![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="1.445138888888889in"}

Release No. 0319.05 Contact: USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623

# TRANSCRIPT OF IOWA FARM BILL FORUM 

**WITH AGRICULTURE SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS\
AND MODERATOR KEN ROOT OF WHO IN DES MOINES\
AT THE IOWA STATE FAIR\
IN DES MOINES, IOWA\
ON AUGUST 11, 2005**

GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK: \[In progress\] who need to have input on your
deliberations as you begin the crafting of the nation's Farm Bill for
2007. As the Governor of a state that now leads the nation in economic
growth, I can tell you that we look in the numbers. Deep in the numbers
we find that much of our recent success is tied to what's happening on
our farms in our rural communities. So the Farm Bill is critical to the
success of our state.

I offer three very short suggestions for your consideration and then I
want to turn it over to my colleagues.

First, all of us are concerned about the survival of family farms and
small producers. In a day and age where we are seeing a consolidation of
purchasing from large chain and grocery stores putting pressure on
processors, it may be appropriate and necessary for producers to find a
way to align themselves together so that their purchasing power is as
strong as those that they are negotiating with. We would appreciate an
opportunity if such alliances take place that there be protections
against any kind of retaliation as farmers group together in a
cooperative venture to ensure that they get fair and decent prices for
what they produce. Also, we would hope that contracts are as transparent
as possible so that everyone knows what the rules of the game are and
hope that those rules don't change in the middle of the game.

The second concern I would express to you is that part of our recent
success is a result of farmers all across this great state understanding
their primary responsibility to conserve the land and improve water
quality. And as you said during your news conference, there is no better
steward of the land than those who farm the land.

Our hope is that the Farm Bill of 2007 continues the progress that we've
seen in Iowa in encouraging buffer strip, wetland restoration and that
we treat conservation as if it were a commodity and support it as such.
We think that that will help farmers. It will also help the country in
negotiations with trade and it will also obviously be great for the
environment.

Last, and certainly not least, as you face budget pressures, and there
are calls for limitations, our hope is that as those limitations are
imposed, that resources are still preserved for rural development. You
are in a state that has approximately 70 percent access to broadband
Internet and our goal is to get to 100 percent.

The Farm Bill, and rural development components of that Farm Bill, are
critical to an expansion of that technology, which will in turn create
more economic opportunity for our smaller communities.

So the state that is number one in corn and beans and hogs, the state
that's number one in egg production, the state that's number one in
economic activity, number one in buffer strips and wetlands, has a great
interest in the Farm Bill. And we appreciate you being here this
afternoon to listen to our concerns and to take them into consideration.
It's always good to see you back home. Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Now I would like to recognize
Congressman Jim Nussell to speak with us today.

He's not here? How about Congressman King? Is Congressman King here
anywhere? Yes, there you are, Steve.

CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING: Thank you, Ken. I did RFID some calves here a
couple weeks ago and if that recommendation for the media, I would be
happy to do yours for you.

MODERATOR: I want a chip.

CONGRESSMAN KING: I appreciate the chance to have our Secretary here,
Secretary Johanns, I believe. I'm looking forward to working this next
Farm Bill together with him, an individual born and raised in Iowa, grew
up here, knows what we are about. This is Midwest agriculture. It's corn
and beans and oats and hay. And now it's also eggs and ethanol and
biodiesel, and all the things that we know are the foundation for our
economy.

We are going to have a partner to negotiate our new WTO trade
negotiations, too; someone who sees this from an ag perspective, someone
who is proactive, someone who impresses me with judicious use of his
words and his intellect in a way that I think the words are always
carefully spaced and carefully placed and they mean a lot. When I listen
to Secretary Johanns, I know that there is a lot of wisdom behind the
words that he uses.

The things that I am looking at, and I serve on the House ag committee,
and we have been working on a series of issues. And it's laying a
foundation for the new Farm Bill coming up. But certainly the Energy
Bill being passed and just signed into law is a huge thing for us in the
Midwest. Because we are going to be able to have better access to more
natural gas is going to be hugely significant for the costs of our
nitrogen fertilizer and our drier gas. That's a big piece of the Energy
Bill. Biodiesel and ethanol come with that.

We are working on a grassland program, too. We know that there is going
to be a significant amount of CRP that's going to come out in the next
three to four years. As that rolls out, we want to see a lot of that
stay in grass or be seeded back to managed pasture. We are putting that
plan back together. We are going to be working with this new Secretary.
This is a listening event we have here today. And I'm looking forward to
hearing from all of you, as we all are. Thank you very much.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Congressman King.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: We are also pleased to have both of our United States
Senators here with us today. I would first like to call on Senator Tom
Harkin to make remarks. Senator Harkin.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN: Thank you very much. And thank you all for being
here. And thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for coming back to your
homeland and hearing input on the Farm Bill. I think that's important
that you hear from Iowans on this Farm Bill.

In the last Farm Bill that I was privileged to be Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee when we wrote it and I think the 2002 Farm Bill
was a pretty good Farm Bill. I think it's done some good here in the
State of Iowa and around the country. We did the same thing. We went
around and had a lot of hearings. In fact, perhaps the signature part of
that bill, the Conservation Security Program, while I may have put the
words on paper, the ideas came from farmers who said that they needed
some assistance in providing for conservation on working lands, and not
just taking land out of production. That's what the CSP has been doing.

I think it's important to remember also that while we are looking at the
next Farm Bill, we still have two more years to go on the present Farm
Bill. Quite frankly, I think we should build on that. No bill is
perfect. There have been some problems in carrying it out. But we wrote
a strong bipartisan bill in the Senate and in the House and in
conference in 2002. President Bush, when he signed it into law, said
that one of the reasons he was signing it was because of the
conservation measures. We had the biggest increase in conservation of
any Farm Bill ever passed: 80 percent increase in funding for
conservation. We put in the CSP program also in that. We had rural
development initiatives. The first ever energy title ever put in a Farm
Bill was put in the 2002 Farm Bill.

By the way, while I'm talking about energy, we just passed an Energy
Bill that was just mentioned here that's going to be big for Iowa. We
had passed eight billion gallons in the Senate, requirement by 2012, the
House had five, And we came out of conference with seven and one-half
billion gallons of ethanol. That means we are going to double ethanol
and biodiesel use by 2012. So we are going to build more plants in the
state of Iowa.

\[Applause.\]

SENATOR HARKIN: We want to hear about the next Farm Bill, but there are
still some things I want to focus on in the present Farm Bill. Billions
of dollars that we put in the 2002 Farm Bill have been taken away for
disaster payments. Money that was in there for CSP programs were taken
out to pay for disasters. That's not right. That shouldn't have been
done. Disaster payments should be paid for like we pay for hurricanes or
tornadoes or anything else. We don't penalize Florida and take it out of
money when we help them with a hurricane that hits. And when farmers
have a drought or they have a disaster, we shouldn't take it out of a
farm program to pay for it. So we've taken about \$4 billion out of the
CSP program, even though we have saved \$15 billion for the U.S.
Treasury for our taxpayers under this Farm Bill that could have been
spent. But we saved it for the taxpayers of this country.

So I am hopeful that some of the things that we had in there, like the
biobased initiatives, a provision in the Farm Bill that mandates that
the federal government has to give a preference to buying biobased
products. It's in there. Every department. Even the Department of
Defense, the Department of Interior, they must \-- shall \-- they have
to give a preference to biobased products. Yet it's not being carried
out. We should do that. That's a big future for our agriculture.

So while I want to look ahead to the next Farm Bill, we have two years
left on this one. Let's make the CSP work better. Let's get biobased
products purchased by the federal government. Let's get broadband to all
our rural communities all over this state and all over this country.
Let's get rural business investment programs and venture capital that's
in the Farm Bill, let's get that out to our rural community. So I hope
that we can work for the next two years to carry out this Farm Bill,
build on it and make a better Farm Bill for the future.

Thank you very much.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Senator Harkin. I am so disappointed
with our House of Representatives that they didn\'t hold the line on
that five billion gallons. They had eight, you had five, and you wound
up giving them almost all of it.

\[Laughter.\]

MODERATOR: Way to go, buddy. All right.

Now, Senator Grassley, we didn\'t forget you. We saved you for last
because along with your remarks we would also like to have you introduce
the Secretary of Agriculture. Our senior Senator, Chuck Grassley.

\[Applause.\]

SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY: Thank you.

It's a privilege for me to be here with the Secretary and our Governor,
the Secretary of Agriculture for Iowa, Patty Judge, and members of
Congress that are here with us. Particularly my junior colleague from
Iowa, Senator Harkin, who is the voice of agriculture for his party. And
that's a compliment.

\[Laughter.\]

SENATOR GRASSLEY: We are here in the spirit of representative
government. Those of us that serve in public office are one half of the
process of representative government. You folks that are our
constituents are the other half and you can't have representative
government if you don't have dialogue between those of us elected and
those that we serve. So we are here in the spirit of representative
government, as your Secretary of Agriculture and us, as members of
Congress, to fulfill what our system of government is all about:
listening and talking and having dialogue and reaching consensus.

For me, on the next Farm Bill, before I introduce you, just two points.
One, I'm going to be looking for things in the next Farm Bill that will
produce competitiveness for our family farmers. Things like making sure
that we have hard caps so 10 percent of the farmers don't get 72 percent
of the benefits out of the farm program so that we lose urban support
for our familiar in the House of Representatives. It seems to me that we
ought to target our Farm Bills towards medium and small farmers like
we've traditionally done. And we need to wipe out all the legal and
illegal subterfuge that there is now going on to get around those
payment limits that are in the Bill.

In addition to that, I think eliminating packer ownership of livestock
so that farmers do not have the unfair competition of packing houses
slaughtering their own cattle when prices are high and buying from
farmers when prices are low. It seems to me it would be a very unfair
situation for the family farmers.

The other area that is more my responsibility than maybe your
responsibility, but to make sure that we have a sound tax policy so that
young farmers can get started farming.

It is my privilege to introduce Secretary Johanns to you. For Iowans of
northern Iowa he needs no introduction. He is a person that was born in
Mitchell County, as you know. He left Iowa to go to law school. He ended
up in Nebraska. I suppose that makes him a Big Red fan after being a
Hawkeye fan first. But he went to law school there, developed a very
good practice of law, served on the City Council, Mayor of Lincoln. He
then ended up being governor of the state of Nebraska following the same
path as our own governor did as well. He was elected and reelected and
then in the middle of his second term was chosen by President Bush to be
the Secretary of Agriculture.

For people, under the necessity of understanding the role of the family
farm and our agriculture with a background that he has on being born on
a Mitchell County farm, being a dairy farmer, being the leader of the
state of Nebraska, which is very much an agricultural state as well, we
could not ask for a person who is more grounded in the principles of the
family farm than Secretary Johanns. And we are glad that you are here to
listen and to make the process of representative government work.
Welcome.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you, Senator.

SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS: Well, thank you very much. What a warm welcome
and what a warm welcome home. I always tell this story when something
like that happens.

A few years back, I was elected governor of Nebraska. And in that period
of time between getting elected and getting sworn in, I was invited to
come to Kearney, Nebraska and give a speech. And that's kind of in the
central part of the state, so Stephanie and I, my wife and I drove out
there. And we get out there and a nice introduction just like the
Senator did, and as I'm making my way up to the podium everybody stood
up and applauded. So I go to the podium and I said, you know, that's
really very nice of you, but I haven't done anything yet. And somebody
in back yelled out, and when you do, we won't be standing.

\[Laughter.\]

SECRETARY JOHANNS: It is great to be back in Iowa. I see relatives. I
come to Iowa and I see relatives Dick and Barb Johanns are there right
in the front row. Stand up.

\[Applause.\]

SECRETARY JOHANNS: They're here because if I say something you don't
like, they'll be handling the complaints at the end here. I tell people
I did grow up on that dairy farm in Mitchell County, Iowa. My father had
four children, three sons. And my father's idea of building character in
his sons was he handed us a scoop shovel or a pitch fork and we went to
the barn or we went to the hog house and we stood knee-deep in
you-know-what and we pitched away. I tell people, little did John know
that what he was really doing was preparing his youngest son, Mike, for
his career in politics. Right?

\[Laughter.\]

SECRETARY JOHANNS: I do want to thank \-- geez, what a turn out. This is
our fifth forum. We will be doing these all over the country. This is
really a credit to your elected officials. We have had individual
Senators show up and individual House members, but I think this is a
first where we have had nearly a complete delegation. Both Senators,
your Governor, your Secretary of Agriculture. Patty, it's good to see
you. Congressman. And we talked a little bit before we came in here at a
news conference and Congressman Nussle was with us. So I think that
indicates, ladies and gentlemen, the value that these elected officials
place in what you do, which is agriculture. So to each and every one of
them, I just want to say how much I appreciate them being here.

And Senator, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for those kind words of
introduction. I do appreciate it.

We had some people from the ROTC, U.S. Army, Junior ROTC in here
earlier. We thank them for the presentation of the colors. Then we had
three 4-H member: Alisha King, Victoria Morales, and Adalina Morales \--
is that how you pronounce that \-- that were here and they led us in the
pledge. Thank you so much for that.

To the Iowa State Fair organizers, thanks for the hospitality. And, wow,
what a great crowd. We appreciate it.

Then our USDA staff. They always work hard to put these together and I
want them to know how much I enjoy working with them and appreciate
their good work.

I am excited to be home. As you know, I was born and raised here. I talk
often about those years on that Iowa dairy farm and what a profound
impact they have had on my life. In the state of Nebraska, when you go
west of Lincoln, especially, and west of Grand Island, especially, it
becomes very rural area. In fact, out in western Nebraska, it's cattle
country. So it's large ranches. We call that the "third district." It's
actually the third congressional district.

When I ran for Governor of Nebraska, I ran an ad out there on the radio
that said, I grew up on a dairy farm. And after growing up on a dairy
farm with John and Adeline Johanns, everything in life has been easy
after that. And people really connected with that. When we would go
across the state, they would say, you know, I grew up on a dairy farm.
It really was a connection and it's just great to be back here in my
home state.

The Governor pointed out so many areas where Iowa is a leader in
conservation, in agriculture, this wonderful state fair that you have
here. Reference was made to the Energy Bill and seven and one-half
billion renewable fuel standard. I want to emphasize what everybody has
referenced here, and that is, this is a big deal for agriculture. You
are a big ethanol state. You're a national leader when it comes to
ethanol and biodiesel development. The Governor was telling me about a
biodiesel plant.

So as we think about farm policy today, one of the things to keep in
mind is that farm policy is much more than just passing a Farm Bill
every five years. That's very important, but it's tax policy, it's trade
policy. Twenty-seven percent of our receipts come from trade, very, very
important. It is energy policy. All of those things fit together to make
good farm policy. So if I could mention that.

I also want to bring greetings from a great friend of yours. I just saw
him this week on his ranch in Crawford. And that's the President of the
United States. I went down there as a part of his economic team to talk
about what we are doing. And every time I see him, and this was no
exception, he wants to know about the forums. What are you hearing? What
are people talking about? He was the one that encouraged me, President
Bush, to get out across the country to talk to farmers and ranchers and
producers and those in production agriculture about what's on their
minds. So it really is at his direction that we are here today.

I told him I was going to be in Iowa and of course he knows I grew up in
Iowa so he said, please send my warm welcome to all of the folks in
Iowa. But he also sent me with a recorded message. And, Terri, if our
timing is right, I think we are ready to hear \-- I hope we're ready to
hear from the President. If not, then my greeting will \-- no, we are
going to go on. But he does send his warm regards out here to Iowa.

Well, I had a confirmation hearing earlier this year in January. It's
part of the steps you take to become confirmed. One of the things I said
to the Senate Ag Committee is that I believe that the best ideas
oftentimes occur not in a government office, but they occur out in the
country. I went on to say that as Secretary of Agriculture, it was my
intention to get beyond the beltway where we could hear ideas. Senator
Harkin referenced the fact that an idea for the conservation title of
the Farm Bill came from discussions with producers. We have challenges
ahead. This is an evolving industry.

The farm I grew up on is a very different operation today than when I
grew up on that basically quarter-section dairy farm, 30 cows, some
cattle, some hogs. I raised hogs to put myself through college. It's a
very different operation than it was back then.

We want to do everything we can to listen to people about what this Farm
Bill should be for the future. Because, keep in mind, ladies and
gentlemen, when we pass a Farm Bill in 2007, in all likelihood it will
be a Farm Bill that lasts into the next decade through 2012. And it has
big impact and it will have a big impact on the next generation.

We are going to be doing these forums all across the country. Tomorrow
we will be in California and next week I'll be in Pennsylvania. We have
under secretaries going across the country as well as my deputy.

The first thing, before I sit down, I want to emphasize, as I am here
with an open mind, mostly what you are going to see of me over the few
hours we have together is me sitting here taking notes. Not going to
offer a lot of reaction to your comments. What I want to do is hear from
you.

The second thing I would offer to you is this, if you have a specific
problem, the USDA isn't treating me right on this program or that
program, we have USDA people here to help you with that. We want a
bigger vision today. We want to hear from you about agriculture. We are
worried and concerned about your specific problem, but let us help you
with that from the USDA standpoint. We want to hear about the Farm Bill
today.

We have six questions. The brochures that were handed out list these
questions. The first one relates to the challenges for the next
generation of farmers. Our policy should welcome the next generation of
farmers so we asked questions about unintended consequences. We have had
many appear at our farm forums and raise the issue of land costs, cash
rent costs, the impact that that is having on the next generation.

The second question relates to something that Senator Grassley
mentioned, and that is competitiveness. How do we remain competitive?
You know, probably when I grew up, my competition might have been South
Dakota or North Dakota or Nebraska. The competition today, you are
raising corn and soybeans for people on the other side of the world.
Twenty-seven percent of the receipts for agriculture now come from
trade. It is a very important thing. And if you want to know where your
competition is in soybeans, I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen,
you're going to have to make quite a trip to see it. But it's something
to behold. I'm talking about Brazil. Competition is real there. And you
can't ignore it. And we need to be prepared as we talk about this next
Farm Bill.

The third question relates to the farm program benefits. Reference again
was made by Senator Grassley about payment limitations. The big question
is, are we distributing benefits appropriately under the Farm Bill? Some
argue that the program benefits actually encourage larger farm
operations instead of protecting those families who want to farm.

The fourth question relates to conservation. What are we doing in
conservation that you like? What would you like to see us do more of?

And then the fifth question is rural economic development. The USDA is
very heavily involved in rural economic development. I've had people
representing nursing homes in a number of rural economic development
areas show up at these farm forums and say, we like this program. So
rural economic development is the fifth area.

Then the last area is the expansion of ag products, markets and
research. Again, I will point out to you, the farming today, the
round-up-ready products, you know, the soybeans when you drive by a
field and just see it perfectly clear, it's remarkable what's happened
with agriculture in science and technology. How do we prepare ourselves
for the next generation and adopt the right policies for the next
generation of research end products?

Let me just wrap up and say, that's about as much as you're going to
hear from me during this entire forum. I've got an ink pen full of ink
and I have plenty of note cards and now it's your chance to speak to us.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: At this time I would like to allow our remaining
Congressional delegation and Governor to step down to more comfortable
seating for a little while if you would like.

Governor, thank you very much for inviting us to your home, all 135 of
us at WHO, for dinner next week.

\[Laughter.\]

MODERATOR: You are just across the street. So we will be there. So thank
you very much for being here, sir.

GOVERNOR VILSACK: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Congressman King. Listen, the reason I didn\'t get your name
right is we refer you to as Anwar nowadays.

CONGRESSMAN KING: \[Inaudible.\] I'll be happy to take that.

MODERATOR: Good to see you, sir.

And Senator Harkin, glad to have you with us today.

SENATOR HARKIN: Thank you.

MODERATOR: And, by the way, let's do the 20th Farm Aid together, shall
we?

SENATOR HARKIN: Well, yeah, I'm going to do that. It's in Illinois, you
know?

MODERATOR: It's in Illinois. Why not, 20 years later.

And, Senator Grassley, good to see you up here. Are you going to make
the parade through the large livestock and everything on a stick?

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Everything. I've got eight family members here I've
got to meet up with.

MODERATOR: All right. Very good, sir.

Mr. Secretary, how are you today?

SECRETARY JOHANNS: I am doing great.

MODERATOR: Good. We have a few ground rules for people. I am no Orion
Samuelson. I am working out on the far edge of my intelligence, as you
are going to find out during the course of the time that we are here.

We have open microphones in just a moment for any of you who would like
to ask or like to make any comments that reflect on the outlined
questions that the Secretary has posed regarding the next Farm Bill. We
do have a requirement that you keep your comments to two minutes or
less. I have two ladies over here enforcing this, not to mention several
highway patrol around the area.

\[Laughter.\]

MODERATOR: And they are going to show you their three lights, if you
would. So green, yellow, at one minutes and a half, and red means to
please wrap up as quickly as possible. And we would love for you to be
able to finish these in two minutes without harassment.

We would now like to have the first two questions. And by the way a
microphone will be here and a microphone is here as well. We are also
having this taped by C-Span and C-Span will be running this on an
as-live basis in the weeks to come.

We have, at the Secretary's request, two young people to give our first
two comments of the day. First is Alicia Clancy from Carroll County. She
is a collegiate 4-H member, a senior at Iowa State University majoring
in journalism and ag communications. Alicia, please.

MS. ALICIA CLANCY: Thank you very much. I am here today representing the
125,000 youth that make up the 4-H program in Iowa. I am like many of
these people. I took part in educational presentations and public
speaking contests just down the road at the 4-H building. And I have
prepared, exhibited, and sold my livestock projects right here in this
very building.

Like many 4-Hers in Iowa, I also grew up around production agriculture
on a family farm. I am the fifth generation to live and work on our
family farm in Carroll County, where we have a 180-acre operation where
we raise corn, beans, and livestock.

Two months ago, at a family reunion, dozens of my relatives took pride
in commenting on how important our farm has been to their family
heritage. And I had a lot of pride knowing that I am living and working
on the same land that my great grandparents did.

This summer my parents purchased that farm from my grandparents' estate.
A long, educational and very expensive process. Now my parents plan to
pass that farm down to my two younger sisters and I.

As noted, this spring, I will graduate from Iowa State University with a
degree in journalism and agriculture administration. With the wealth of
4-H and internship experiences in ag public relations, I know that I
will be able to find a great job. Also, I know that I don't have to
count on production agriculture income as my sole course of livelihood.
But some 4-Hers in Iowa do count on production agriculture. They plan on
working side-by-side with their parents to support an extended family.
Many times these people need second jobs to support themselves and their
families and that's something that they are already thinking about
through high school, through 4-H programs through high school and into
their college years.

I, for example, have to decide whether I want to return to the farming
community where I grew up or move off to an ag business center like Des
Moines, Kansas City, or Minneapolis. It seems today that young people
have to make a choice: a well-paying career away from the farm, or a new
farm, or an inherited farm full of debts and land prices and cash for
equipment. It is a difficult choice for many people that also have a
bright future in the ag industry off of the farm.

Congress, the USDA, and this administration can help make the goals of
these young people possible, and others who might not be able to return
to production ag. So today, I ask six things of you. Continue to educate
American consumers about where their food comes from: Support trade that
keeps American products competitive: Support entrepreneurial ventures
for ag-related businesses, especially in rural communities: Revive rural
communities and build a communication infrastructure so that people like
myself can live on the farm and still have a great career: Encourage
youth to pursue agricultural sciences that will advance the industry:
And, finally, continue to support young Americans in agriculture by
funding 4-H in the 2007 Farm Bill. Thank you very much.

SECRETARY JOHANNS: Thank you, Alicia.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Alicia, thank you very much.

We will now, after the next statement start at this microphone and then
work our way back and forth. And if you would like to give comments,
would you please head toward these microphones at this time. And I don't
think it will be a problem here, but no more than five deep at each one
of the microphones.

Please, don't wait until later on because if you do, I will have to ask
questions to the Secretary to fill in the meantime and none of us want
that.

Now, may I direct your attention over to the young man in the blue and
gold jacket, Shamus Brown, the Iowa FFA president. Also an American
farmer from Grettinger. He is also an Iowa State University student
majoring in animal science and pre-veterinary medicine.

Shamus?

MR. SHAMUS BROWN: Thank you. "I believe in the future of agriculture."
How many of you recognize this phrase? Raise your hand, please.

On behalf of these and nearly half a million FFA students across
America, we stand for the future of agriculture. We would like to thank
Secretary Johanns, the USDA, and all of our Iowa legislators for their
time today to address the issue of, how can American farm policy address
any consequences that discourage young farmers from entering into the
production agriculture career.

We believe that farm policy should address the negative perceptions that
are present about production agriculture. In today's society agriculture
careers are viewed as those with limiting benefits, few rewards, and a
dim future. By promoting the agricultural industry we can eliminate
these perceptions.

We believe that farm policy should help to develop our rural communities
to continue that strong economic and social infrastructure. Part of that
is by promoting the diverse production agricultural career as well as
the diversity of agricultural careers offered. By bringing together a
diverse work force in an industry that is always changing, we can ensure
new ideas and success.

Tomorrow's agriculturalists will come from today's classrooms. We need
to make sure that those students understand the opportunities and
potential that a career in agriculture has. In order to do this, we need
to ensure that the programs at the high school, community college, and
extension or outreach have the ability to do so. With that, we need to
make sure that our instructors have the most advanced equipment,
technology, and instructional material to prepare these students for a
future in agriculture. These teachers or instructors will be the ones
who provide these students the opportunity to not only have a career in
production agriculture, but a career in the agriculture industry.

I believe that American agriculture can and will hold true to the best
traditions of our national life. The start of our final paragraph of our
FFA creed. I stand before these FFA members again that we believe that
American agriculture will be successful in the future and that farm
policy can have a positive effect on this by promoting diverse
agriculture, diversified agriculture careers, maintaining our rural
communities and by supporting our agriculture education programs.

Thank you again Secretary Johanns, Iowa legislators, and the USDA for
all of your support.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Shamus, thank you very much.

We are going to go until 1:00 for our first segment and then take a
15-minute break and then go until 2:30. And from this point on it's wide
open to any of you. I am going to try to alternate microphones. If you
would, please, give your name. And if you wish to give any point of
reference, your county or your city, for the Secretary's benefit, please
do. We will begin here at this microphone.

MR. JEB MEYER (sp): My name is Jeb Meyer. I am a seasoned farmer from
northwest Iowa. Odebolt is the home town.

Welcome back to Iowa, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for giving us a
chance to visit with you.

My belief is that farm policies should be simple, trade compliant, and
not porous reliance on government programs. U.S. farm policy should not
guarantee a profit, but help manage risks. Disaster payments are in
demand by some people somewhere every year, but should be designed in
agriculture to reward producers who have tried to manage risks through
crop insurance.

The U.S. needs to be a larger player in world trade, which means WTO
compliance. U.S. farm policy should not increase cash or land value.
Direct payments, loan deficiency payments, countercyclical often pass
through to the land owners through higher cash rent and increased land
prices.

In my opinion, the best way to correct this situation is to eliminate
these payments and use the same dollars to buy down crop insurance
premiums and to reward producers with conservation payments for those
who produce as a friend of the environment.

If farm program payments were directed to the producer as a partial crop
insurance premium and payments rewarding producers for being good
environmental stewards, the producer would stand a better chance of
getting the full advantage of the U.S. farm program. At the same time,
the landowner would see the value of their property increase through
improved land stewardship.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, sir.

Now, let's move over here. Your name, where you're from.

MR. DAN JOHNSON: Dan Johnson, Wapello County, Ottumwa, Iowa.

Welcome, Secretary Johanns. We are pleased to have you in Iowa to hear
what Iowa farmers have to say as we all work together to develop the
next Farm Bill. I am a fourth generation livestock and corn grower from
Wapello County. I am also an Iowa Farm Bureau Federation State Board
member. My family has been farming in the same area for over 100 years.

We hope the entire nation will be listening carefully and taking notes
because all America will be impacted by the next Farm Bill. Not just the
agriculture community or the people in this room. There is reason enough
for all of Iowa to care.

Iowa Farm Bureau members have started meeting across the state this
summer to develop policy as we do each year. During this policy
development discussion we are working hard to challenge our family farm
members to think about and comment on what direction the next Farm Bill
ought to take. Our organization is holding listening sessions, preparing
our members to invite Farm Bureau's voice to the next Farm Bill debate.

Even though we have just begun visiting the challenges concerning the
next Farm Bill, our members believe, and indeed, it is the most
important Farm Bill debate of their life. Many farming dependent
counties are beginning to understand what they have done in the past is
not keeping our graduates at home. We have to acknowledge the realities
of global competition are changing our ways of life. We must look for
other ways to create wealth in the resources that we have.

We all know that new technology, improved plant genetics, more efficient
equipment, balanced fertilization, chemical weed control, and
specialization have created a food-producing machine that requires only
a few farmers to run. The problem is that other countries are doing the
same thing that we are doing.

Iowa has gone from hand-picking corn to 16-row combines that harvest
more in a day than a farmer could pick in a lifetime.

In my time I've seen agriculture go from being an engine pushing the
economy to an engine that is pulled along by other courses in many rural
communities. Because of these circumstances, jobs are lost, stores are
closed, towns and schools disappear, and that's why more farm family
members have had to find off-farm jobs.

Now, more than one town disappears and more than one school closes.
Indeed all stakeholders need to agree to a solution. Did you know that
Iowa leads the nation in acres for buffer strips? How many people in
this room realize there has been extensive demand by Iowa farmers for
buffer strips and environmental programs? By the demand, the cost share
dollars have exceeded the funds by millions of dollars. In fact, Iowa
farmers' request for matching federal dollars and cost share funds in
fact exceeded more than \$1 million. That equals approximately a million
dollars out of their pockets.

As a livestock farmer of 35 years with three children, I believe in
helping grow Iowa and our state's economy as an opportunity for young
farmers. Iowa's livestock industry and family ownership is vital to
Iowa's economy.

MODERATOR: Sir, can I ask you just to extend those remarks and pass them
on to the Secretary.

Thank you very much.

All right. Mr. Kleckner, I believe it is.

MR. DEAN KLECKNER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for bringing the
rain. You get blamed for a lot of things you can't do anything about so
thank you for bringing the rain. I'll give you the other side.

I'm Dean Kleckner a retired farmer from up in the area of Secretary
Johanns. You and I, our farms were about 15 miles apart, I believe, the
town of Rudd (sp), near Osage. I live in Des Moines now, retired.

I want to speak today not representing Farm Bureau or the Truth about
Trade Organization now that I chair on a part-time basis, but simply as
a long-term observer of farm policy in the U.S. and around the world.
Just Dean Kleckner's personal views. Particularly one of those six that
you mentioned, the issue of subsidies.

Farmers are saying in the coffee shops, I don\'t know if they'll say it
here today, but in the coffee shops where you ought to be a fly on the
wall sometimes to really hear what we're saying and thinking about,
these subsidies can't go on forever. They are affecting land prices, I
agree with Jim Meyer, my predecessor here. They are affecting land
prices, certainly the 1031 tax rate exchanges are also Senator
Grassley's committee, Finance Committee, can do something about that, I
think, if they want to. It's political, as we know.

The budget you've indicated, Mr. Secretary, may drive the next Farm Bill
to some degree. You are probably right, although let me tell you my
personal belief is the U.S. and the EU \[Europe\] will continue to
subsidize their farmers because we can. We have the money to do it. But
the way we do it will be important. You will have to be green box, not
amber or blue, a way to get around amber, it seems to me, and that's
about all.

Some subsidies are production distorting and trade distorting that they
will be under increased pressure as they should be. Subsidies that will
not be allowed or dramatically reduced are those based on production
and/or price. And I mean subsidies like countercyclical, LDPs, market
loss assistance, step-two cotton payments. Brazil has won that case
against us and they won the sugar case against Europe. Milk income loss
programs.

Dave Judae (sp) had an article in this morning's Des Moines Register on
that issue. Yes, Ken, I'll wind it up real quickly.

They will be replaced, I think, legally by direct subsidies. Senator
Harkin will be interested in green type, environmental type payments. I
didn\'t use to think that. Senator, I've changed my mind. The 1031's I
hope can be phased out, Senator Grassley. Payment limitations are
needed, in my view.

I'll conclude right now, Ken.

Mr. Secretary, have you talked with Maryanne Fisherbol (s p)? Let me
just suggest that you have. Europe they tell me has changed entirely
away from the amber box payments to the direct payments or environmental
type payments. It's crazy to me. Three times more subsidies, but theirs
are legal and ours are not. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Dean.

Now, I'm letting you run a little longer here, but I would like for you
to tighten it up a bit. I know that in many cases you just get rolling
about the time the yellow light comes on here. So, focus on the major
points you want to give. Because all this testimony is being transcribed
and will be available for public record and will be considered by the
Secretary and others as they work to combine a great deal of it here.

\[End tape 1, side A.\]

\[Begin tape 1, side B.\]

FEMALE: \[In progress\] \-- (unclear) cited that obviously going back to
the farm is not possible. Anyways, for the survival of the family farms,
I think the single most handedly effective thing that we could possibly
do is cap payments to the mega farm. And rather than conservation
programs and nutrition programs which I know is options that are being
held out right now.

Nutrition programs, obviously would be a food stamps program, I know is
one that is being targeted. You've seen what has happened around the
nation, just how people feel about that anyway. I don't think that's a
great way to resource to turn to. And conservation programs such as the
CSP, if we cut that program any farther, then that would be the death of
the program. CSP, I believe, only had 14 watershed funded last year
because they were so heavily cut.

Anyway, rather than as Senator Harkin had said, we still have two years
left in this Farm Bill. Next month you guys are facing \-- USDA has to
have a \$3 billion cut in their program. So let's change this now. It's
next month. We can do it now. These programs, if we stop payments to
these mega farms why should the taxpayers be funding money that goes to
Monsanto and Cargill and let's support the family farmers. Then turn the
money that is saved, we can start programs that initiate programs for
beginning farmers. So that way I can see other people in my family and
everybody else's family get back onto the family farm. It's not fair
that Monsanto is able to use this money that it is turned around and
they use it to drive off their neighbors and raise land and rent prices.

MODERATOR: Thank you, that's very brave.

\[Applause.\]

MR. GEORGE NAYLOR: Hi, my name is George Naylor. I have a farm near
Sherdan (sp), Iowa. I am president of the National Family Farm
Coalition. We have groups in approximately 30 states. We try to be a
voice for family farmers and we think that the family farm should be the
farms of the future. But it's not going to be that way if we continue
with the formula of the freedom to farm and the 2002 Farm Bill.

You know, I farmed under ten Secretaries of Agriculture. I've farmed
under I don\'t know how many Farm Bills, but there's one thing I can say
that's common about them. They all failed to support family farmers and
they all supported the interest of Cargill, Tyson, and Smithfield by
providing cheaper and cheaper grain so that they could feed their
livestock and take over the livestock industry.

I've been emptying my bins lately to get ready for the next harvest. The
price of corn is \$1.70 a bushel. Tomorrow morning is going to come out
a report from the USDA and I know that next week a lot of farmers are
either going to sell their grain because it went up 10 cents thinking
that I had better sell while the price is up, or I had better sell as
soon as I can before it goes down any lower.

And nobody here, nobody in the United States knows how low the price of
corn can go next week, not anybody. Because there is no price support
under these two Farm Bills. But Cargill, Tyson and Smithfield will get
to buy their corn for \$1.70 or less and buy their soybean meal dirt
cheap.

And we talk about the U.S. farmers being competitive when the government
of Brazil, the World Bank, the IMF, DuPont and Cargill are encouraging
production in Brazil. They are encouraging the destruction of the rain
forests in the Serado.

Now, let's look at \$1.70 a bushel corn. Since 1978 when the average
price was \$2.25 a bushel, everything has inflated by three times. So
today it takes, in order to buy what that \$2.25 a bushel corn bought
back then, you have to haul four times as many bushels to market to pay
for things. And we are not going to have family farms in the future if
we don't change this and get back to fair prices for family farmers and
supply management.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: By the way, Mr. Secretary, I was going to say that I want to
compliment you on being so active and so open in coming out and being
with us. You are the most active Secretary of Agriculture, I think,
since John Block, and the most intelligent since Clayton Yuetter. I was
going to say since Earl Butz, but I thought maybe that went without
saying.

That was supposed to be funny; the latter one was supposed to be funny.

\[Laughter.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir, in the John Deere hat.

MR. ED BULSEY (sp): Ed Bulsey. I farm down in Decatur County and Warren
County and work in renewable energy.

Here in Iowa we've had over a billion dollars worth of concrete and
steel put in the ground in renewable energy projects in the last five
years. It's probably the greatest unsung economic development engine
that we've got driving here in Iowa right now. Almost all that
construction has come about from public policy. We've got national
leaders that are up here on stage with you. Both of our Senators,
Senator Harkin and his energy title and farm bill; Senator Grassley and
his work with wind tax credits; Governor Vilsack with his renewable
energy goals here in Iowa have all been policies that have driven this
industry, this new economic development industry forward.

Much of this construction has been locally owned, community owned. The
ethanol plants that have been built, many of them have been co-op
structures that were locally owned that retains those earnings and then
pumps them back into the local economy versus a paradigm of foreign
ownership, out-of-state ownership, out-of-country ownership, more
importantly, that moves those dollars back out of the country. You know,
it does make a difference who owns these factors of production.

So as you go forward I would urge you to look to our leaders that have
had this experience here in the state for some, on-the-ground, hands-on
type of policy direction. It does make a difference. You know, support
the work in this energy title. It may be the most important new section
of that Farm Bill in terms of the economic drivers of the future, where
we're going.

As you look at these questions, you can frame this so that it addresses
each one of these issues, whether it be environment or assistance to
rural communities or keeping young people back out on the land. You
know, you can frame this so that it addresses them all. Your rural
economic development folks from USDA are doing a great job here in the
state, keep supporting them and give them some additional help if you
can.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ed.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. MARK KENNEY: Hi, I'm Mark Kenney. I'm a son of a farmer from Nevata
\[sp\] and I plan to return to the family farm as well.

I'm a young person that just graduated from college a few years ago
where I studied agriculture and had the opportunity to meet some of the
brightest young minds in agriculture that when they left college the
opportunities just aren't there in production agriculture where they
want to be.

I feel, and I've had the opportunity to return to the farm, you know, we
need to focus on three things to get those young bright minds into
agriculture. The Des Moines Register ran a series of articles in recent
weeks focusing on the overturn of land ownership in Iowa and the average
age of land ownership and farmers in Iowa. It's so high and getting
older and older, young people like myself just don't see the
opportunities. I personally see the opportunities. I'm very bullish on
agriculture.

I think there's three things we need to do. Encourage and invest in
education at our universities and public high schools in agriculture
life sciences. That's the future.

Secondly, rural development, broadband very important. We would be able
to compete in a worldwide basis if those rural communities have
broadband and can communicate with the world.

Finally, the last thing that I see as most important is to ensure that
the Farm Bill is not something that is a road block to getting young
people into production agriculture. To see 17 percent, 18, 20 percent
yearly increases in farm values, a young person like myself who doesn't
have a family to hand it on to me, I wouldn't be able to afford to get
into agriculture or if I did it would be a tremendous debt burden on
myself and my family.

So I think those are three things we need to look at, education, the
broadband rural development, and finally making sure that that Farm Bill
is not a road block. That it is a safety net and supports the future of
agriculture.

Thanks so much, Secretary.

MR. SECRETARY: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Very well stated. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

MR. AL SHAFBOL (sp): My name is Al Shafbol. I farm south of Waterloo by
Dysart. I have been no-tilling 100 percent of my ground for the last 14
years. I am very much involved with the environment, clean water. It all
starts on the farm and if we keep the soil and the nutrients on the farm
where it belongs, then it is very important and we can do that.

I feel that the current Farm Bill is working very well and the payment
methods. The direct payments allow a producer to grow any crop and get
payment to help with the costs. I think the direct payments need to be
added to hay ground and some of the vegetable grounds that don't get a
direct payment today because it's kind forcing us to grow commodity
crops. I think the countercyclical payments help when the commodities
are low and this is the farm support that is in this that was said there
was no support. This is a support price that you are supported, so you
get paid when it drops below a certain price.

The market loans and the loan deficiency payments have been very well
worked in the farm community. It gives us a chance to have a call under
our market so if we do want to keep it for a long time we still have
that base that we don't have to worry about going under. So I think all
those programs do give us support in the prices.

I think the new Farm Bill needs to include some payment limitations. And
it needs to be large enough to allow a father and son or some brothers
in the combination of maybe three farmer members to have income to be
full-time farmers. So they don't have to have an off-farm job in order
to farm. We've told farmers to go get a job in town. And other than
that, the conservation payments, I think, need to be paid to the people
that's actually doing the work on the farm.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. AUSTIN CHARLESTON (sp): Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Root. I'm glad
to hear you back on the radio.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. CHARLESTON: Some of my concerns are also concerns that affect older
ones too.

MODERATOR: May I get your name?

MR. CHARLESTON: Oh, I'm sorry. Austin Charleston from Clarion, Iowa,
north central Iowa.

I work for a cattle feeder and row crop farmer and I'm hoping to get
into the row crop myself. Availability of land is tough for us. I
thought maybe some incentives from older farmers like tax incentives to
encourage them to rent to younger producers is a thought I had this
morning. And also tied in with that is the height of cash rents.
Sometimes I feel that the farm program goes directly to the land owners
who are living in California or their retirement home in Florida and are
just getting the money and not putting it back in the farm.

The government in my area, I live in the flattest part of the state, but
where my folks farm just a little hobby farm, the government is
purchasing at top dollar some of the not as productive, but still
productive land. I mean, they're paying \$4,000 an acre for \$2,500 an
acre ground to put it in reserve. Thus taking away from younger
generations. And then the rest of the ground that's available, it
increases the price and it's almost impossible to get started that way.

This is something I haven't heard yet. A concern for me is also health
insurance. I am purchasing my own, but my wife, who teaches agriculture
education in school, has to have her own. We would like for her to stay
home in the near future to farm, but the cost is almost prohibitive due
to that.

And my final thought is the petroleum price is tough for everybody. But
it especially harder for the young farmers to make crops cash flow when
it costs \$2.20 to run your tractor for an hour, you know, it won't cash
flow for the banker.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Austin.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: All right. We'll go until 1:00 and then take a 15-minute
break.

Over here, sir.

MR. RICK JUCHEMS: Good morning. My name is Rick Juchems, I farm in
Butler County. I am elected official with the Soil and Water
Conservation. And just two things. I'd like to simplify the program. I
think CSP is going to work. They are having to jump through a lot of
hoops to make it work, but I think it's a good program. And we need to
shift away from paying for commodities and paying the producers to do
the conservation on the farm.

MODERATOR: All right. Thank you.

Over here, ma'am. You could scoot that microphone down if you want. We
won't start until you are ready to go. Maybe not. And another good idea
is to take it off and hand it to her. There we are.

MS. DOLORES FAGLE ELLSBERRY (sp): Good morning or good afternoon,
Secretary. Thanks for coming to Iowa to hear our concerns.

MODERATOR: Your name?

MS. ELLSBERRY: My name is Dolores Fagle Ellsberry from Fayette County,
Iowa. My son and I have a 224-acre, 80-cow, dairy herd farm.

My concern is the MILC program. I would like to have that extended and I
would like to have the base raised. Right now the base is quite low.
When we were getting \$17 to \$20 a hundred for milk we could keep on
paying our bills. Now that's dropped down to \$13 and \$14 a hundred.
That's a loss of \$4,000 a month and 100,000 pounds of milk or \$48,000
a year which makes quite a difference in what we are paying for.

Also, when the milk price went up to \$17 to \$20 a hundred, all the
input costs went up. But the input costs never go down when our milk
price goes down to \$13-\$14. I would like to see the MILC program have
a base of about \$15 to \$16 a hundred and probably the government
wouldn't even have to pay out any money for that program.

But the dairy farmers do need a safety net. They're putting in 15 hours
a day approximately and usually one of the spouses have to work off the
farm to pay for health insurance and for living expenses because there
just isn't enough money to go around.

Livestock farmers have more investment than a lot of other farmers
because we have to have the same equipment that the other farmers have.
I think that's all.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir. Go ahead, please.

MR. ARLEN BECKER: My name is Arlen Becker, I farm in Warren County,
corn, bean, and pork production. I live on a past-century farm and it's
indeed a privilege to be there. I've been in soil conservation elected
district commissioner, I don\'t know, I don't even remember how long,
20-plus years.

But anyhow, conservation is very dear to me. I watched my father as he
started contour plowing and then later on as he put in some of the first
terraces on the farm. Before he retired, he had terraced all the land.

So my concern is that we continue this conservation program and maybe
even to the point of switching from a commodity planned payment plan
more to a conservation payment plan. There's all kinds of natural
resource-based plans that can help pay for that part of it. And since
I'm a commissioner in Warren County, I am very concerned and hope that
we can maintain a local, grassroots, if you will, kind of organization
where the people that are making judgments or whatever live in the
county, understand what's going on out there, and know the people. So I
think the local control, as much as possible, is a very good thing. I
would like to see that.

But anyhow, my main thing was to really insert conservation as a main
program.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

All right. Over here, sir. Go ahead.

DR. DUANE ACKER: Mr. Secretary, my name is Duane Acker and I live on our
family century farm near Atlantic, Iowa. I once served at the University
of Nebraska as vice chancellor for agriculture and natural resource and
later in USDA as Assistant Secretary for science and education.

Today I speak for the project steering committee of what we call the 25
by 25 agricultural energy alliance. And I am wearing a pin, 25 by 25,
and I invite others to pick up a pin out on the table outside the door.
A couple of people from your state, Jerry Pfaff (sp) from Cook, Nebraska
and Richard Hahn (sp) from Omaha as well as several Iowans are a part of
this group. A group of agricultural leaders across the country who
believe that U.S. agriculture and the land it manages can, by the year
2025 provide 25 percent of the U.S. consumable energy needs. Today
agriculture provides less than 5 percent even though we have a lot of
ethanol, biodiesel, et cetera.

U.S. agriculture needs another market for its abundant technology and
its incredible production capacity and consumable energy is that
available and welcoming market.

What are the benefits? Well, certainly we can provide large volumes of
ethanol and biodiesel. We can harness wind and solar energy. We can
convert animal and food processing waste into methane. We provide
another major market or another market for our major crops, corn, but
also sugar beets and sugar cane which need another market, a market for
animal waste for volume exceeds what cropland will absorb. A market for
processing waste, decrease the load on municipal sewage systems.

In regard to the 2007 Farm Bill, we believe that renewable energy should
be a focal point. The current energy title should be strengthened.
Energy conservation and production should be woven into all appropriate
titles. The U.S. Agriculture's mission should be stated as providing
food, fiber, and energy.

We believe the 2007 Farm Bill and leadership at USDA should embrace this
vision 25 by 25. We believe that leadership by you, President Bush, and
the U.S. Congress can help bring that about. And thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Dr. Acker.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Dr. Aucker, it's good to see you again and glad to have you
here. One of the most optimistic men I think I've ever met. I recall a
line in a speech you gave one time. You said, "I would just like to be
21 years of age one more time."

\[Laughter.\]

MODERATOR: And still hoping. Well, you can just live forever, you don't
have to be 21 again.

Over here, ma'am.

MS. AMY KNUDSEN: My name is Amy Knudsen and I am a native of Iowa
residing in Des Moines. I am currently the Associate Director of the
Iowa Coalition for Housing and the Homeless and I am here today as a
member of the statewide coalition called the Iowa Human Needs Advocates.

The decisions being made regarding policy are of great concern to
myself, fellow advocates, and Iowans. Decisions being made at the
federal level concerning funding for programs in the Agricultural
Committee have the potential to be detrimental to Iowans. Additionally,
others and I have concerns over the future being laid out by
policymakers.

The Farm Bill and the role of programs funded under the Farm Bill have
been greatly altered over the last decade in ways that are destroying
rural Iowa, endangering our environment, and putting working families
and their children at risk. The policies that guide the 2007 Farm Bill
must be revised to reflect and promote the core values of the original
policy. Farm policy should foster agricultural and food systems based on
family farms that nurture and support rural communities and working
families.

Current policies encourage consolidation, unfairly benefit large
corporate farms, and proposed cuts pending in Congress put small towns
and families at risk by cutting conservation programs, rural water
programs, and food stamp benefits for working families. We must not
neglect food and nutrition programs that are a vital component of the
Farm Bill. The food stamp program is essential to working families as it
provides a safety net. Food stamps in combination with unemployment
insurance are the best defense in times of economic downturn. It is
critical that we provide funding to ensure that eligibility or benefits
are not reduced.

The Farm Bill of 2007 should ensure that programs are serving those
intended, small farmers, rural communities and working families with the
following policies: subsidies to farmers should target small to
mid-sized farms and be capped at \$250,000. Conservation programs should
be fully funded as intended in the last Farm Bill. And funding for food
and nutrition programs including food stamps need to ensure that the
eligibility and benefit levels are not altered.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. RAY GAESSER: Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. My name is Ray Gaesser
and I've been a soybean and corn farmer from southwest Iowa. I am
currently serving as president elect of the Iowa Soybean Association. I
am here today representing the 6,000 members of the ISA. We appreciate
the Secretary's offer to hear public comment on Farm Bill policy as we
rapidly approach the new Farm Bill and we welcome him to our state.

The goal of farm policy should be to provide an equitable farm income
safety net while allowing market conditions to determine production
decisions. In order to maximize U.S. competitiveness, U.S. farm policy
must provide a safety net of income or price support when income or
prices fall below target or historical levels and minimize or avoid
making payments when income or prices rise above those levels.

Under such a countercyclical payment approach, producers will be
protected by a farm program safety net if they are virtually affected by
trade barriers and other market distortions. If income or prices are
high and they're not affected by such distortions, farm program payments
will be minimized.

U.S. farm policy and programs must continue and expand on the direction
of the 2002 Farm Bill to enhance conservation practices and the
environmental performance of U.S. agricultural production. Importantly
policy programs must promote voluntary, incentive-based programs on
working lands.

Rural development programs must increase federal support and tax
incentives to farmers that provide rural areas with the value added
opportunities needed to encourage local economic growth. To this end
policy should promote the production and utilization of renewable fuels
such as biodiesel and ethanol as well as biobased products.

Finally, farm programs should emphasize research and market promotion
programs critically important to all the future of agriculture. Thank
you for your time.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir, go ahead.

MR. CHARLIE WISHMAN: Mr. Secretary, thank you for making the trip to
Iowa. My name is Charlie Wishman. I work for the Food Bank of Iowa. We
serve about 300 or so agencies, religious, nonreligious, of all
different stripes from the Minnesota border down to the Missouri border.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about food stamps. Cutting food
stamps right now is really going to put the burden on ourselves and the
agencies that we serve. Right now I'm making travels around the state to
all these different places and different small towns, larger towns, and
it doesn't matter where you go, rural, urban the food pantries,
shelters, kitchens of all different kinds are inundated with people. If
you cut food stamps it's not as if there are going to be less hungry
people, they're just going to show up on our door, which is fine, but we
are already stretched to the limit.

Contrary to popular myth it seems, the food stamp program is actually
very efficient. Ninety-five percent of the benefits go to below poverty
level families. Error rates are at all-time lows in the food stamp
program. They've declined for six years straight, actually.

In addition to that, the food stamp program is also good for Iowa
because it helps out in economic development. For every \$1 billion in
retail demand generates about \$340 million in farm production, \$110
million in value-added agriculture, 3,300 farming jobs, and for about
every \$5 spent on food stamps, we get a \$10 economic return.

Right now, Mr. Secretary, is not the time to be cutting food stamps. You
know this as being a former governor of a rural state as well. Just
because you can't necessarily see it doesn't mean that there's not
hungry people out there. And it's a challenge for rural states as well.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: We'll take one more before our break and then you guys can
come back in line after that. Go ahead, sir.

MR. CHRIS PETERSEN: Thank you. Welcome, Secretary. I am Chris Petersen.
I farm up by Clear Lake, up in your neck of the woods. I'm president of
Iowa Farmers Union which is part of National Farmers Union.

First I just want to make a comment to keep in mind and take back to
Washington, D.C. We have huge health care costs and access problems out
here. We have education challenges because of defending and
depopulation. And economic development, we need to have economic
development out here that the majority of the benefit goes to family
farmers in rural America. It seems like we're exporting our development.

Also, keep in mind some of these poorer rural counties, the biggest
influx of cash every month is Social Security checks. So, to me, that's
very important to the vitality of rural America.

On the Farm Bill stuff, the subsidy problems absolutely need to be
addressed. The vast majority of the benefits are going to a small
percentage of the producers, but we cannot do away with the subsidies at
this time. If we do, it's the end of the family farm as we know it. And
a transition period to which I believe is the most important part of the
Farm Bill is competition. We need competition out here. The
administration talks about international competition, the global
marketplace. We need domestic competition here in America for America's
family farmers and producers. So that needs to be accomplished.

Targeting. We need to target these subsidies to the small and
medium-sized family farms. The best investment of the taxpayers in this
country to the vitality of rural America and food \-- and sometimes this
doesn't benefit agribusiness board rooms that much, but I'm a firm
believer and government needs to stand up for the people and the family
farmers here. We need a safety net.

Also, we need to address these under costs of production commodities.
The subsidies, do they end up being just a subsidy, corporate welfare to
the corporations to achieve cheap grain? That's the way it seems it's
going.

Trade, how low do we have to go to compete? We need fair trade. You
know, free trade, fair trade, whatever. We need trade that is fair and
the labor, environmental, currency, and food sovereignty issues are
addressed.

I commend Senator Grassley for working on the concentration issues. Huge
issue on this out here.

Also I commend Senator Harkin on the conservation initiative he's worked
on in the last Farm Bill and progressed on.

MODERATOR: It's hard to stop you when you're bragging on people, but I
need to.

MR. PETERSEN: Also, energy is very important, but, you know, we are here
to work with you, Iowa Farmers Union, National Farmers Union and our
membership. If you get a decent Farm Bill it's going to help rural
family farms.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Now, we would like to see if the Secretary would like to say
anything before this break. Some of you may want to save your seat,
others may want to save your dignity, so it's your choice here during
this break whether to stay there or to move somewhere else for a few
moments.

Mr. Secretary, any comment before we come back for the second half?

SECRETARY JOHANNS: A very short comment. This is exactly what we want to
hear and this is exactly how we want these forums to go. So as you can
see, I'm taking a lot of notes. We have people here listening and taking
notes. So come on back after the break and we'll go till 2:30. Then I'll
have a few wrap-up comments then. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And thank you the members of our congressional and
state delegations for staying here. At 1:15 we'll start again, straight
up.

\[Brief recess taken at 1:00 p.m.\]

MALE: \[In progress.\] I'm here today for the Iowa Fiscal Partnership to
remind everyone here that that calling extends to the Farm Bill. And
that nutrition programs are a big part of the balance in that Farm Bill.

They should not be thought of separately because as you know they are
not considered separately from other AG-related programs in the budget
by Congress.

Right now if farm payments are not capped reasonably, we know that the
tradeoff is to sell out our most vulnerable neighbors who are food
insecure and place new pressures on nonprofit food pantries. Food
insecurity hits one in ten Americans. In Iowa we are talking about one
in 11 people. A lot of those people live in our rural communities.

President Bush proposed that 7 percent of the cuts in ag come from food
stamps. Some are looking for ten times that amount to be the proportion
of ag cuts from food stamps. They would prefer to protect what I would
call the real welfare queens of our day, corporate interests that have
far too much access to farm subsidies.

If you want to strengthen Iowa's rural community and improve prospects
for young farmers, the best investment is in policy that offers
opportunity. The natural alliance that has produced the last several
Farm Bills joins those who grow food, those who need food, and those who
protect the air and the water for all of us. Likewise there is an
economic alliance. Help the hungry and you help both the small farmers
and the small businesses that are the backbone of rural Iowa.

Let's make sure the Farm Bill works the high ground on this issue.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, sir.

All right, sir, over here.

MR. MARK McALLISTER (sp): MR. Secretary, my name is Mark McAllister. I
own and operate a dairy farm in northwest Dubuque County with my wife
and children, four sons and a daughter. Consists of 300 acres with a
100-cow dairy via closed herd. We raise our own heifer replacements and
it's totally strip crop.

I think the dairy animal is the greatest land steward there is. As I
left this morning, the barn at 6:00, I was left with what I call an
ideal family farm. My wife was left to milk the cows and I went to the
house to wake up the reinforcements. I did not grow up dairying, but
it's a great life. I left my farm that I grew up on to go to my wife's
farm where her dad grew up.

Down the road a half mile to the east is where she grew up. Since I've
been there I know in 1990 when I started dairying and then within the
last five or six years Dubuque County was known within the top 50
counties for the number of dairy cows in a county. We have really fallen
through the cracks since then. I have four or five land neighbors that
have empty barns since that time.

I would like you to keep in mind to keep the milk program with the
safety net that by the time the prices get depressed there, that that
money is passed on into the rural communities.

Then in the next Farm Bill with the CSP acres, if something could be
developed to start dairy farmers in that. Half of that acreage would be
in hay acres would be a plus situation and keep money flowing in the
rural communities.

And the other item is just the protection of family farms history; that
land no longer just becomes farmland. As my dad's home farm, my Uncle
Bob was on there and he had seven sons and it's on McAllister Road, but
there is no longer a McAllister there. I think we need to be looked at
before we become an endangered species sorry to say. I thank you for
your time.

MODERATOR: Thank you, sir, for literally leaving the barn to make that
message.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir, over here.

MR. MARK HANSON: Yes, my name is Mark Hanson. I come from a family farm
in southwest Iowa. Now I work as an ag and commercial lender in
Oskaloosa, which is in southeastern Iowa.

Over the past five years I've worked with USDA's business and industry
guaranteed loan program to start two new ag-related industries in our
region. And I want to say that that program is very important because
there is a substantial amount of risk involved lending money to startup
businesses. But it's necessary to have these industries be locating in
our rural areas.

Given that and I think the program is very important, it's suited to
helping get started, but there's two issues I'd like to have be looked
into. Once those businesses get up and running, credit is needed to be
provided to them on an ongoing basis. It's different than production
agriculture where a lot of times through traditional FSA programs you'd
get a subordination, you would loan crop money. When the crop is
harvested, it would be paid off.

We are loaning money to these businesses on an ongoing basis, the word
"evergreen" gets used as you are well aware. The subordination
agreements that are being used to provide us collateral to give credit
to these businesses that go for one and then at the end of it they say,
at the end of that year this credit has to be paid in full and all
collateral reverts back to the USDA. Well, that doesn't work when you
are working with industry that has an ongoing production cycle. I really
would like to see the program look into changing how they handle working
with lenders in providing operating credit. And then with that I would
like to see more power given to the state level in working with us in
servicing these loans to try to make these businesses be successful.
Thank you for your time today.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

Over here, sir. Your name?

MR. DAVID CUNDY (sp): My name is David Cundy. I own a family farm at
northeast Iowa. I farm with my two sons and my daughter. I guess my
comments, there's a lot of lip service paid to the family farm.
Politicians are more than happy to talk about it, yet the policies that
have been in place over the last 35 years since I've been in business
are policies that have driven the family farms out of Iowa. We are
losing producers and the policies are set up that the family farm is the
business that is penalized the most. We continue to penalize that
business and wonder why they don't survive.

I guess in the 35 years that I've been in that business you've seen the
livestock industry which does add more value to Iowa's agriculture than
any other type of business. Yet we continue to push them out of the
business. I think it's time that the whole agriculture policy be looked
at and rewritten based on economics and not based on politics.

We are in a business and we are trying to survive in this business. And
we can't do it when we allow other countries to dump a product on our
market which puts our volume of product at an increase of one-half of 1
percent, but drives our price below the cost of production. It just
seems to me that we are on a bus with no brakes and when the bus
crashes, we will be lucky if a few of us survive. I think it's time
somebody get behind the wheel and take charge of the program.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. WILLIAM RILEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for today's
forum. My name is William Riley and I'm the Vice President of
Procurement for Wells Dairy in Le Mars, Iowa. The Wells Dairy is a
third-generation, family-owned business. We are the largest
dairy-related company in the state of Iowa. Currently employing over
2,500 Iowans.

The 2007 Farm Bill has the ability to help the entire dairy industry
compete in an increasingly global marketplace. Our ability to compete
globally is constrained by the cumbersome and outdated regulations that
need to be overhauled to benefit the producers, processors, and
ultimately the consumers.

For the dairy industry specifically, the federal milk marketing order is
a bureaucratic burden on the entire dairy supply chain. The current
market order structure places dairy farmers and processors both at the
mercy of volatile price swings because they do not have the same basic
tools that other commodity groups have to manage their price volatility.

Our industry needs your assistance in reinstating the voluntary forward
contracting program that sunsetted last December. The program allowed
producer, not delivering to co-ops and processors, to mutually establish
contracts that were the foundation to both parties managing their unique
price risks.

I ask that the administrator push to reinstate this program for all milk
processors and producers as it serves as the base foundation for the
entire supply chain to have a viable financial platform to compete
globally from.

I appreciate the opportunity today to share my views, the dairy industry
and Wells Dairy are prepared to work with you, Mr. Secretary, to help
you improve our industry and be proactive and streamlined with the
outcome of the 2007 Farm Bill. Thank you today.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

All right. We will go over here. Sir, your name?

MR. KEN VanGILT (sp): I'm Ken VanGilt from down Oskaloosa, Iowa. I farm
along with my sons. There we produce corn and soybeans and pork. I have
never felt like we needed to apologize for accepting some type of
support for our business. The U.S. has the kind of resources that we
ought to have a dependable supply of good food. And one of the prices
you pay for that is some type of safety net.

However, what happens a lot of times has been referred to earlier today
is that those supports tend to get capitalized into the value of the
land. So that's great if you are selling land, but if you are trying to
get into agriculture as a young person, or come in some other way, it's
difficult. I don\'t have a good answer for that as to how to eliminate
that unintended consequence, if you will. Except that I am also part of
another group called Vanderose (sp) Food who has started a catering
business, and also we are doing some specialty meat products to get into
markets that were underserved before and value added, if you will. And
USDA has been very helpful to us in supporting that type of enterprise.
And I just really encourage you to consider making that a strong
continuing part of the program to support entrepreneurship and value
added new types of industries and enterprises.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

All right, change sides. Yes, sir, you are on.

MR. SAM CARNEY: Good afternoon. My name is Sam Carney and I am a
producer from Adair and I farm along with my son. I am also the past
president of Iowa Pork Producers and currently serving on the MPBC board
of directors.

Before I start, I would like to say, thank you very much on your hard
work for the Central America Free Trade Agreement. You worked extremely
hard and we got it passed and it looks like we will be able to do more
trade agreements. So on behalf of the pork producers, we thank you very
much.

As I start today, there are two major facets of competitiveness for the
U.S. pork industry. First, a competitive U.S. pork industry must sell
pork and pork products that purchasers believe deliver at least as much
value as another product.

Second, a competitive pork industry must earn at least a high return on
its investments as it would if the capital were to be invested
elsewhere.

These two aspects provide a good framework for the Department and
Congress to evaluate the best farm policy to enhance competitiveness of
U.S. agriculture in general and the U.S. pork sector in particular. To
benefit the U.S. pork sector, programs should be aimed at reducing or
controlling costs of production, increasing the price received for pork
products and increasing the quality of U.S. pork products.

A few key points to consider:

Regulation. Virtually all regulation increases costs. Farm policy should
include only regulation that is science-based, affordable, and
effective. This applies to a wide host of topics, including food safety,
environmental regulations, and animal health issues.

Technology. Technology covers a wide range of possible topics from
facility design and production systems to a basic research for disease
prevention and treatment and nutrition and genetics.

Quality. Farm programs should support research to increase the safety,
wholesomeness and any characteristics of pork products. In addition,
government supported programs, which include muscle characteristics in
hog production systems may be necessary to transfer \[inaudible\] back
to producers.

In conclusion, prices. Increasing demand is the only way to increase the
prices for producers in the long run. Programs that increase quality and
safety and promote the role of the pork industry and a healthy diet are
critical to increasing pork demand.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And your remarks may also be sent to the USDA at
<FarmBill@usda.gov> or a couple of other ways to extend and clarify
those remarks.

All right. Shall we continue on? Yes, ma'am, go ahead.

MS. SUSAN HEATHCOTE: Hi. I am Susan Heathcote and I live in Des Moines,
Iowa. I am here today representing the Iowa Environmental Council which
is a coalition of more than 75 organizations in Iowa and over 600
individual members. And we, together with the members of our member
organizations, we represent over 80,000 Iowans.

I was born in Iowa and I spent most of my life here, a few years away
from Iowa. But I am very proud of the stewardship ethic that's really a
part of our farm operations in the state. But I also look at the
challenges that farmers are facing in Iowa. If you look at trying to
meet the water quality standards that we need to protect our water
resource, drinking water and recreation are both very important to the
state. And farmers really kind of feel like they're in the crosshairs a
lot when we talk about water quality and environmental issues in the
state of Iowa.

We really look to the farm programs as a very important place for our
farmers to get the technical and financial assistance that they need to
make the improvements that they want to make on their farms. But, of
course, economics is the limiting factor. We are very encouraged by some
of the changes that we saw on the 2002 Farm Bill focusing more on
conservation on working lands. Because in Iowa we have over 90 percent
of our land in the state is in working farm land and if we are going to
make improvements in our environmental outcomes we are going to have to
make those improvements on working lands. So the Conservation Security
Program, we believe, is really a very important part of the farm
programs and we would like to see that expanded in the next Farm Bill to
be a nationwide program available to all farmers. Also, we recognize the
need to deal with some of the commodity subsidies that those are
probably going to need to be capped in order to provide the financial
resources to fund the conservation and expansion of the conservation
program.

Thank you.

MR. RAND FISHER: Mr. Secretary, welcome back home to Iowa and greetings
to you from your colleagues and friends back in Mitchell County. My name
is Rand Fisher. I am president of an organization called the Iowa
Development Group. We do economic development work throughout the state
on behalf of Iowa's rural electric cooperatives. We literally get river
to river, border to border doing what could be called rural economic
development, value added agriculture and community betterment throughout
the state.

It does seem a bit early to be thinking about the 2007 Farm Bill
already, but I don't think it's too soon to begin thinking about the
aspirations, visions, and opportunities for that bill.

Last night as I was thinking about these remarks, I pondered the fact
that this is the 70th anniversary of the signing of the REA Executive
Order, the Rural Electrification Administration. And when we brought
electricity to rural America, we brought more than just that. We brought
entrepreneurship and economic development. And that has been
strengthened and continued through the 2002 Farm Bill, in particular.

One of the things that our new constituency group, economic developers,
saw in that bill was the opportunity to reach out and help not only
farmers and farm families, but rural communities and folks involved in
other pursuits of agriculture. So we are mindful that the 2002 Farm Bill
took some very intriguing steps in that regard. Things like energy,
biobased development, some very important finance in rural housing
programs. And I've prepared some written remarks and testimony that will
speak to, I think, the compelling nature of some of those things that we
certainly would like to see strengthened.

I would also like to speak to the rural development division of USDA.
They are a unique and very appropriate organization to pursue economic
development in rural states like Iowa and others. I guess I would like
to really put in a plug for them because they, in the 2002 Farm Bill,
were given a number of new mandates and programs and they have exercised
their responsibilities, I think, with great accountability. And it gives
us great hope as we face the future and think of the 2007 Farm Bill in
the hope that USDA rural development will be strengthened through that.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir, go ahead.

MR. KEITH SEXTON: Mr. Secretary, thank you for this opportunity. My name
is Keith Sexton. I farm in northwest Iowa near Rockwell City. Like many
Iowa farmers I am a fourth-generation farmer. I have a couple of great,
great grandfathers that immigrated from a foreign country to try their
hand at farming in the United States.

I think as I consider what might be beneficial in a farm policy, I
wonder what those pioneer farmers would think of a farm policy that
continuously uses federal subsidies to provide 20 to 50 percent of the
net farm income that farmers receive? And I think that my great
grandfathers would be appalled at this type of a program that
agriculture is in this state of condition.

I think one reason why we do not have more excitement in agriculture is
that we've become so dependent on subsidies that we've lost our spirit
of entrepreneurism. I would suggest that continuing to pay subsidies for
crops that are in overproduction needs to be rethought. I would suggest
that maybe we spend some more money on research to find economical uses
for the crops that we're able to produce such as possibly a different
research into a corn plant to find out what genes it takes to kick in
the necessary building blocks to provide a more efficient ethanol
production or some way to reduce the bulk of manure so that it can be
transported over a larger distance to get to the fields where the
nutrients are needed.

So just in conclusion, I think we really need to focus on ways to
utilize our crops and bring back the spirit of entrepreneurialism.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. DAVID AUSBERGER (sp): Hi, my name is David Ausberger. I am a farmer
from Green County. I just signed up for the CSP, or signed my CSP
contract, on Tuesday and it's a good deal. I am here today in my
capacity as the president of the board of the Green Bean Project. We are
a group of farmers from Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Missouri that
grow and market alternative crops. Our primary crop is Adzuki beans,
which we market primarily to Japan. Japan is under an import quota
system, which caps the amount that they can take. Our trading partners
would like to see that cap ended. We would like to see that ended so
that we can expand our market and grow more of these beans.

We have some pretty good success stories. Our best producer last year
netted just under \$1,000 a acre on his beans and we would like to be
able to grow more of these and sell more of these.

I've got letters here for you and Senator Harkin, I've already given
Senator Grassley his, requesting this. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Moving right along. Go ahead, sir.

MR. JOHN WEBER: Mr. Secretary and members of Congress, my name is John
Weber. I own a family farm operation near Dysart near east central Iowa.
In our operation we have a feeder-to-finish swine operation and grow
seed corn, commercial corn and soybeans in east central Iowa.

I am here this afternoon representing Iowa's pork producers. First of
all, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for holding this forum and
other forums across the country. I rise to speak on question number
four, how can farm policy best achieve conservation and environmental
goals.

Pork producers are committed to running productive operations while
meeting or even exceeding society's environmental expectations. We have
fought hard for science-based affordable and effective regulatory
policies that achieve the goals of today's environmental statutes.

In order for us to meet these costly demands while maintaining
production, the government should provide some support to help us defray
some of the costs of compliance through the Farm Bill conservation
programs, namely the Environmental Quality Incentive Program or EQIP of
the 2002 Farm Bill. So far EQIP has not provided the support.

Further, we support the environmental benefits of the Conservation
Reserve Program, but we believe the USDA must delay any decisions
regarding CRP contracts pending a congressional review of
cost-to-benefit relationship and must consider the potential price
ramifications of these contracts.

Finally, we believe that the Conservation Security Program should prove
to be a big help to our mid-sized commercial and family operations. An
operation with a good manure containment facility and good land
application practices is all documented under a comprehensive nutrient
management plan and should be an automatic candidate for entering the
Conservation Security Program and receiving program benefits.

We urge the USDA and Congress to keep changes to the 2007 Farm Bill
simple. Previous changes have been complicated, hindering the USDA's
ability in the field to offer quality assistance.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

All right. We have yet to have an empty microphone. If you would like to
move to one of the two on either side, feel free to do so. Go ahead,
sir.

MR. BRENDAN COMITO: Good afternoon. My name is Brendan Comito. I am with
Capital City Fruit Company. We are a produce distributor. I'm sure you
didn\'t think you were going to hear about fruits and vegetables here in
Iowa. I'm also on the board of the United Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
Association on the national board. And produce makes up about 20 to 25
percent of overall farm values. So we do hope that it does play a role
in the Farm Bill, primarily in two areas.

One is produce consumption. The USDA runs several nutrition programs,
which can have a pretty profound effect on produce consumption. It also
has the dual benefit of improving public health as fruits and vegetables
are known to have a big effect on the overall health of individuals.

Secondly, in that area of post-harvest technology, research, and
development. So very short and brief. We hope you do consider those
areas.

MODERATOR: Thank you. All right, ma'am. A woman of childbearing age at a
farm meeting. Go ahead.

MS. AMY MILLER: My name is Amy Miller and I am a farmer from Howard
County. Secretary Johanns, I want to thank you for coming very much. And
I hope while you're here you get a few minutes to enjoy the fair.

We farm 400 acres and our farmland is all certified organic. We also
have beef cattle and we raise hogs. In any given year, we have a long,
seven-year crop rotation on all of our row crops. But over half of our
land is seeded down to hay, pasture. We also do some prairie
restoration. We have timber and farm ponds. So to be perfectly honest
with you, farm programs are kind of a mystery to us. We kind of go into
the office, and, you know, we don't really know how all that works. But
we don't get very much from the farm payments, you know, sometimes just
a few thousand dollars a year. And you look at these numbers that a lot
of these people, even in our county, the dollar figures that people are
getting, and I know somehow because we're organic and because we're
sustainable, and because we use conservation, we know we're getting
shortchanged. This year we were in the Turkey watershed and we were
signed up for a Conservation Security Program. And it will make a
tremendous impact on our farm. This program will allow us to continue
farming.

A lot of people have talked about raising farm rents. We rent most of
our land. We do own 80 acres that we purchased from family at a very
reasonable rate. But for us to go out and buy farmland is just beyond
our means right now. It's real important that we do cap some of these
programs, for one thing. And, also, it's real important to me that we
put money into conservation programs. I think the way the Conservation
Security Program was written in the 2002 Farm Bill was a really great
collaborative process. I think if it could be implemented as it was
written that we would all be really better off.

Again, I want to thank you for coming and I think that's all I have. So,
thanks.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. KENT FREDERICKSON: Thank you for coming, Mr. Secretary. Kent
Frederickson from about 35 miles northwest of here in a little town
called Perry. Family farmer up there, but I do represent one very
influential lobbying group, namely, my wife and three children, very
powerful in my life.

\[Applause.\]

MR. FREDERICKSON: My oldest one is 20 years old and a week from today he
will step ground in Iraq in Mosul doing his job. As he talked to me last
week, one of the things he wants to do is get out of there and come back
here. Great place to live and he wants to do his job back here, better
than he is going to do over there. But, he's got to have a future.

I look around, sir, I'm 47. There aren't a lot of guys out there younger
than me doing this job. What are we going to look like 20 years from
now? We need to keep some younger people around here and it's got to be
viable. I don't want production agriculture. I am primarily corn and
beans, a little bit of livestock. But I don't want to see production
agriculture go the way that we're getting with a lot of our livestock
with three or four huge groups controlling the market.

Then what you are going to have some day, if you look far enough down
the road, you've got to stop paying \$2.35 to get here for gas, pay with
something. You wait 30 years down the road until we are importing food
into this country and then you are going to see what the high cost of
living is.

The CSP is a great thing. I think it's going in the right direction.
Let's pay people for doing things the right way and not the wrong way.
But we need to keep agriculture the focus of this country. You look at
the other countries in the world, China, Brazil, Russia, they're trying
to promote and extend their agriculture. Why? Look what it did for this
country. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for a strong,
healthy agriculture. We need to keep that up.

We are not going to be as good if we don't keep young people in this and
individual thoughts that they have and keep it going. I thank you for
coming today, sir. Keep them in your thoughts.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you.

Yes, ma'am, please start.

MS. DEB RYUN: My name is Deb Ryun. I am a farmer in Lucas County and
also the executive director for Conservation Districts of Iowa (CDI).

The 2007 Farm Bill discussions are well underway in Iowa and across the
nation. Producers have long been interested in the U.S. farm policy and
programs, but now many others seem to have an interest. WTO agreements
will have a big impact on the next Farm Bill. Environmental and other
groups are looking hard at dollars spent on farm supports. They support
the conservation title and are weighing in on the discussion. Members of
what we affectionately call the "hook and bullet" club also are looking
at conservation dollars as a way to increase wildlife habitat and also
have been very active in the discussions. Economists and many others are
involved in the discussions as well.

In the 2007 Farm Bill the Conservation Security Program was enacted
because the pressures from around the world are demanding changes in the
way the U.S. delivers farm programs. We believe green payments should be
the centerpiece of the next Farm Bill, implemented supporting the intent
of the CSP legislation. CDI supported the concepts of CSP for many
reasons. Farmers in the conservation community developed it. It allowed
for a one-stop approach for conservation. All producers were to have
been eligible and payments were expected to reward good stewardship
practices on an ongoing basis.

CSP was to foster innovation and is WTO compliant and can compliment
existing programs. It was supposed to be an uncapped, entitlement
program. It is intended to be a full national program and we believe it
should be implemented that way. If rules were developed well and enough
funds were allocated, CSP could develop into the only conservation
program needed. Having one conservation program would simplify things
for farmers and staff. NRCS could get back to the business of whole farm
conservation planning and away from the habit of program implementation.

If it is decided that more than one conservation program is necessary,
then we believe that the current programs should be reworked into
basically three categories. One for set- aside of retirement, one for
cost-share assistance, and one for green payments. Combining the current
programs into three more flexible programs could give farmers greater
ability to implement conservation programs.

One more sentence?

You should be including rangeland, grassland, air, forestry, wildlife
and conservation issues all together into one easy-to-use, friendly
farmer practice.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

SECRETARY JOHANNS: What I would ask you to do is, if that's in
presentable form, I'd love to have it. I'd love to take it back with me.

MS. RYUN: Can I e-mail it to you? Because I didn\'t bring \-- I brought
one copy.

SECRETARY JOHANNS: Absolutely. Just send it to our web site.

MS. RYUN: Very good.

SECRETARY JOHANNS: Okay. Great.

MODERATOR: And if you had read as fast the whole time as you did at the
last, you would have been done on time.

\[Laughter.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. JOHN HOFFMAN: My name is John Hoffman. Deb is our executive director
for Conservation Districts of Iowa. And I wish I could have yielded part
of my time. She represented a lot of what we wanted to get across.

My position is that I farm in Black Hawk County and I also teach
economics classes at the local university. But I've come here today as a
Black Hawk County Soil and Water Conservation Commissioner. We just
received notification that 23 of our producers/owners were authorized in
the 40,000-acre parcels that we had as part of the watershed. And we
thank you for doing that.

I think you need to know that your NRCS people did a magnificent job,
put a lot of overtime in to get that done. I could make a lot of points.
I will say I was a soil and water commissioner for quite a number of
years. Started out with the interest of preserving soil and water.

My interests \-- I had a former student that was here, did a marvelous
job. His plea to you was, let me get in farming. I hear that every day.
I have changed my interests to preserving farmers and you have the keys
to doing that. You have the keys to doing that. So I guess then back to
my main comments.

Certainly like to see you get in this eight-year cycle get more water
sheds in there. Even if you had to jump ahead before the new program
comes out, let's get some limitation caps and let's shift those funds
that are going to those excessively large farms. And those farms aren't
all located in the south. I mean, they are driving real competition for
our young farmers in our own area. Let's put those caps on and shift
that over to Conservation Security Programs.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: All right, sir, your name?

MR. BOB MULQUEEN: Bob Mulqueen. I grew up in Council Bluffs. I currently
live and work here in Des Moines. Like one of the earlier speakers, I
work for the Iowa Environmental Council.

I wanted to mention that this year the Iowa general assembly passed two
pieces of legislation, which have a relationship to two of the focuses
of the current Farm Bill. The Iowa Environmental Council helped draft
and promote passage of both these. One, Senate File 390 established the
system for awarding state tax credits to those who develop and operate
small, locally owned, renewable energy. The focus of this bill are
farmers, rural, small business owners, school districts, and rural
electric co-ops.

The second one, Senate File 200, which creates a fund to award grants to
local groups who will undertake watershed-based water quality promotion
projects. And, again, the focus is local groups who come to them to make
the case that they will do the local watershed-based project.

Now, what, you might ask, is the connection to the 2007 Farm Bill? Well,
the groundbreaking energy and the conservation titles of the current
Farm Bill, we believe, helped promote action at the state level. And
this is one reason why it's vital that at least these two titles be
renewed and strengthened in the 2007 Farm Bill.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir, you are up next.

MR. VANCE BOWER (sp): Yeah, I'm Vance Bower. I farm together with my
brother Vernon in Webster County. I do believe there needs to be a floor
for the price and where that needs to be and how it fits in with WTO
would take a lot more than two minutes to talk about. There's a lot of
things to deal with there. But we do need a floor. Where it is, I don\'t
know.

Some I'm going to talk about some of the things that I guess are pretty
important. I think the crop insurance, you know, if they could fund that
a little higher, that's a pretty important thing that we have. If
there's cuts that need to be made, I guess the first thing to me is
payment limitations. I would fully endorse Senator Grassley's bill that
he has been trying to get through for two or three years.

The CSP program has been talked about a lot today. I'm in the Raccoon
River watershed. We were supposed to enroll this year. We were all
enrolled as of this morning. Our farm was put in level B. There's A, B,
C, D, and E. We were one away from A. We are not going to get a contract
because there's not enough money. They are only going to take the A's as
of this morning.

Another thing is the CRP and I would commend Senator Harkin. I guess one
of the best value-added industry we have in this state is livestock. And
if he could work on bringing some of that CRP ground and keeping it in
grazing land instead of going back into CRP or being plowed up, that
would be a big plus for Iowa.

Another thing, Iowa is the number one, corn, soybean, hog, and egg state
in the nation. So, Mr. Secretary, if you could give our Congressmen and
our Senators some special attention when you are deciding what to do
with the Farm Bill. I thank you for taking the time to come visit with
us in Iowa.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MR. PATRICK HUNE (sp): Mr. Secretary, thank you for the opportunity to
speak today and welcome back to Iowa. My name is Patrick Hune. I call
Ames home right now, but I am originally from DeWitt, Iowa, which is in
the eastern part of the state. I was an ag teacher for three years and
an FAA advisor and now I'm back in graduate school for supply chain
management.

But today I am here to speak to you about how agriculture has and will
continue to support rural America. One common theme I keep hearing is
how to keep young people involved in agriculture and in farming
production. I believe the 2007 Farm Bill should continue to examine how
to strengthen the bond between rural America and agriculture.

Being a young professional in rural American agriculture I have had
numerous opportunities to see the firsthand role that education and
youth development play in our communities as a youth growing up in 4-H
and FFA, and as a teacher, and now as a student again. I have also had
the opportunity to be a part of an organization called, Agriculture
Future of America, AFA. AFA identifies, encourages and supports
college-age youth for preparing for careers in agriculture in the food
industry. Since 1997 AFA has, with the support from hundreds of
sponsoring partners and communities across the Great Plains and the
Midwest, invested in more than 3,500 college students' career
preparation and awarded more than 900 college scholarships totaling
almost \$3 million.

In your opening comments you stated that a lot of the best ideas don't
come from government offices or government officials, but from forums
like this. AFA was founded on the same principal. It was an Iowa farm
wife and mother called in to a radio show and said, we need help
financially in sending our sons and daughters to college. That's how AFA
began. Since then these scholarships have funded nearly hundreds of
individuals.

In the 2002 Farm Bill Section 7412 provides for youth grants
administered by CSREES for national 4-H, FFA, Girl Scouts, and Boy
Scouts of America. Agriculture Future of America seeks your support to
participate in this grant process. We strongly encourage the Department
and Congress to include AFA as a grant recipient within Section 7412 of
the 2007 Farm Bill. I can speak as a former scholarship recipient. It's
been a tremendous opportunity. Mr. Root was a facilitator last year at
our conference. And thank you for your consideration and being here
today.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Your crowd is growing. Either it's got hotter outside, or
hotter in here.

SECRETARY JOHANNS: It is very comfortable in here, but it is growing.

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. DAVE SCHWEITZ: Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary, it's nice to see you
again. I am Dave Schweitz. I'm with Farm Safety for Just Kids in
Earlham, Iowa.

In the next Farm Bill we would like to see some consideration given to
farm and ranch safety. Thousands of young kids and adults are seriously
injured or killed every year on farms and ranches. We think with this
additional emphasis on farm safety and ranch safety these numbers could
be drastically reduced.

We are not talking about any new rules or regulations. We don't want to
see anything regulated. We would just like to see the opportunity for
farmers and ranchers to obtain some additional education and awareness
on farm and ranch safety through this new bill.

Thank you very much. Glad you're here.

MODERATOR: You're not the guy who is going to run 55 miles the, are you?

MR. SCHWEITZ: Yes, I think we are.

MODERATOR: You are?

MR. SCHWEITZ: No, I'm not running. No, I'm not.

MODERATOR: I was going to say, if it was you, you look so intelligent.
Thank you. That should be a good promotion, Marilyn.

Yes, sir, over here.

MR. JOHN JONAS (sp): Thank you for coming. My name is \--

MODERATOR: Speak right into the mike please.

MR. JONAS: Thank you for coming here. This is kind of unique. I've never
seen this in the past. My name is John Jonas. I'm from Mount Pleasant,
Iowa, but I grew up in northeast Wisconsin. I remember trying to get
into farming in the '70s and when I came home from the service, it was
great, you know, to think about. But now, 25 years later, it almost
looks like genocide out in the countryside. It looks like Kansas, you
know, when I harvested wheat. I think I saw more farms in western Kansas
in 1980 than I do in Iowa now.

I think with the lack of demand globally we probably have a good chance
to up our conservation. And I don\'t know why we irrigate corn out west
and deplete the water supply. You know, we have to keep that in reserve,
you know.

And I look at southern Iowa and CRP land, that could be grazing land.
Then we can stop importing agricultural products and stop exporting our
jobs. I think there could be a great future in agriculture in organics,
sustainable agriculture. I look at what it takes to invest in the farm
compared to a business in town and it's about five to one and I wonder
why, you know, why everything is out of proportion. And the Congressmen
and Senators ought to be investigating that more, you know, why is there
such a great imbalance?

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[End tape 2, side A.\]

\[Begin tape 2, side B.\]

MALE: \[In progress\] \-- Warren County.

MODERATOR: Start again, your name?

MR. DWAYNE SAND: Dwayne Sand from Warren County.

I believe there are two key policy commitments that will go a long way
towards answering the first four discussion questions that you asked
these forums to address. And those key policies are payment limits and
the Conservation Security Program. I think the focus of the next Farm
Bill really needs to be the end of trade distorting subsidies and the
transition to green payments such as the Conservation Security Program.

And, Mr. Secretary, I would urge your leadership to start this year and
not wait. I think there's two key things you could be working on in that
regards. First is, we have budget reconciliation coming up and it's
important. I would hope the administration could become more vocal in
its support for payment limits and to back up those words with action
such as a stricter interpretation and enforcement of existing payment
limits, laws, and rules on the books. It would be shameful if this
nation resolved its budget problems by cutting conservation, nutrition
and rural development programs in order to maintain obscene size checks
to America's largest agribusinesses.

Secondly, the rules for the Conservation Security Program are out for
comment. I hope that when you rewrite those rules that you will really
make Conservation Security Program the program that rewards the best and
motivates the rest. Unfortunately, your predecessors nickeled and dimed
this program in the rulemaking process. So it's only a fraction of what
Congress really intended this incentive program to be.

I would hope that CSP is not viewed as another conservation program. I
hope it's viewed as the fundamental base program where the government
and the public and agriculture interacts in the future.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Over on this side, go ahead, sir.

MR. TOM OSWALD: I too wish to ditto all the comments regarding you being
here. Thank you. My name is Tom Oswald. I am a fourth-generation farmer
from northwest Iowa and I'm in the business of harvesting the solar
energy via growing corn and soybeans.

We no-till and conservation is very high on my list of priorities. I am
also a county soil commissioner. In fact, chairman of our county soil
commission. I encourage efforts to maintain any of the green type
programs and increase their value because I really think the only thing
we have to sell is our stewardship.

Along the lines of no-till, I hope the programs encourage continuous
no-till as opposed to in-and-out no-till. That's a hot button for me.

Second point of interest is research. I think it's critical for the
sustainability of U.S. agriculture that we maintain a high level of
agricultural research and support any programs either in D.C. at the
local level, whatever. We need to encourage intellectual thought and
development. Research is how we should get there.

Along that line on rural development you mentioned the issue of
high-speed Internet. I applaud that. I think rural development is an
excellent way to go. And along those lines, I'm also a big fan of GPS. I
didn\'t hear much about that, but we need to reinforce that system, if
not, along the lines of rural development, have affordable sub-inch GPS
correction available such that the technology becomes size neutral and
more growers could utilize it.

Finally, on the issue of crop insurance, I think there is something that
we have to be concerned about that is unlimited crop insurance. If set
up incorrectly it will put us in the same boat as unlimited government
payments. You've got to be very careful with subsidies in general and
crop insurance could very well have the same double-cutting edge as
we've seen with crop subsidies.

Thank you again.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Ma'am.

MS. JULIE CLANCY (sp): Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you
today. I am Julie Clancy. I'm a farmer's wife, but unfortunately I hold
a full-time job off of the farm so we have insurance to cover my husband
and I and our three daughters.

We have heard a lot today about economics, we've heard a lot about
environment, but something that I would like you to consider today is
the social aspects of the family farm. When I grew up we had neighbors
and we were neighbors. And unfortunately with large farms I can drive
down the road where there used to be three farms, now there may be none.
And that impacts not only the neighborhood, that impacts our communities
because our farm wives and our farmers are a lot of times our church
leaders, our 4-H leaders, our volunteers who give of their time for
nothing in return other than to help our youth turn around and do the
same.

So my request for you today is that you look at the social impacts that
the large corporate farms are having on losing our small family farms.
Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you. That hit a nerve.

Yes, sir.

MR. DENNY HARDING: Welcome back to Iowa, Mr. Secretary. My name is Denny
Harding and I work in the area of business development for the Iowa Farm
Bureau Federation. I am also still involved in our family farm operation
in Calhoun County.

Specifically I work with our members on issues of rural vitality and
value-added ag projects, particularly renewable energy. So my comments
will be focused on question number five: How can federal rural and farm
programs provide effective assistance in rural areas?

First of all, let me take a moment to compliment the Iowa staff of USDA
rural development. The working relationship we have has been outstanding
and has led to the establishment of many successful farmer-owned
ventures throughout the state. As far as programs are concerned, USDA's
rural development, value-added ag producer grant program has had a
positive impact on Iowa. These funds allowed producers to conduct
feasibility studies, develop business plans, and begin the process of
business formation. The best example of the use of this program is the
establishment of the farmer-owned ethanol plants that now dot the Iowa
landscape. In fact, Iowa leads the nation with the establishment of 70
value-added ag projects since this program's inception four years ago.

We would recommend to keep and fully fund the value-added producer grant
program because it has not only helped farmers add value to their
commodities but has revitalized many of our rural communities.

The second area I would like to address is the energy title of the Farm
Bill, specifically Section 9006, which is the renewable energy and
energy efficiency improvements program. Section 9006 provides several
benefits to those involved in renewable energy projects and energy
efficiency. These projects helped Iowa farmers develop new sources of
income in addition to cutting costs, they increase our nation's energy
security and they provide clean energy for all to use. These projects
help farmers develop new income sources that are independent of the
fluctuations of commodity cycles. Renewable energy is not just ethanol
anymore. What we have done with ethanol we can also do with wind,
biomass, and solar as well as energy efficiency, and that is, provide a
clean energy industry based on America's heartland. That also provides
jobs and rural economic vitality.

We are very concerned that the demand for these programs outstrips the
resources. For example, in Iowa we have gone from, I believe, seven
projects funded in 2003 to this last round for the energy program, 45
applications were turned in. So like the value-added program, we would
like to see Section 9006 fully funded.

Additionally, in 2002, the Section 9005 was an energy audit program that
would be very beneficial to farmers. Again, we appreciate the good work
that USDA rural development is doing in Iowa and we look forward to
working together to achieve the full potential benefits of these
important programs.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Thank you.

Yes, sir.

MR. SCOTT ENGLEKEY (sp): Yes, Mr. Secretary, my name is Scott Englekey
and I'm from Brian County, Iowa. Last year I talked to Secretary Veneman
at the Clay County Fair and I had asked her about reopening the border
to Japan. And my question to her was, if it is even science-based that
you don't want to allow the testing? I don't understand it because I
always thought we were always catering to the customer and it was a
matter of perception more than anything. If they test all their domestic
beef, I don't understand why you would not allow a small packer to test
any export-bound beef if it's only export-bound beef.

For your question number one on farm policies that would help small
rural communities you can't turn the clock back. We've seen the
poultryfication of pork, regretfully. When I talked to Harold Davis in
Storm Lake years ago, and head of the Packers and Stockyards Commission,
he was investigating some other things that were small and trivial in my
view. Because I think what we need to do if you want to reinvigorate it,
you would have to give us a national ban of packer ownership of
livestock like Senator Grassley was asking for. That may never pass.
But, at least, if we could get true and transparent mandatory price
reporting, I think if you've got smaller producers there's more
opportunity to generate more income in a small community than there
would be just being a hired man taking care of someone else's hogs. You
used to be able to trade sweat equity to get started farming for
capital. But today it seems like you've got to throw a lot of money at
it and then you've got to hope they refill your buildings again.

And my last thing was on chemical company buyouts of independent corn
producers and independent seed producers. I hope there is some
monitoring of that. I don\'t know if there's nothing wrong with it or
what. But it seems like there is less and less independent companies out
anymore. They are mostly being bought up by chemical companies.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. TODD BOGENSCHUTZ: Mr. Secretary, I would like to welcome you to Iowa
on this pleasant day in heaven. I don\'t know if I can convince you
every day in heaven is like this. Maybe not. But if not, we developed
this weather today just for you. My name is Todd Bogenschutz. I work for
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. I am our upland biologist and
also our Farm Bill coordinator representing probably roughly half a
million Iowans that hunt and fish in this state and like to recreate in
Iowa. Many of these folks are farmers, landowners, and also urban folks
like right here in Des Moines. I'm sure you're aware of the difficulties
when you have to deal with that diverse of a group. But we represent a
lot of different folks.

As an example, in Iowa, the impact of conservation programs within Iowa,
in our good pheasant years, which this year looks to be one, we'll
probably put roughly 200,000 hunters a field in Iowa.

The impact on Iowa's economy probably will approach a quarter billion
dollars and most of that will be in rural areas where we definitely need
those kind of dollars. Of course, you are aware that there is a budget
reconciliation coming along. Ag programs are going to have to be cut. I
think it's going to be inevitable that we are going to see farm programs
cut. But I would ask you that you take a balanced approach when it comes
to conservation and commodity programs and not single out one side or
the other.

I'm sure you're probably aware of this fact, but between 2002 and '06 if
you look at the conservation programs, CRP, WRP, CSP, EQIP, there's
already been over \$1 billion in cuts over what was authorized in the
'02 Farm Bill. So conservation programs have already taken a significant
cut. Disproportionate cuts have cut the programs like EQIP and CSP, both
set-aside and working lands programs.

Recently at the Iowa ag summit in the rural life poll, I believe there
was some information presented there by Paul Lasly and I think Mike's up
here. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike. I don\'t have the document with me.
But the question was asked of Iowa's land owners and producers on that
poll, one of the highest points of consensus was support for CRP with 80
percent, I believe, if that's correct, Mike, supporting that program. So
conservation is well received within Iowa, especially among our land
owners and our producers. I think nationwide conservation is supported.
So the continuation of green programs and conservation programs, I would
hope you would consider them in this next Farm Bill.

I'll conclude with the fact that our agency is co-located in many, many
offices with your staff. We have five area biologists now co-located,
first time, within NRCS. We led the nation in buffer enrollments and
farmable wetlands programs. And our agency is committed to continuing
working with your staff to make those programs a success.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

All right. You can applaud if you feel like. We'll just applaud and
talk.

\[Applause.\]

MR. STEVE CANIG (sp): Thank you, Secretary Johanns for this forum. I am
Steve Canig from Bottom County, South Dakota.

Several things I would like to see looked at in the next Farm Bill
include looking at what the base prices are as we figure out where the
different payments come from. The 2002 Farm Bill was put together when
crude oil was at \$15 a barrel and now it's \$65 a barrel. So it's
affected the cost of both fuels and fertilizers that we use the inputs
into our crops. And I think some sort of adjustment needs to take place
when we see one of the inputs triple or quadruple in value.

The second thing I think we need to look at is what about health
insurance. One of the things that farm families have a hard time buying
and having money for, and use their farm payments for, is buying health
insurance. Is there some way that those two can be put together and done
at a reasonable rate so that one person doesn't have to work off the
farm to keep the family farm going.

Looking at crop insurance, the subsidy levels are for 50, 60, and 70
percent levels. You have a high subsidy level and then when you get to
80 and 85 percent it drops down substantially. My question is, the guy
that only needs 50 percent crop insurance probably could self-insure.
Most young producers starting need to be able to go to that 80 and 85
percent level and need to have the subsidies being there and not on the
50 percent level.

I'd like to see the departments within the USDA work more closely
together. RMA requires that you give planted acres on June 30th. The FSA
offices don't have to certify your acres until July 15th. RMA this year
is having heavy penalties if you misrepresent your acres. They need to
talk amongst themselves and get one firm date.

I think we need to have an education component where we talk to not only
the people that get the welfare, the food stamps and stuff so that they
understand what the American producer gets from their programs. So that
it needs to be a justice issue that covers both sides that we see what
the poorest part of our population needs and they see what we receive as
producers.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir, I like your hairdo.

MR. JIM SHEETS: We farm in \--

MODERATOR: May I have your name again, please?

MR. JIM SHEETS: Jim Sheets. We farm in western Illinois and southern
Iowa. I would first like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for the work again
on the CAFTA that was recently adopted as well as the other work that
you are doing on behalf of the American farmer. I realize this is a
challenge trying to put together a new Farm Bill.

I only have one short comment and that's regarding size of operation or
the size limitations. Our operation operates under a corporate
structure, however, I have four of my children involved in the business,
so there are five families involved in this structure. My concern is
that as you write the new Farm Bill, will you take into consideration
possibly how many family members are under that corporate structure? It
would be unfortunate for our operation to have to split up into five
separate entities to capitalize on whatever payments there are. We are
not opposed to payment limitations as long as everyone is treated
fairly. So with that I know that you have several other issues that you
have to address, and most of the other people have done that very well.

Thank you again for coming, Mr. Secretary.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

MR. MARSHAL MUSIC: Mr. Secretary, I am Marshal Music and I live in
northwest Tama County. I would strongly echo the comments made by the
lady concerning the social aspect of rural Iowa. My son and I have a
grain operation along with a cow herd. I would like to address the
situation of we have hay ground, we have pastureland. Some of my
neighbors have a hay program as their basic operation and we have
received no benefits from those acres. A lot of those pastureland grade
farms have been bid away from us. So we cannot go to pasture there. We
can't afford to compete with the person that's getting the bushel
advantage by row cropping those acres.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Do we have others who would like to comment in the 12 minutes
that we have left?

Yes, sir, your name?

MR. JIM GEEBOCK (sp): Mr. Secretary, I am Jim Geebock, we talked
earlier. We've talked about conservation today quite a bit. And it's
been brought out that water quality is a key part of that. One thing
that we need to be cautious about or we need to maybe encourage from
your level is that the Environmental Protection Agency is a key water
quality player. And as they go forward we need to make sure there is
that communication so that the new Farm Bill and how it encourages
conservation and water quality enhancement also includes whatever EPA is
wanting us to do. The two things sometimes don't seen to fit together,
just deadlines or size or operation or something.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Government agencies working together. Interesting concept.

\[Laughter.\]

MODERATOR: If we have no other comments from you, we have had, Mr.
Secretary, 47 people who have stated their views. So we thank you for
sitting so patiently, quietly and listening. Now we will give you your
turn.

SECRETARY JOHANNS: Well, our timing has worked out great here because we
wanted to wrap up by 2:30 and I hoped we would have a little bit of time
so I could offer a few closing comments. So the timing will be perfect.
So I will offer a few thoughts here and then we will get you out the
door and you can enjoy a corndog or what is it? It's a pork chop on a
stick here, right? Yeah, it's everything on a stick.

Well, let me start out and say thank you to Ken here. I thought he did a
great job. How about a round of applause.

\[Applause.\]

SECRETARY JOHANNS: Some months ago when the farm broadcasters were back
in Washington I met with them and this is when we first talked publicly
about the idea of Farm Bill forums and they liked the idea. They said,
that sounds like a good idea. So I said, great, well, we are going to
enlist all of you in being moderators and helping us promote these, and
they've been great all across the country and done a great job.

I also want to express my appreciation to the young people. We've had
young people at all of our forums. It has been my request that we start
with someone from FFA and someone from 4-H and we've done that at each
forum because that's really what this is all about. Our whole notion
here is that we should be developing farm policy that recognizes that we
need to have appropriate policy, good policy for that next generation of
farmers or ranchers. And they've done a great job at every forum that we
have done. So I really appreciate that. As a former FFA member, when
they get up there and do that neat job and handle themselves so well, it
really builds confidence, if you will, in the future of agriculture.

I wanted to just spend a moment or two talking about some of the topics
that have been mentioned at this forum. I thought it was great. We got
great input on really the major titles and some additional areas. One of
the things that we talk about in these forums is competitiveness. How do
we position ourselves to be competitive in a worldwide marketplace?
Well, I have always maintained that our American farmer and rancher can
compete with anybody in the world.

Now, I did grow up on that dairy farm in Mitchell County, but I've had
the wonderful opportunity as a governor and a mayor and now a Secretary
to travel on a worldwide basis. I've seen agriculture really in many
parts of the world. I am as convinced as ever that the American farmer
and rancher can compete on a worldwide basis. In fact, I don't have any
doubts about that. But there are some key elements to that.

One is, we need to make sure that the barriers to our products are
brought down. That we have a level playing field. Twenty-seven percent
of our receipts do come from the export market. Now, if I were to walk
in here today and say, ladies and gentlemen, I've got a great idea, I'm
going to adopt policies that jeopardize 27 percent of your receipts. I
mean, you would throw me out of Iowa, ask that I be taken out of the
country. But that's really what we have involved here is 27 percent of
the receipts for agriculture come from the export market. In a state
like this where you produce so much corn, so much soybean, pork, you
really, really need that export market. Look at our numbers for
soybeans. Look at our numbers for pork.

I was sworn into office when \-- and I never thought I'd live to see
this \-- pork prices went to \$8. Remember those days? You remember
those days. It wasn't that long ago. We don't ever want to go there
again. We have now seen some really good prices the last couple of
years, and it relates in a large part to what we are doing in terms of
trade. So trade is very important.

I will leave you with another statistic about trade. Ninety-five percent
of the world's population doesn't live here. Ninety-five percent of the
world's population lives in other parts of the world. American
agriculture's productivity increases about two percent annually. It's
the most productive machine maybe in the history of mankind.
Productivity increases about two percent a year. Our population is
increasing a little less than one percent a year. Again, you can see
here the importance of developing a worldwide marketplace for our
products.

I will also acknowledge it is fairly easy to beat up on trade. You can
always find an example of something that didn\'t quite work right. And
so the tendency is to take every trade agreement and say, well, we are
not winning here. And that happened recently with the Central American
Free Trade Agreement. I appreciate the compliments. We did work hard on
that.

I didn\'t work hard on that because somebody said, well, I think it's a
good idea. I studied that agreement very, very carefully when I came to
the Secretary's office. Let me tell you what that agreement was about.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement was about leveling the playing
field. Over the past 20 to 25 years, we have given trade concessions to
the Central American countries involved in that agreement. Why? We
wanted to improve their economies and therefore improve the opportunity
for stable governments and democracy. And that started 25 years ago. We
granted them concessions where 99 percent of their ag products came here
duty free to compete with you. Ninety-nine percent of their products
were already here by prior agreements, 99 percent of those products were
here duty free when it came to agriculture, and were here competing with
the products raised in Iowa.

On the other hand, when you went to sell your products there, soybeans
and corn and pork and beef, you paid very high duties. Sound like a
level playing field to anybody in this room? It wasn't. But, you know
what, the policy worked. Where 25 years ago those countries were heading
toward dictatorship and communism, quite honestly they have free
elections now and growing economies and 44 million people who have
opportunity. But it was time to level the playing field. What did CAFTA
do? It brought those duties down.

You are a very large soybean producer, the largest in the nation, I
think.

MODERATOR: One or two.

SECRETARY JOHANNS: One or two. Duties on soybeans came down immediately.
You're a big beef producing state, on choice and prime cuts, duties came
down immediately. On other cuts they will be phased out over a period of
time. And I can go commodity after commodity after commodity. This was
truly a trade agreement that needed to be passed for American
agriculture. And that's what we need to do more of is level the playing
field for American farmers and ranchers.

The other piece we haven't spent a lot of time talking about, but it's
very, very important is just good tax policy for agriculture. The
President's tax cuts have left \$4 billion in the pockets of American
farmers and ranchers. \$4 billion. That goes right to the bottom line.
As land values have increased, more and more farmers get nicked by the
estate tax when they pass land from one generation to another. This
administration has stood very, very strongly for the repeal of the
estate tax to avoid that from occurring. It seems to me we tax you
enough in your lifetime without having to tax you when you pass your
land on to the next generation at your death.

Much has been said about energy and the importance of the energy bill.
The President had it right in his State of the Union. Four years of
debate on an energy bill is enough. Well, just a few days ago he signed
that bill. What's the importance to agriculture? We go from a renewable
fuel standard or we go to a renewable fuel standard of 7.5 billion
gallons. That is significant in a state like this where you produce
ethanol and biodiesel. So it's good for the environment, it is good for
agriculture, and it lessens our dependence on foreign oil. I would much
rather turn to the fields of Iowa to fuel our energy needs than to turn
to the fields of the Mid-East.

I am a great believer in ethanol. In fact, I was the chairman of the
Governor's Ethanol Coalition. I was vice chair when your governor was
the chairman. I was vice chairman when Tom Vilsack was the chairman. We
have heard a lot about the support programs, payment limitations, what
works, what doesn't work. Someone said to me when we announced these
forums, they said, "aren't you going to go out there and hear more of
the same?" I said, "No, I don't think so." And you know what, we haven't
heard more of the same.

Thoughtful people like you are raising issues that are very, very
important to the future of agriculture. Our policy should be about
stabilizing and growing the economic future for farmers, ranchers, and
rural America.

I had the privilege of growing up on that dairy farm. I love to joke
about it, but quite honestly for me it was a privilege. It's probably
the most significant thing that happened in my life, to grow up on that
dairy farm.

My hope is that as young people grow up in rural America and they
examine the options that are available to them, whether it's going on
for law school, or medical school, or vet school, or whatever it is,
that one of the options that is available to them is that they can stay
in the community in which they grew up and find a good job, or farm or
ranch. If that is available, then I believe we are doing farm policy
right.

We now have five of these forums that we have done and every one of them
has been a great opportunity for us to learn and to listen. We intend to
be all across the country. I'll be in every region of the country before
it's said and done. There will be many special opportunities for me. But
I will tell you, it has been a very, very special opportunity for me to
come back to the state where I grew up and to hear from you about the
direction of our farm policy. I do thank you for that opportunity. I
thank my relatives for showing up here and being with me. If you go back
and you see my sister, Pat, in Osage, tell her I found work in
Washington. All right?

\[Laughter.\]

VOICE: \[Off mike.\]

SECRETARY JOHANNS: Great. I want to say hi and shake as many hands as we
can as we wrap up this forum. So, come on down, all right. Thank you.

\[Applause.\]

MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary, before you go here, this was donated to you.
This is the pork chop on the stick. So enjoy it here.

Thank you to everyone. Thank you to A V. Thank you guys for the lights.
Terri Teuber, thank you. We are adjourned. Have a good time at the fair.