has some very good insights into a number of the issues
affecting rural America, and I\'m delighted also that he\'s here with
us.

Chris. The only thing I know is that you have a very, very intriguing
son who has made some marvelous gains into the White House Press Corps.
I think that\'s a terrific story. If those of you who haven\'t heard
about that, get a chance to, it\'s a great story.

You know, coming in here yesterday from New Hampshire I do have to tell
you that when I left New Hampshire yesterday the Farm Bill forum there,
they gave me a jug of New Hampshire syrup and they informed me that
Vermont produced more maple syrup than New Hampshire but that theirs was
better. Now that\'s really a lead-up because I left with a jug of New
Hampshire syrup. So I hope I have something to take care of my pancakes
all winter.

\[Laughter.\]

Someone said dishwater?

\[Laughter.\]

But the other thing that happened was, we were driving over the
snowstorm or the bad weather really wasn\'t a storm, but kind of a
squall. And this is the first time in four years since I left the farm
that I\'ve had the opportunity to be in a bit of squall and then to walk
into a motel in the largest city in Vermont and smell the waft of
wonderful aroma of fresh alfalfa behind you, it is kind of like going
back to the Iowa farm.

But it is a true delight to be here today.

I would make one on a more somber note, one quick observation before I
start my more formal remarks. And that is that it\'s always difficult
when people do without utilities and 40,000 people without power is
significant. But I and our department and our Rural Housing programs
have been heavily involved in the hurricane disasters, particularly
Katrina and Rita. I\'ve had the opportunity to spend some time down
there.

The scope of that disaster is absolutely beyond anything that I have
ever witnessed. The difficulty today is that we\'ve seen so many
disaster films either in the theater or on television that it\'s not
significant when you look at it in that framework. When you go down
there and look at it, the easiest way to describe it it\'s about like my
two and a half year old granddaughter who just took a set of Legos and
kicked them all over the room. The tragedy and the devastation and the
loss of life and the loss of homes and the loss of community is just
beyond the scope of anything that we can imagine.

And I will tell you, I\'m obviously a partisan, and perhaps I get a
little bit defensive about it, but when we talk about the kind and the
scope of the recovery down there, when there has been a loss of life,
any loss of life is too great\-- but the fact that our loss of life in
those disasters Katrina and Rita are something less than 1,100 and 1,200
relative to what happened in the earthquakes in Pakistan and other
areas, what bothers me about the criticism of it quite honestly is not
that of the political leadership that we and others who are political
appointees provide; but it\'s the reflection on the government employees
who work so hard day after day, the career folks who really have done an
outstanding job of implementing as many of the recovery mechanisms as
possible.

And so I just urge you all to be a little bit cautious and reflective of
the hard work that your government employees, bureaucrats if you may,
put into this effort. They\'ve done a marvelous job.

Again thank you, Secretary Kerr. It really is a very distinct pleasure
and a privilege to be here today. And it\'s a good morning. I do love
this kind of weather, quite frankly, a good fall day. But let me first
start out by thanking the Essex VF for coming out and providing the
color guard for us this morning, and Hillary and Danielle for the
Pledge, and also the National Anthem. That was delightful.

I\'d also like to recognize very quickly Roger Allbee our state
executive director for FSA. Where is Roger? There you are. And also Judy
Doerner the state conservationist for NRCS, Judy\'s back there. And also
my very favorite stage director, Jolinda LaClair? There she is back
there. These three folks really do act as a terrific team implementing
USDA on-the-ground programs out here. And I for one, and I know that my
peers in Washington, DC are very appreciative of the good work they do.

If we get into this as we get into this today if there are specific
issues that impact your farm or your operation I know they will be here
to discuss those. We really want to focus on policy as much as possible.

But Roger and Jolinda and Judy have done a wonderful job of putting this
event together, and so I would like to ask all of you to give them a
large round of applause. I think they\'ve done a good job.

\[Applause.\]

And last but certainly not least I would like to welcome the
representatives from your congressional delegation, and I believe from
Senator Leahy\'s office we have Bob Paquin (sp) and Ted Brady. The two
of you want to stand? From Senator Jeffords\' office Molly McFawn. And
from Congressman Sanders\' office Jenny Nelson.

\[Applause.\]

Now today we\'re here actually to talk about the next Farm Bill and the
touch choices, the tough choices that we have to make. The reality is
these choices are going to be made first and foremost on Capitol Hill.
Your congressional delegation will actually write this bill.
Nevertheless, when they write the law they set the budget, and so I\'m
glad that their delegation is represented here to hear your comments and
input.

Obviously as we look at rural America at the beginning of the 21st
century we have to face up to one hard cold fact, and that is change.
Change is a double-edge sword. It means challenges, but it also means
opportunities. There are both costs and benefits. Some people will see
the glass half full, others will see it half empty, but either way the
one choice that we don\'t have is standing still, not with
globalization, relentless competition, truly incredible scientific and
technical advances, rising energy costs, evolving nature of ethanol,
alternative fuels, windpower and a number of other things taking off\--
along with broadband and what it\'s doing to expand the livability of
rural America as well as diversifying the rural economy.

These changes just go on and on. So standing still isn\'t an option, not
for rural America, not for urban America, and quite frankly not for any
of us. But that is the reality the new Farm Bill must deal with.
There\'s no going back.

Sometimes though attitudes tend to change in generational terms. And
that\'s a lag that I suggest at times we probably can\'t afford either.
So there are some very important issues the new Farm Bill must address.

How do we keep American agriculture competitive and increase our
exports? How do we encourage the next generation of farmers or for that
matter the next generation of rural Americans, and to make it possible
for them to return and live in rural America? How can we best support
rural development, diversify the rural economy, and in general bring
more good jobs back to rural America?

Where is technology taking us? What should we expect from the next
generation of productivity increases as well as the new products they
bring? And how should we balance production with our environmental
responsibilities?

About three months ago Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns at the
urging of President Bush kicked off a series of what we call Farm Bill
listening forums to open this debate up to the widest possible input
from interested citizenry across the country. To date we\'ve conducted I
believe in excess of 32 or 33 of these around the country. Interestingly
enough, although not surprising, there has been tremendous interest in
participation all around the country. Very clearly the great majority of
people recognize that change is in the cards, and they want to be part
of the process.

So frankly what I\'m here to do today is to listen to what you have to
say. The next Farm Bill at this point is a blank slate waiting to be
written. So if we can develop some consensus about what we\'re to do,
that\'s terrific. That really is. If on the other hand we can\'t always
find consensus and on some questions I suggest we probably won\'t, then
we can at least be prepared to make the tough decisions with our eyes
open.

So Governor, Secretary Kerr, Chris, I am delighted to be here. I\'m
looking forward to what all of you have to say, and I will tell you that
this point and from this point forward my job is to sit here and to
listen to you and to take back with me notes as well as insights into
the things you have to offer as they reflect your concerns related to
your rural issues here in the state of Vermont. I look forward to doing
that. Thank you very much.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: We\'re going to take a minute to allow the governor to leave
and make his chair disappear. While we do that the secretary introduced
the representatives of the congressional delegation. I see members of
the state legislature here. If they want to just rise because I know if
I try to call on them \-- just introduce themselves, say their name.
We\'ll start with Senator Kittell.

(off mike)

Any other legislators? Okay. Well, let\'s start by telling the process
that\'s going to work here. I think all of you have probably seen the
six questions that are being used to sort of focus this debate. I\'m
going to run through them really quickly for those who haven\'t. In this
first part of the forum we are asking you address one of these six
questions, keep your point to that point. Later on in the morning we\'ll
have a more general discussion and you\'ll be able to go where you want
to go.

The other thing I\'ll just mention right now is in this first part
especially we\'re going to hold you to a two-minute speaking limit. I
know that will be very hard for some of you if you\'re looking at many
pieces of paper, my advice is quickly run out to the hallway and go
practice and time yourself and throw half the pages away so you\'ll fit.
Unfortunately to get as many people as possible into this morning I will
have to be strict with the two-minute limit. We have some lights here.
If you\'re at the microphones you\'ll probably be able to see the light.
The green light goes a minute, then the yellow light. When the red light
goes on I\'m going to ask you to finish your thought and step away. See
the four mikes? I order to speed up things we\'d like speakers lined up
at each of those four mikes. Don\'t wait for me to call for the next
caller. I\'m going to look at the mikes and just keep going right across
the room so we can get people going. My goal here is for the secretary
to hear as much as possible from you. I was talking last night to Steve
Taylor the commissioner in New Hampshire, a friend of mine, to ask him
how things went over there yesterday. I think they got 46 speakers in on
a huge variety of topics, just an amazing variety. So my goal is to get
47 because we want to one-up them. So we do need to keep things moving.

So let me run through the six questions carefully. Again also there are
sheets out in the hallway that have these questions that have things you
can write down and leave at the desk, and also most importantly the
website. The USDA website is pretty amazing on these farm forums. Not
only will you get forms that allow you to answer the questions on the
website, but they have the transcripts from the other forums. They are
fascinating to read because they really show the diversity of issues
that are out there in other states than Vermont.

Question one is about the challenges facing new farmers and ranchers as
they enter agriculture. The specific question is, how should farm policy
address any unintended consequences and ensure that such consequences do
not discourage new farmers and the next generation of farmers from
entering production agriculture?

Question two is about the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in global
and domestic markets. The question, how should farm policy be designed
to maximize U.S. competitiveness and our country\'s ability to
effectively compete in global markets?

Question number three is about the appropriateness and effectiveness of
the distribution of farm program benefits. The specific question: How
should farm policy be designed to effectively and fairly distribute
assistance to producers?

Number four is about the achievement of conservation and environmental
goals. The specific question here: How can farm policy best achieve
conservation and environmental goals?

Question five, the enhancement of rural economic growth. The specific
question: How can federal, rural and farm programs provide effective
assistance in rural areas?

The sixth question is about the opportunity to expand agricultural
products, markets and research. Again the specific question: How should
agricultural product development, marketing and research-based related
issues be addressed in the next Farm Bill?

Well, because we know that all of you are pretty reticent and not likely
to jump the microphones we\'ve arranged for the first two speakers just
to break the ice this morning. Our first one is Savannah Stone, a 4-H
member from Sheffield, and she will speak about the first question. And
I\'ll mention also that Sheffield is one of those communities with 18
inches of snow this morning and no electricity. Savannah.

MS. SAVANNA STONE: I\'m Savanna Stone. I\'m 16 years old. I live in
Sheffield, and my small amount of organic dairy cows are located in
Cabot on my uncle\'s farm. And my future goal is to take a small amount
of organic dairy cows I have and own a small organic dairy farm in
Vermont. And I think one of the biggest issues for upcoming generations
is finding a farm in Vermont that the land has not been sold on it
because most farms you find that land has been sold off it, so there\'s
really not enough land left with most of the farms you see, especially
organic dairy farms because they are harder to find. And it\'s also hard
to find financing with the unstable milk prices because when you have
unstable milk prices they see it\'s hard to get loans for farms without
a stable income that can back your loan.

And one of the biggest I see is fuel prices of course, which is hard on
farms that do all their crops and feed their cows with machinery that
takes lots of fuel and costs lots of money. And really those are some of
the biggest issues I see for upcoming generations because I\'ve been
looking at farms. We\'re trying to find a farm. And it\'s very hard when
you have fuel and unstable milk prices and all the stuff that goes along
with it.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Marcelus Cubit, a former FFA member, is
going to answer that same question now about what do we do for the new
generation, the next generation?

MR. MARCELUS CUBIT: I was asked to speak on the FFA and the impact that
it has. And as was mentioned, I\'m Marcelus Cubit. I\'m from Albany. We
didn\'t get the 16 inches but we got plenty. Thank you for having me
here today to discuss this topic that\'s very important to me and has
gotten me to where I am today. I served as an FFA state officer here in
Vermont for three years. And the things I learned there have helped me
greatly since.

The law that grants a federal charter to the national FFA organization
states that the purposes of the organization are, quote, \"To develop
character, train for useful citizenship and foster patriotism and
thereby develop competent and aggressive rural agricultural
leadership.\" These are very important in continuing our rural
agricultural economy whether that leader goes back to the farm or
becomes the FSA manager or goes to Yankee Farm Credit or something like
that.

There are many things that are going well in the national FFA, but there
are many things that could be helped. One of these is helping and
educating the city dwellers of our country to understand the importance
of agriculture in their lives. Too many view the farmer as a rustic
figure whose treatment does not affect them. FFA chapters are growing in
the city, and this education of the public would help those chapters
improve themselves and in turn their city.

Matter of fact, in 1994 the national FFA president named Cory Flonroy
(sp) if I can remember how to pronounce his name correctly, was from
Chicago and had never been on a farm until after he took office as the
national FFA president.

One other thing that would be helpful to local chapters especially in
rural America would be increased support and if possible funding to help
the students of those chapters become more involved in some of the
programs and conferences put on by the national FFA organization. Many
FFA chapters are in rural areas that do not have the resources available
to send members to these programs such as the Washington leadership
conference that\'s held in Washington DC for a week every summer.

These programs help the students improve themselves and develop their
leadership potential. The more the FFA members of this country are able
to attend these programs, the greater the benefit they are to their
community. These are only a few suggestions; there\'s many more that
could be made if time would allow, but it doesn\'t. So, thank you very
much for having me.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

I\'d also say that after we get through this first part it\'s possible
that if some people have spoken already who have more comments on
different subjects when we break it open will get that opportunity.

So now we open it up for all of you who have come. Just walk up to the
four microphones you see and we\'ll start with whoever is at the first
microphone. What we\'re asking as well is, as you start speaking please
say your name, where you\'re from, and if you feel like it if you are
addressing a specific question what that question is. Go ahead.

MR. JAD DALEY: Thanks for the opportunity to comment, and my comments
will go to questions four and five. My name is Jad Daley. I live in
Hardwood, Vermont, and I\'m the campaign director for the Northern
Forest Alliance, which is a conservation and forestry alliance of 50
organizations across four states. The headline for our input is that in
order to meet the needs here in Vermont the 2007 Farm Bill is going to
have to be the 2007 Farm and Forest Bill. Our farmland and forestland is
really an intertwined tapestry here in Vermont, and there\'s no way that
the 2007 Farm Bill is going to meet our needs without providing
assistance to private forestland owners.

A couple statistics to help you understand why that\'s the case.
According to the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, 80 percent of
Vermont\'s forestland is in private hands. And between 1983 and 1997 the
number of private landowners holding less than 10 acres doubled. The
U.S. Forest Service in its new forests on the Edge Report projects that
the Connecticut River Watershed will be among the top 20 for future
development through 2030 and that most of Vermont\'s private forestlands
will see either suburban or exurban development over that same period.

The Northern Forestlands Council 10th anniversary recent report found
that Vermont\'s forests is part of a \$15 billion forest-based economy
in the four northern four states, so there\'s a real economic impact
from our forests as well.

To allow the continued parcelization of Vermont\'s forestlands by
private development will have a deleterious effect on Vermont\'s rural
economy, wildlife habitat, recreational resources and water supplies.

And here\'s how the Farm Bill can help. First, we need the Farm Bill to
fund Vermont\'s Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation through
programs like the Forest Stewardship Program and the Urban and Community
Forestry Program. The technical assistance provided by the dedicated
professionals in the department is essential to supporting private
landowners and meeting their goals.

Second, we need the Farm Bill to fund cost-share and incentive programs
like the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and the Forestland
Enhancement Program to help private landowners afford to manage their
lands to high standards. This will help them afford to keep large
parcels and to steward them well.

And finally, we need the Farm Bill to fund conservation programs like
Forest Legacy and the proposed Suburban and Community Forestry and Open
Space Program which the latter was proposed in the 2002 Farm Bill and
would help support our exciting Vermont town forest project that is
helping communities manage, utilize and even establish municipal
forestlands that can meet important public needs from economic
development to wildlife habitat to recreation. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. KERRY ROOD: Thank you for the opportunity to be here, Mr. Under
Secretary. First of all it\'s really difficult to see the lights there.
The flag is sort of blocking it from the various mikes here.

I\'m Kerry Rood. I\'m the state veterinarian here for Vermont as chief
animal health officer for the state of Vermont. We\'re very cognizant of
the fact of contagious animal disease and disease control programs
within Vermont and within the United States. And the specific bullet
point that this speaks to that I\'m going to speak to today is number
two, and that\'s with our global market, exploring our global market for
export.

Being from the Midwest, you can understand and I understand a grain
farmer from the Midwest, you can understand the significance of the
global market for exporting a product. Within livestock we see that as
well, particularly the beef and other exports. We lack a uniform
national animal identification system in the United States. We need that
uniform animal identification system to track animal disease.
Furthermore, our global partners are requiring us to have such a uniform
animal identification system in place before they accept our product.

And I\'ll just point to Japan in the recent BSE as we work out the trade
agreements with Japan and resuming beef trade with them.

I believe the 2007 Farm Bill presents an opportunity to resolve some of
the issues surrounding the national animal identification system,
specifically two that exist. Number one is the freedom of information
requirement. We believe that language could be introduced in that bill
keeping that data and that information within the national animal
identification system exempt from Freedom of Information requests. Also
we need to make this system mandatory so that we can stay competitive in
the global market. I appreciate your opportunity to be here. I
appreciate you coming to Vermont and listening with us. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

DR. RACHEL JOHNSON: Hi. Good morning. I\'m Dr. Rachel Johnson. I\'m the
dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and professor of
Nutrition at the University of Vermont. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today. I\'m primarily addressing question six.

I want to stress the importance of funding for the USDA Hatch and Animal
Health Formula Funds in the 2007 Farm Bill. These funds are essential
for land grant universities to maintain the basic infrastructure for
applied agricultural research. The land grant system is a unique
partnership between federal and state governments to provide quality
education, research and outreach for the public good. The University of
Vermont is proud to be a land grant university that has contributed to
the world-renowned success of American agriculture, to the protection of
our environment and food supply and to the economic development of our
communities.

The stated purpose of these funds is to conduct research, basic to the
problems of agriculture in its broadest aspects with due regard to the
varying conditions and needs of respective states. Indeed, the
University of Vermont faculty conduct research of critical importance to
the state\'s economy and health ranging from agricultural production to
childhood obesity, molecular genetics, to the development of organic
markets, soil chemistry to agricultural tourism.

Vermont received \$1.37 million from these federal sources that we use
to operate our farms, greenhouses and laboratories. These funds support
32 graduate students to conduct agricultural-related research and
leverage over \$9 million in competitive grants and contracts. This is a
remarkable accomplishment, and considering the formula funds have been
flat for over a decade eroding our ability to maintain core facilities.
An increase in formula is long overdue.

My second point relates to the role that USDA plays in the formation of
national nutrition policy. The obesity epidemic is now our nation\'s
number one public health problem. If we don\'t act now to stop the
increase in childhood obesity, today\'s children will become the first
generation of American children who do not live as long as their
parents. The cost of treating the diabetes hypertension and coronary
heart disease that are caused by obesity will crush our nation\'s
ability to pay for healthcare.

USDA can play a pivotal role in this national crisis. USDA has
outstanding scientists spread throughout the agency. The Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion, CSREES, the Economic Research Service,
and the Agricultural Research Service to name a few. They are engaged in
vital work related to nutrition and health monitoring of the American
public setting nutrition standards for federal food and nutrition
programs like school lunch and WIC. I\'ll finish up. And promoting good
nutrition through the dietary guidelines for Americans and the new My
Pyramid.

It\'s time to bring these activities together for maximum impact, just
as USDA has an office of the chief economist; USDA needs an office of
the chief nutritionist. Thank you.

MS. ANN INGERSEN: I\'m Ann Ingersen. I\'m a research associate with the
Wilderness Society, and I\'d like to address questions four and five.
USDA fulfills its conservation and environmental goals by protecting the
public benefits provided by farm and forestlands. Across the eastern
U.S. 28 percent of our farms are actually forested, and we also have
about 88 percent of the nation\'s family forest owners. Many of these
farm and forest owners would like to keep their lands intact to provide
clean water, wildlife habitat and recreation for the public. Yet here in
the East we face unprecedented development pressures. Conservation
easements are an important tool to help landowners keep their land
intact and pass it on to the next generation.

Forest Legacy was a program invented here in the Northern Forest, and
it\'s become so popular that nearly every state in the country is now
participating or has applied for the program. Since 2001 18 new states
have joined the program; yet the appropriations have not kept pace with
that additional demand. We need at least \$200 to \$300 million in
forest legacy funding every year to meet the need.

The Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program Act which was
already mentioned is another program that\'s similar to Forest Legacy
but geared toward the needs of rapidly growing areas. And this program
would help some of the over 900 land trusts that already exist in the
Eastern U.S. who have protected 5 million acres without that assistance;
with additional federal assistance they could do much more.

On question five; USDA also plays a very important role in enhancing
rural economic growth by assisting remote rural communities with
economic development and infrastructure. In the East most of these
remote communities are actually in forested areas. Many of those
communities are facing unprecedented changes due to restructuring of the
forest products industry and large-scale changes in timberland ownership
and global competition for solid forest products.

The Forest Service Economic Action Programs have developed a great deal
of expertise helping forest-based communities adapt, diversify their
economies and develop new products. EAP staff have developed this
expertise that they could share with these communities in the East and
we urge that this program not be phased out but rather be expanded to
meet that need.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. JEFFREY FROST: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. In a transparent attempt
to get your attention I want to point out that I\'m a graduate of
Cornell College in Iowa where I spent four wonderful years in Iowa. That
is part of my legacy also. My name is Jeffrey Frost. I\'m speaking this
morning as president of Ag Renew Energy, a consulting company engaged in
promoting renewable energy as part of a paradigm shift within
sustainable agriculture.

I\'ve had the pleasure of fashioning four separate renewable energy
grant applications on behalf of farm interests for whom I work. Thanks
to a strong support of the Jolinda\'s Vermont Rural Development staff
each of those four applications has won a grant award. I\'ve also had
the opportunity to go to Washington and be the team leader and author of
the legislative impact analysis for USDA for Section 9006 of the Farm
Act of 2002 working with Bill Hagy and his staff. Our work quantified
the substantial macro scale benefits of farm-renewable energy projects
for rural economic development, energy capacity increases, and
environmental improvements.

I wish to make three basic points this morning. I can\'t really describe
policy in these areas, but I\'d like to call your attention to the
importance of each of these areas.

Farm renewable energy is a key component of this century\'s sustainable
agriculture model. The United States Energy Policy Act of 2005 did not
provide enough farm renewable energy support. To capture the
wide-ranging benefits of renewable energy for the farm community, USDA
will need to support its own expansion of investment in farm-based
renewable energy.

My second point. The quantity of freshwater usage and impacts on
freshwater quality are each an increasing consequence for agriculture.
Now is the time to design expanded market-based water programs, which
provide direct rewards to farms for improvements in both water quantity
and quality.

My third point. Human caused global climate change is a fact. Now is the
time to proactively create tangible rewards for agriculturally based
greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The next Farm Bill has a chance to
address all these three points in major ways. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak this morning.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. DAVE LANE: Thank you, Under Secretary Dorr, for this opportunity. My
name is Dave Lane, and I am the Deputy Secretary for Ag Development here
in Vermont. I\'ll be answering questions two and three.

I recommend that USDA programs and policy recognize and compliment
states\' strategic agricultural economic development plans. Vermont is
the most dependent state in the nation on a single commodity. Dairy
farms provide 85 percent of our farm income. Yet our agricultural
strength comes from its diversity. Dairy itself is diversified with
small, medium, large farms, organic and conventional farms. They are
complimented with a growing number of livestock operations, fruits and
vegetable farms, value-added operations such as farmstead cheese and of
course Vermont maple to name a few.

Place-based foods, place-based branding and relationship marketing
continue to lead consumer-buying trends. As we baby boomers age and
nutrition and health are becoming increasingly important, with over 60
million consumers within a day\'s drive of Vermont our agriculture
(audio break) \--

\... and food of high nutritional value. Brand marketing is the first of
four economic development strategies here in Vermont. The other
strategies include farm modernization, superior technical assistance,
and sector development. Farm modernization is the adoption and
development of technologies innovations that increase productivity or in
some cases provide new revenues for farmers. Farm energy, robotics, new
products are all examples of these.

Vermont\'s farm viability program provides rigorous business assistance
farm by farm here in Vermont. Technical assistance teams are designed
with the farmers to meet their goals and improve their profitability.

Last but not least, Vermont is focused on understanding its critical
industry sectors such as dairy, farmstead or specialty(ph) cheese,
organic dairy and livestock for meat. These sectors are poised for
significant growth. Understanding the dynamics from field to plate will
allow the most effective investments.

When a state demonstrates its understanding of the economic dynamics
affecting its future and when it has a demonstrated strategic plan, the
coordination of federal agencies within this plan is the most effective
way and the most effective path for success. I encourage you to give our
excellent Vermont team that flexibility. Thank you.

MS. HEATHER DARBY: Heather Darby. I am a sixth-generation Vermont
farmer. And I\'m also assistant professor for the University of Vermont
Extension. I would like to address question one pertaining to sort of my
personal farming life and hopefully get to four and six pertaining to my
role as an extension professor.

I am the next generation farmer in the state of Vermont. I purchased my
family\'s farm a year ago. I feel the challenges that I faced at that
time and also continue to face are the ability to get loans for a
diversified farm. I feel that we need to have some more programs for
beginning farmers to be able to get loans as well as diversify farms.
Education and business planning\-- obviously I was able to receive a
college education, but I did not receive business planning education.
And thanks to some great programs in Vermont I, as a beginning farmer,
am able to take advantage of federally funded business planning
programs.

Land availability for me was not a huge issue because I was able to
purchase my family\'s farm because we were able to hold on to it for
over 200 years. Most people do not have that opportunity. So making land
available as other people have said through conservation easements and
I\'m not sure of other ideas on that, but we have to make land available
and affordable for our new farmers and the next generation farmers.

Resources for diversified farms and also for resource limited and
beginning farmers is a big challenge. And Vermont has done a really good
job at providing those resources, both through state-funded programs and
also federally funded programs. And to put a plug in for extension
because I\'m almost out of time, continued support towards the Extension
Service to be able to provide educational programs to those next
generation farmers that were unable to attend college or attended
college but need further training is absolutely invaluable to the
success of next generation and beginning farmers. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. MARK LORENZO (sp): Hi. My name\'s Mark Lorenzo. I work with National
Wildlife Federation from our regional office Montpelier, Vermont. I
manage something called Northern Forest Restoration Project. Northern
Forest for those who aren\'t aware of it is 30 million acres of forested
woodlands stretching from New York state right across to Maine. I
married into the state of Vermont. My wife\'s a descendent of six
generations of dairy farmers in Champlain Valley region. Most of that
land is covered in trees at this point.

National Wildlife Federation believes the U.S. needs to treat farm and
forest conservation programs as integral components of a Farm Bill that
supports agricultural and forest producers of all kinds across the
nation. The Conservation Security Program for example is a critical
environmental program facing deep cuts right now that also offers
greatest hope for future delivery of meaningful economic support to farm
and forest-based producers in a trade-neutral fashion.

I\'m going to talk some about private forestlands particularly
underserved in the Farm Bill relative to other conservation programs
given the number, acreage and ecological significance you\'ve heard from
speakers earlier. In particular the Forest Stewardship Program, FSP,
needs to be seriously revitalized to respond to demonstrated needs.

We also fully support maintaining expanding forest legacy programs and
forestland enhancement programs, especially to support a new generation
of forest owners.

On economics, rural forested areas around the country also need help
with forest-based sustainable economic development. We believe the
Forest Service Economic Action Programs or similar should be considered
for incorporation in any new bill. This is a collection of several
Forest Service programs administered by Cooperative Forestry, in
particular Rural Development or Rural Community Assistance helps
communities organize, develop local action plans and take action to
build toward sustainable solutions for their economic and social and
environmental concerns and opportunities.

We\'d also like the forest products conservation and recycling program
maintained and reinforced which helps communities and businesses develop
new and expanded forest resource and business opportunities,
particularly important to the globalized economy today.

One final thing we\'d like to see country of origin labeling implemented
as intended in the 2002 Farm Bill and expanded to include imported
forest products. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. MARK YOUNGSTROM: Thank you. I am Mark Youngstrom, an engineer with
AutoCreek Engineering in Rutland and Middlebury. My comments are framed
from my role as a consulting civil engineer assisting rural Vermont
communities with water system improvements over the past 25 years. Over
this period of time the Farmers Home Administration now Rural
Development, has assisted the majority of my clients with financing
necessary projects to protect health, property in compliance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act and to preserve the integrity of villages and
town centers.

Many Vermont communities have public water systems dating to the early
1900s or earlier requiring significant improvements. Many of these rural
communities have very low median household incomes. The financial burden
of major infrastructure improvements for such communities can be
impossible. For decades USDA has provided water system grant and loan
funding to such communities. Rural Development is the only primary
agency providing necessary grant funding to reduce local burdens to an
affordable level.

Last year Vermont received a grant allocation for this purpose of only
\$2.7 million from Rural Development. Federal belt-tightening could
severely limit Rural Development as a funding source for these critical
public health projects. Rural Development loans at over 4 percent
interest are not an economic substitute for grant funds.

To leave you with a specific example, the village of Newbury with a
population of 396 and a median household income of only \$27,000 needs
to construct \$3.5 million worth of water system improvements. The
village seasonally relies on an open reservoir fed by a beaver pond to
meet its water demands. The village\'s 90-year-old distribution system
can\'t provide positive pressure in the distribution system. Leakage in
the system is over 50 percent.

The village is eligible for a 75 percent grant which if granted would
result in a high but acceptable cost of water of \$400 per year per
family. However, with less grant funding this necessary and very basic
project becomes unaffordable and the village would be subject to
enforcement and noncompliance. On behalf of the village of Newbury and
other rural Vermont communities, we ask for your consideration to
support grant and reduced loans for these communities.

MR. DAVID MISKELL: My name is David Miskell. I have an organic
greenhouse tomato business in Charlotte right close by. I\'m speaking on
question four on the environmental and conservation question. The
organic farming as you know in the past years have taken tremendous
jumps both in number of farms and also in the market share. I would hope
that USDA continues the process of strengthening the organic standards
and the organic rule rather than what has been happening in the past few
years of lessening those standards.

The process of lessening standards that\'s gone on with USDA and some of
the larger organic industry has been halted in some ways by the court
ruling that was brought about by Arthur Harvey of Farmer Consumer in
Maine. Right now it\'s very important for USDA to try to work together
with the legislature in stopping an impact study that was proposed by
our own senator, Senator Leahy. And then follow the process where the
rule will be looked at according to the court decision in \'06. And then
after the rule is looked at through the petition and through your
regular rules process then have that impact study.

The conservation and environmental will happen more and more when the
marketplace makes it so farmers can continue with those practices. And
if the standards are lessened as they are being done now, people like
myself who have been in organics for years and years and years won\'t be
able to afford to continue doing it.

Thank you.

MS. GRACE GERSHUNY: Hi. My name is Grace Gershuny. I live in Barnet,
which is on the east coast of the state. I\'m here today on behalf of
the Organic Trade Association for whom I am a consultant and a member.
And I\'m also Rural Vermont of whom I am a board member. I also have my
five-year USDA key chain. I was a veteran of AMS, national organic
program staff for five years. And I have a number of talking points, and
I won\'t answer some of the things that Davey just said because I
strongly disagreed with many of them.

But I will mention the fact that on question two the competitiveness of
our farms I think is very threatened by our government\'s emphasis on
pushing genetically modified organisms on the rest of the world. And I
think that policy should be examined very carefully.

I also think that there are some excellent ways to support conservation
as part of the WTO green box and the contributions of organic farmers
are major part of that in terms of meeting WTO criteria and being able
to support conservation programs. There are also programs such as the
Market Access Program that help us establish markets in foreign
countries which organic exporters are not currently eligible for. And so
we would like to also support the AMS\'s appropriations request for
\$750,000 to get up to date info on organic prices.

I think the achievement of conservation environmental goals is pretty
self-evident in terms of support for organic agriculture. If you support
organic farmers you will get environmental benefits.

Rural economic growth is another area in which organic and value-added
program are extremely important including the value-added producer
grants program, and I have to say that I was a reviewer for that
program. It\'s excellent, and it should be funded. And I have a lot more
I could say, and I will submit written comments. Thank you for your
attention.

MS. KAREN LYNCH: I\'m Karen Lynch from Memorial Economic Development
Corporation. I\'m here to speak on questions two and five and
specifically with respect to the need for increased broadband deployment
in rural areas.

I will follow a more complete version by e-mail. I can do that because I
have broadband in my office and in my home. Many of my colleagues cannot
say the same. Broadband often is seen as a blue-sky kind of issue. So
today I want to focus on some specific benefits, and interconnected as
they may be I can list five. I\'ll talk about a couple.

Access to information, access to markets, personal productivity, access
to economic opportunity by which I include both jobs and rural
entrepreneurship and community. These are all benefits of broadband.

Access to information. With broadband, pages load faster and, the user
can process more information. Sometimes the most interesting information
is buried on the 15th page of the Google search, and the dial-up
Internet user is unlikely ever to get there. Large files including
graphics may not download at all over dial-up lines. Access to
information in the agricultural arena includes commodity prices,
information about weather and other factors influencing commodity
markets, techniques for dealing with plant or animal disease,
benchmarking information to allow farmers to improve their methods, and
more.

We want our farmers and other rural residents to have this advantage.
Without broadband we\'re at a competitive disadvantage. The dial-up user
it\'s true has an advantage over someone who does not have Internet
access, but the dial-up user is at a disadvantage relative to broadband.

Access to economic opportunity. Today it\'s possible to work from home
doing a wide variety of tasks if you have that broadband connection.
Telecommuting is one option, but more and more technology-driven
opportunities exist. It\'s broadband that makes those opportunities
reality.

Compared to other infrastructure investments, roads, sewers, industrial
parks, broadband infrastructure is a low-cost economic development tool,
which leverages our existing physical infrastructure. We live in rural
areas. We have citizens in rural areas who contribute to the economic
well being of America, and those citizens, all of us, need to be
empowered. Thank you.

MR. STEVE SINCLAIR: Good morning. My name is Steve Sinclair. I\'m the
director of Forests with the Vermont Department of Forest, Parks and
Recreation. I\'m here to address questions four, five and six.
Specifically though I\'m here to talk about the poor cousin of the Farm
Bill, the Forestry title. And lest we forget in Vermont 80 percent of
our land is covered with trees, so forestry and agriculture go hand and
hand.

Vermont has a rich and vibrant history in forest management. The 80,000
forest landowners that are stewards of this forest resources
contributing to our forest products economy make our quality of life. We
work cooperatively with conservation organizations to identify critical
natural resource environmental areas as well as trying to maintain a
working forest landscape. I like to talk of this mosaic as our natural
security. Just as we\'re critical in maintaining our national security,
we also have to maintain our natural security in this country; in order
to be a vibrant, viable nation we have to have a vibrant, natural
community, natural security to maintain it.

As the state forester in Vermont I am daily involved with those
cooperative forestry program that are in the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act in the Farm Bill, those being forest stewardship, urban
and community forestry, forest legacy, rural development, as well as the
cost-share programs, forestland enhancement program. All these programs
are critical to the natural resources and citizens and residents of this
state that try to manage this vast resource.

I\'d like to focus specifically on three programs. The Forest
Stewardship Program is critical and must be maintained. Numerous studies
indicate the best way to reach forest landowners is one on one technical
assistance, going out on the ground and providing those benefits.
Secondly, I\'d like to offer my support to the full suite of cost-share
programs available to forest landowners. They need to be consistently
and adequately funded.

And then thirdly I\'d like to mention the important role that the USDA
Forest Service and universities play in terms of forestry research. We
need to be on top of the latest credible information so we can manage
this resource in a sustainable long-term benefit for this and future
generations. Thank you.

MR. ART MINUT: Good morning. My name is Art Minut. I\'m a lobbyist for
the Vermont Farm Bureau. Our president Jackie Folsom is out of state and
couldn\'t be here this morning, so she asked me to come.

Agriculturally speaking, and I\'d like to address questions three, four
and five to some extent. Agriculturally speaking Vermont is perhaps the
least diversified state in the nation. While we\'re working hard to
broaden our agricultural base we remain very much dependent on the dairy
industry. This industry is an important economic engine for the entire
state and largely maintains the infrastructure upon which the
diversified sector and indeed the rest of our Vermont economy depends.

Just as Vermonters are trying to broaden our base, so too should the
nation look to diversify and decentralize the national agricultural
economy. Locally produced and consumed food not only promotes good
nutrition and better returns to farmer operators, it also improves
national security.

Our most pressing need based on the dairy industry of course is that a
fair and equitable system for the pricing of the milk be found and
applied nationwide. At present that means extension of and full funding
for the MILC program. Even though our strong preference is for a
nongovernment funded mechanism such as the Northeast Dairy. It\'s also
very important the federal regulatory mandates such as the EPA\'s
proposed rules for livestock operations be accompanied by adequate
funding. In this same vein there\'s a great need to fund alternative
manure management schemes because current technology is itself creating
a host of additional environmental economic and social problems.

Use of foreign labor is also increasing on Vermont dairy farms. So a
simplified procedures to improve the availability of year-round foreign
guest workers for dairy farms would be helpful, and we may follow this
with additional comments by mail.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. JOHN HAYDEN (sp): Good morning. My name is John Hayden, and I\'m
here as a local farmer and disgruntled taxpayer. I never really had a
warm fuzzy spot in my heart for USDA but the fact that you\'re out here
listening to us helps me to feel a little better about it, so thanks for
being here.

I just have some general comments, and agriculture in the United States
has many problems which are on the rise. As a society we seem to be in
denial about them. Soil erosion, aquifer depletion, surface and
groundwater contamination from ag chemicals, loss of rural communities,
and consolidation of the industry are all leading to future food
security issues. That\'s a real homeland security problem.

USDA\'s past policies focused on farm subsidies such as direct payments
and commodity programs have been part of the problem. I\'d like to see
USDA become part of the solution. The Conservation Reserve Programs are
a positive step in that direction. SARE, which is the Sustainable
Agriculture Research Education, program is a real bright spot because
farmers and researchers are working together to create economically
environmentally and socially sound farming system. That program
definitely needs to continued and expanded funding.

And just in general rather than focusing on the get big or get out
programs and policies, I\'d like my tax money to go towards small is
beautiful programs. Please increase your leadership and resource
allocation to organic research, small-scale farming, alternative energy
programs, and local foods and school initiatives. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. BUZZ HOERR: Good morning, and welcome to another wet day in Vermont.
And it points out a problem that I\'d like to speak to you from two
perspectives. First of all my name\'s Buzz Hoerr, and my first
perspective is as chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the Future
of Lake Champlain and a voting member of the steering committee of the
Lake Champlain Basin program.

I talked to a farmer down in the middle part of the state last night who
told me that he\'s in a bit of a pickle as are all farmers around the
state over the past week, and that is it\'s awful wet, and there is a
shadow product that\'s manufactured as part of this commodity
agriculture system we have in Vermont, and that\'s manure. And he\'s
worried he\'s not going to be able to get out and get it spread in time
before our deadline.

I raise that point because it points out that society has asked
agriculture in addition to supplying it with very cheap food to also
handle its waste product in a way that will not impact water quality.
And those demands and cries for that are increasing in volume. There\'s
a lot of tension around this issue. And we here in Vermont, as Governor
Douglas mentioned earlier, have a great situation where our
congressional delegation and our state government leaders have all
joined together at the request of the voice of the citizens to do
everything they can to help farmers solve this problem.

And it is essential going forward that the federal government continue
to match the commitment that the state of Vermont has made towards
matching funding for conservation programs with its federal dollars. We
are enjoying a great deal of success with our \$12 million state
minimum, but speaking from a citizen point of view it is essential that
those dollars not increase and in fact we look to increase them because
society is demanding that farms clean up the situation. Farms are
marginal in profit here and do need that support from the government.

Second perspective is as president of an ag technology company called
ElectroCell Technologies that largely came out of my 12 years of
experience in working on the citizen side of water quality here. And
that is that it\'s very difficult to find funding for ag alternative
animal waste technologies, and it is essential we get \$300,000 a year.
It's essential the government look to increase those funds and try to
find ways as animal units compress into smaller ownerships and smaller
parcels of land that much of the same way we have dealt with people\'s
impacts on water quality through sewage technologies and other ways and
new ways of dealing with storm water that we in agriculture fund equally
aggressive efforts to help farmers try and deal with this other shadow
product of animal waste so we\'ll be able to coexist in these narrow,
thinly soiled valleys, people and animal agriculture in a way that
doesn\'t impact water quality. Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Just so the folks here standing know, after Ethan
speaks we\'re going to take a 10-minute break, let everybody stretch.
And I hope in the good Vermont tradition that everyone will recognize
the place these folks have been standing in for a long time so they
don\'t have to spend that 10 minute break standing there at those
microphones. So those folks get their positions back. And we will take a
break, but go ahead.

MR. ETHAN PARKE: Thank you. My name is Ethan Parke. I\'m a former dairy
farmer, also formerly worked for the Land Protection Program, farmland
protection effort here in Vermont, and I\'m currently the director of a
program called the Vermont Farm Viability Enhancement Program. I want
today to urge the USDA to think about the education of farmers in the
business of agriculture. The Viability Program as an example provides
business planning and technical assistance to farmers. Our services are
delivered by grantees and contractors to include university extension,
nonprofits and private consultants.

Farming today requires sophisticated managerial and technical skills.
Our larger dairies are racing to modernize and become more efficient.
Our midsized family farms are searching for new mechanisms to aid in the
transfer of assets to sons or daughters while saving for retirement.
Farmstead and specialty cheese production is on the upswing. Organic
milk, organic vegetables, value-added initiatives and the apple
industry, all of these ideas and many more hold great promise especially
for our younger farmers, men and women who are excited about producing
quality food but who need assistance in charting these new territories.

The Farm Viability Program meets these challenges by folks, not on
macroeconomics or commodity support, but on the entrepreneur program is
about empowering the entrepreneur to become a better businessperson.
This activity occurs on the farm rather than in a classroom setting.
We\'re funded by state appropriations and by a small congressional
earmark. We have not been funded through the Farm Bill though I believe
the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to set aside a portion of the
Farm and Ranchland Protection Funds, the FRPP, for technical assistance.

Let me explain why Farmland Protection and Technical Assistance should
be both funded. Our agriculture is dependent on two things \-- land and
people. If we want local food production, want to sell our products
worldwide, we must have the land. But we also need the farmers on that
land. Therefore I urge the USDA to consider the business of farming
Rural Development through the development of rural entrepreneurs as one
component of the next Farm Bill.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ethan. Before we break, we are going to get one
more speaker in, and I\'ll say at this point also if folks have trouble
getting to the mike for whatever reason if you raise your hand once we
come back a staff person will bring you a portable mike. Go ahead,
please.

MR. LEONARD KORSUN: Okay. My name is Leonard Korsun. I live up in the
town of Shrewsbury. We had a foot of snow last night. Trees all over the
road, there\'s no electricity, and so I\'m two hours late and I\'m
sorry.

I milked 50 cows for 44 years, so I just, so you know what, I know
something anyway. I know how to milk cows anyway.

You give six questions and I\'ve written it out, and I\'ll leave it but
it takes more than two minutes. Monopolies are what is killing the rural
society in this country. The independent farmers and their families from
which come the people who can think, who know how to work and have the
morals and ethics, the backbone of this country.

Monopoly supermarkets do not buy locally in any significant quantity
except for niche items but not enough to sustain a rural economy. They
save tons of money with few buyers, procurers. They deal with mega
butchers who squeeze the farmers to supply them product to keep their
plants full all year round. To do this the farmers are forced into very
stringent contracts in which the risk is always on the farmer.

It\'s because mega monopolies buy out or squeeze out any competition. A
small or startup farmer especially those that are not close enough to
these plants are also squeezed out of the market. The powers that
educate businesses in how to squeeze every dollar from those they
control are taking advantage of the desire in this country for farmers
to be independent.

By squeezing out the smaller farmer with less market advantage than
farms with best advantage, the big prosperous farms are able to gobble
up land often because farm families want to loan to stay in farming. But
in the end it will be the large mega farms that will provide all the
food this country needs until the eventual peril falls. The reason we
don\'t even know at this point could destroy the whole system that
agriculture is coming to.

I believe agriculture needs roots in every corner of this country and
the farmers and their families that understand their land and how to
care for it. I thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Leonard, we\'re glad you made the effort and got those trees
out of the way and those things so you could be here. We are going to
take a break now. Let me mention just in the next hour and 20 minutes
what will happen. We will keep going on the six questions for awhile.
Then it will be a general discussion. Then at the end the Under
Secretary will have some reaction, closing comments to your comments, so
we hope you\'ll stay through the whole thing. So 10 minutes and we\'ll
see you back here.

\[Recess. Off and on the record.\]

MALE SPEAKER: They like it sliced. So these little guys you\'re going to
see in convenience stores and in your school. We\'re going to package
them next with a little brick of Cabot cheese in the top so you\'ll have
them together. And we\'re working with Cooperative to do this with
carrots as well, the little baby carrots, however they make those
things. So yes, these are healthful foods. When the governor was talking
about integrating Vermont agriculture into healthy living this is what
it takes, folks. We know that apples are nutritious, but if you can\'t
get people in a convenience-oriented society to eat them it doesn\'t
matter how good our apples are. We package them in a way people will eat
them. These will last three weeks in your icebox. These little guys are
treated only with vitamin C and calcium, and they will not brown as a
result.

MODERATOR: We\'re going to listen carefully \-- (crunch). Pretty amazing
crunch for an apple that is that.

MALE: In the back there is a box-full, so go get some and eat some.
They\'re better than those little Danish things everybody\'s eating,
much better for you too.

MODERATOR: We\'re waiting for the Secretary\'s return. Bear with us a
minute. He\'s handling some issues in Washington. Grab those apples, and
I\'ll share the latest political gossip with you all because this is a
gossip-oriented group. But as you know or some of you may know the
lieutenant governor we thought was going to drop by this morning, and
you never know what the lieutenant governor is going to do or where he
might show up as all of you know. He\'s announcing in about an hour from
now that he\'s decided not to run for the U.S. Senate and will not be
challenging Rich Tarrent for the Republican nomination for the U.S.
Senate, and he will be running for reelection as lieutenant governor of
Vermont. So that\'s Brian Dubey\'s big news today and explains somewhat
why he\'s not here.

With Jolinda filling the seat if not the title of Under Secretary,
we\'re going to resume. Keep in mind here too not only is it important
that the Under Secretary be here and hear your comments but all comments
are being transcribed and are being posted and are being read by the
policymakers and are being kept. So your audience is far greater than
the three of us sitting here. We\'ve had a wonderful morning so far and
just covering a lot of ground. You all are doing so well watching this
light. We are covering a lot of ground. We are running a little late now
for which we apologize. If people have things to stay we\'re going to
stay longer to make sure they get the opportunity to speak.

So we go here now, and keep going with the six questions, and in a
little while we\'ll reach the point where I\'ll say its fair game,
anything on farm policy can be discussed. Go ahead.

MS. NOLIMA ABRAMS (sp): My name is Nolima Abrams, and I\'m a student of
community and international development in the College of Agriculture at
UVM. And I\'m struck by the overproduction of our farms in this country
and how amazing it is, and yet all the problems that have come out of
it.

For example, our subsidized grain goes to third world countries like
Mexico, and people there can no longer afford their own grain and also
here it\'s been linked to this obesity epidemic as our food is so cheap
that it makes so much sense to give and buy more and more of it. Yet at
the same time many farmers especially in Vermont are obviously
struggling.

And it\'s in an individual farmer\'s best interest to produce as much as
they can as we know, and yet then the more we produce the prices go
down. So just in terms of the environment and economics and everything
I\'d like to urge in this Farm Bill that farmers are supported that
aren\'t using hormones which only produce more milk and that aren\'t
using genetically modified organisms and that are working on a smaller
scale. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MS. WENDY SUE HARPER (sp): My name is Wendy Sue Harper. I\'m a soil
scientist, senior lecturer and plant and soil science at the University
of Vermont. So I really work in ag education more than anything else. I
guess my comments will actually address the first question. As my dean
Rachel Johnson who moved to the back of the room said earlier that many
funds for academia have shifted or have remained flat for many years.
This is especially true for Extension, but other programs. The
ramifications of this funding change or shift of funds really has meant
that academia or the activities that take place in academia are more and
more supported by industry.

Now industry has had an impact on the agenda of academia, and while
industry does do things for the public good industry is beholden to its
shareholders. That\'s who it needs to speak to. And so who really funds
things that are done for the public good \-- research, education,
delivery of information that\'s for the public good is government.
Government funds things in the public good. Industry funds things that
earns it a profit.

And so we\'ve had a shift away from things that need to be done in my
opinion for the public good to focus on things that are really about
earning a profit. This is true in agriculture too. A lot of this is done
on the backs of the farmers.

Now because of this my opinion is that public money really should be
spent on the following, and this is really for the future of agriculture
and the future of growers. First is Extension. Extension cuts, having a
flat funding when inflation and everything else costs more money,
essentially means a cut to Extension, has caused real problems in our
state. We\'re a small state, you know, so we end up having one person
that does everything for one crop, you know. And can\'t really cover all
aspects of that which means we have holes in what we\'re able to deliver
to growers and farmers. And so we need money for that.

And you know the next generation of growers are going to be folks that
didn\'t come off the family farm because such a small percentage of our
population are farmers right now. So because of that it means that we
really do need a stronger Extension System to work with educating
growers.

The second thing is educational programs, and these would be ones that
focus on teaching concepts in ecology or ecological concepts applied to
agriculture. That\'s what\'s really going to make us sustainable. We
have to be focused on ecological science and agriculture. And then also
have practical experience too because students do need that because
they\'re not coming from the farm.

The third is organic farming research. That sector of ag is more and
more making up the whole agriculture economy and it really hasn\'t been
funded as much as it should. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. DENNIS SHAFFER: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to
comment. I\'m Dennis Shaffer. I live in Calais, and am the northern New
England director for the Trust for Public Land. I actually had a couple
moments yesterday to comment but allow me to wear my Vermont hat today.

The Trust for Public Land is a national organization with a local office
in Montpelier. And we have a successful track record of farmland and
forestland protection projects here in Vermont and across New England.
Because of our conservation oriented mission I\'m going to focus on your
question concerning conservation and environmental goals.

I would like to add my voice to the comments you\'re hearing today in
support of the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. This program has
been a very important tool to preserving highly productive agricultural
soils and contributing to farm viability here in Vermont and across the
country. We are seeing farmland conversion at an unprecedented rate.
It\'s important that the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program funding
be enhanced to the levels necessary to preserve our most vital farms
while the opportunity still exists.

Woodlots and forest lands are equally important to our communities here
in Vermont. The Forest Legacy and the Urban and Community Forestry
Program have provided important resources for protecting and enhancing
the viability of Vermont\'s working landscape. It is important for the
next Farm Bill to recognize the significance of forest lands in states
like Vermont. Existing programs such as Forest Legacy should be
enhanced, and opportunities for new conservation initiatives should be
established.

Here in Vermont and other states with significant timberland resources,
we are seeing many local governments expressing a desire to own and
manage their own forests. These town forests are contributing to local
economies through both timber production and recreation. We have a
wonderful opportunity through the upcoming Farm Bill renewal to assist
these local communities with the acquisition and management of community
forests here in Vermont and in other locals with rich timber resources.
Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. PAUL COSTELLO: I\'m Paul Costello. I\'m the executive director of
the Vermont Council on Rural Development. I\'m very glad to be here to
have the opportunity to speak. The Council on Rural Development is
concerned with fundamental challenges, economic and demographic, before
rural Vermont\-- many of which are common to all of rural America. We
are experiencing technical isolation, the exodus of youth, a housing
crisis, a shifting economy, a landscape caught between development and
preservation, changes in our natural resource economy across the board
in the face of global challenges. And the Farm Bill is a primary way to
address some of these challenges.

At the Council on Rural Development we\'re also keenly aware of the
economic opportunities that the global economy and our incapacity for
innovation in Vermont present to us. We need to coordinate resources \--
state, federal, nonprofit and private \-- in order to maximize the
opportunity ahead for rural Vermont. The Council is charged through the
existing Farm Bill to provide a coordinated function between these
agencies. We feel it\'s essential to continue that work through the
national rural development partnership and the state councils throughout
the country.

Vermont Council on Rural Development facilitates policy councils and in
the last few years has done so supporting the forest products industry,
the state\'s planning system, agricultural viability, and the creative
economy. We build fundamental platforms for discussion that set up for
action by local, state, federal and private partners including the
agency of agriculture and USDA.

We provide community visits that help communities set local priorities,
action plans and help them get in touch with state and federal resources
to realize their action plans. Governors summits help unify state,
federal, regional and local leadership to coordinate activities to
address fundamental historic problems in the state of Vermont. Our new
creative economy initiative will promote innovation and revitalization
in rural towns throughout the state. We believe we are an essential
partner to the USDA and to the Department of Agriculture and the state
of Vermont as a whole as we move forward with agricultural policy.

We strongly urge USDA-RD to support the Councils on Rural Development
across the country and the National Rural Development Partnership to the
2007 Farm Bill. Reauthorize the National Rural Development Program
language in that bill, work to extend the program to all 50 states in
the country so that we have a unified national policy for agriculture
and for rural America and support these efforts state to state through
the state councils. Thanks so much.

MR. ANDY DYKSTRA: I\'m Andy Dykstra. I farm in New Haven with two of my
sons, and I like to address the first question there. We immigrated out
of the Netherlands about 50 years ago. We\'re farming in Vermont about
40 years. We bought our farm there were nine operating farms in the
route. We\'re the only one left farming. And I\'d like to continue that.
I\'ve talked my two boys into running the farms. But my main concern is
the milk pricing system we have in the United States. Right now with the
cost of farming and everything, we cannot afford these \$2, \$3 swings
in milk price anymore.

And in order to keep young farmers going we have to have a milk price to
cover our cost of production and a fair return on the equity. That price
should not fluctuate every month. Farmers should know what they going to
get for their milk for at least six months ahead of time or a year.

Milk prices should move with inflation like a very good example I feel
is this year, I mean our cost has soared on everything \-- fertilizer,
fuel. And our milk price should get according to it, like the kind of
program which I remember we had in the \'70s, we had a parity system.
And that has worked for us great.

This would help young farmers to get financing from banks. Right now
it\'s very hard when you try to borrow money, and the first thing the
banker will ask you, what is your milk price going to be about a year
from now or in the next \-- we can\'t even tell them what our milk price
was last month.

The milk price we knew what it is is good for the farmer. I feel also
I\'m very active in local coop here, and it\'s very good for the
processors too because they know what their milk price input is on
their, so they can forward contract with their customers. And I think
especially those who have the cheese makers when they buy their milk
they have to age this cheese for awhile, and by that time cheese prices,
milk prices could have skyrocketed or dropped way down, and they\'re in
a pinch. I think we see some of that in our state going on right now.

I am very happy to hear that MILC is extended, but in another way as
farmer I feel sometimes kind of a welfare recipient. You work seven days
a week and you know I don\'t get a fair pay. I don\'t think the money
should come from the government. It should come out of the marketplace.

And another thing that disappoints me once in awhile is when we get a
real good program going they throw it out. I think a very good example
was Compact. I think this could have been national. But it got thrown
out. I\'ll leave it at that. Thank you.

MR. JEFF MCCELBY (sp): Good morning. My name is Jeff McCelby. I\'m the
water operator for Newbury, Vermont. I\'m part of the system that Mark
Youngstrom has already mentioned. The system was put in in 1915 with
shovels before backhoes were even around. And since then we haven\'t
done a lot of work maintenance wise or improvements. We just got off
over almost a three-month boil notice. We desperately need a filtration
system and a new distribution system in order to even think about
meeting EPA standards.

We currently qualify for 75 percent grant. I would like to urge that
this grant money at least be levelly funded if not more. Our medium
income is \$27,000. I have a lot of customers that are on fixed incomes.
The low interest loans are just not going to help us out with any type
of needed improvements. The rates currently, right now, with the 75
percent grant will go from 180 to 420 a year. And for folks on fixed
incomes this is very difficult, so I\'d just like to \-- this is
addressing question five by the way. But I\'d like to urge that more
grants would become available. Thank you.

SEN. SARA KITTELL: Good morning again. I\'m Sara Kittell, and I chair
the Senate Agriculture Committee in the State Legislature. I represent
Franklin County, our county of the largest number of dairy farms. Since
there\'s no legislators here from Addison County I can say that. And
represent Franklin County and the town of Alburg. Welcome Secretary
Dorr. I am hoping we\'re going to get your Vermont maple syrup to you. I
want you to know I thought of it this morning, but my maple syrup is in
a Snapple bottle, so \-- and I didn\'t think you wanted that.

So my comments are dealing with water quality, and this is also a
priority of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Legislature. So we
need to get it right with the water quality in Vermont, and to keep our
ag infrastructure in place because our agriculture infrastructure in
Vermont is our dairy farms.

So what\'s been working in Vermont? In the past two years we\'ve had
successes in bringing together the agriculture in the lake communities
as they both face regulation and economic challenges. Farmers see the
relationship between good water quality and our lakes and rivers, and
campers, developers and tourism businesses and others rely on the
farmers to keep the land working. Cleaning up our watersheds is a huge
task but if the state and federal government can coordinate programs and
funding we\'re convinced that we can help to sustain our working farms
here in Vermont.

We in the legislature in our Vermont Agency of Agriculture work closely
with USDA. We have agriculture water quality requirements. We have a
large farm permit program. We have a new medium farm permit program. We
have new accepted agriculture practices for all farms, about to have new
rules.

Nutrient management plans are a priority. We\'ve appropriated \$750,000
state dollars for nutrient management practices. It\'s estimated that
the total cost will be \$6 million.

Our farmers are at the table and are making investments. So it\'s
imperative for the future of our farms that we have a coordinated
approach with our state and federal agencies. So the new Farm Bill,
let\'s have our regional equity funding or more funding, flexible
funding, mechanisms for good coordination between state and federal
agencies, a simpler process, maybe less paper. And I thank you,
Secretary, for listening to our testimony.

MS. DIANE BOBFELD (sp): Thank you for being here today. My name is Diane
Bobfeld, and I work for the St. Albans Cooperative Creamery. The
Cooperative has many areas of concern for the 2007 Farm Bill. But I will
focus on three items and provide more information in writing at a later
date. I will address questions three, four and five.

First, safety net programs for dairy farmers should be part of the 2007
Farm Bill. The MILC program that expired in September 2005 assisted many
dairy farmers within our cooperative and milk prices dropped. Knowing
this program exists allows farmers to feel safe planning for their
future on the dairy farm. In the 2007 Farm Bill I would encourage USDA
to consider a countercyclical program of payments to dairy farmers based
on the MILC model including a cap on payment levels.

A program such as this allows for the production of milk in all areas of
our country and is vital to our national food security. Of course this
program would be best if it was funded by industry not the government.

Second, in the 2007 Farm Bill USDA should ensure that farmers are not
held to any unfunded mandates. Many programs are being discussed that
could be detrimental to dairy farmers. The upcoming study by EPA on farm
emissions is an example of an activity that will produce regulations
that farmers would need to follow. How will farmers meet the potential
new standard? It will be important in the 2007 Farm Bill to provide
programs to assist farmers to meet ever-increasing environmental
regulations through education, technical assistance, and funding for
potential changes to the farming operations.

Third, in the 2007 Farm Bill USDA should consider increasing support for
investments in rural American businesses. These rural businesses in many
cases are linked to agriculture and provide great synergies for the
community. Ag products are moved a short distance to a processor that
adds value and then markets the finished product to the community and
beyond bringing needed money back to the rural community.

I think we need to take a look at infrastructure for those communities,
roads and bridges. We have dairy processors that are 25, 30 miles away
from the Interstate system, and they have grave concerns of the road
structures and bridges getting their product to the Interstate system to
be able to distribute to a greater market.

I believe USDA in the 2007 Farm Bill should target rural development
money to innovation to serve niche markets. Information should be
gathered to determine the trends in consumer demand and to match program
monies to rural businesses that are working to meet the needs of the
consumer. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MS. ANDREA COLNES: Again good morning or good afternoon, whatever it is
now. Thank you for making the effort to come to Vermont and hear what we
have to say. I\'m Andrea Colnes, and I work with an organization called
the Northern Forest Center which focuses on the Northeastern region,
Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and New York, 30 million acres that
stretches across the northeastern tier of the country.

We work with people to try and address the combined conservation,
economic and community needs of the region. Recently we\'ve been awarded
the grant from the Economic Development Administration to conduct a
region-wide economic strategy for the region to try and look at in an
integrated and holistic way the forces bearing upon the future economy
of this rural region.

It must be a very interesting time for you to serve as Under Secretary
of Rural Development for USDA. I think this country faces a crisis in
terms of the future of our rural economy, our rural communities, their
vitality and their viability as we look towards the future. You\'ve
heard a lot of very good comments today about specific programs and
individual initiatives that can help.

I\'d like to take a minute and maybe just one minute not two, to look at
things from a slightly broader perspective. This country sits at a
critical juncture in terms of the future of our rural areas.
Globalization is at work. Fundamental changes in land ownership,
patterns and dynamics, the forest industry again 80 percent of our land
is forested in the Northeast.

The forest industry in this neck of the woods, and it\'s the same owners
doing many of the same things for the same regions in the southeastern
part of the country as well as other areas of the country, have
completely changed their structure, sold their lands and are buying
timber on the open market. So the future stability of our forestlands is
at risk. Employment in this region has changed dramatically. Thousands
and thousands of jobs either have been lost or have become so unstable
that it\'s very hard to plan on them and to raise a family in this area.

Farmland faces very similar kinds of forces. It\'s economically very,
very challenging to keep farmland in agriculture versus selling it out
for higher and better uses so-called that generate higher income.

As a result, we\'re losing our youth at an unprecedented rate. This
region as a whole is losing our youth. Our college educated youth at
four times the rate of the national average. Vermont I understand holds
the honor of losing our college-educated youth at the highest rate in
the whole country.

This can\'t continue. We can\'t forge a future with this hemorrhaging of
our natural resources and our most precious resources our children.

So I think from a very general perspective the comments you\'re hearing
today echo strongly what\'s needed across the Northeastern part of the
country. The Farm Bill and USDA sit in a fairly unique position given
the cross-section of programs and interests that cross your table. Rural
Development, conservation, agriculture, forestry, energy\-- the Farm
Bill has tremendous potential to be a driver and a catalyst in shifting
the policy of this country towards a policy that truly supports our
rural areas and our rural economy. Shifting resources from large-scale,
bigger-is-better subsidies to the kinds of programs in economic
development and agricultural supports that can really make a difference,
the Farm Bill can do that.

And the time really is now. If you look ahead 20 years, things could
just be radically different and the opportunity will have gone by.
Thanks very much.

MR. TOM DECKER: Thank you, and good morning. My name is Tom Decker. I\'m
a wildlife biologist with the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife
and I\'d like to provide the following comments relative to questions
four, five and six and the Department will be submitting additional
comments in writing.

I do want to welcome you to New England and hope that our hosts in New
Hampshire yesterday explained the importance of paying attention to
those moose signs as you come up through New Hampshire and Vermont to
make sure that you remember our maple syrup and not our moose in
necessarily a bad way.

Speaking to questions four, five and six, wildlife and fish are public
resources managed by public agencies. They provide multiple benefits to
the public in terms of aesthetic, ecological, recreational, and even as
a food source to the public throughout Vermont. As such because of their
importance the Department feels they should be coequals with soil and
water in all phases of the Farm Bill programs \-- implementation,
maintenance, program delivery, monitoring and evaluation.

The Department believes an important element in enhancing rural and
economic growth can be directly related to the conservation of fish and
wildlife and their habitat. Recent studies done by the Department
document that Vermonters and visitors to the state spend more than \$386
million annually related to activities like hunting, wildlife watching,
fishing and trapping. These wildlife-related activities demand for the
public to realize those benefits demand wildlife habitat be conserved
and their populations need to be conserved.

Residents have also told us in surveys over 97 percent said habitats and
forest lands were very important to them. Thus many landowners in
Vermont are interested and willing to manage for wildlife and forests,
but the economic realities and limitations some of which you\'ve heard
today may prohibit such efforts. Therefore the Department believes very
strongly that incentives, financial, to the 2007 Farm Bill, related to
EQIP, WHIP, FLEP, WRP and Forest Legacy should be strengthened.

A very important element to the Department in funding of these programs
is the regional equity of conservation program dollars. The Farm Bill
overall represents a great investment in private lands through farms and
forests throughout Vermont. Agricultural and forestry programs in the
Farm Bill impact fish and wildlife resources.

The Department encourages NRCS, and we believe you have a very capable
and professional NRCS staff here in Vermont \-- we feel very fortunate
with the relationship we have with them. But we continue to encourage
that because these resources are publicly held that NRCS continue to
institute prudent measures and a close coordination with both federal
and state fish and wildlife agencies in the delivery of Farm Bill
programs.

The significant planning effort recently occurred nationally at the
state level and with territorial governments through the state wildlife
grant program in which each state developed a very comprehensive
wildlife strategy document that Vermont now has. We encourage you to use
that document as a valuable tool in referring and prioritizing wildlife
related Farm Bill programs at the national level and here at the state
level.

Lastly the Department supports the diversification of farming programs
to help our farmers in Vermont. However, the Department in that wildlife
is held in a public trust the Department does not support any additional
efforts of incentives to diversify farming practices in any manner that
privatizes the ownership of wildlife. We believe that\'s contrary to the
North American model of wildlife conservation in which wildlife is held
as a public trust. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MS. KATE INGRISHEM (sp): Hi. My name is Kate Ingrishem. My husband and I
are first generation farmers, dairy farmers from Addison. And I\'d like
to make some comments on the six questions but you\'ll have to bear with
me. I\'m much better at milking cows than I am at public speaking.
Addressing number one, we would hope that thorough science-based
research be done on any of the environmental issues rather than a
knee-jerk reaction to a group of activists or their lawsuits, and that
any sound findings be given thorough consideration for practicality of
function and cost-effectiveness.

Other farm programs such as lending and cost-sharing need to address the
fact that the size and scale of farms is changing and may need to grow
accordingly.

Also it\'s extremely difficult to find traditional commercial lending
sources to finance farms in this area, making alternate sources such as
FSA and VITA vital to the ag community.

Addressing number two, shouldn\'t we hold other countries to the same
high standards of production that we have in the United States? It\'s
hard to compete with a country that does not have the environmental
labor and business regulations that the U.S. does. And also plentiful
and safe domestic food supply should be considered a matter of national
security.

To address number four, I believe keeping farming profitable and
fund-incentive programs would allow for compliance. A profitable farm
will happily employ sound conservation and environmental practices. As
you know farmers make their living from the land, and have always tried
to improve the land to the best of their knowledge and financial means.

To number five, just to maintain offices and services local to the farms
they intend to serve.

And just a quick note on number six would be nice to see milk marketed
for the 96.5 fat-free product it is.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

SEC. DORR: You did a very good job.

MODERATOR: Let me just make the point here that we\'re at the point of
the format where if folks do not want to address a specific question but
only have a policy issue they want to raise unrelated to the direct six
questions, this is the time you can do it. But you can also address one
of the six. Just do whatever you want from here on in \-- as long as you
stay within the two-minute limit. Go ahead.

MR. STEVE BOYD: My name is Steve Boyd. I work with a company called
Sarafor (ph) the Biomass. We\'re introducing a technology from Germany
and Austria which is a type of anaerobic digestion system that we call a
fermentor. It\'s a renewable energy system using wastes. And we actually
also use other agricultural products. We can use various types of crops
to produce biomass.

We think it\'s a good opportunity. We are working with the Hewlett farm
here in Vermont who was recently awarded funding out of the renewable
energy, energy efficiency program. And we are grateful for that, and I
would strongly encourage you to strengthen that program. I think it\'s
an excellent opportunity for farms in Vermont to benefit, also for any
increasing energy costs there are presently it\'s a way for farms to
actually profitably grow crops.

And one thing I wanted to mention is thinking forward with your programs
is based on the experience in Germany. Last month we had a trip to
Germany with several farms, group of seven of us, and we saw several
farms there. And if you compare the two countries Germany actually has
some similarities to Vermont. There are a lot of small farms here that
are having difficulty staying profitable.

But if you compare the U.S. as a whole to Germany in the U.S. there are
less than approximately 100 digester systems in the whole U.S. \--
generally on large farms. And in Germany alone there\'s somewhere
between 2,500 and 3,000 systems. And the reason why this has been a
success over there is because of they set up the program to encourage
the technology and benefit the farms. And they\'ve actually changed the
program recently to remove actual subsidies to projects, capital cost,
and instead provided an incentive on a per kilowatt hour basis or for
heat that was produced.

So it really created a boom. And it\'s created a market for this
necessary form of renewable energy which creates a lot of other
benefits. And I just want to present that as an approach that can be
used, and it could also be applied to other credit programs such as
watershed credit programs and that kind of thing. I think it\'s a very
effective way of creating a market for a technology which can be
beneficial instead of going project by project.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. ROGER INVEL (sp): Good afternoon. My name is Roger Invel, and I farm
in Grand Isle County. I\'ve been a lifelong dairy farmer. My father
farmed for 52 years. And I have spent a number of years on a county
committee, and I now serve on the state committee for FSA. And I
apologize for some of the farmers that we spoke with that wanted to come
today but I guess power outage and snow, we can understand. I\'m hoping
that I bring some of their concerns here today.

There are those that would believe that farming in the Northeast or New
England or Vermont is probably agriculture is not as viable as it is in
other parts of the country. But I or we tend to believe differently. Of
the top 20 milk producing co-ops in the country, three of those are from
the Northeast and one of those is from right here in the small state of
Vermont. So that says quite a bit for where we rank around the country.

Our county was once mentioned to me, described as one of the most unique
counties in the country. The reason is it\'s the only county, Grand Isle
County, that is surrounded by water in the whole country. So that brings
up my water quality issues as well as what farmers are dealing with. And
the EQIP program we must continue hopefully to keep funding that. The
only drawback that we find with that program is that it\'s not flexible
enough so that the federal dollars can be distributed to address some of
our major concerns which probably aren\'t the same as they are in other
parts of the country.

And we need to make sure that we have these resource concerns addressed
and funded. And I\'m not better at milking cows, but I\'d rather be
milking cows.

One other concern we have as far as addressing one of the questions is
that how do we continue servicing our farmers and keeping our county
offices staffed is probably one of the most important things that we
need to do because in this state here many offices are understaffed, and
we always try to put more workload on them. And of course we all know
that really ends up with a negative benefit. And the farmers are the
ones who suffer, so I think being a small cost would be one of the
biggest benefits we could have is continue to staff these offices so
that the service is available to the farmers.

The technology part that we\'re pushing for to have all farmers involved
or get involved with the different programs we have over Internet.
Comment was made a few minutes ago about broadband, and unfortunately we
are in an area where we don\'t have the technology available to the
farmers and to pursue this, to push it ahead will make it very
difficult. That definitely will result in the inability to service some
of these farms. Unfortunately we do have some farms that don\'t even
have a checking account, but they are still some of the most prosperous
people we have here.

So our hopes is that you take these considerations seriously and will
follow through with it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MS. KAREN BATES: Hello. My name is Karen Bates. I work for the Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources within the Department of Environmental
Conservation and specifically within the Water Quality Division. I work
as a watershed coordinator, and right now the Northern Lake Champlain
Basin. We write water quality improvement plans. Part of that process
involves discussing with community the problems, their perspectives on
the problems, and then solutions they think would work best for them.

Within the St. Albans Bay watershed area I\'ve had discussions with the
agricultural community. We\'ve had at least three, and within that they
had some perspectives I thought I\'d bring to this meeting.

Some of them are echoing Roger Invel\'s comments, but first was their
willingness to actually be part of this effort to improve water quality.
They have no problem with it. One of their comments was that of course
they wanted to be compensated for the efforts they put into water
quality improvement programs or techniques. And then the second which I
thought was very interesting was the desire to be educated so they could
determine the best process to be for implementing these techniques. They
knew how things worked. It would be their perspective that would be very
important to actually get these programs implemented.

Part of that would be in my perspective an increase in staffing at Farm
Service Agencies or the UVM Extension especially. People like Heather
Darby at UVM Extension is held in high respect by that community, and
that would \-- people like her will help implement these programs. Thank
you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. BOB FOSTER: My name is Bob Foster. Tom, welcome to Vermont. I\'m a
fourth-generation dairy farmer, composter, energy producer and director
for Agramart cattle. And I want to thank you for taking the opportunity
to come to Vermont and listen to our comments. Originally the schedule
looked like it was only going to be 13 or something. So I really commend
you for broadening that listening session out.

My first concern involves the financial returns from farming. Our fifth
generation farm is trying to figure out how to transition the farm
business from a fourth generation to a fifth generation while at the
same time buying out the third generation. And it\'s a real challenge.
Part of the problem is that land values as we\'ve heard have increased
rapidly with tremendous pressure to convert it to nonagricultural use.

Efforts to further develop and sustain profitability of farms are
needed. Profitability is the best way to keep open spaces and farmers on
the land as well as meeting the conservation and environmental goals
that go with good stewardship and sustainable communities.
Reauthorization of the MILC program, which I applaud the secretary for
supporting, provides a safety net for dairy producers in this volatile
market as well as some assurance to my generation and my children\'s
generation that the transition on our farm will be successful.

Our farm over the years has worked to diversify its operation and to use
our resources in a sustainable manner. Regulations are becoming an
increasing burden. We applaud efforts to focus resources on conservation
such as the CSP and the assistance through EQIP in meeting the
requirements by society that benefit society as a whole.

I do feel that the administration and payment of farmers should stay
with the FSA and then NRCS should provide needed technical assistance
and design. I\'m very concerned about the efforts to apply CIRCLA (ph)
and EFRA (ph) regulations to the livestock industry without society
funding the studies to determine if in fact they do apply.

On a more positive note I am excited about the tremendous opportunities
for agriculture and agricultural land to produce energy. I would
encourage the USDA focus resources in this area which will help
revitalize rural America as well as make America less vulnerable to the
whims of others.

Programs should not fit large farms versus small farms, organic versus
conventional. Agricultural production needs to be spread across the
country from a biosecurity point of view alone. Conservation and
building of healthy soils is essential to the long-term viability of our
land.

One last point, as banks continue to consolidate and become less
personal access to capital will become even more crucial. Farm
businesses as well as the other businesses owned and operated by dairy,
by farmers in general, need market assistant funds and appropriate
access to capital to grow and continue to be profitable. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Go ahead.

MR. THOMAS MCCORMICK: Good morning. Name\'s Thomas McCormick. Now I\'m
going to fill this sheet out for you guys to take back to wherever you
come from. And I\'m going to let you realize that there is problems.
There is a fix believe it or not on what to do with our agriculture land
throughout the United States as well as right here in Champlain Valley.
My stepfather was a cattle dealer ever since the \'40s. So I happen to
have been his right-hand man through the last 30 years.

Anyway this is a very emotional, touchy subject, this healthcare, USDA,
cozy relationship with our researchers that keep 4 and 5 books,
submitting data that\'s incorrect on purpose. You\'re handing over
millions and millions of dollars to these shysters. We caught Eric T.
Pohlman here I think in May. Does that ring a bell? No? Okay. Well, no.
He\'s in federal court. We caught him.

Like I said, USDA needs to realize you have to retool our farms now. You
have decimated our forest. You\'ve allowed all these sawmills to ante up
and get the wrong nut trees. We\'ve only got about three or four male
beechnut trees to help the existing beechnut trees for what have you
that are around. There\'s only about four or five, six of them here in
Vermont, maybe a dozen. The point of it is, our chestnut trees \-- okay.
President George Bush planted one in Bennington back in March, April. He
happens to have about 17,000 \-- (audio break)

MODERATOR: \-- with the forms that are out in the corridor there. And
the website really if you just go to USDA.GOV and click on the farm
forums it\'s the easiest way to get there, and it really is an excellent
website, a lot of information on these forums, but also on the way to
make these comments. Go ahead.

MR. CHARLES KEELER (sp): Thank you. My name is Charles Keeler. I\'m an
agricultural loan officer with the Vermont Agricultural Credit
Corporation which is a component unit of the Vermont Economic
Development Authority. And we\'re a small state, and we still have
access to as many letters of the alphabet as does the federal
government.

Obviously our wish list as lenders is the same as the wish lists of
everyone that\'s spoken before\-- stable price for farm products, public
funding for mitigating the risks from animal wastes, and funding for
technical assistance. That\'s imperative for us as lenders.

I\'d like to make a couple of rather more specific comments though. We
make direct loans, and we\'re one of the I think three lending
institutions that have any sort of state relationship in the country
that does make direct loans as opposed to depending on aggie bonds. I\'d
like to think that our underwriting standards are prudent.

However, we frequently feel the need to take advantage of the Farm
Service Agency guarantee program both to mitigate risk and to enhance
the value of the collateral that we use to secure our line of credit
with the Cobank. And I said to my FSA peers that I would try to be as
nice as possible, and I\'d like to say this is a small state and we have
a very collegial relationship with the Farm Service Agency. I learn a
lot from all of them \-- albeit the fact that we do have some occasional
tensions which probably keeps us all on our toes.

I\'d like to suggest that there are two trends that we see in the state
of Vermont at the moment that perhaps should be addressed through FSA.
One is the increasing size of dairy operations. And the other is the
need to adequately fund more diverse agriculture, which extends to
forestry too. We do have a one forestry loan that I\'m very proud of.
And I hope we can have more, particularly in those instances when they
finance purchases from the Trust for Public Land.

In order to improve our relationship with FSA I would hope that the
definition of family farm be recognized to include those farms which are
both extremely large and which are organized as entities within the
family that are not traditional \-- corporations and this sort of thing.
And I\'d like to suggest that the Farm Service Agency have an increased
direct loan capability because right at the moment when you\'re dealing
with a large farm the \$200,000 FSA direct limit almost precludes them
from making any significant contribution to the deal.

And thirdly, I\'d like to suggest that FSA\'s ability to grant
guarantees be expanded to purposes which are not presently included in
the FSA regulations. I\'d like \-- one more thing I\'d like to say that
I\'m a subscriber to DirectTV I believe, and we get RFD-TV, and I\'d
like to compliment the secretary on his appearance on TV.

MODERATOR: Okay. Our last two comments. Go ahead.

MR. BRAD WRIGHT (sp): Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. Welcome to Vermont.
My name is Brad Wright. I\'m the information specialist with the
governor\'s Clean and Clear Action Plan. I think by the number of people
you have here in the room you can tell that water quality is a big deal
here. It\'s a little like the old E.F. Hutton commercials; when the
discussion turns to water quality people listen.

You should know that the water quality, the environmental and water
quality programs that are part of USDA are a big deal here in Vermont.
Best management practices, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,
the ag resource specialists, alterative manure management grants, these
are all very, very important.

We very much appreciate USDA\'s support, and continue to hope that we
receive that and we appreciate it along with whatever flexibility you
can provide in how to spend it. Thank you.

MR. DIRK RITHE (sp): Good afternoon. Welcome to Vermont. I\'m Dirk
Rithe, Colchester School District Board Member. And I understand from
our Food Services director that our morning nutrition program which is
in concert with the Food Nutrition Service is not able to buy a local
produce and products. We would like to be able to do that. Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MS. JENNY NELSON: Hi. I\'m Jenny Nelson. And I\'m the agriculture policy
assistant to Congressman Sanders. I\'m also a dairy farmer. My husband
and I own Home Acres Farm over in Ryegate. And like Vermont\'s 1,200 or
more dairy farm families, milk pricing is of utmost concern to us. The
USDA and the FDA must protect the traditional quality, nutrition, flavor
and functionality of milk and dairy products. Imports of milk protein
concentrates and alternative species milk into U.S. dairy plants and
compromising the definitions of our dairy products manufactured in the
United States impact farm gate prices.

Imports, which are on the increase, displace our domestic policy. More
importantly, the use of MPCs is masking dairy\'s declining market share
in the U.S. food and manufacturing industry. The government has a duty
to enforce rules of antitrust and consolidation in the dairy industry.
It is the USDA and the Department of Justice along with the Securities
and Exchange Commission that must investigate and indict if need be. The
Chicago Mercantile Exchange though often limited in activity and volume
has been shown to influence the milk price determined by the federal
milk marketing orders.

Voluntary versus mandatory reporting to the CCC and adjusted inventory
numbers have had undue impacts on farm milk prices.

Then just from Congressman Sanders very quickly, in addressing your
concerns of farm policy effectiveness and farm program goals Congressman
Sanders stresses that the MILC program for dairy farmers must be
extended, and he sees programs that provide a safety net for small and
medium-sized farms as paramount in any future programs. He reminds you
that farm families are not always at the mercy of the market and that
much of our food system continues to be controlled by a few very large
corporations.

Congressman Sanders stresses that there are perishable commodities
including dairy, and that these farm products must be protected by
government programs and fair support prices.

Finally, he says that it\'s important to maintain our national feeding
programs like the national school breakfast and lunch, WIC, Food Stamps,
farm to school and farmers markets and programs that lead to a
sustainable food system. He supports a Farm Bill policy that minimizes
our dependence on imported energy and maximizes our ability to expand
local and regional food sources and alternative energy in an effort to
gain food security and U.S. food sovereignty. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Last comment.

MR. MARK LORRY (sp): My name is Mark Lorry. I\'m from town of Rupert
down in Bennington County. A dairy farmer. There\'s 15 of us left down
there. I drove about 100 miles to come to this forum and I definitely
welcome you and appreciate you coming to our small state to hear our
comments.

I\'ll just make a few general comments. Coming driving up through I
noticed I think over half the farms I passed the barns are sitting
vacant. Some of the land is being used and some of it isn\'t being used.
But I think that\'s a trend that we can\'t continue to stand for.

I think first and foremost on many farmers\' minds is the regulatory and
environmental issues. A lot of folks have touched on those here today.
Any mandated practices or legislation needs to be backed up with some
programs to help with the support of those. We\'re most of us that work
the land all want clean air and clean water, and our communities and our
country needs that. And we do the best job we can with limited funds.

Farming needs to be a viable enterprise for younger generations. Bob
Foster spoke about the transfer of farms and how difficult it is. I\'m
third generation farmer myself. And we need to continue incentives for
beginning farmers as well as organic and specialty crop farmers, and
especially incentives if we can improve our price through value-added
products.

In the last 50 years the United States has lost 36 million acres of
agricultural land. And as a lot of folks have pointed out, we have 80
percent forested here. We have a large population in the northeast, and
I hope we can keep what farmland that\'s available now in production.

We need other incentives for investments in renewable fuels. Diesel fuel
is over \$3.00 a gallon in some places, and it makes it very difficult
to get our crops in. In my opinion payments must continue for major farm
commodities, and I believe rural America will fall apart if we don\'t
continue the programs we\'ve had.

One last comment, the Farm Service Agency as we know it along with the
Natural Resource Conservation Service has successfully implemented and
delivered USDA programs to our nation\'s farmers and ranchers. The
county community system allows local farmers some discretion regarding
these programs and how they are best suited to our local water and
growing conditions. This must continue in the next Farm Bill.

We have the safest and cheapest and most abundant food supply in the
world. Farm policies developed by the USDA must ensure that this
continues in the future. Thank you for your time.

MODERATOR: And thank you for coming the distance you did. A comment?

MS. ROBIN REED (sp): Quickly. One thing I haven\'t heard much about is
the coming animal identification programs. I guess I\'m from my vantage
point I\'m married to a dairy farmer in Charlotte. My name is Robin
Reed. I think this could be really hard for some farmers to do. Some of
them have their animals all named and some people keep all their animals
right on their farm. But some of the other animals I see get bought and
sold and sent around and I think it\'s a good idea to track the animals,
but I think we have to be very careful not to impose excessive costs and
when this is implemented and that there\'s plenty of technical
assistance that goes along with the implementation of animal
identification.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Boy, we\'ve covered a lot of ground, done it
quickly which is a credit to your ability to put things concisely. So
now we turn to the Under Secretary for some closing comments.

SEC. DORR: Well, thank you very much, Chris. Again, thanks to all of you
for taking the time out of your schedule and also contending with the
weather to join us and provide us with your insight. I will apologize
for my absence for a bit after the break. I did have a couple of calls
that I had to take. I guess when the Secretary calls, you take the
calls. But nevertheless, there are a lot of unique issues that affect
every particular region and every particular state relative to their
agriculture and rural policy development issues.

Yet frequently there are a number of themes that run through them.
Number one again today we hear a great deal of discussion about managing
publicly-held forestlands and the stewardship programs, Legacy programs
and how to deal with those and the importance of dealing with them
appropriately. That\'s a theme that\'s been very consistent.

Let me make one kind of anecdotal comment for those of you who are
heavily involved in the forest issues. We probably have one of the most
outstanding under secretaries we\'ve ever had at USDA running the NRCS
who\'s probably as knowledgeable on forest issues as anyone I\'ve ever
met in Mark Rey. You may not always agree with his positions, but he is
passionate about this business and he\'s passionate about implementing
good policy and developing consensus to do so. So I have a great deal of
reasonable comfort level that USDA will be addressing a number of those
issues in a most effective way.

Another issue that tends to come up on a regular basis is farmland
protection and the need to maintain these open lands. There\'s no
question that farmland preservation issues are going to be elevated in
my view in the discussions that are coming out of the Farm Bill
listening sessions. This is not necessarily unique to the Northeast. You
have the same issue in the western areas as well.

Interesting experience I had about two weeks ago with a gentleman at one
of these Farm Bill listening forums, in Little Rock, Arkansas with a
group of minority farmers \-- the moderator was a gentlemen many of you
may or may not remember named Richard Bell. Dick Bell was the assistant
secretary of Agriculture in the Nixon administration working for Earl
Butz and was one of the original crafters of the original Russian grain
sale.

After he left his position at USDA he was then hired and became the CEO
of Riceland Foods in Stuttgart, Arkansas. He retired about a year or
year and a half ago. He\'s in Illinois farm boy, educated University of
Illinois, he\'s your consummate international trader, a guy that
everybody kind of views in that arena of international trade and those
sorts of policy discussions.

He has been selected and appointed by Governor Huckabee to head up what
is now a brand new Department of Agriculture in Arkansas. Prior to this
they had a series of boards that provided the oversight in a number of
the areas that impacted agriculture in rural Arkansas.

Listening to Dick \-- and I\'ve known him for a long time \-- he said,
as the Secretary of Agriculture I will have four priorities. I think
this is really interesting given from whence he came. He said, First of
all, fact of the matter is in excess of 50 percent of our farm
operations are headed by women. He said I am going to focus on a number
of issues that impact women in agriculture. Secondly, he said, it\'s
clear particular when you deal with rice and soybeans that are very
heavily involved in the international trade markets, that the global
competitiveness of those businesses have altered substantially, so
there\'s no question we have to look at renewable energy. Renewable
energy is going to be a major emphasis of ours in Arkansas. He said,
Another issue that\'s become evident to me as I\'ve had the chance to
look through the various opportunities we\'re faced with are the farmers
markets issues. He said, we are going to focus on developing a much
better infrastructure, pricing and support mechanism for farmers
markets. Lastly, he said the fourth area to concentrate my focus on, are
niche markets that come out of sophisticated, well-defined and developed
smaller but very sophisticated farming operations.

The interesting thing about all that is here\'s a guy who came out of
the old school of international global trade, grain commodities,
traditional farm programs, and he\'s talking about the same sorts of
things you\'re talking here. The thing I\'d caution you on as we go
about this as you begin to develop the kinds of background, information
you want to see plugged into a farm program, these niche markets, farmer
markets, the sorts of things you recognize having do two things\--
number one creating a level of sustainability for rural America and,
two, creating a level of economic opportunity traditionally not
available over the last 20 or 25 years.

These are going to be sophisticated businesses. These are going to
require a lot of technical expertise. And so you\'re going to have to
give a lot of conscientious thought to how it is you want policies
developed that will make these possible for you to operate.

I heard a couple of other things here today too, and that was that rural
America is at a critical juncture. There are a lot of concerns about the
brain drain and loss of young people in rural America. I\'m an
unapologetic, unabashed optimist for rural America and the benefit of
being in my position is that I\'ve had the opportunity to travel all
over the country for the last three years and see a lot of things that
are going on in rural America. I simply want to point out that I\'m
probably more optimistic about rural American than I have been at any
time in my life. The deployment of broadband, access to that kind of
technology \-- and I realize there are complications and difficulties in
certain regions \-- but it is dispensing knowledge and access to capital
in ways we never thought.

The biggest issue I submit to you that we\'re going to have to figure
out how to deal with, more probably at the local level than at the
national level, is how you develop rural America so it\'s able to
coordinate and accommodate a multiplicity of opportunities that are
nontraditional production ag with those of you who are in production ag
in rural America.

You\'re dealing with them in Vermont in a lot of ways relative to your
environmental issues and environmental concerns, but I think it\'s
important to point out that in the last four and a half years alone in
the rural development programs at USDA that are involved with
infrastructure which includes technology, broadband, telecommunications
and a number of those issues. Enterprise and rural economic development
activities that are not directly involved \-- production agriculture and
housing and other community facility programs are expenditures over the
last four and a half years that are 40 percent higher than they were in
the late 1990s, 40 percent higher.

When we came to office in 2001 those programs were about \$9.5 billion a
year. Last year we actually had authority to invest about \$17 billion.
We actually invested about \$14.8 billion. These are not typically
grants. Most of these are loans and loan guarantees to people who live
in rural America because they\'re excited about it. They see
opportunities, and they\'re willing and the government, Congress and the
administration are willing to provide these kinds of lending guarantees.

There are significant opportunities out there. I hear it again today and
many of the comments I\'ve heard rural America is changing as it always
has, and I am frankly thrilled to death to have had the chance to get
your input because frankly when I go home I\'m still as optimistic and
encouraged as I was when I came.

So thank you all very, very much for the opportunity to be with you
today, and I look forward to more of these conversations. I urge you to
work closely with your leaders in this state, folks like Steve Kerr who
do in fact provide a lot of leadership, and your governor and others,
along with your congressional delegation. We look forward to more of
those. Thanks.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: It\'s great to end on a note of optimism. So we will end
there, and as we do I want to thank the staff of the FSA and USDA who
were here helping to make this all possible. It ran so smoothly. It\'s a
great credit to them and a great credit to you. Thank you very much for
coming.