U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–131 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–824

REGIONAL FARM BILL FIELD HEARING

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 23, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

VERNIE HUBERT, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Regional Farm Bill Field Hearing .......................................................................... 1

Wednesday, June 23, 2006

Panel I 

Cobb, Douglas R., President, Georgia Corn Growers Association ....................... 12

Coley, Chuck, of Vienna, Georgia ........................................................................... 11

Detweiler, Mark, President, Georgia/Florida Soybean Association Board of 

Directors, American Soybean Association .......................................................... 9

Morris, Armond, Chairman, Georgia Peanut Commission Southern Peanut 

Farmers Federation ............................................................................................. 13

Panel II 

Brim, Bill, Lewis Taylor Farms, Tifton, Georgia .................................................. 28

Campbell, Murray, Chairman, First United Ethanol, LLC ................................. 32

Perry, Carl, Farmer of sugarcane, beans, citrus and cattle Albany, Georgia ..... 29

Thompson, Tom, President, Georgia Milk Producers, Inc. ................................... 30

Panel III 

Strickland, James E., DVM President, Georgia Cattlemen’s Association Member, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association ....................................................... 44

Hunt, R. C., Pork Producer, Wilson, North Carolina President of the North 

Carolina Pork Council .......................................................................................... 45

Giles, Mike, Senior Vice President Georgia Poultry Federation Gainesville, 

Georgia .................................................................................................................. 47

Dreelin, Elizabeth Desportes .................................................................................. 49

Ham, Jim, Georgia Association of Conservation District Supervisors and the 

National Association of Conservation Districts ................................................. 50

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Brim, Bill ........................................................................................................... 60

Campbell, Murray ............................................................................................ 64

Cobb, Douglas R. .............................................................................................. 67

Coley, Chuck ..................................................................................................... 69

Detweiler, Mark ................................................................................................ 75

Dreelin, Elizabeth Desportes ........................................................................... 78

Giles, Mike ........................................................................................................ 84

Ham, Jim ........................................................................................................... 91

Hunt, R. C. ........................................................................................................ 96

Morris, Armond ................................................................................................ 111

Perry, Carl ........................................................................................................ 118

Strickland, James E. ........................................................................................ 124

Thompson, Tom ................................................................................................ 133

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Florida Conservation Coalition, prepared statement ........................................... 138

Georgia Agricultural Land Trust, prepared statement ........................................ 139

Page

IV

Georgia Farm Bureau, prepared statement .......................................................... 141

Georgia Milk Producers, Inc., prepared statement ............................................... 145

Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, prepared statement ............................. 157

Southeast Milk, prepared statement ...................................................................... 167

Southwest Georgia Farm Credit, prepared statement ......................................... 185

Winegrowers Association of Georgia, prepared statement ................................... 187

(1)

REGIONAL FARM BILL FIELD HEARING 

Wednesday, June 23, 2006

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

Albany, Georgia 

Hearing on 2007 Farm Bill, held before Committee Chairman 

Senator Saxby Chambliss, Chairman, and Senator Pat Roberts, reported by Debbie Paulk Mixon, CCR, RPR, CRR, at Albany State 

University Academic Building Auditorium, Albany, Georgia, on the 

23rd day of June 2006. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry will now come to 

order. As Chairman of the Committee and Senator from this great 

state, I welcome each of you and thank you all for joining us this 

morning to hear each of our witnesses testify. I know many of you 

drove a long way to get here, and I appreciate you taking the time 

to travel to this hearing. What a great crowd we have this morning. And I see a lot of familiar faces out there. And this is going 

to be a critical year for agriculture. Your participation in this today 

and as we move toward the rewriting of the Farm Bill next year 

is critically important. So to all of you I say, on behalf of Senator 

Roberts and myself personally, thank you for you being here. 

I want to thank Albany State University for hosting us this 

morning. Dr. Everette Freeman is out of town this morning, could 

not be here. But Dr. Freeman and his staff have been most gracious in having us here this morning. 

We have a couple of our good friends who are strong supporters 

of agriculture in the audience this morning that I want to recognize. First of all is my longtime dear friend and neighbor from 

Mitchell County, Representative Richard Royal. Richard, where are 

you? Right here. Richard, thank you very much for being here, and 

thanks for the great work you do for our state. 

Also, I saw him outside, Representative Gene Maddox from 

Cairo. Gene, right here in the middle. Thanks to both of you guys 

for the great work you’re doing in the Legislature and for what you 

do for agriculture as well as otherwise in our state. 

Also, my longtime dear friend former Congressman Mac Collins. 

I saw Mac outside. Mac’s back here in the back. Mac, thank you 

very much for being here, and thanks for your continued interest 

in what’s going on in the world of agriculture. 

I also want to thank my longtime dear friend, my colleague, my 

former House Agriculture Chairman, Senator Pat Roberts from 

Kansas, for being here today. Pat and I go back a long ways when 

2

it comes to dealing with farm bills and trying to make sure that 

we look after farmers and ranchers all across America. And there’s 

nobody who has their heart in agriculture more so than Pat Roberts. He’s my dear friend. We serve on several different committees 

together. And, Pat, I want to welcome you to the state of Georgia. 

I want to tell everybody here something you already know, and 

that is that we’re blessed in the Southeast to have a very diverse 

agricultural economy. And I’m pleased to host our Committee’s first 

Farm Bill field hearing right here in the southwest part of our 

state in Albany. 

This is the first in a series of regional field hearings that we will 

hold in preparation for the next Farm Bill. The next scheduled 

hearings will take place next month in July in Pennsylvania, Iowa, 

and Missouri. We will also hold others in western states. During 

these hearings, we hope producers will express their thoughts on 

what the next Farm Bill will look like. It will be important for us 

to know what has worked in the 2002 Farm Bill and specifically 

how we might improve farm policy for producers in a manner consistent with our trade obligations and budget needs. 

It’s interesting in agriculture to see things change over time. We 

no longer live in an era of mules pulling plows. Technology has 

moved us into a time where GPS tractors can assess the specific 

needs of soils in order to maximum yields. We no longer farm in 

a time in which the government dictates what you should or 

shouldn’t plant. Thanks to planting flexibility provided in the 1996 

Farm Bill under the direction of then Chairman of the House Ag 

Committee Pat Roberts and retained in the 2000 Farm Bill, you 

can choose what is best for your farm and your bottom line. 

The environment in which we write the next Farm Bill will be 

considerably different than when we wrote the 2002 Farm Bill, especially with respect to trade and the budget. As a Subcommittee 

Chairman in the House and a conferee on the 2002 Farm Bill, I 

was one of many who believed that our commodity programs were 

compliant with the World Trade Organization rules. 

Having dealt with the outcome of the case brought forth by 

Brazil against U.S. cotton, I’m not as confident now as I was back 

then. As a conferee on the 2002 Farm Bill, I was pleased to help 

write the Farm Bill in a time of budget surpluses. That, of course, 

has changed, and we are unsure of what the future will hold with 

respect to the budget. 

While times have changed, one thing is for certain: This Committee will be a strong advocate for American agriculture. Through 

our trade negotiators, we will continue to affirm our role as authors 

of the Farm Bill, and we will continue to implore the need for trade 

agreements benefiting, not sacrificing, our producers. 

As we did during the budget reconciliation proceedings of last 

year, we will continue to argue that the Federal farm policy is not 

only good for rural America, it’s good for the American taxpayer. 

And I think that has been proven over the course of this current 

Farm Bill. Federal farm programs provide this nation an abundant 

affordable food supply at a cost of $12.9 billion less than originally 

projected through the fiscal year 2005. 

Agriculture accounts for only 3.7 percent of the Federal budget, 

and the majority of this, 57 percent of the total ag spending, is not 

3

for commodity programs, as some believe, but for nutritional programs that are valuable and viable and are critically important to 

America. 

As policymakers, we have an obligation to provide producers a 

safety net into open markets. We have an obligation to promote 

land stewardship. We have an obligation to provide nutritious 

meals in schools and assist in providing food to needy families. 

While nutrition programs will be discussed in depth at a later date, 

we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we 

can achieve these producer-oriented goals in the next Farm Bill. 

Before I turn to our witnesses, I want to turn to Senator Roberts 

and any comments he has in an opening statement. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good 

morning, ladies and gentlemen. 

Audience. Good Morning. 

Senator ROBERTS. That’s just a mumbled good morning. I’m sure 

you can do a little better than that. Let’s try it again. Good morning. 

Audience. Good Morning. 

Senator ROBERTS. That’s a good Georgia welcome. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to join you here today 

for this first hearing on what’s going to be a very aggressive schedule of Farm Bill hearings as we prepare to write the next Farm Bill 

in 2007. I noticed you mentioned Missouri. If you go to Missouri, 

you’ve got to come to Kansas. 

I do not envy the task you are in charge of as you work to put 

together this very important legislation, with everybody in the audience as partners, while making every effort to address the needs 

and complexities of agricultural production all throughout this nation. I think you’re exactly right in regards to the challenge that 

you face. During the previous years, I think many farm groups and 

many agricultural organizations, many commodity groups, I told 

them at the time, when I said show me the policy, they said show 

me the money. And I understand that. 

And I certainly understand it with the energy costs that we’re 

going through and some of the crop losses we’re going through. 

We’re about 25 percent down in our wheat crop in Kansas with 

about a 75 percent increase in energy costs. So we really have a 

tight vice, and a lot of farmers are really considering whether or 

not they ought to sell while the farm has value. And that’s not a 

good thing, not a good thing for them, not a good thing for the next 

generation of farmers. 

As indicated by Saxby, I have served as the Chairman. I have 

put together a Farm Bill. It’s a lot like pushing a rope. And there’s 

been six Farm Bills I’ve been associated with. I don’t know; that 

might be a record for some of us. And it is not an easy task, by 

any means. 

And with the budget pressures that we face and with the trade 

talks looming over us—and that’s not exactly fair play or a two-way 

street—you have my commitment to work with you, to work with 

the Chairman, and all the members of the Committee to write the 

very best bill possible that we can to provide you stability, consistency, and to keep production of agriculture in a healthy situation. 

That’s not only for our benefit but also the benefit of the country. 

4

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding the field hearings 

all throughout the nation. I’ve always believed the most important 

thing we can do when crafting agriculture policy is to get out of 

Washington, travel out in the countryside, sit on the wagon tongue 

with our farmers and listen, and basically find out exactly what 

they need to keep their operations on the profit side and to allow 

the next generation of producers to enter the business. And that’s 

probably the most important question that we face in agriculture 

today: Where is the next generation of farmers going to come from? 

This is exactly what we’re doing here today. I look forward to the 

testimony from our witnesses. I want to thank you again for taking 

us out of Washington and actually bringing us to speak firsthand 

with producers that feed and clothe not only this country but a 

troubled and hungry world. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your strong and 

active leadership of this Committee. He won’t say this. I will. I 

keep referring to him as the new sheriff in town in charge of the 

powerful Senate Agriculture Committee. I used to be the Chairman 

of the sometimes powerful House Agriculture Committee. And I 

want the farmers and people in rural communities of Georgia to 

know that they can have no stronger champion in Washington than 

Saxby Chambliss. 

Senator ROBERTS. That applause would also occur in Dodge City, 

where I’m from, Dodge City, Kansas. And they would be giving the 

same kind of applause because of your efforts on behalf of not only 

Georgia’s producers but Kansas’s producers or, for that matter, 

somebody out in California in the fruit and nut section of the 

world. In behalf of all America’s producers, he’s second to none. 

Now, I’ve got to tell you a little story about this fellow. We do 

serve together. We have the privilege of serving together on the Intelligence Committee. I happen to have the obligation or the responsibility and privilege to be the Chairman of the Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence, right in the middle of the war against 

terrorism. 

And I’ve got a point guard sitting to my left who has served on 

the Intelligence Committee in the House, hit the ground running, 

hit the ground running at a gallop when he hit the Senate. And 

I don’t know what I would do without Saxby’s common sense and 

his support as we try to keep America safe. 

We also serve together on the Armed Services Committee. And 

both Saxby and I know that healthcare, education, agriculture, all 

the things that affect our daily lives and pocketbooks are terribly 

important. But the first obligation that we have as Members of 

Congress is to do what we can to guarantee our national security 

and our individual freedoms. 

This man is a stalwart on the Armed Services Committee and 

the Intelligence Committee and on the Agriculture Committee. He 

may get a little sick of me. I won’t with him. But at any rate, in 

regards to those three committees that we serve on. Just the other 

day, he won a vote in the U.S. Senate—I think it was over 70 

votes—to have a 3–year purchase agreement to save taxpayers 

money for something called the F–22, which is our most modern 

fighter and brings us up to date with what the Russians have. 

5

Now, that’s tough, because some people want to buy it on an annual basis, 60 planes. But if you do it that way, you’re going to cost 

the taxpayer one heck of a lot more. And at the same time, we’re 

finally moving ahead in terms of the production of that airplane 

that we sort of need for our national defense. The author of that 

amendment, Saxby Chambliss. The vote, over 70 votes. It shows 

you the respect that the Senate has for your Senator. 

Second thing that he did that I didn’t know until I was riding 

on the plane when we came down and I was asking about the 

health of the peanut program and a little thing about paying the 

peanut producers for their storage and things of this nature. And 

I thought that that was not in the Bill. As a matter of fact, they 

fuss about it over in the House. And he just got it done. 

I didn’t know about that. That was below the radar. That was 

covert, man. And so here’s a guy who got an amendment in behalf 

of the peanut producer in Georgia and got an amendment on the 

Senate floor with over 70 votes. And so he is doing an amazing job 

in your behalf. 

Let me just say that we have a coalition of my legislative director, who is sitting to my left, and I will not embarrass him, and 

his wife, who is from Georgia, and their new baby. Is that baby 

half Kansas and half Georgia? I don’t know quite how that works 

out. But Mike is down here visiting his in-laws. And we’re just delighted with both of them. And I would say, being a Kansas wheat, 

corn, soybeans, livestock producers fellow, I have learned a whole 

different world from his wife in peanuts and rice and cotton and 

everything else. So we’re very happy about that, that combination 

and that partnership. 

There, I’ve gone on longer than the Chairman has by 2 minutes. 

And, you know, you’re not supposed to do that in Washington. So 

I’m eagerly awaiting your testimony. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be in Georgia. Thank you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, if you’re going to say good things about 

me: Pat’s right, we work very closely together on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. And I’m pleased to 

ride shotgun with him. And you talking about having a point guard 

on agriculture on any issue, there’s no better point guard for me 

to have than Pat Roberts. 

We’re in the Second Congressional District this morning. And the 

Congressman from the Second Congressional District has been a 

dear friend of mine for many years, since before I became an elected official. Sanford Bishop does a great job in representing the Second District of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives. He 

brings not only a common sense opinion of issues, but he works 

hard to make sure that the interests of the Second District are put 

before the U.S. House of Representatives in a very positive way. 

He is my great friend. And he and I served on the Agriculture 

Committee in the House under Pat for several years. And he now 

is an appropriator, which means that he’s the one that signs the 

checks that come out of Washington. So anytime you’re running 

low on funds, Sanford is the one that you need to talk to. 

But Sanford Bishop is a great American, a great member of the 

U.S. House of Representatives. I’m pleased to have you here. And 

6

I’m going to ask Sanford to come forward at this time and make 

some comments and introduce a very special guest. 

Representative BISHOP. Good morning. And thank you very 

much, Saxby and Pat. Thanks so much to you for bringing the Ag 

Committee to Albany, Georgia, to the Second Congressional District. And I certainly want to welcome all of the people who have 

come, and especially our witnesses, to this event. It’s so vitally important. Agriculture is so important. 

And I’m not going to take my time, because I want to introduce 

a special person, Niki Newberry, who is a University of Georgia agriculture intern. We have a joint program with the University of 

Georgia and our Congressional offices, along with the Georgia Agribusiness Council, to provide special agricultural training experiences for ag majors at the University. 

And we have Niki Newberry, and I want to yield my time to Niki 

at this point. Niki, would you come forth? And she will be speaking 

for me and for our office. 

Ms. NEWBERRY. Good morning. Like the Congressman said, I’m 

Niki Newberry, an agricultural intern from the University of Georgia’s College of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences. 

First, I would like to thank Senator Chambliss and the Senate 

Agriculture Committee for holding this field hearing in Albany, the 

heart of Georgia’s Second Congressional District. I would also like 

to thank all the witnesses who came to speak on behalf of American farmers and agribusiness owners. With help from people like 

you, the 2007 Farm Bill has the potential to improve upon the 2002 

Farm Bill. Also, thank you, Congressman Bishop, for the opportunity to speak about the importance of the Farm Bill for rural 

Georgia and the agrarian way of life. 

Agriculture has been the most important issue in my life. I grew 

up on a farm only about 50 miles from here, and I grew to love and 

appreciate this experience. My father is still a farmer in Wilcox 

County, and I’m honored he is in the audience here today. Because 

of my upbringing, I chose to major in agricultural communications. 

Agriculture is the most vital component of the Southwest Georgia 

economy. According to the Georgia Farm Gate Value Report, the 

total 2004 farm gate value for Georgia was over $10.2 billion. For 

Georgia’s Second Congressional District, it was over $90 million. 

One in six jobs in the state are in the agricultural sector. The 2007 

Farm Bill will have a dramatic effect on communities in rural 

Georgia. 

Although the state of Georgia remains a proven leader in the 

production of cotton, peanuts, poultry, and timber, farmers and agribusiness owners are facing economic hardships. Operating a farm 

requires scores of workers, and many producers support a reformed 

H2A guest worker program which, when it is properly administered, will help improve efficiency. The success of the seasonal fruit 

and vegetable harvest in the Second Congressional District would 

not be possible without those workers who participate in the H2A 

program. 

The rising cost of fuel and other input costs is one of our greatest 

concerns. Because of challenges like fuel costs, farm programs instituted by the Farm Bill are extremely important for the livelihood 

of farmers and agribusiness owners. The emergence of alternative 

7

fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel has created a potentially limitless market for agricultural products. In the future, our farmers 

will not only feed America but fuel her as well. The new Farm Bill 

should contain provisions and support for biofuel development. 

The farmers of south Georgia are resilient. They’re willing to 

change and adapt their farming practices to become more efficient 

and environmentally friendly. They use conservation tillage practices and variable rate irrigation systems to reduce the impact of 

farming on the land, made possible by the current Farm Bill. 

Agriculturalists are stewards of the land, stewards who want the 

land they cultivate and the natural resources on their land preserved. Please continue the strong conservation programs that are 

provided for in the current Farm Bill. 

The technology of farming is advancing. Researchers at land 

grant institutions like the University of Georgia have found ways 

to produce higher yields while lessening farming’s impact on the 

environment. It is crucial that funding for these research centers, 

like the National Peanut Laboratory and others, continue to further develop ways for America to stay competitive in the world 

market. 

Although the heart of the Farm Bill is the farmer, surrounding 

the farmer are the rural communities whose economies rely on success of their local farmers. Programs that support rural economic 

development are important to the lives of the people who live and 

work in these communities. Whether it’s broadband technology or 

local medical centers, we owe it to rural Americans to invest in the 

places they work and call home. 

It is our goal to secure a Farm Bill which will serve all aspects 

of agriculture, from livestock and poultry producers to row crop and 

vegetable farmers covering south Georgia to California and all in 

between. The next Farm Bill should ensure that the agrarian way 

of life that this country was founded upon is preserved. We must 

protect America’s farmers. They protect us by satisfying our most 

basic needs: food, clothing, shelter, and jobs. We must make sure 

to give them a Farm Bill that will enable them to compete on a 

level playing field in the global marketplace. 

Thank you for your time today and for holding this important 

hearing here in Albany. We all look forward to working with you 

to draft the best Farm Bill possible. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Niki, thank you very much for that fine 

presentation. I assure you your boss could not have said it that 

well. And he doesn’t look nearly as good as you do. So the audience 

particularly enjoyed that. 

Speaking of that, Niki being Sanford’s Georgia agricultural intern, I guess most of the House members now have a program like 

this. Let me just quickly tell you what we do. We started this program modeled after a program that Thad Cochran has. And we 

work with the University of Georgia and the Georgia Agribusiness 

Council to bring an intern from the University of Georgia College 

of Agricultural Sciences to Washington every summer and to stay 

with us the whole summer. 

And the idea is that we want to let folks, young folks, who want 

to be involved in agriculture figure out what goes on in Washington 

and how Washington works and bring that knowledge back to 

8

Georgia, because if they’re involved in agriculture, they need to 

know how agricultural policy is set. And by the same token, we try 

to create a pool of young people that we can hopefully bring to 

Washington and get them to work on our staffs up there and bring 

the knowledge of southeastern crops to the Ag Committee or to our 

personal offices, whatever it may be. 

The very first person that I had as my ag intern from the University of Georgia was a young lady named Christy Crumley. 

Christy is from Brooklet, Georgia. She is the daughter of Chap and 

Barbara Crumley. And Christy worked for me that first summer, 

and she came back and graduated. And just so happened that my 

ag LA, who now directs my Senate Ag Committee, left me to go 

make money somewhere else. And we immediately brought Christy 

back to Washington. And now Christy is on my Ag Committee 

staff. And she is the one that put together this hearing this morning. Christy, stand up so everybody can see you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I am very proud of Christy. If you don’t like 

your crop insurance program, you can blame Christy, because during the writing of that reform package, Christy headed up my shop 

that helped write that. 

Now, the end of this story is that I was told by Barbara, when 

Christy came back to Washington to work for me, she said, ‘‘It’s 

OK, Saxby, for Christy to come back and work with you, because 

we want her involved in agriculture. But,’’ she said, ‘‘don’t let her 

marry somebody from outside of Georgia that she meets in Washington.’’

Well, lo and behold, a year or so later, I hear she’s dating this 

guy. And I happen to know this guy she’s dating because he works 

for my good friend Pat Roberts. Well, lo and behold, another six or 

8 months later, I hear that they’re getting married. And I said, 

‘‘Oh, my God. I’m in trouble with Chap and Martha.’’

But Mike Seyfert, who is also here this morning—stand up, 

Mike. We’re going to introduce the whole crowd. Mike has worked 

for Pat for a long time and is in charge of his ag policy on his staff 

and is a terrific young man. And I got to see this morning the little 

Seyfert. They have a brand new daughter. And grandmama 

couldn’t be here. I don’t know whether Chap is here or not. But 

grandmama is baby-sitting this morning, and she’s having a ball. 

She said she was really going to miss hearing a bunch of farmers 

talk this morning but she would rather opt to go be with that little 

granddaughter. 

But this is a great example of what happens with this program 

that Sanford and I both have, Jack Kingston has, I know. And it’s 

a great program. And we appreciate the participation of the University of Georgia and the Agribusiness Council with us. 

Now, we’re going to get down to what everybody’s here for. We’ve 

got three panels this morning, and we’re going to ask these presenters this morning to take about 3 minutes each to make a presentation relative to their particular expertise. And then Pat and I 

will be asking questions to the panel. 

First panel this morning consists of Mr. Mark Detweiler from 

Rome, Georgia, who represents the American Soybean Association. 

We have Mr. Chuck Coley, whose son Matt was also one of my ag 

interns from the University of Georgia and who we also brought 

9

back to Washington. And Matt is with us this morning. Matt is 

now a member of my Ag Committee staff, and I’m very proud of 

that. Chuck is from Vienna, Georgia, represents the National Cotton Council. Mr. Ray Cobb is from Davisboro, Georgia, and he represents the Georgia Corn Growers Association. And my longtime 

good friend, Armond Morris, from Ocilla, represents the Southern 

Peanut Farmers Federation. 

Gentlemen, thank you all for being here. Mark, we’re going to 

start with you, and we’ll just go right down the line. And if you 

all will make your presentation into the microphone where everybody can hear, we look forward to hearing your comments. 

STATEMENT OF MARK DETWEILER PRESIDENT, GEORGIA/

FLORIDA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DETWEILER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee. I am Mark Detweiler. I am a farmer, diversified 

farmer, from Rome, Georgia, growing corn, soybeans, small grains, 

and livestock cattle. I appreciate very much the opportunity to 

speak to you today. I am president of the Georgia/Florida Soybean 

Growers Association and serve on the Board of Directors of the 

American Soybean Association. 

Mr. Chairman, soybean producers in the Southeast, as well as 

other regions of the country, support the safety net we now have 

under the 2002 Farm Bill. Most soybean farmers would also support extending the current farm programs when Congress considers 

new farm legislation next year. Unfortunately, current budget 

baseline for farm program spending declines over the next 10 years 

and will probably not accommodate expected outlays based on current support levels. We would need additional funding as was done 

in 2001 for the 1902 Farm Bill. Given the outlook for the Federal 

deficit, in coming years we will be fortunate to keep the level of 

spending that we currently have now. After facing budget cuts in 

the agriculture budget last year, we can expect Congress to consider further reductions in spending after the election occurs this 

fall. 

A second reason we need to look at alternatives to the current 

farm program is the potential additional WTO challenges of current farm programs. We are familiar with the results of Brazil’s 

case against cotton. In order to avoid sanctions, the U.S. will need 

to change the direct payment program to eliminate planting restrictions on fruits and vegetable crops. But, also, the marketing loan 

and counter-cyclical programs were found to cause serious prejudice and could be subject to other cases for other crops, including 

soybeans. 

We’re also watching the WTO negotiation agreement, which entered in with the Administration last October, when the Administration has made an offer for 60 percent reduction in outlays permitted under the most production and trade-distorting programs, 

including the marketing loan and dairy and sugar price support 

programs. ASA and other farm organizations are insisting that importing countries make equally aggressive reductions in their tariffs, including on soybean and livestock products. If an agreement 

10

is reached and approved by Congress next year, we will need to 

make major changes in current farm programs. 

Given these uncertainties, ASA’s policy on the 2007 Farm Bill is 

that there will be no further cuts in CCC budget baseline for agriculture spending, that farm programs not distort planting decisions 

between crops, and future programs be WTO compliant to avoid 

challenges like the cotton case. To explore the alternatives, ASA organized a Farm Bill Task Force last year, which has been working 

with other farm organizations to look at the so-called green box 

that would be considered non-trade distorting under the WTO. 

The results of this analysis indicate a variety of options that 

would guarantee 70 percent of historical income and still be WTO 

compliant. These options include basing the current guarantee on 

whole farm versus specific commodity income, looking at either 

using a net or a gross income, and guaranteeing income for only 

program commodities, for program crops plus horticultural crops, 

or for all crops and livestock. The cost of these options varies considerably, from 3.3 billion per year to guarantee 70 percent gross 

income on whole farm basis for only program crops to over 10 billion per year to guarantee 70 percent net income for specific commodities of all crops and livestock. 

Neither ASA nor any other farm organization involved in this 

Task Force has endorsed a revenue guarantee concept at this time. 

Instead we are now working with other groups to see how a revenue guarantee could be combined with one or several other farm 

programs to create a more effective safety net for producers. These 

include crop insurance, permanent disaster assistance, the three 

main components of the current Farm Bill, which is the marketing 

loan, counter-cyclical payments, and direct payments. We are working to have recommendations to put forward to the Committee 

sometime this Fall. 

We’re also very supportive of the conservation, energy, research, 

and trade titles in the 2002 Farm Bill. We’re particularly interested in looking at programs that would support soybeans as a biodiesel alternative, renewable energy source, and to promote biodiesel production in the United States. The CCC has operated a 

bioenergy program since 2001. It is providing payments to biodiesel 

producers who utilize feedstocks that are domestically produced, 

such as soybean oil. This program has facilitated expansion of domestic biodiesel production, but the program sunsets after 2006. 

Therefore, we are asking Congress to extend that provision. 

Also, the CCC program is justified because imports already have 

subsidized biodiesel programs coming in that will undermine the 

U.S. industry since they’re eligible for a tax incentive, too, also in 

our current law. Higher premiums should be placed on domestic 

biodiesel production and expansion. The prospective cost of a biodiesel program could be offset by reduced CCC outlays under the 

soybean marketing loan and counter-cyclical programs. 

With regard to conservation and research, we are concerned by 

recent actions that have depleted funding for these programs in 

order to pay for disaster assistance and to cover budget reduction 

commitments. ASA supports increased funding for conservation 

payments to producers on working lands such as through the Conservation Security Program. We also believe that a significant 

11

number of acres currently locked up in the Conservation Reserve 

Program could be farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner given the enormous increase in no-till farming practices that 

have been implemented over the past 10 to 15 years. Finally, we 

strongly support maintaining funding for promotion activities 

under the foreign market development and market access programs 

and for international food aid. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much. Chuck? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Detweiler can be found on page 

75 in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK COLEY OF VIENNA, GEORGIA 

Mr. COLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, welcome to Georgia. And thank you for holding this hearing and providing me an opportunity to present testimony on current and future farm policy. 

My name is Chuck Coley. I’m a third-generation cotton and peanut farmer from Vienna, Georgia, and I currently serve as vice 

chairman of the American Cotton Producers. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for your positive efforts to develop and maintain sound agricultural policy, which is so important to this area and to this nation. 

Georgia is the third largest cotton producing state. The principle 

reasons for the resurgence in cotton production in Georgia are the 

eradication of the boll weevil and an effective and stable farm program. Cotton farmers are deeply concerned with the loss of our 

manufacturing customer base and have committed to continue to 

work with them. The manufacturers have indicated strong interest 

in making revisions to our Step 3 import policy and in developing 

a possible WTO compliant replacement for Step 2. 

While the cotton fiber is our principal product, we also continue 

to seek ways to enhance the value of cottonseed and its products, 

which account for 12 percent of the value of the crop at the farm 

gate. As ethanol production increases, one of the byproducts—dried 

distillers’ grain—has depressed the value of cottonseed. 

We believe the current farm law has and continues to provide a 

stable and effective national farm policy for our country. The combination of direct and counter-cyclical payments provide an effective means of income support, especially when prices are low, without distorting planting decisions. The direct payment provides financial stability required by our lenders and suppliers. 

I would caution that those who promote replacement of the 

counter-cyclical payment with higher direct payments risk taking 

the land out of the producers’ hand, so it is important to continue 

to maintain a balance. It is also important to recognize the difference in regional impacts that can occur due to program changes. 

In the Southeast, payment yields for direct payments are lower 

than other regions, so a rebalancing toward direct payments would 

be a competitive disadvantage for the Southeast. 

We strongly support continuation of the marketing loan. The 

marketing loan responds to low prices; it does not cause low prices. 

It ensures that U.S. cotton farmers are not residual suppliers in 

world markets because they are unable to compete with the treasuries of foreign governments. 

12

It is also critical that all production remain eligible for the marketing loan. Sound farm policy is of little value to the cotton industry if we have arbitrary, unworkable limitations placed on our benefits. We believe limitations should be eliminated and, at the very 

least, limitations in future law should not be more restrictive or 

disruptive than current law. 

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, most cotton farmers and a majority of 

the industry would be satisfied with an extension of the current 

farm law. We are increasingly concerned that the Doha negotiations are turning against U.S. agriculture in general and against 

U.S. cotton in particular. They want more U.S. concessions while 

refusing to provide adequate market access. Worse, China, the 

largest cotton market in the world, wants to be exempt from any 

further market access commitments. If other countries cannot 

match the U.S. level of ambition for market access, we should either withdraw or reduce our offer on domestic support. I also want 

to emphasize that an agreement that singles out U.S. cotton for additional inequitable treatment will not be accepted by U.S. cotton 

producers. 

Finally, we are deeply disturbed by claims that 80 percent of all 

program benefits go to fewer than 20 percent of the producers and 

that only the so-called program crops receive direct benefits from 

farm law. Virtually every commodity receives some type of support, 

whether through direct income payments, price support programs, 

or barriers to import. Favorable tax laws are used to provide support for certain products, but the benefits are not directly attributed to the individual farmers. Today’s payments are an important 

safety net and not a windfall of profit. 

I am pleased to assure you and your colleagues that the cotton 

industry is prepared to continue to work with all interests to develop and support continuation of a balanced and effective policy 

for all of U.S. agriculture. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Chuck. Ray? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coley can be found on page 69 

in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS R. COBB, PRESIDENT, GEORGIA 

CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. COBB. Good morning, Chairman Chambliss and other members of the Committee. It’s an honor to be here before you as president of the Georgia Corn Growers Association. We appreciate your 

efforts to gather input to help with the development of the new 

Farm Bill. I do not envy the monumental task that you have before 

you, and I pray that God will give you wisdom to do so. 

Agriculture has always been and will be the backbone of a strong 

United States economy. With the recent terroristic activities both 

here and abroad, I do not believe it is possible to overemphasize 

the need to keep a strong domestic supply of food and fiber. This 

is a must for the health and well-being of our nation. 

Southern farmers need a bill that favors diversification. Crop diversity is important for the economy of our rural communities. Diversity helps us control pests and keep our yields up. Corn fits well 

in this rotation. In general, the 1902 Farm Bill has worked well, 

13

and I believe we can use our current bill as a foundation to develop 

an even better Farm Bill. 

First, farmers need some kind of safety net at a level that will 

allow them to survive. Depressed commodity prices, tremendous increases in input costs, unfair competition from world markets, and 

natural disasters, such as droughts, floods, insects, create severe financial problems for farm operations whose profit margins are very 

small even in good years. A combination of good crop insurance 

programs, counter-cyclical payments, and loan deficiency payments 

could be worked in combination to create a safety net. Crop insurance should be amended so that disaster years do not erode the 

farmers’ protection levels. 

Payment limitations should not penalize farmers. With the necessities of economics of scale, we have had to get larger and larger 

just to stay in business. Therefore, with smaller profits per acre, 

it is taking more and more acres just to survive. 

Conservation is important to everyone, especially farmers. The 

farmers who have survived in agriculture know the best conservation practices for their operation and are using these practices. We 

should continue to receive credits for our efforts and leeway in the 

conservation practices that we implement. 

There has been a tremendous effort in the development of 

biofuels. We have led the way with corn/ethanol production. And 

there is a concern that an orchestrated drop in world oil prices 

could undermine these endeavors. This would disrupt not only the 

corn and ethanol production efforts but the development of other 

biofuels as well. We need protection as we build the technology and 

infrastructure to become independent of other countries’ energy 

sources. 

It is imperative that we continue to provide funding for agricultural research, extension, and educational endeavors. Without the 

contributions from these important people, United States agriculture would be years behind where we are now and many of us 

would be out of business. Thank you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Ray. Armond? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cobb can be found on page 67 

in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF ARMOND MORRIS CHAIRMAN, GEORGIA PEANUT COMMISSION SOUTHERN PEANUT FARMERS FEDERATION 

Mr. MORRIS. Good morning, Chairman Chambliss and Senator 

Roberts. It’s great to have you in the state of Georgia here with us 

today. Thank you all for having this hearing here in Albany. 

I’m Armond Morris. I’m a peanut producer from Irwin County, 

Georgia. I am chairman of the Georgia Peanut Commission. I am 

here today representing the Southern Peanut Farmers Federation. 

The Federation is comprised of Alabama Peanut Producers, Georgia Peanut Commission, Florida Peanut Producers Association, and 

also, within the last month, the Mississippi Peanut Growers has 

voted to join the Federation. So we’re excited to be here representing three-fourths of the nations peanuts. So I’m here to testify for them this morning. 

14

First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the Senate Agriculture Committee to South Georgia, for the Committee’s 

leadership in moving the U.S. peanut program from a supply management program to a more market-oriented program. 

The new peanut program has encouraged peanut product manufacturers to develop new products and spend more money on marketing these products. And the domestic demand has increased like 

25 to 30 percent since the new program has been implemented. The 

2005 peanut crop was valued at $370 million, pushing about 50,000 

jobs into Georgia’s economy. 

The Southern Peanut Farmers Federation has met with other 

segments of the industry, including buying points, shellers, manufacturers, and each having indicated they are pleased with the 

2002 Farm Bill. While Congress has passed a very respectable peanut program in 2002, the administration of the peanut program by 

the Department of Agriculture has not been as successful. While 

the domestic marketplace has seen a healthy increase in demand 

from consumers and production growth for producers, this has not 

been the case for the peanut export market. 

The USDA continues to set the loan repayment rate for peanuts 

too high. Despite language to the contrary in the 2002 Farm Bill, 

the Department has relied far too much on data unrelated to the 

price other export nations are marketing peanuts for in the world. 

We are encouraged by a recent meeting in Washington with the 

USDA Farm Service Agency economists. At this meeting, the peanut producers offered options for achieving a more accurate posted 

price. I have included these detailed options in my written statement. The Southern Peanut Farmers Federation will continue to 

work with our industry partners to develop more specific suggestions for the next Farm Bill and refer that to your Committee. 

When the 2002 Farm Bill was drafted, peanut producers did not 

envision record high energy prices that impacted our major crop inputs, including fuel, fertilizer, and chemicals. The 2006 peanut crop 

will feel the impact of these increases. In Georgia we anticipate a 

30 percent reduction in peanut planting for the 2006 crop year. 

High energy costs and weak contract offers are the primary variables for the less acreage. Weak contract offers are a direct result 

of the loan repayment rate being set too high. With a declining export market, peanuts are not moving out of the loan quickly 

enough, resulting in a buyers’ market. 

As the Committee is aware, the storage and handling fees provided in the 2002 Farm Bill, they are to be eliminated for the 2007 

crop. Producers consider this an integral part of the peanut program. Without these fees, the marketing loan will be produced for 

the producers in excess of probably $50 per ton. With a projected 

30 percent reduction in Georgia production in 2006, peanut planting could fall below pre-2002 levels in the 2007 crop year if these 

fees are not restored. The $355 per ton marketing loan rate in the 

2002 Farm Bill would then be reduced to approximately $300 per 

ton. 

Producers in the Southeast will not plant peanuts at these levels. 

If the storage and handling fees are eliminated in the next Farm 

Bill, the Federation requests that the Committee consider options 

15

for replacing these fees through an increase in marketing loan rate 

or other options. 

And, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the Committee is concerned 

about the Doha Round negotiations to the Administration, conveying that message, and Congress should set the ag policy and not 

our trade negotiators. And I’m grateful for the opportunity to be 

here today representing the Southeastern peanut farmer/growers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris can be found on page 111 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, thanks to each one of you for those 

presentations. I’ve got a series of five questions that I’m going to 

ask at every field hearing we have this year. And I’d like to address it to all four of you and have you respond to it. 

As we approach the 2007 Farm Bill, the budget situation is much 

different than when we wrote the 2002 Farm Bill. If the World 

Trade Organization agriculture negotiations are successful, the 

commodity title will require changes in order to comply with the 

new commitments. How would you prioritize the programs of the 

Farm Bill generally and the commodity title specifically? How 

would you write the relative importance of the direct payment program, the marketing loan program, and the counter-cyclical payment program? Mark? 

Mr. DETWEILER. That’s a loaded question. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Intended to be. 

Mr. DETWEILER. In my opinion, we’re going to have to look more 

toward an insurance-based formula to sustain our safety nets 

versus the counter-cyclical direct and marketing loan payment programs we now have currently in place. That may or may not cause 

more financial outlay to Congress, depending on the year, depending on the insurance payment programs that would be used or utilized, considering whether it be net farm income based or gross 

farm income based or crops-specific based. There’s many options in 

that insurance scheme that we’re currently looking at. But I personally believe we’re going to have to look closer toward an insurance program to solve or to ensure our safety net than our current 

programs that we have now in place. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Chuck? 

Mr. COLEY. I think the marketing loan program is vitally important to the crop industry. I think it’s one of the most forward-thinking laws that have came back to help us market our crops when 

they’re low. I think the safety net of the counter-cyclical is very important. And like I said in my statement, the balancing of direct 

and counter-cyclical is vitally important to the whole cotton industry. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ray? 

Mr. COBB. Like Mark says, that’s a loaded question. But I think 

what we have is working, has worked well. And as Chuck said, you 

know, I think the counter-cyclical payments are most important. 

And I also agree with Mark, insurance. I don’t know the answer. 

I know that’s what you’re looking for. But it’s very important that 

we do something for the American farmer and keep the American 

farmer, the true American farmer, in business. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Thank you. 

16

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, we in peanuts, we’ve tried to conform like other commodities. Back in 1996, I believe, you reminded 

us of the fact that you couldn’t get us another Farm Bill similar 

to what we had with the quota system. So we’ve tried to transition 

to conform to the other commodities and to make our program 

work and work well. And you’ve done a great job of orchestrating 

that and helping us to do that. 

I think the marketing loan is very important to us in peanuts 

and, of course, the counter-cyclical, also. I realize that the legislation that you all brought forward in setting up our Farm Bill, last 

Farm Bill, that USDA has faltered in some of the ways. I feel that 

had they set the prices right, we’d have been able to move our peanuts forward. 

But to answer your question, basically, the program has worked 

well and we would like to see it continue to work in that effort. 

And, of course, we want to make it better in any way that we can. 

But another thing that concerns me, when we look at other countries around the world and look at what their food cost is related 

back to their income, I think in America we’re like 9.4, 9.5, somewhere around 9–1/2 spendable income of the American people for 

food. And in France, I believe it’s like 18, 18–1/2. If the American 

consumer was paying 18–1/2 percent of their income for food, I 

don’t think we’d have a problem with what the farmer receives for 

his commodity. We wouldn’t be facing the chaos and the low prices 

and the problems that we have. We’d probably be able to pay for 

our fuel, even though it’s high. 

Maybe I’m wrong. But I’m a consumer. I want us to get the best 

quality food that we can on the American consumers’ table at the 

cheapest possible price. So that’s very important. And you gentlemen, in writing a new Farm Bill, I know that that’s you all’s goal. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Second, we can expect an effort to further 

reduce payment limits in the next Farm Bill. In fact, in its recently 

released Risk Management Farm Bill Theme Paper, USDA suggests that an alternative to the current farm program could be to 

better target farm programs to producers in greatest need of assistance, that is, target payments toward smaller and mid-sized farms. 

Do you believe this would be a good idea, or do you believe that 

farm programs should support those with a greater risk to a greater degree? Do payment limits need to be modified in the next Farm 

Bill? Mark? 

Mr. DETWEILER. I’m going to get in trouble no matter what I say 

on this one. I believe the greatest risk factor on the larger farmer 

needs to be the one insured. Generally, looking from a smaller 

farm—and I would be considered a smaller farmer—you’re going to 

look at assistance from off-farm income, supporting your income 

farm—family, live-farm income, from off-source farm income, a net. 

And I believe it would be better targeted toward the larger and 

more risk-factored farmer. 

Mr. COLEY. I definitely don’t believe we need any more payment 

limitations. We were talking about the marketing loan. We need to 

have all our crop eligible for marketing loan in order for it to work 

properly. We also have to remember the definition of small and medium-sized farms. Years ago, when I was a little boy, if you had 

250 acres, it was a large farm. Now, with the consolidation of farms 

17

and the expense it takes to run a farm and the amount of investment, you have to have a lot larger farming operations than you 

did in the past. And they’re the ones out there taking the risk. 

And, you know, we got into people hollering about 20 percent of the 

people getting 80 percent of the payments. Well, those 20 percent 

of the people are producing over 80 percent of the crops. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ray? 

Mr. COBB. Chairman Chambliss, I don’t think we need to cut 

payments to farmers. As Chuck said, you know, we’ve been forced 

to produce more and more. And the inputs that we’re putting into 

farming, it’s tremendous. And the income, we’re getting 1950 

prices. So I think the country’s got to make a decision: You want 

to cut the backbone of the nation, or you want to look at some 

other things? 

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t feel like we need to reduce 

the payment. The limitation probably even needs to be raised because the size of the farms have increased. And why should we penalize someone that wants to expand to stay in business? 

And if you are a true family farmer now, it’s hard for you to exist 

on 300 acres or less land. You have to have larger farms. For instance, fuel prices, look how it has increased in the last 24 months, 

fertilizer prices. So all these prices has increased, too. So you’ve 

had to increase your farming operation. So I think it’s important 

that we look at that. 

And, second, we want to be sure that we’ve got the best quality 

food in the nation. We want to be sure that we have an adequate 

supply. So all these things play an integral part of the farming operation. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. As we speak, there are conversations going 

on in Geneva relative to the Doha Round. And agriculture has finally achieved the profile that folks like Pat and I have long believed it should, and that is that we’re not going to have an agreement coming out of Doha without a strong agricultural agreement 

that’s going to be beneficial not just for American farmers but it 

should be beneficial for other folks around the world. But, frankly, 

I’m a lot more concerned about a farmer in Paris, Texas, than I am 

one in Paris, France. So, naturally, we are determined to make 

sure that the American farmer comes out in the best shape possible. 

We also have a trade negotiator in Susan Schwab who understands the importance of agriculture to America. And she understands that we’re not going to unilaterally disarm. If we’re going 

to get any trade agreement through the U.S. Congress, it’s going 

to have to be fair and equitable, it’s going to have to be balanced, 

it’s going to have to provide our farmers with true market access, 

real market access, if we’re going to have a reduction in domestic 

support. 

With that being said, the Doha Round of negotiations seeks to 

provide additional market access for U.S. agricultural goods in exchange for reductions in trade-distorting domestic support programs. How dependent are your farm operations on exports? And 

to what extent do you believe your future profitability will depend 

on exports rather than domestic markets? Armond, let’s start with 

you this time. 

18

Mr. MORRIS. Well, I think that, Mr. Chairman, definitely exports 

are very important. I know it’s very important to the peanut industry. And we was hoping the new Farm Bill would address that, and 

it did. You and legislation addressed it, but then USDA has not implemented it right. 

And we’re spending probably a million and a half dollars, or the 

USDA is spending a million and a half dollars, for peanuts to develop the export market. Our exports has went down 300,000 tons 

since the 2002 Farm Bill. Had we set our prices right, we would 

have been able to retain that 300,000 ton market, probably 

wouldn’t have a surplus today of peanuts in the warehouse. 

But I think it’s very important. I think it’s very important. And 

as we’ve moved into the new era that you all have helped to write 

legislation for, it’s been directed toward the export markets. And I 

think that we need to be able to fit into those markets. But I think 

that we’re an industrialized nation, and I think that it’s going to 

take involvement from you all and through USDA to help the farmer to be able to fit into that market and for us to keep the cheap 

food here on the American table, too. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ray? 

Mr. COBB. I think exports are very important. I don’t know to 

what percent. But farmers need to have—our competition, they’re 

able to use a lot of things we’re not able to at cheaper cost. So the 

exports, again, are very important. And I don’t know how—I’d like 

to get back to you on that in writing, maybe. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. That would be fine. Chuck? 

Mr. COLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know it’s vitally important 

to the cotton industry for exports. Three out of four bales now are 

exported. Of course, there’s the demise of our domestic industry, 

which has hurt the cotton industry as a whole, where just a few 

years ago was spinning 11 million bales, is only spinning a little 

over 5 million bales now. We’re exporting some 16 million bales. As 

I mentioned in my oral statement, the access to China is vitally important for the cotton industry, and China trying to go behind the 

scenes and limit cotton’s access to their market would not fare well 

for the cotton industry. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mark? 

Mr. DETWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I would say that exports are extremely important to us in soybeans. In the Southwest, we are a 

protein-deficit area, which means we consume the majority of our 

soybeans here domestically for our broiler production and livestock 

production facilities. But if you look toward the Midwest, Illinois, 

Iowa, Missouri, they are totally dependent on export beans out of 

the country, through the Mississippi. And that would directly affect 

us and our market price for soybeans if that export market dries 

up. It’s also critically important for us, in balance of trade, increasing export market availability for us in all products. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. In its recently released Risk Management 

Farm Bill Theme Paper, USDA suggests replacing marketing assistant loans and counter-cyclical payments with a program that 

pays producers based on revenue shortfalls as an alternative to the 

current farm program. What do you think about a revenue-based 

approach to a safety net as a replacement for the current commodity programs? Armond? 

19

Mr. MORRIS. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we would have to, I reckon, review that and look at it. But it could work. But we do have 

to have the revenues that would repay the loans that we have with 

the banks and also support any expansions and new development 

and support the farmer himself. 

So I couldn’t answer that question until, I reckon, we studied it 

a little bit more. I know the program we’ve got now is working. 

With all the increase in cost of production, it would be hard for the 

farmer to take any decrease in his commodity prices. And I do like 

to see the commodity prices be high enough that the farmer be paid 

on what he produces, production. And that’s a good incentive, if 

he’s getting a good price for his commodity. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ray? 

Mr. COBB. Well, we don’t need to increase the payments again. 

And you sure do ask some good questions. Like Armond, I’d have 

to do some studying on that. I think it would work, but it doesn’t 

need to be decreased, as far as what we’re getting. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Chuck? 

Mr. COLEY. I think, you know, there could be a possibility for the 

revenue-based. I think, as the others agree, I think what we have 

is working well. I think when you look into a revenue-based program, I think each section of the country has to be considered. The 

Southeast has some crops that require pretty intensive management, plus high capital outlay, such as cotton and peanuts. And 

they would have to be designed in an equitable manner so certain 

regions would not be behind other regions in the country. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mark, you addressed this in your opening 

statement, but you might want to expand on it a little bit. 

Mr. DETWEILER. I will try to, Mr. Chairman. We have had an 

analysis done on revenue options and future farm program design 

by two companies, Risk Management and DTB Associates. And I’ve 

not had time to thoroughly go through the 64–page report since the 

other night. 

But it is a possibility. Of course, WTO is linking us not to yield 

but to income to be compliant. In that case, an insurance program 

is going to be based on your expected loss, financial loss, not in a 

yield-per-acre gain or loss in bushels or pounds. It is possible. 

There’s several different scenarios, as I said, to look at. There’s 

many options through that, through gross farm income, through 

crops-specific income. And these two are—the gross farm income 

level, using that, using a farm basis as taking all the products you 

have—and, you know, I have a diversified farm—but taking all 

those products and having a gross income level. And basing it off 

that loss, you would have to get to over a 30 percent loss before 

it would be triggered for an insurance payment and up to 70 percent. 

And the situation that I think would be hard for us to swallow 

in the agricultural industry is that we’ve been used to direct payments. Going to an insurance-revenue option would eliminate most 

of those payments. That would be a hard thing for us to comprehend. A larger operation, the more dependent we are on these 

direct payment programs. I think that would be a way we’re going 

to have to rethink, refinance, the way we do farming operations if 

we go with that option. 

20

Senator CHAMBLISS. Last, should an increase in conservation or 

bioenergy resources come at the expense of commodity programs? 

Can you envision conservation or bioenergy incentive programs 

providing an adequate safety net for production agriculture? 

Armond? 

Mr. MORRIS. I don’t think it should come at the expense of the 

commodity programs, because the commodity programs relate right 

back directly to the producer himself. So, you know, I’d rather it 

come from other revenues. But I think it would be good. I think 

we need to study. And I think that we need to develop other methods of using our commodities. I think it’s very important, yes, sir, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ray? 

Mr. COBB. Would you repeat that question again, please? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Should an increase in conservation or bioenergy resources come at the expense of the commodity program? 

Chairman Roberts says no, and I agree. 

Mr. COBB. No. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Can you envision conservation or bioenergy 

incentive programs providing an adequate safety net for production 

agriculture? 

Mr. COBB. I agree, no, it shouldn’t come at the expense. You 

know, you mentioned it in your statement to start with: Who’s 

going to be farming, the next generation? In all this, we’ve got to 

promote agriculture. And there’s very few young farmers in my 

community. So again, we don’t need to—stick with the 1902 program, better it, and don’t decrease, but still promote the biofuels. 

And I think this is a place we can—you know, maybe 1 day a farmer can produce his own fuel and promote things like that, rather 

than decrease. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. 

Mr. COLEY. The answer to the question would be no. I think the 

conservation program is an important component of an effective 

farm policy. I don’t think it could replace what we have now. I 

think it could—should be continued like that on a voluntary costshare basis like we do now. 

I farm. I’m in the CSP and EQIP programs, familiar with those. 

And they are a complement to the commodity programs, I think. 

As far as bioenergy, I don’t think any bioenergy money should 

come from the commodity programs, specifically. I think they 

should add to the commodity programs from the energy department 

area. 

Mr. DETWEILER. My personal opinion is no. The situation with 

the bioenergy, I believe we should look at the situation with our 

dependency on foreign oil, foreign energy. We have got to start 

looking at how we can fund ourselves in energy in this nation without being dependent on foreign suppliers. Ethanol/biodiesel are a 

component that would be an aid. It would not be a solution to the 

whole energy crisis, but it would be a solution to a partial fulfillment of that. It would help the farmer in the long run of moving 

excess product. Also, it would be utilized or the money would be 

turned around in the United States instead of given to foreign 

countries. This situation would also be a renewable resource versus 

a finite resource. And these are, I believe, alternatives that we 

21

need to look at of renewable bioenergy resources to be utilized by 

our country. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I have been 

a chairman before, it took us about 18 months to write a Farm Bill. 

It was vetoed twice by President Clinton. And then we finally got 

it done, whereupon President Clinton personally congratulated me 

for helping to pass our Farm Bill. Asked if I wanted my picture 

taken with him. And I said I sure would and had a picture taken. 

I was sort of overawed there in the Presidential Oval Office. And 

I walked out there, and I said, ‘‘Wait a minute. He’s the one that 

vetoed that bill twice.’’

But what this man to my right has to put up with is what I call 

the Dutch uncle people or the green eyeshade gang or the people 

from the Office of Management & Budget or the people from the 

Congressional Budget Office or people who don’t know anything 

about farm programs and, quite frankly, think their food comes 

from grocery stores. 

I am reminded of my great conversation with Congressman Gus 

Savage, who came from Chicago. As usual in Chicago, Mr. Savage 

served several terms and then had some problems and then left. 

So I went up to Gus, and I was trying to appeal to the other side 

of the aisle. I was trying to get as many votes for the Farm Bill 

as I possibly could, because it was tough. We were trying to fit it 

under budget. The forty-year farm bills of the past were not fitting 

into the budget, wouldn’t work. So we settled for the 1996 rubric 

of the Farm Bill at that particular time. 

And I asked Gus, I said, ‘‘Can you help me on the Farm Bill? We 

need your vote. Everybody in Chicago, more especially those who 

are very disadvantaged, are only spending 10 cents’’—now it’s 9 

cents—‘‘out of their disposable income dollar for the market-basket 

food. You know, could you help us? Because, you know, the Farm 

Bill really does that.’’

And he says, ‘‘Now, what are you talking about?’’

And I said, ‘‘The Farm Bill.’’

He said, ‘‘Hell, just pay it.’’ I marked him down as undecided. 

So I may give you sort of Dutch uncle kind of questions here. 

And some of them are going to be repetitive of what the Chairman 

has asked. But they’re on his behalf, because he’s got to answer to 

these folks. It’s easy for all the rest of us on the Committee. I’m 

his wing man, so I’m a little more, I guess, serious or responsible. 

But at any rate, here’s what you get. So this is not in order. 

But Mr. Cobb, Ray, you’re prepared comments discuss the need 

for a strong combination of crop insurance and the counter-cyclical 

payments and the LDP’s. And you also discussed the need to modify crop insurance so that your disaster years don’t count against 

your APH. Everything has to be an acronym in Washington. That’s 

your average production history. And I have a two-part question. 

First, we put in place a plug for crop insurance that can be used 

for years of significant crop loss. We did that, we meaning Bob 

Kerry and myself, a former senator from Nebraska. Other than the 

increase in the premium subsidies in the 2000 crop insurance bill, 

the plug was the most costly provision of this bill. It cost money. 

So during these times of budget deficits, the budget people are sitVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 Mar 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30131.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
22

ting over the shoulder of Saxby saying, ‘‘If you’re going to increase 

this one, you’ve got to decrease that one within the parameters of 

your bill.’’ So do you have any recommendation for modification or 

reductions to other programs that could be used to pay for this 

change? 

Mr. COBB. Another loaded question. No, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. OK. That’s not a bad thing. That’s, you know, 

for us to deal with. You know, that’s reality. You know, that’s what 

we’re facing. 

We also know that our counter-cyclical program is faced with 

some challenges from a WTO perspective. The Chairman’s already 

gone over that, you’ve already gone over that. Do you have any recommendations on ways that we might develop a counter-cyclical 

program that might be better withstanding the challenges through 

the WTO? 

Now, this Chairman has just met with Pasqual Lamy. I guess 

that’s how you pronounce that. I’ve met with him on several occasions. And he’s right, we want market access, we want an end to 

the state trading enterprises, we want a two-way street. We’ve already lost Step 2. We’ve lost export credit programs. They’re after 

our food aid programs. They’re after the Dole-McGovern school 

lunch program, which is one of the biggest tools we have to fight 

terrorism. I’m not very happy about that. 

Is there anything that you have thought about that we might be 

able to develop a counter-cyclical program that might better withstand these challenges? You know, we’re into green and amber and 

I guess it’s red. What’s the other one, red? Blue. We want to be in 

green, by the way, in the green box. 

Mr. COBB. No, sir, not right here, right now. I’d have to think 

on it some more. 

Senator ROBERTS. Put your mind to it. Chuck? 

Mr. COLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. American Cotton Producers, President of Coley 

Gin & Fertilizer, did you know that Kansas is one of the fastest 

growing cotton producing states in the United States? You probably 

didn’t. 

Mr. COLEY. Yes, I did. 

Senator ROBERTS. You do? 

Mr. COLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. Good. Briefed by my staff, huh? Cotton is one 

of the largest crops in production in Kansas. We now have over 

100,000 acres of cotton planted in Kansas. I just want you all to 

know down in this country that when Stephen Foster wrote that 

song ‘‘The Old Cotton Fields Back Home,’’ he was talking about 

Kansas. It’s the most cost-efficient cotton in America because it’s 

so damn cold it kills the bugs and we don’t have to use insecticides 

and everything else. Also helps when we get rain. 

Chuck, in your prepared testimony, you mentioned the concessions that have occurred in the cotton program, i.e., the elimination 

of Step 2 as a result of our good friends in Brazil and last year’s 

budget reconciliation bill. You mentioned the possible interest by 

the industry in restructuring Step 2 in a WTO-compliant manner. 

So again, in light of the deficit changes we face today, any such 

23

changes are going to require funding cuts from another program 

area. What are we going to cut? 

Mr. COLEY. That’s why we elected Senator Chambliss, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. I see. I tell you what we have cut: the CSP 

program, the conservation program, which was huge. God knows 

how many billions of dollars we gave to that. But you had to have 

a U-Haul trailer to fill out all the paperwork to sign up in regards 

to all the environmental requirements. But when push came to 

shove and farmers going broke and farmers having a tough time, 

which seems to happen more often today because of the higher risk 

of it, the CSP program became a bank. I’m not advocating that, but 

that’s what happens, and also rural development, also research, 

which I don’t think we can cut back on in regards to keeping our 

technological advantage. 

All right. In your prepared testimony, you discuss the importance 

of the counter-cyclical program. This is one area of the current program where we have had some of the WTO challenges, most notably from Brazil, in regards to cotton. However, the other commodities, all of our commodities, could very well be in the bull’s eye. 

Do you have any recommendations we might be able to consider 

that would allow us to continue the counter-cyclical program while 

making it more WTO compliant? 

Mr. COLEY. Sir, whenever I think about being WTO compliant—

and I’m not a politician, and I don’t intend to answer this question 

like a politician. But seems like to me every time the U.S. is challenged in WTO or WTO negotiations, the American farmer, American agriculture, and American Farm Bill is sitting up there and 

everybody’s shooting at it. I think—I don’t know what you do. 

We’ve got to maintain the counter-cyclical payment. We feel like 

the counter-cyclical payment is WTO compliant. And you all may 

feel that way, but we’ve got to convince WTO of that. And when 

you have people deciding your fate that’s from Yugoslavia or Croatia or where that committee came from, they’re prejudiced against 

the U.S., I feel. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, I would agree with all that. We do get 

into a real jam where they appeal it, then the ruling is in their 

favor, then we have to fight through that. I think the bloom is off 

the lily in regards to the trade talks. I think trade talks are always 

oversold. I think they’re always overcriticized. But my farmers that 

I visit with in Kansas, that’s not the Number 1 issue they’re talking about. And so I would agree with your comment that we do 

have to take that into consideration. 

Your prepared testimony recommends some adjustments that 

may be needed for the calculation of a loan rate schedule and the 

world price. I am not familiar with the function of the LDP’s for 

cotton as I am for some of our other crops. Could you expand a little on what you think those changes should be? 

Mr. COLEY. Yes, sir. I think they ought to take into consideration 

more of the cost associated when they’re delivering the export. 

We’re exporting three out of four bales. And adjusted AWP, adjusted world price, is highest determinant of the LDP on cotton. 

And I think that some of the cost of delivering this cotton overseas 

should be in that, too. 

Senator ROBERTS. Should be factored in? 

24

Mr. COLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Morris, I understand you’re going to tell 

every consumer representative in America that they ought to increase their food cost by 100 percent. 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, no, sir, I wouldn’t——

Senator ROBERTS. Why don’t you come with me to New York and 

we’ll walk the streets? I tell you what: Come up with me and Hillary and Schumer and we’ll make that pitch. 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, what I was really trying to point out there, 

I think, is this, that American consumer is getting a bargain. 

Senator ROBERTS. He’s getting a hell of a bargain. 

Mr. MORRIS. That’s exactly right. 

Senator ROBERTS. It is the best quality food at the most inexpensive price, not cheap, the most inexpensive price in the history of 

the world. It is one of the greatest success stories that you can 

imagine. 

I told Saxby this the other day. When I was toting the 1996 bill 

and had to go through security up in New York—they figured out 

that we should have security in New York at that time. But at any 

rate, we went to the Wall Street Journal. And some guy with a 

neck tie with stripes on it and he came from some Ivy League 

school, he said, ‘‘Well, if we had a company that made widgets, why 

would you not subsidize widgets as opposed to agriculture?’’

I said, ‘‘Have you ever put a widget between two slices of bread 

and tried to eat it?’’

Mr. MORRIS. Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS. And what are you going to do with that disadvantaged youth that unfortunately lives in unfortunate housing 

in a part of New York that’s in pretty bad shape, that youngster 

still gets, i.e., food stamps and a lot of other support, but they still 

only pay 10 cents or less out of their disposable income dollar? So 

I’m sympathetic, but I don’t think that’s going to work, to say we’re 

going to have you pay 18 percent, plus the fact I don’t know if it 

will ever go to the farmer. So it’s just a thought. 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. In your prepared testimony, you identified several concerns with the way the USDA is currently administering 

the loan program for peanuts. You have several suggestions. I’m 

going to skip right over that because this man took care of you covertly. So everybody is classified top secret. I’m the Chairman. And 

if you go out of there and say that, you’re going to be taken to 

Dodge City and hung by the neck until you’re dead. So, at any rate, 

I think I’ll probably skip that one. And I understand that on the 

storage business. 

But we had hard white wheat incentive payments—hard to say—

that expired at the same time as the peanut handling and storage 

assistance. At the time, I told our wheat industry that during this 

time of budget deficits, I needed suggestions on where we should 

take the money out of the wheat program—OK?—in order to pay 

for an extension of the incentive. So my question to you is for the 

same guidance. If we were to fund this provision, from what other 

peanut or Farm Bill program should we shift the funding for that 

purpose? Now, the miracle worker here did it. See what I’m saying? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. 

25

Senator ROBERTS. Each one of our commodities has this same 

problem. 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. And we’ve either got to hang together or hang 

separately, so——

Mr. MORRIS. Well, we want you to be able to do that for the 

wheat farmers, also, because we want to keep that cheap bread on 

our table, also. And I grow some wheat, too, about 500 acres of 

wheat. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, you shouldn’t do that, but that’s all 

right. 

Mark, you responded to the payment limit. And my staff’s going 

to go nuts over here behind me. But this man prevented—along 

with trying to convince Chuck Grassley, who’s a hard man to convince, from Iowa, who’s on the payment limit posse. Every time you 

have an ag appropriation bill, this damn thing comes up and we 

should consider that in the Farm Bill in the context of what’s going 

on with agriculture and moving to larger and larger farms. 

Now, you know, my typical farmer out there in western Kansas, 

probably, when I started off back there in the Dark Ages, was 

about 2,000 acres. That’s 10,000 now, that’s 15,000 now. It isn’t the 

farmer with two sons and a daughter. It’s a farmer with one son 

and a daughter that’s in Denver and the other son’s in Kansas 

City, maybe involved in agriculture, but that’s what we’re into, 

high risk agriculture, make a hell of a crop 1 year, loose it in the 

next two, and we’re dry, 25 percent less in terms of our crop, and, 

as I indicated earlier, 75 percent increase in energy costs. And so 

we have people that say we’re going to have to limit payments. 

Ken Cook, through the FOIA Act—you know, God bless Ken—basically has indicated that all those payments end up on the front 

page. So you don’t go into town for coffee for a month. And that’s 

where we are. And so, basically, if you reduce those payment, I do 

have a problem with it in that why can’t we talk about, instead of 

farmers, why can’t we talk about production agriculture, as opposed to the hobby farmer? Nothing wrong with being a hobby 

farmer. Don’t misunderstand me. A lot of us exist because of the 

off-farm income. 

But a lot of folks in Congress say small family farm. I used to 

argue with Tim Penny of Minnesota all the time. Small family 

farmer defined by Washington is somebody about 5 foot 4 and he 

comes from Vermont and he has an orchard with about six trees 

and a farm pond, sits on the front porch, he’s a retired airline pilot, 

he subscribes to Gentlemen’s Quarterly, his wife works downtown 

as a stock broker, and he has a three-legged dog named Lucky. But 

he ain’t into production agriculture. That isn’t the same fellow. 

So somehow we have to change this around to get out of this nostalgic Saturday Evening Post on what is a family farmer, what I 

call Walden Pond agriculture. OK? So if you could pick that up, you 

could help us. And again, this fellow was responsible for delaying 

that and going through that laborious exercise. And it’s not that 

we’re trying to shut Chuck Grassley out. Every morning Saxby 

Chambliss, Pat Roberts, and Chuck Grassley sits down, we have a 

peanut butter sandwich to honor Georgia, and then we have a glass 

of ethanol. And it just warms you right up. 

26

Senator ROBERTS. Mark, have I got to you, or did I just do you? 

Mr. DETWEILER. I think you said it for me. 

Senator ROBERTS. You say that ASA’s still working to develop its 

final Farm Bill recommendations. Did you mention you’re looking 

at the possibility of a counter-cyclical program—you did—on the 

revenue triggers? 

Mr. DETWEILER. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS. We’re really thinking a lot about this out in 

Kansas. It’s a concept. I know that. You did expand on some of the 

ideas that you are considering. But the thing that I haven’t been 

able to get my hands around: Is this national, is it state, is there 

individual triggers, crop specific, whole farm? I’m intrigued by the 

idea. Do you have a preference? 

Mr. DETWEILER. Do I have a preference? 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes. Is it by region or what? 

Mr. DETWEILER. It is by state and it is by local farm, depending 

on the farm production history, the income history. We’ve looked at 

every option you can think of. But we’re looking at varying state 

by state, also county by county, down to individual farm net income 

or gross income in that area. To be honest with you, I don’t know 

if I can really answer your question because we’re still trying to 

compile everything and look at it. 

Senator ROBERTS. I know. You’re trying to put the pieces together, just like we are in Kansas. 

Mr. DETWEILER. Right. The problems we see is being able to provide a safety net for the farmer, which is the bottom line, is to provide a safety net for the farmer that will be economical for the 

United States in a financial situation but would also be WTO compliant, would not be in a legality system, having to change a farm 

program somewhere through the middle of its course of life. 

This situation with the counter-cyclical payments, it’s difficult. 

We may not be able to work out a feasible solution for that—I do 

not know personally right now whether we can or not—and still be 

WTO compliant to a green box situation. We’re already in an 

amber. And the problem in triggering that has been—and, really, 

with the cotton case, the trigger was not because of counter-cyclical 

or market loan but it was because they added in the direct payment because it was coupled with the restriction on food and vegetable production. 

Senator ROBERTS. Right. 

Mr. DETWEILER. So that’s what really triggered that situation. So 

I haven’t answered your question, really. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, no. But there isn’t an easy answer for 

this. But all four of you said we ought to continue this program 

under the banner of consistency and predictability. It’s like one old 

boy told me in Hutchinson, Kansas, at the State Fair. He said, 

‘‘Pat, I don’t care what you do to me. Just let me know.’’

If we were to simply extend the Farm Bill, as some have suggested—and I’m not for that—how serious do you think the threat 

is both to the soybean program and the overall commodity title of 

the Farm Bill as a whole? Somewhat, very? 

Mr. DETWEILER. Very. 

Senator ROBERTS. I agree with you. Now, 2002, there’s the Cochran Roberts alternative. Didn’t get too far. You’ve got to have a 

27

Farm Bill. So I waited until the last minute. I’d never voted 

against a Farm Bill. Some of them I sort of had to hold my nose. 

You never get the best possible Farm Bill. You get the best bill possible. 

But on this time around, my studious staff over here noted that 

under the counter-cyclical program that was being proposed, seven 

out of the last 10 years prior to 2002, when we had some of our 

worst years, we’d never get a payment. Now, it works damn fine 

if you have a crop. If you don’t have a crop, you’re out of luck. 

Now, why would I want to vote for that in Kansas when we’re 

25 percent down with our wheat crop and you folks sit here and 

tell me, ‘‘We want to continue the counter-cyclical payment,’’ when 

we haven’t got a payment in many of the years that we have? And 

we have to rely on crop insurance as best we can. And there’s a 

small direct payment. Why wouldn’t we think about going more to 

more direct payments. Which is green. Help me out on this. 

Mr. COLEY. Well, from the cotton standpoint in the Southeast, 

more direct payments would hurt producers in Georgia because we 

have a lower direct payment yield than we do counter-cyclical yield. 

Senator ROBERTS. I see. Well, I just thought I’d let you know 

what we’re thinking about from the Kansas perspective. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, thank you, Pat. And, gentlemen, thank 

you all very much. You understand now why I serve on three committees with Pat. He’s always this entertaining. Usually his comments are directed at Hillary or Diane Feinstein or somebody just 

as conservative as he is. 

Pat was very generous in his comments to me starting off, relative to looking after agriculture across the country. And I want 

you to know why I do that. And the way I’m going to tell you about 

why I do that is I learned a lesson from Pat Roberts when he was 

Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and I was a lowly 

freshman Member of Congress, sat in the next to the last seat on 

the House Agriculture Committee, right next to Ray LaHood, who 

was last. 

And we had a heck of a battle my first year in Congress during 

the appropriation process. And the battle was over the total elimination of the peanut program. Well, you all know how many peanuts they grow in Kansas. He doesn’t want Armond growing wheat 

because we don’t want him growing peanuts in Kansas. He has 

none. 

But in the battle over the peanut program that year, which was 

1995, we won that vote by two votes. The man who secured the last 

two votes to get us over the hump was Pat Roberts. So I learned 

a great and valuable lesson from him, and I’ll always be indebted 

to him for working hard for American agriculture while he was 

Chairman. And we’re going to continue to work hard for American 

agriculture while I’m Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you all very much for your testimony, for your 

comments. And we look forward to staying in touch and continuing 

our dialog. Our next panel—

We’re going to take about a 5–minute break—and I literally 

mean that—as we bring our next panel forward. That’s Mr. Bill 

28

Brim, Mr. Carl Perry, Mr. Tom Thompson, and Mr. Murray Campbell. 

(BREAK) 

Senator CHAMBLISS. We’re going to move ahead with our second 

panel. Our second panel consists of Mr. Bill Brim of Tifton, Georgia, representing the Georgia Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association; Mr. Carl Perry of Moore Haven, Florida, representing the 

Florida Sugar Cane League; Mr. Tom Thompson of Eatonton, Georgia, representing the Georgia Milk Producers; Mr. Murray Campbell of Camilla, Georgia, representing the First United Ethanol 

LLC. 

Gentlemen, thank all of you all for being here. We will submit 

your full statement for the record. But we will turn to you now for 

any opening comments you wish to make. Bill, we’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF BILL BRIM LEWIS TAYLOR FARMS, TIFTON, 

GEORGIA 

Mr. BRIM. Good morning, Chairman Chambliss and members of 

the Committee. My name is Bill Brim. I’m a vegetable grower from 

Tift County, Georgia. Our farm is a diversified operation of 352,000 

square feet of greenhouse production space and 4,000 acres of vegetable production. Our fruit and vegetable industry is growing at a 

rapid pace, but this growth is not limited to just Georgia. We also 

have to include those people from the land of fruits and nuts. Specialty crop growers produce approximately 50 percent of the farm 

gate value of total plant agricultural production in the United 

States. 

Despite the impact of the U.S. economy, specialty crop growers 

receive a very small percentage of Federal resources aimed at promoting and sustaining agricultural production. We hope the Committee will take a hard look at a balanced Farm Bill that will include an increased emphasis on specialty crop producers. 

In addition to growers, consumers also benefit in the Federal investment of specialty crops. By expanding access and availability 

to safe, wholesome, and healthy fruit and vegetables, the Farm Bill 

is a critical component to reaching the 2005 Food Pyramid goal of 

doubling fruit and vegetable consumption in the United States. 

I am not here today to tell you that we want or need a new Farm 

Bill for fruit and vegetables; however, there are several areas in 

the Farm Bill that should address issues of concern to our specialty 

crop industry. A written testimony I’ve filed with the Committee 

may fully discuss the details of the issues. 

Number 1, as a matter of fair competition, we support continuation of the restrictions on planting flexibilities. 

Number 2, we support a thorough review of all farm programs 

to ensure that specialty crop producers have access to benefits comparable to other farmers rather than being excluded or limited simply due to a higher cost of production. 

Due to the wide diversity and localized needs in specialty crop 

production, we support an expansion of the state block grants for 

specialty crops. Georgia producers believe this is the most important component to be considered in the 2007 Farm Bill debate. 

Number 4, increased funding for specialty crop research is critical. Fruit and vegetable growers need assistance and support from 

29

USDA researchers to find practical production solutions for problems such as methyl bromide alternatives, pest management, production practices, water conservation, and plant variety improvements. 

And Number 5, nutrition, we support a strong new focus within 

the new Farm Bill for increasing the access of availability of fruits 

and vegetables, particularly in children. We appreciate the recent 

inclusion of Georgia in the Senate ag approach markup. We hope 

this program can be expanded nationwide in the 2007 Farm Bill. 

Most fruits and vegetables are not covered by a crop insurance 

program. We would like to see the increase in pilot projects and 

studies that determine the feasibility of specialty crop coverage. 

Our pecan growers have a specific need that should be addressed 

in the new crop insurance policy such as 10 percent cup, tree 

thinning, and exclusion of the tree due to disasters and loss. 

I want to thank the Committee for giving us, the organization, 

an opportunity to testify. And, Mr. Chairman, as you know, my 

farm is located just east of here. And I would be remiss if I didn’t 

mention something about immigration and the debate that’s going 

on here and in Washington, too. And I just wanted to let you know 

how much we appreciate what you’ve done for immigration and 

border security and hopefully what we can get accomplished in this 

coming year. Thank you very much. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Bill. And that’s an issue we 

could have a whole hearing about. And you and I have worked very 

closely on this for all of my 12 years in Congress. And I appreciate 

your input, your patience, and your expert advice in counseling me 

personally, as well as to the Committee, on the issue of immigration. I will be a Conferee on the immigration bill. And we’re going 

to continue to work very closely with you to make sure we craft 

good, sound policy there. 

Mr. BRIM. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brim can be found on page 60 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Carl? 

STATEMENT OF CARL PERRY FARMER OF SUGARCANE, 

BEANS, CITRUS AND CATTLE ALBANY, GEORGIA 

Mr. PERRY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Roberts. 

Thank you for deciding to hold one of your Committee farm policy 

hearings in the southeast U.S., for agriculture is the backbone of 

our states’ and rural communities’ economics. I’m a fourth generation farmer. My family and I grow sugarcane, cattle, citrus, and 

beans. Florida is an extremely agriculturally diverse state but has 

few program crops compared to most other states. Although Florida 

is the ninth largest agricultural state in the U.S., only 4 percent 

of Florida crops are row crops. The Florida sugar industry has a $3.1 billion economic impact on 

the state. It provides 25,000 direct jobs. The U.S. sugar policy, is 

it working? I can enthusiastically say that like most of the provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill, absolutely. The program operates at 

a no-net cost to taxpayers and provides a fair price to farmers and 

consumers alike. Look no further than this year to see how effective the program performs. Hurricanes devastated the sugar crops 

30

in Florida and Louisiana. We had a loss of nearly 30 percent, which 

is unprecedent to our industry. Immediately following Hurricane 

Katrina, the sugar policy gave the USDA the flexibility it needed 

to address supply interruptions. Domestic stocks were quickly 

made available, and USDA increased the imports to address the 

domestic shortfalls. 

Other countries aren’t quite so lucky. They don’t have that type 

of flexibility when disaster strikes. Thailand and Australia both 

have experienced weather disasters that left them with short supply. It doesn’t take an economist to figure out that this had and 

are continuing to have a dramatic effect on the world sugar market. America cannot become dependent on such unreliable foreign 

sugar supplies. This country needs homegrown sugar, and American sugar farmers need a strong sugar policy. 

Many people believe that sucrose ethanol may be a great opportunity for sugar producers. While this has intrigued us and we are 

researching this issue, we do not want to lose focus on maintaining 

a sound sugar policy like the one found in the current Farm Bill. 

This is our No. 1 priority. 

We are gravely concerned about talks of buying the U.S. sugar 

program and converting it to a traditional row crop program, especially in times of tightening Federal budgets. The yearly cost of a 

conventional program possibly as high as $1.3 billion would be in 

addition to the billions of dollars that the buyout itself would cost. 

I can’t go without noting that the sugar is the single most distorted commodity in the world. Because so many countries’ treasuries are involved in sugar policy, the WTO is the only forum 

where true and fair reform of the world sugar market can take 

place. 

In addition to discussing sugar policy, I feel I would be remiss 

if I did not take the time to thank you, the Senator, for leading the 

charge to provide needed disaster relief for the Gulf coast producers in the wake of the hurricanes. On behalf of the sugar farmers in Florida, I’d like to thank you. 

The current sugar program is working well. It keeps prices low 

and stable for grocery shoppers in times of national emergencies. 

It is not costing taxpayers anything. It makes sure that we are not 

dependent on foreign supplies, and it helps support thousands of 

sugar farmers and factory workers across the country. As Congress 

looks to reauthorize the new Farm Bill, we humbly ask that the 

current sugar program be extended. Thank you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. Tom? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry can be found on page 118 

in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON PRESIDENT, GEORGIA MILK 

PRODUCERS, INC. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Senator Chambliss and members of 

the Ag Committee, Senator Roberts. I’m Tom Thompson. I am a 

dairyman from Eatonton, Georgia. I’m also president of the Georgia 

Milk Producers, who represent all Georgia dairy producers. 

Georgia dairymen and indeed dairymen located in the Southeast 

are in danger of extinction. According to trend lines from the Federal Milk Market Administrator’s office in Atlanta, without a 

31

change in the rules, the present trend lines would indicate that virtually no dairies will exist in the Southeast in the next 10 years. 

And it is not drought, heat, and high humidity that are the culprits, although all of those certainly make dairying in the Southeast a challenge. 

In an area where population growth is one of the fastest in the 

United States and our deficit grows greater each year—by the way, 

Georgia is now importing 1,000 tanker loads of milk per month—

we find that the system is taking a lot of the sales dollars paid by 

these local plants that should be going to dairymen who are supplying those plants on a daily basis. Through pooling and touch 

base provisions, these dollars are then redistributed to producers 

who in many cases may be riding the pool. 

A look back at the history of milk marketing in Georgia will be 

informative. In the late 1960’s, the Georgia Milk Commission was 

ruled unconstitutional and Georgia subsequently got its own Georgia Federal order. Co-ops were local and represented Georgia dairymen, and the Georgia Federal Order served the industry well. It 

included a base excess plan that rewarded dairymen who supplied 

milk when the market needed it and penalized those who produced 

excess when it was not needed. Class I utilization was normally in 

the high eighties and the low nineties. Subsequent years added a 

state here and a state there to the order that originally was the 

Georgia order. Plants merged. Co-ops merged. Each geographical 

increase in the former Georgia Federal Order, now called the 

Southeast Federal Order, resulted in small declines in Class I utilization, primarily because the states added had a higher ratio of 

milk to their population than did Georgia. 

Disaster struck first in 1995 when Congress failed to reauthorize 

the base excess plan that had been in existence for almost 30 

years. Now there was no incentive to produce milk when the market needed the milk, and the door was open for producers to ride 

the order, dumping excess milk on the order when it was not needed. 

Disaster struck a second and even deadlier blow on January the 

1st, 2000, when USDA added a huge geographical area to the 

Southeast Order, extending it to include a portion of Missouri. It 

is interesting to note that this was done without any public discussion, and it is probably just coincidental that a national co-op with 

a small minority of its members in the Southeast is headquartered 

in Missouri. The drop in utilization from pre-January 2000 to the 

subsequent months shows a dramatic Class I utilization decline of 

15 to 20 points on a month-to-month comparison. This has been 

widely viewed as a $1.50 to $2.00 per hundred pounds of cost to 

Georgia and other geographical Southeast producers. The combination of these two disasters have cost Southeast producers untold 

millions of dollars. 

Which brings us to the issue of: How could this happen? Don’t 

co-ops operate in a Democratic manner and represent their producers in Federal Order hearings and on Capitol Hill? Absolutely. 

Just as plants have merged, co-ops have also merged due to economic pressures. The problem is that the majority of milk in the 

Southeast is controlled by co-ops whose majority membership and 

directors live outside the Southeast and whose farms are in less 

32

populous areas with subsequently lower utilization. You can be 

sure that they understand that working the system to get their 

milk pooled on a higher utilization market puts money in their 

pockets. 

Management is only too happy to oblige working the system to 

accomplish that, for that is their job security. They understand 

only too well the importance of representing the majority interest 

of their boards. The problem is compounded by the move by some 

co-ops to lock up supply contracts with major processors, thus locking out other producers and their co-ops. 

The present system of using a formula that locks Class I pricing 

to manufactured pricing is adversely affecting markets that are primarily Class I. The expansion of milk production west of the Rockies propelled by the explosion of megadairies results in an adverse 

impact on dairymen producing for fluid markets. A system needs 

to be developed that would partially decouple Class I. 

Our nation is rightfully concerned with our dependence on foreign oil, air pollution, highway congestion, and biosecurity. I would 

submit that the current system of milk pricing and marketing is 

increasing our dependence on foreign oil, increasing air pollution 

and highway congestion, and placing our nation at greater risk of 

biosecurity. Locally produced fluid milk for local consumption just 

makes good, common sense. 

In summary, we recommend: Number 1, Geographical reduction 

in the Southeast Order, restoring the relationship between plant 

utilization and production in the geographical proximity to those 

plants; 2, Tightening of touch base provisions and a review of order 

rules that would discourage riding the pool; 3, Congressional restoration of the authorization of base-excess plans in the Federal 

Order system that was omitted in the 1995 Farm Bill; and 4, Development of a plan to partially decouple Class I. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our plea for help and 

a call for drastic change, both for the survival of Georgia and 

Southeast dairymen as well as for the ultimate benefit to our consumers, our region, and our nation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found on page 

133 in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Tom. 

Murray Campbell is, again, as are all of these gentlemen, a longtime good friend of mine. And Murray is a producer in Mitchell 

County, Georgia. He grows a variety of crops there and has for 

many years, comes from a longtime farm family. Murray has embarked on a new project that is novel to the Southeastern part of 

the United States. And we asked Murray to come today to talk 

about this new project rather than talking about row crop production. So, Murray, welcome to the panel, and we look forward to 

hearing your comments. 

STATEMENT OF MURRAY CAMPBELL CHAIRMAN, FIRST 

UNITED ETHANOL, LLC 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss. And we really 

do appreciate the invitation. I’m here today on behalf of the 33 

founding Board members, representing 13 counties, of First United 

Ethanol LLC, which we like to call by the acronym F.U.E.L. Our 

33

company, which is based in nearby Camilla, is one of the first in 

the Southeast to embrace ethanol production. Our friends in the 

Midwest have been focused on renewable fuels for several years. 

Fortunately, the economics have finally aligned for other regions of 

the country to contribute toward our nation’s energy independence. 

As Congress considers various policy initiatives regarding renewable fuels, it is important to note that the incentives in current law 

are working. Some will argue that the industry has moved beyond 

the need for Federal assistance; however, this line of thinking is 

premature. The United States remains dependent on foreign oil, 

and companies such as ours are in the beginning stages in various 

regions around the country. Bankers and investors that are financing the industry need a certain amount of stability as they expand 

this homegrown industry. 

The passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act provided new incentives for renewable fuels through the renewable fuels standard. 

These incentives, coupled with the growing consumer demand for 

domestically grown energy, lead us to believe that ethanol and renewable fuels have a great future. Although most of the current 

ethanol plants in the country are located in the Midwest, opportunities are emerging for other regions. 

It stands to reason that demand for ethanol will track large population centers across the Nation and the Southeast will offer numerous marketing opportunities. I’d like to caution Congress to 

avoid the rush in investing in every new renewable fuel technology 

that comes along at the expense of the existing industry. 

Do not misunderstand me on this: We firmly support new technologies and welcome opportunities for more efficiency. However, 

many of the new renewable fuel technologies often discussed in the 

press are far from commercially viable. And if and when new options are available and prove commercially viable, F.U.E.L. tends 

to embrace and implement them. We are currently investigating a 

biomass gasification component of our project that will be fired by 

juvenile pine tops. For now, we’re focused on the traditional conversion of corn to fuel and urge Congress to continue to support this 

industry. 

Many myths have been spread about ethanol increasing in the 

country. And what I’d like to tell you today is that corn yields are 

increasing and ethanol production leaves a substantial portion of 

that corn as a feed byproduct that goes back into the animal feed 

markets. Even though our facility is not in the Corn Belt, we have 

a viable plan to meet our supply needs to operate a 100 million gallon facility by bringing in corn on rail shipments and hoping over 

time to encourage local production. And we think within five to 7 

years we’ll be able to meet our goal, and this will be a huge benefit 

to our row crop farmers in southwest Georgia. The continued trend 

in increased ethanol efficiency, coupled with increased corn yields, 

and new genetics for highly fermentable corns is leading to tremendous gains in ethanol per acre. 

By including a new energy renewable fuels title in the next Farm 

Bill, Congress is sending the appropriate signal to the agriculture 

community and the nation. Farmers can and should be supportive 

in their efforts to provide energy independence for America. We are 

ready to answer the nation’s call. 

34

For now I encourage Congress to stay the course on RFS and tax 

incentives. I also encourage Congress and the Committee to resist 

the push to lift the tariff on imported ethanol. Such a move is 

shortsighted and sets back the domestic industry at a time when 

we are finally turning the corner on success. Instead, the Federal 

Government should be enhancing the support of the domestic industry by working with the industry to solve the distribution problems that have occurred and to get over some of the hurdles that 

we have to overcome to accomplish energy independence. 

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the industry’s 

positive impact on world communities is huge. And that is a part 

of my written testimony. And, Mr. Chairman, I think, knowing 

Southwest Georgia as well as you do, you would understand the 

importance of those kind of numbers and what it would mean for 

our rural economy down here. With that, I thank you all for coming 

to southwest Georgia to hear about it. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell can be found on page 

64 in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Murray. Bill Brim, in 

the Brazil cotton case, a ruling panel found that direct payments 

are not green box because the planning and flexibility provisions 

restricted fruit and vegetable production on base acres. This provision affords market protection to producers of fruits and vegetables. 

And if we move toward Farm Bill reauthorization, I expect considerable discussion will occur around this provision of the Farm Bill 

and the finding from the Brazil case. 

Do you have any thoughts about relaxing or eliminating the 

planning restriction or to reduce the likelihood of future WTO challenge? What would be the impact of relaxing or eliminating this 

provision? And how does this provision benefit the fruit and vegetable growers. 

Mr. BRIM. No, sir, I wouldn’t relax it at all. Basically, what it 

would do is destroy the fruit and vegetable industry if it’s relaxed 

and just an open market. We’re open market based already as supply and demand. And, of course, we have too much supply as it is 

already, because you’ve heard about the pricing we received this 

spring on all of our production. It’s been devastating. It’s probably 

been the worst spring we’ve ever had as far as the cost of production being high and our sales being cheap. So I would say flexibility, if you open the door for everybody and still be able to receive 

their payments, then it would devastate the fruit and vegetable industry. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Proposals have been made to provide more 

money to the specialty crop industry. These proposals range from 

state block grants to research money to counter-cyclical programs. 

Which of these ideas or others would benefit the industry the most? 

And what ideas do you have for funding such proposals? 

Mr. BRIM. We’d like the money to come from you. Basically, I 

think the state block grant gives us a little bit more flexibility as 

far as what we do our research on in Georgia, whether it be California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, or whatever. With 

the state block grants, it gives you that flexibility, if you have different problems, to be able to work on marketing problems or disease problems in specific vegetables. Of course, all research is very 

35

important to us in the vegetable industry. And, unfortunately, we 

have a lot more disease pressure and more problems than most of 

the cotton and row crop people because of humidities and variability in rain and so forth and all. So I would think that the state 

block grant would give us a little more flexibility. And as far as 

where the money comes from, I’ll let you work that one out. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. To you, Mr. Perry and Mr. Thompson, both, 

with respect to trade, the reported aggregate measure of support 

for both dairy and sugar total 5.5 billion. If the WTO negotiations 

are successful, the United States will be restricted to 7.6 billion in 

what we call the amber box or the most trade-distorting domestic 

support. The 60 percent proposed reduction will require proportional cuts in all commodities requiring structural changes to the 

traditional program crops of dairy and sugar. How would dairy and 

sugar producers adjust to such a new scenario? Mr. Perry, we’ll 

start with you. 

Mr. PERRY. Well, as noted, we do not grow enough sugar in this 

country to sustain us already, so we are importing sugar. The program operates at a no net cost to the government. We have to have 

the program in place to continue farming like we are. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Tom? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Senator Chambliss, the support program, of 

course, is a safety net for the United States dairy industry. The 

program has worked well. It works at a level way below the cost 

of production, so it basically does not stimulate production. Milk 

production, as you know, is a perishable product. We cannot store 

fluid milk, which the Southeast and especially Georgia is focused 

on. 

And the program certainly needs to be compliant, but at the 

same time we have to provide a safety net for the volatility in the 

market. Not many people understand that if we have a 2 percent 

national surplus, the price at the farm drops 30 percent. And that 

30 percent takes us below the cost of production because we don’t 

normally have a margin above just a few percent. So we would 

have to be compliant, but at the same time, we have to be respective of the fact that there can be a devastating effect without a 

safety net. 

The industry has come forward through the National Milk Producers Co-op, which represents about 70 percent of the milk in the 

United States. We have a producer-funded program called the 

CWT, Cooperatives Working Together, that is very, very efficient in 

promoting the exporting of products. And it does it in a world trade 

framework that is compliant and is legal. Our problem there is that 

there is 30 percent of the milk in the country that does not support 

that, that are not members of the co-ops, and, therefore, get a free 

ride. Nevertheless, the program is working well, and hopefully we 

can expand it. 

As far as the government program is concerned, the primary program, I think, that is a safety net, especially to small producers, 

is the MILC program, which is direct payment when prices drop 

below a certain level. We don’t think that, from Georgia’s perspective, that we need to have a few megadairies across the country 

producing milk. It’s good for the land, good for the people, and good 

for our nation to have small dairy farms scattered across the counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 Mar 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30131.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
36

try. And as I said in my prepared remarks, it’s especially important 

to have local milk for local consumption. And all this is inextricably 

tied together. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. So are you in support of an extension of the 

milk program in the next Farm Bill? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, we would be. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Perry, what’s the sugar industry’s outlook for commercial production of ethanol from sugar? And do you 

envision a market for ethanol from sugar ever, particularly in this 

part of the country? 

Mr. PERRY. Well, the sugar industry is looking into that; however, they have not decided whether it is a viable option for them. 

Therefore, we need the current Farm Bill as is for us to survive 

long enough for us to look into the ethanol. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Thompson, currently only dairy producer cooperatives have the ability to forward contract with their 

members. In 2000, USDA established a pilot project to examine forward contracting. This voluntary program, as you know, ended in 

2004; however, there has been continued interest in the making of 

forward contracting a permanent option for producers and processors. 

Does forward contracting provide producers with an additional 

risk management tool to manage price and income volatility in the 

marketplace? And should this option remain available only to dairy 

producing cooperatives, or should processors and non-cooperative 

dairy producers also be able to utilize this risk management tool? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Senator Chambliss, I have some personal experience with the forward contracting. Our dairy used it on two different occasions. On the first occasion, I think we came out with 

a net of a few thousand dollars. And on the last occasion that we 

used it, we, along with most everyone else that I know, had substantial losses in it. That could have been a timing issue. But it’s 

a tool that probably should be made available, but at the same 

time, we don’t think that it should undermine the basic pricing system that exists. And under the minimum pricing of the Federal 

Order system, that can be used to subvert and negate the effect of 

that. So it does have its drawbacks. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Campbell, there is significant potential 

for all segments of agriculture to help supply this nation’s energy 

needs. Where should Congress focus its efforts and limited resources in the Farm Belt to try to help farmers across the Nation 

participate in this potential growth? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Senator Chambliss, I think that we need to sort 

of follow along the lines of recommendations of former CIA Director 

Jim Woolsey, who says that this is an integral part of national defense and the war on terror that we have in dealing with our energy independence. So agriculture is ready and is poised on many 

different levels. We can make biodiesels out of cottonseeds. We can 

make biodiesels out of soybeans. We can make corn-based ethanols 

now. In the future, we hope to be able to make cellulose-based 

ethanols. We have a lot of different opportunities that we can focus 

on. 

I think what most people would be concerned about is that we 

don’t approach it as a whole and that we try to, you know, promote 

37

one technology over another. I can grow soybeans. I grow other 

things. I can grow corn. I can grow cotton. I have timber. Senator 

Roberts, we don’t have any switchgrass in the area on the prairies, 

but the prairie and the switchgrass is a viable alternative at some 

point in the future. 

Our project grew out of a Mitchell County Development Authority project about what we could do now. And we focused on the 

corn-based, and I think that’s the proper thing to do at this time. 

But I think we need to look at it as a whole and just do it as an 

entire agricultural industry, as a challenge. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. How should we balance agriculture’s potential in renewable energy production with wildlife, environmental, 

and feedstock concerns? And I emphasize the last issue as the most 

important. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir, I understand. I read an article just this 

week on some of the potential if CRP lands come out or switchgrass 

goes into more production and we have a reduction in some of the, 

you know, wildlife habitats. That’s a real issue. It becomes something that you all gentlemen are more eminently qualified than I 

am because that’s a political issue where we have to make the hard 

choices as to what’s important to our country. We certainly don’t 

want to be decimating our wildlife. I have 300 acres of timber. I 

want to have a market for it. But I also hunt that timber. And I 

want to be able to take advantage of it. 

So it becomes somewhat of a national decision as to how we want 

to pursue it as a balancing act. I think that we’ve had these type 

of challenges in this country before, and I think we can balance it 

and move through our agricultural land base toward more energy 

independence. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS. What CIA director was that? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Sir? Jim Woolsey. 

Senator ROBERTS. Oh, Jim Woolsey. He’s from Kansas, by the 

way. Well, basically, he had troubles, you know, gaining access to 

the White House. And there was always that story that when that 

little plane, you know, flew into the White House, that was Woolsey trying to get in. Saxby and I have had damn near intimate relationships with the last CIA directors here for the last several 

years. But at any rate, your point is well taken. Bill? 

Mr. BRIM. Sir? 

Senator ROBERTS. You have voiced your support for establishing 

crop insurance for the products. My question in regard to this is 

twofold: What risk management tools do you currently employ? 

And, furthermore, crops currently using crop insurance are involved in some very significant conservation and land management 

practices that are mandatory. Could you elaborate on how the fruit 

and vegetable industry might take similar steps to improve management practices—I’m saying sort of beware what you ask for, be 

careful what you ask for—in working toward a participation in a 

crop insurance program? 

Mr. BRIM. Yes, sir. Well, as far as conservation, there are some 

growers—my particular operation doesn’t. We do conservation as 

far as doing cover crops and so forth. But we’re on plastic with drip 

irrigation. It’s kind of hard to do conservation with that. We do 

38

have watermelon growers that do no-till watermelons and other 

crops that tried no-till. But with the pressure, disease pressure, 

with no-till, it’s too hard to grow and too costly to grow fruits and 

vegetables, or especially vegetables, with no-till. 

We would like something from RMA. I’ve worked with RMA in 

the past, and we’ve tried to ask them to see if they could define 

some kind of cost of production coverage, just to cover our cost of 

production, not any profit in our production but just the cost of covering our losses of what our cost of production is. And that’s what 

we’ve been working on in the last few years. 

Senator ROBERTS. What’s been their response? 

Mr. BRIM. We haven’t gotten much. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, we fired the guy that was there for a 

long time. Or fired. We asked that he perhaps seek other employment. 

Mr. BRIM. That was a good idea. 

Senator ROBERTS. And we’ve got a new fellow in there now, so 

I urge you to go in there. And that would be basically just your 

basic coverage as opposed to buyouts that we have in other programs. 

This sort of gets into the farm program in the field. And I always 

hear from the Senators and Representatives who represent specialty crops, ‘‘Hey, how about us? We don’t have any farm program 

payments.’’

And I always say, ‘‘Are you willing to go through all the regulations and paperwork at the FSA office’’—thank goodness we don’t 

have as much as we use to—‘‘and conservation compliance?’’ And 

that’s the other—you know, that’s the rest of the story, as Paul 

Harvey says. So be a little careful in terms of what you’re asking 

for. But I do think that you have a good concept in there for basic 

coverage. 

Carl, we’ve gone over the WTO business here, I think, enough. 

I think the Chairman covered that. I’ve got to tell you: I’m a little 

concerned with the posture of farm country when it comes to these 

free trade agreements. And it used to be we either, you know, hung 

together or hang separately or swam together or sank together. But 

there is a growing trend toward singling out one industry and asking for exceptions. And I’m talking about the Australian trade 

agreement and then CAFTA. 

And I can tell you that when sugar was exempted—and I understand why you want it to be exempt—our cowboys and our corn 

producers and our wheat producers said, ‘‘Whoa, wait a minute. I 

thought we were in this all together.’’

So I guess my question is: If you come to Kansas and testify 

there in Dodge City—I won’t drag you out there. But at any rate, 

I think the question would be: What is your industry doing to really try to collaborate a little better with the other commodity groups 

within the agricultural community to work together? 

Mr. PERRY. Well, the sugar——

Senator ROBERTS. You seem like a reasonable fellow. I think you 

can do that. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, sir. Some of the other commodities aren’t quite 

as distorted as sugar is. Sugar seems to be—well, as I said earlier, 

it is the most distorted commodity in the world, I believe. And, 

39

therefore, we do need special consideration when it comes to trade 

agreements with other countries that are distorting it. We are a 

very fragile commodity. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. I’m not going to press you on it. 

Let’s see here. I’m ready for Tom. Tom, I like your suit, I like 

your shirt, and I like your haircut. 

Mr. THOMPSON. We make a good team, sir. 

Senator ROBERTS. You show eminent taste and great wisdom. 

You, in your prepared remarks, are discussing some potential 

changes to the existing dairy programs, including the modifications 

of Federal milk marketing orders. And I can certainly understand 

your frustration with the distribution, the pricing, the challenges 

associated with the current dairy program. I am concerned about 

making some significant changes like modifying the geographic size 

of the price functions within our current set of programs through 

legislative action rather than running through the typical course of 

hearings at the USDA. 

Legislative action in dairy are an oxymoron. I’ve been through 

six Farm Bills. At the 11th hour and 59th minute, we have to sit 

down with Pat Leahy and make a deal. He’s from Vermont. He’s 

got that little three-legged dog named Lucky. He doesn’t even come 

to the rest of the farm hearings. He just shows up with dairy. We 

stayed in Washington, in 1996, over the weekend for 3 days, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. That’s back when Newt Gingrich and 

Khmer Rouge were part of the revolution. And we were trying to 

settle dairy. And the balanced budget and saving Western Civilization and everything else took second place to dairy, especially with 

New York. 

And I finally just said to Newt—he says, ‘‘Roberts, you’ve been 

in this business a long time. How do we solve dairy?’’

I said, ‘‘You don’t. You punt.’’ And we did. We punted to the Senate. 

And at the 11th hour and 59th minute, here came Leahy with 

a deal. He said, ‘‘I’ve got a compact. It’s really not a compact. But 

if you pass it, it’s OK because I can say it’s a compact.’’ And then 

you have a revolution in the industry, where you have dairy factories. You don’t have dairy farms. You have dairy factories. Some 

people have farms, and they have a damn tough time making it. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t do dairy anymore. There’s a lot of things 

I don’t do at my age, but one of the things that I don’t do is dairy. 

It is very, very, difficult to do, very difficult to get all the sections 

of the dairy industry to get together. And you face some of the most 

complex regulations of any of the commodity programs—makes my 

head hurt—in regards to the Farm Bill. So I’m going to suggest 

that the answer to some of the issues you’ve raised is not a matter 

of making modifications to the existing structure but rather to try 

to streamline the programs, workforce, and limits on the regulation 

of your industry, which I know are very counterproductive. 

So what are your thoughts about such an effort to reduce rather 

than to change regulation? 

One other story: Herb Kohl, Pat Leahy, dairy, we’re on the floor. 

I think you were there then. We couldn’t get out. We couldn’t adjourn based on dairy. 

Trent Lott came to me and said, ‘‘You’ve got to come in here.’’

40

I said, ‘‘OK. What do you want me to do?’’

He said, ‘‘How do I get out? How do we adjourn? How do I fix 

dairy?’’

I said, ‘‘Punt, put it off, do something, because, you know, you’re 

just not going to get, you know, that put together.’’ And he did, finally punted and we finally worked out something down the road. 

But, boy, is that difficult. And I don’t want to put the industry 

through that. And I don’t want to put the declining dairy industry 

in Kansas, who are having a real tough time, through that ever. 

So what do you think about my suggestion, streamline, less regulation, do a USDA expositive plan, don’t toss that in Saxby’s lap? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Senator Roberts, I totally understand where 

you’re coming from. I was also involved in that 1996 Farm Bill and 

the frustrations that were involved in that. In fact, we had a subcommittee chairman from Wisconsin who had a plan to pool all the 

revenues of all the Class I sales across the country and divide it 

up evenly. And we were very concerned with that. 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, I remember that. And he’s no longer 

there. And he made that ultimate sacrifice, and he ended up on the 

altar of not being in public service. 

Mr. THOMPSON. As far as Congressional action, I think we’re the 

victims of a couple of things that happened in that 1996 Farm Bill. 

One was the Congressional mandate to reduce the number of Federal Orders, which gave USDA a license to basically extend the 

geographical area of the Southeast Order, which costs the producers in the Southeast—in the geography that I learned as a fifth 

grader, there was a Southeast—tens of millions of dollars. That 

was, I think, probably an unintended result. But, nevertheless, it 

gave the license for that to happen. I think Congress can perhaps 

rectify that as well. 

There was also an oversight, either intentional or by omission, of 

not including the authorization for USDA to include base excess in 

the orders. That still has to go back to USDA to have the hearings, 

to gather the evidence, to substantiate whether or not that is needed. And we would certainly beg you to reauthorize that so that it 

could go to USDA for the hearing. USDA tells us that that cannot 

be done without Congress acting. And it was just a one-liner that 

was left out. And Congressman Solomon realized that after the bill 

had been done, gave me a call and said that it would be corrected, 

but unfortunately he had health problems and it was not done. 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, he did. I appreciate that. 

Murray, thank you for your efforts in regards to alternative fuels. 

We have seven operating ethanol plants. We’ve got probably two or 

three more coming on board. We have an outfit that wants to do 

the same thing with sorghum. We have a university, Pittsburgh 

State University, which is probably, I think, on the cutting edge of 

what we call polymer science with soybeans. You’re right, the 

President is into switchgrass big time, came out to Kansas State. 

Saxby, that’s the home of the ever optimistic and fighting Wildcats. 

But at any rate, he was very impressed with all the prairie grass. 

And he’s into cellulose and all that. So I think we’ve got a lot of 

opportunities for some biodiesel plants. I said it was going to be the 

biggest thing to hit our country since the railroad. 

41

Kansans are facing sticker shock at the pumps. E–85, equipped 

stations are selling E–85 as much as 60 cents a gallon higher than 

regular unleaded gasoline. Many stations are struggling to get any 

supply at all. Much of the ethanol that is produced is going to California. In states that have ethanol mandates, because there is a 

limited supply of ethanol, states that must use it are willing to pay 

a higher premium. That’s understandable. Our Kansas ethanol producers can sell ethanol for $2.50 in Kansas or $4.50 in California. 

Who is going to buy ethanol when it’s more expensive than gasoline? I realize that in the long run, increased production and additional infrastructure will solve the problem. This Chairman 

brought in all the automobile manufacturers and brought in all the 

retailers and said, ‘‘How can we get this infrastructure working together? How fast can you bring these automobiles online that are 

hybrids?’’ Then to the convenience stores, ‘‘How can you set up 

these pumps so that people can get fuel?’’ I think Saxby told me 

that these convenience stores said, ‘‘Well, costs $100,000 a pump.’’ 

Oops. So I’m a little concerned about that. 

What is the incentive for folks to pay up to 60 cents a gallon for 

E–85? What efforts can be made to promote the consumption in 

face of higher prices? And then what can this discrepancy do to undermine some advances we’ve made in getting consumers to accept 

the ethanol land fuels finally? And do you share these concerns? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, Senator, I respect your understanding and 

agree with you as far as the prices we have now. A lot of that is 

a disruption in the market. We’re suffering from somewhat of a 

bubble that was caused by the oil industry deciding to drop the 

MTBE’s. They had hoped to get the MTBE liability protection in 

the Energy Policy Act and they did not. And I don’t think anyone 

anticipated that they would just all of a sudden say, ‘‘OK, we’re not 

going use any more.’’ That took about 4 billion gallons of MTBE out 

of the mobile fuel molecules that are used within this country. 

And it’s really a little bit unrealistic to expect that the ethanol 

industry could move fast enough to be able to take up that much 

slack. The industry at that time was only producing about 4 billion 

gallons of ethanol. And so it was, you know, basically saying that 

we need to double our production overnight. And it really is not 

practical, is not doable. 

I think as we begin to move some of the new plants online and 

as we move forward and have more ethanol available, this bubble 

will come down. That’s why our numbers are based off historical 

averages. We’re certainly not making any business decisions based 

off the price of ethanol right now. To quote Alan Greenspan, the 

irrational exuberance in the tech bubble, we think it is going to 

pull back and fully anticipate it to pull back. But we think it will 

still remain a problem. 

This country is using about 142 billion gallons of gasoline a year. 

It’s a mobile fuel molecule. We think that over time ethanol is 

going to pull back, but we think as long as oil prices stay high, we 

can go out on the futures markets. December 1909 crude oil futures 

are trading at around $69 a barrel. So you’re not anticipating any 

immediate—the Department of Industry is saying we’re going to 

stay around those prices for at least five or 6 years, not expecting 

any immediate pullbacks. 

42

I think that as we produce more ethanol, it will move back toward the price of gasoline. And as it moves back toward the price 

of gasoline, the E–85 will once again begin to have a premium, as 

far as being cheaper, you know, to the consumer. And I think then 

you’ll see people choose it because it will be a preference. That’s 

what they’ve had happen in Brazil. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that answer. And I certainly hope 

you’re right. And I don’t mean to be Mr. Doom & Gloom in regards 

to alternative fuels. I think it’s an exciting field, and I think it’s 

going to have a big economic impact. 

Audience, I want you to raise your hand: If you’re growing corn, 

OK, what’s the primary mission of you or what’s the primary goal? 

Why are you growing corn? And I want you to list it. Is it because 

of, in terms of priorities, human consumption, feed stuff, or fuel? 

Who believes our No. 1 priority is for human consumption? Gee, 

nobody raised their hand. Eat any corn on the cob around this 

country? OK. Feed stuff? Some cowboys in here, are you? Fuel? 

Still no hands. 

Well, my cowboys are going to be really happy. What happens if 

we have droughts? Actually, in Iowa and Illinois, they don’t happen 

very often. They just put the seed in the ground and farm. Now, 

out in Kansas, we have to farm because of the moisture we take 

in. But what would happen if we had a drought in Illinois and 

Iowa? Would we import from Brazil? What do you think? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I think we would. 

Senator ROBERTS. That ain’t going to be very popular. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. No. 

Senator ROBERTS. I’m glad that’s your deal, not mine. I just 

think we have to stop and think a minute and hope, as the gentleman has indicated, that the infrastructure catches up with this 

exciting new concept. And I’m all for it. I just don’t want to be back 

in the 1970’s when the Alcohol Fuels Commission and a lot of farmers got burned. So let’s do it step by step, and I think you’re right 

on the money. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Could I comment on that? 

Senator ROBERTS. Certainly. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Senator Roberts. We have certainly 

looked, as far as risk management, in dealing with those issues. 

And eternally we’ve been dealing with it through a hedging program. But as a farmer, we’re also looking at downhill we may begin 

to grow more corn. December 1907 corn futures traded as high as 

3.13, a 50 cent positive basis. That would put us in the 3.50 range. 

And I would think we might have more acres of corn that would 

be devoted to this, you know, effort of the country to have more 

corn. 

We have an awful lot of interest in our area from our vegetable 

producers about putting grain sorghums, which can be used to 

make ethanol, behind sweet corn and such and, you know, having 

more production through that. A lot of the companies are developing more drought-resistant varieties now. And you’re seeing more 

of the corns move back into some more arid regions, areas that 

have not been the No. 1 corn producing areas but they have the 

capability to produce quite a bit of corn, with good varieties and if 

the price dictates it. 

43

So it’s going to be market driven as far as the price, because on 

my farm, I’m going to grow on my acre what I can make the most 

money for my farm. And that’s just the way every farmer in this 

country thinks about it. And we love the flexibility of being able to 

do that. 

But there’s some opportunities for us to increase corn production 

in this country. We were talking about conservation a while ago. 

I understand there’s 344,000 acres, I think, comes out of CRP next 

year, about 16 million acres. I know all of those are not suitable 

lands, and we certainly don’t want to do away with any of our 

highly erodible lands and our conservation gains. But there is a 

great reserve of land out there that could go back into production 

if this country needs it to. And so I think we can begin to grow 

more corn that could be used as a fuel. 

And as one last point, it seems to always be lost in the equation 

that 18 pounds of a bushel of corn will be returned into the feed 

markets as a distillers’ market. It can be used—we’ve had dairymen already contact our economic developer in Mitchell County 

about the possibility of locating some large dairies in southwest 

Georgia because of the availability of a modified wet grain that can 

be used as a feed ingredient. 

So it’s not a tit for tat. You don’t use up every bushel of corn in 

producing fuel. You are going to return at least a third of it back 

into the feed markets. And I think that’s important. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you for great confidence in this. I think 

that pretty well does it for me, other than to say I do recognize that 

Georgia is a premier producer of cattle and poultry and I’m not 

surprised by the hand raising. Thank you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, thank you. And, gentlemen, thank you 

very much. Before we switch panels out, there are a couple more 

introductions I’d like to make. First of all, a longtime good friend 

of mine, the president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council is here, 

Gary Black. Gary, if you’ll stand up. Where is Gary? Somewhere 

in the back there. 

Unidentified Speaker. He had to leave. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. He had to leave. All right. Well, I mentioned 

the Agribusiness Council earlier when I was talking about our ag 

intern program. They have been vitally important to us, have been 

a very good partner in that. 

Two other folks I want to introduce: First of all, a lady who has 

been with me since I first got elected to Congress. She was my ag 

LD back in my original years in Congress, Martha Scott 

Poindexter. She now is the staff director, might add the first female 

staff director, of the Senate Ag Committee. Martha Scott, stand up. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. The Ag Committee has always been very bipartisan. We have to be. We work very closely with members on 

the other side of the aisle because agriculture is one of those industries that if you don’t stick together, you’re going to really see the 

demise of agricultural programs. And it’s certainly true with my 

ranking member, Tom Harkin, and myself. Tom is from Iowa. I’m 

from Georgia. We have different interests, but he is very supportive 

of programs that I desperately believe in from a parochial standpoint, as am I of his. His minority staff director, Mark Halverson, 

is down with us. Mark, stand up and let us recognize you. 

44

Senator CHAMBLISS. All right. Gentlemen, again, thank you all 

very much. We appreciate you being here, and we look forward to 

staying in touch with you. 

We’re now going to call our third panel, Dr. Jim Strickland, Mr. 

R.C. Hunt, Mr. Mike Giles, Dr. Elizabeth DesPortes Dreelin, and 

Mr. Jim Ham, if you all will please come forward. 

We’ll continue with our next panel. First of all, Dr. Jim Strickland from Glennville, Georgia, representing the Georgia Cattlemen’s Association; Mr. R.C. Hunt from Bailey, North Carolina, representing the National Pork Producers Council; Mr. Mike Giles 

from Gainesville, Georgia, representing the Georgia Poultry Federation; Dr. Elizabeth DesPortes Dreelin from Columbus, Georgia, 

representing The Nature Conservancy; and Mr. Jim Ham from 

Smarr, Georgia, representing the Georgia Association of Conservation District Supervisors and the National Association of Conservation Districts. 

So welcome to each of you for being here today. Again, we’ll take 

your whole statement for the record, but we look forward to any 

opening comments you wish to make. Dr. Strickland, we’ll start 

with you, and we’ll move right down the row. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. STRICKLAND, DVM PRESIDENT, 

GEORGIA CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION MEMBER, NATIONAL 

CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION 

Dr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss and Senator 

Roberson for being here. Thanks, Senator Roberson, for feeding our 

cattle. So we appreciate you holding hearings and allowing us to 

be a part of it. I am——

Senator ROBERTS. I think you said Roberson, now. That’s Pat 

Roberson. 

Dr. STRICKLAND. Yes. OK. It’s Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Yeah. He’s the preacher. I’m the Senator. 

Dr. STRICKLAND. OK. 

Senator ROBERTS. But if you all want to tithe in a brown paper 

bag up here for Saxby Chambliss, I’d sure be happy to hold it. And 

God bless you, sir. 

Dr. STRICKLAND. Thank you. We’ll try not to turn this into a 500 

Club. But I am Jim Strickland. I have been a practicing veterinarian and then served 15 years with the University of Georgia as 

a beef cattle specialist. And, of course, back in semiretirement 

doing some food animal practice and, of course, have the honor now 

of being a cattleman and severing as the GCA president and also 

an opportunity to be in other agricultural enterprises, a member of 

NCBA Georgia Farm Bureau. So I thank you for this opportunity. 

And as cattle and beef producers, our livelihood is tied to many 

other agricultural commodities. And we stress the organized and 

united effort as we try to produce the food for the people of the 

world. And livestock consumes three out of about four bushels of 

the major feed grains that are produced. And cattle in feed lots account for one-fourth of the total grain-consuming animal units, and 

all beef cattle count for about 30 percent of this. So cash receipts 

from cattle and calves in 2005 almost went to $50 billion. And 

these sales account for nearly 40 percent of livestock sales and, of 

course, almost half of farm receipts. 

45

In Georgia alone, there are about 1.2 million head of cattle on 

about 21,000 operations. Of that group, roughly two-thirds of them 

operate herds of less than 50 cattle and 17 percent have between 

50 and 100. So a lot of ours are made up of small operators. It’s 

the largest diversified enterprise for Georgia, and cattle are found 

in almost every county in the state in conjunction with the other 

enterprises that we have. And, of course, we feel like cattle are not 

only a farming operation but there are areas where they can be 

used as an agricultural operation and keep this opportunity before 

our young people as they carry out their projects in this urbanized 

society that we live in and looks like is increasing. 

As cattlemen and beef producers, we understand and embrace 

the fact that open and free market is powerful and it’s necessary 

and we can survive on that. But cyclical ups and downs of this 

market can be harsh. But the system works and we remain steadfastly committed to this as a free, private enterprise and competitive marketing system. It’s not in the nation’s farmers’ or cattlemen’s best interest for the government to implement policies that 

set prices, that dictate or manipulate our domestic supply or demand and cost or prices, and underwrites inefficient production in 

other areas that affect our marketing area. 

In the conservation and environment area, we see two areas 

there in the CRP program and also in the EQIP. In the animal ID, 

we are aggressively engaged in an issue of working with the southeastern area marketing. And, of course, we want to be sure that 

the data’s held in an area there where it’s confidential and the producers are assured that that’s so. And, of course, we can use it in 

times of disease in other areas. 

Research, we want to be sure that we continue research, especially in the animal area, where we can keep down any health 

emergencies that might occur and see a need to keep a strong research component—and this could relate into zoonotic diseases—

and, of course, especially ensure the safety of our food supply. 

Property rights, that has been spoken there. 

So in concluding, we are continuing to see pressure from economics on ours and want to be assured in the Farm Bill that we can 

be a part of the U.S. agricultural enterprise and work with the others. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland can be found on page 

124 in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Dr. Strickland. Mr. Hunt? 

STATEMENT OF R. C. HUNT PORK PRODUCER, WILSON, NORTH 

CAROLINA PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA PORK 

COUNCIL 

Mr. HUNT. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss and Senator Roberts. I am R.C. Hunt, a pork producer from Bailey, North Carolina. 

My family and I operate Andrew Hunt Farms, raising cattle, swine, 

and tilapia fish. My operation produces feeder pigs and finishes 

market hogs. 

I am currently the president of the North Carolina Pork Producers Council, and I’m here this morning testifying on behalf of 

the National Pork Producers Council. We are very grateful for you 

for holding this field hearing and for the opportunity to provide you 

46

with the pork industry’s views on what is working and what we 

need to do to improve as we consider reauthorization of the 1902 

Farm Bill. 

Pork producers have been actively engaged in discussions relating to the 1907 Farm Bill. We have organized an 1907 Farm Bill 

policy task force that is in the process of reviewing and evaluating 

many of the Farm Bill issues that will affect our industry. As pork 

producers, our livelihood is tied to many other agricultural commodities. 

This morning I would like to share some general comments and 

thoughts of the nation’s pork producers and what we have for the 

1907 Farm Bill. Pork producers make an investment in the industry to maintain a competitive edge domestically and globally. The 

1907 Farm Bill should make that same investment in allowing us 

to stay competitive. Taking these important steps will maintain a 

vibrant agricultural sector that provides a safe and secure food 

supply, innovative fuel options using our natural resources, and a 

continued abundant feed for our animals. 

We know the members of this Committee understand better than 

anyone, you know, the significance of the economic contribution 

that pork producers make to the U.S. agricultural sector and how 

important it is to grow our international markets and maintain our 

global competitiveness. The U.S. pork industry enjoyed its 15th 

consecutive year of record exports in 1905. We exported 905 million 

metric tons of pork and pork products that were valued at over 

$2.28 billion. In addition, we exported 164,000 metric tons of pork 

and variety meats. These shipments amounted to approximately 

$25 per head processed. 

Pork producers, along with other livestock and poultry producers, 

are the single biggest customers of the U.S. feed grain producers. 

Our single largest expense by far is the feed that we purchase for 

our animals. USDA estimates that the livestock feed will account 

for 6 billion bushels, 54 percent of the total corn usage this year. 

While USDA does not have a specific estimate on the soybean meal 

used for livestock feed, we suffice it to say that the livestock will 

use the vast majority. Of the total, pigs consumed just over 1 billion bushels of corn and meal from nearly 418 million bushels of 

soybeans in 1905. Pork producers are strong and vital contributors 

to the value-added agricultural economy in the U.S., and we’re 

deeply committed to the economic health and vitality of our business and communities their livelihoods help support. 

Pork production has changed dramatically in this country since 

the early 1990’s. Technology advances and new business models 

changed operational sizes, production systems, geographic distribution, and marketing practices. The demand for meat protein is on 

the rise in much of the world. Global competitiveness is a function 

of production economics, environmental regulation, labor costs, and 

productivity. The United States must continue to be a leader in 

food production to meet the increased consumer demands. 

As the U.S. pork industry evaluates reauthorization of the 1902 

Farm Bill, we have formulated some guiding principles for consideration: Principle Number 1, We must maintain a competitive advantage; Principle Number 2, We must strengthen our competitiveVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 Mar 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30131.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
47

ness; and Principle Number 3, We must prevent harm from our industry. 

The next Farm Bill should help U.S. pork industries maintain 

current points of competitive advantages. These include low production costs, unparalleled food safety, and further advancements 

in animal health. In addition to maintaining our competitive advantage, the next Farm Bill should strengthen that position by expanding and including such elements as trade assistance, research, 

risk management tools, and science-based conservation programs 

and environmental regulations. 

Finally, the next Farm Bill should not harm the competitive position of the U.S. pork industry by imposing costs on the industry by 

restricting the ability to meet consumer demands in an economical 

manner. Government intervention must not stand in the way of 

market-based demands. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we must be cautious of allowing activist groups which do not represent the best interests of our livestock sector to push their particular agenda by 

adding regulations to our business practices. This will severely 

alter the intent of the Farm Bill, a piece of legislation that has 

worked for the past 50 years. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, while 

my comments today have been preliminary, together I believe we 

can craft an 1907 Farm Bill that meets our objective by remaining 

competitive both domestic and in the world. And on behalf of the 

National Pork Producers Council and many pork producers around 

the country, we thank you for the day. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunt can be found on page 96 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. Mr. Giles? 

STATEMENT OF MIKE GILES SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

GEORGIA POULTRY FEDERATION GAINESVILLE, GEORGIA 

Mr. GILES. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss, Senator Roberts, 

Committee staff for the opportunity to present the views and recommendations of the Georgia Poultry Federation regarding reauthorization of the Farm Bill. 

My name is Mike Giles, and I am senior vice president of the 

Georgia Poultry Federation. The Federation’s primary mission is to 

advance the position of poultry producers in Georgia by advocating 

the interests of poultry growers, companies, and allied industries. 

Georgia is the top producer of broilers in the United States, last 

year producing more than 1.3 billion broilers weighing over 6.7 billion pounds. These figures translate into farming opportunities for 

approximately 4,000 poultry growers throughout the state. We are 

hopeful that the next Farm Bill will set the foundation for expanded opportunities for existing and future poultry growers. 

We have been pleased with the focus on conservation programs 

over the life of the current Farm Bill. The most common direct connection with the Farm Bill for many poultry growers is through 

conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) through USDA NRCS. Well-managed farms, 

we believe, are our best hope to ensure clean air and water for generations to come. Cost-share programs such as EQIP allow poultry 

48

producers to be proactive in practices that have a benefit to the 

public. 

Access to exports are vital for Georgia poultry growers and companies. Competing in international markets is becoming more intense, especially for U.S. poultry producers who see lower cost 

countries, like Brazil, gaining in the world market. At the same 

time, meeting international obligations and responsibilities of being 

a leader in the World Trade Organization will be even greater in 

the future. 

Given these factors and other concerns, such as energy and the 

environment, we think it is time to think broadly about crafting a 

new Farm Bill that provides a different approach to helping protect 

a farmer’s income while expanding agriculture’s ability to meet 

new marketing opportunities. A farm policy that is more compatible with World Trade Organization rules and obligations, while 

very challenging, as we discussed and acknowledge, is prudent and 

necessary. 

A critical component to help ensure cost competitiveness of U.S. 

animal agriculture is encouraging sufficient cropland to meet feed 

grains and oil seed users’ needs for domestic demand and export 

sales, especially considering increased demand for grains and oil 

seeds due to biofuel production. With continuing loss of land to urbanization around major cities and the large amount of farmland 

currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, the ability 

of U.S. agriculture to expand crop acreage is limited. We think the 

use of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program should 

be an option available in the event the market signals for more 

production. Deciding between crops for fuel and crops for animal 

feed is not a decision that needs to be made in a time of crisis. 

With regard to the Federal crop insurance program, we think it 

is appropriate to build on the evaluations already begun by USDA’s 

Risk Management Agency in the area of insurance products for animal agriculture. Various hazards, such as weather and disease, 

pose a risk for animal agriculture producers. We believe that insurance products designed to protect against these risks would be 

helpful to poultry growers and other animal producers. 

Underpinning these recommendations and considerations is the 

ongoing need to adequately fund USDA’s critical responsibilities, 

including the Foreign Agricultural Service’s role in enhancing farm 

exports and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s role 

in responding to animal disease threats and foreign governments 

which use non-science based veterinary provisions to slow or halt 

U.S. agricultural exports. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share the thoughts and 

recommendations of the Georgia Poultry Federation. We look forward to working with the Committee to assist in crafting a new 

Farm Bill that not only meets the current challenges and opportunities but helps set the foundation for generations of American 

farmers to thrive and enjoy the success of an expanding world demand for food and fiber. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giles can be found on page 84 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much. Dr. Dreelin? 

49

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH DESPORTES DREELIN 

Dr. DREELIN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Roberts, and members of 

the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 

Committee today. My name is Beth Dreelin. I’m a private forest 

landowner, one of about 650,000 here in Georgia where my family 

has been growing trees for several generations. Together these individual families own about 60 percent of Georgia’s forests. 

Georgia’s forests produce our highest valued crop, timber, sup- porting over 68,000 jobs and generating nearly $23 billion for our 

state’s economy. However, today the owners of our forests are facing a crisis. It is becoming increasingly difficult to remain in business and to keep our forest land forested. This is because we no 

longer have adequate markets for our products to sustain ourselves 

along the way to growing a full rotation of saw timber for which 

we still have a market. 

Growth, which I consider a good thing for Georgia, is driving 

land values up. And, hence, we’re paying much higher property 

taxes than ever better. Therefore, it costs us more to grow our timber and we have fewer products that we can sell, resulting in many 

private forest landowners being forced to sell their forested land for 

development usage. This is occurring at the rate of about a million 

acres per year throughout the South. Certainly, for some forest 

owners, selling their land is the right choice. But I fear that we’re 

rapidly traveling down a road that will lead to no other option than 

to sell out. 

Only forest land and growing trees is a deeply ingrained family 

tradition and one that I personally love. However, I think most of 

us private forest landowners are asking ourselves: How long can 

we keep doing what we are doing? We need to know that every 

acre of timber that we plant will be worth something some day. 

I have a great deal of hope for the future of our forests in Georgia, and much of this hope is riding on the 2007 Farm Bill. The 

2007 Farm Bill will critically impact if not determine this future. 

Our current crisis can be resolved, I believe. Let me suggest four 

broad strategies. 

First, forest landowners should earn a return for all of the products they produce, not just the ones that we can chip or saw. We 

desperately need to create and facilitate real markets for ecosystems services, ranging from carbon to clean water. It is only 

right and responsible that the public help support the benefits they 

enjoy. We need robust cost-share programs that both assist and reward forest owners who make investments to improve water quality, protect wetlands, and provide wildlife habitat. Many Silva-culture practices, such as planting longleaf pine, are a great ecological 

benefit, providing important wildlife habitat as well as hunting and 

other recreational opportunities. But asking forest landowners to 

provide these benefits for free while they wait 80 to 100 years for 

any return is simply unrealistic. 

Second we need to do a better job coordinating the alphabet soup 

of Federal programs. We need to identify and prioritize critical forest resources and make sure programs support each other and 

don’t duplicate each other. These programs need to be aimed at the 

highest priority conservation goals and need to mesh well with the 

state and local levels. 

50

Third, I hope the 2007 Farm Bill will re-energize existing vehicles and spur development of new and creative delivery systems for 

outreach, education, and technical assistance. A well-funded forest 

stewardship program will be critical, along with new approaches to 

knitting together the work done by the Forest Service, NRCS, Extension Service, and the various State agencies that connect with 

family forest owners. This will help us sustain our forest and conservation practices. 

Fourth, we need to take a hard look at what is working and what 

is not, making certain that every dollar we invest in public for family forests does at least a dollars worth of work where it counts, 

in the woods, for the good of us all. We hope Congress will seek 

ways to assess the impact of programs based on outcomes, not just 

number of acres or contracts. It is the only way to see where we’re 

doing the best job and where we might have unnecessary duplication. 

I am a realist. I know this is going to come down to money and 

there’s not much of it, if any, to spare. But I also know that investing in Georgia’s forests is not a zero sum game. It benefits everyone who cares about strong and robust rural communities, a growing economy, and a healthy environment. I cannot think of a more 

important goal for the 2007 Farm Bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dreelin can be found on page 78 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. Mr. Ham? 

STATEMENT OF JIM HAM, GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUPERVISORS AND THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 

Mr. HAM. Good morning. I’m Jim Ham. I’m a middle Georgia 

farmer, Monroe County commissioner, and president of the Georgia 

Association of Conservation District Supervisors. I’m pleased to be 

here today representing not only Georgia conservation districts but 

also the 3,000 districts nationwide. 

For over 60 years, conservation districts have played an important role making sure local leaders help make decisions regarding 

the use of natural resources. Districts across the country just like 

mine are active in the delivery of Federal, State, and local conservation policies and programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank you for holding this 

hearing today in Albany and for including conservation issues on 

the agenda. I fully understand much of today has been and should 

be focused on the farm programs and the Farm Bill. However, I’m 

pleased you and the Committee understand the value and importance of the conservation title. 

The conservation title has grown over the last decade to now represent significant funding and meaningful technical assistance to 

farmers and ranchers across this country. This commitment allows 

farmers like me to not only protect my soil and water but also be 

a better neighbor and citizen. The 2002 Farm Bill has also resulted 

in new participants coming to the conservation table and has created new partnerships both at the local and national level. 

I farm in an area that is changing. My friends from the city are 

moving out to enjoy our open spaces, fresh air, and wildlife. While 

51

most do want to live in the country, many are not ready to be 

neighbors with a chicken farmer. Applying nutrients on my farm, 

it can be a little interesting at times, a not-so-pleasant activity for 

some of my new friends. My neighbors understand this but are also 

pleased that I use the latest technologies and most current and 

best management practices to complete the application process as 

well as other activities such as spraying. 

I have an EQIP conservation contract that has allowed me to 

cross-fence pastures to better utilize my grass, fence out ponds and 

streams to protect water quality, install stream crossings, renovate 

heavy use areas to prevent soil erosion, and manage animal waste. 

Row crop producers in Georgia have benefited from such practices 

such as conservation tillage, pest management, and irrigation management plans under the EQIP program, resulting in better management of land and other resources. 

The conservation programs and policies in many ways help keep 

me on the farm. While I get other support from the commodity programs, the conservation tools, both technical and financial, have 

helped me and many others avoid regulation and continue to be 

able to farm in an ever changing environment. 

I know my time is limited here today, and there is much more 

to say on the conservation. So with the Chairman’s permission, I’ll 

submit more details in March for the record. But I do want to leave 

you and the Committee with several thoughts regarding the conservation provisions in the Farm Bill, because they are critical to 

the success and productivity of agriculture. 

First, there must be a continued commitment by Congress to provide much needed and much used technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers. We appreciate the increasing awareness that there needs to be a balance of programs that both address lands that are in active production of food and fiber as well 

as lands that are retired and protected. Lands need and use both, 

and we hope Congress will continue to recognize that no one program meets the needs of all farmers and ranchers. 

The Committee should also remember Federal conservation programs that allow local and state conservation groups and governments to multiply the benefits. Program dollars are leveraged 

many times over. For example, the state of Georgia’s investment in 

agricultural water metering is being leveraged with Federal funds 

to provide farmers with cost-share opportunities to upgrade their 

irrigation systems, properly schedule application of irrigation 

water, and construct offstream reservoirs to provide supplemental 

irrigation. We also have an initiative working with State government providing an increased commitment to farmland protection. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of talk that the next Farm Bill 

will include a strong renewable energy title. We, too, recognize the 

needs and benefits of energy production in the U.S. on our lands. 

However, we just caution the Committee not to minimize the conservation gains in all programs we’ve achieved over the last 20 to 

25 years. We see potential for renewable energy production in 

Georgia through our forestry resources that could be a valuable 

source of cellulosic energy production with available biomass. We 

support continued research and development on the viability of 

these renewable resources. 

52

And, Mr. Chairman, while conservation Farm Bill programs have 

often been championed by your colleagues in the Midwest and 

other parts of the country, I want you to know that we in Georgia 

see you as the next leader on these issues. I know you love the land 

just like I do and so many others here today. I know that you are 

committed to make sure the conservation title stays strong and 

vital in the 2007 Farm Bill. So I thank you in advance. 

We all have a great opportunity in the 2007 Farm Bill to build 

on the good programs and policies that were advanced in 2002. I 

pledge to you that the Georgia conservation districts and those of 

us around the country, too, want to do and be an active player in 

this next Farm Bill process. We want to work with you to make 

sure the next conservation titles provide some meaningful assistance to producers and results the taxpayers can appreciate and 

enjoy. Thank you. I’m sorry I went over. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ham can be found on page 91 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. That’s all right. Good stuff, Jim. 

Let me direct this first question to Mr. Strickland, Mr. Hunt, and 

Mr. Giles. What’s your most pressing environmental or conservation concern, such as soil erosion, air emission, or manure management. Do the existing conservation programs help you address your 

concerns? And how could they be improved to help you? Dr. Strickland, we’ll start off with you. 

Dr. STRICKLAND. One of the most pressing we had was the recent 

conflict between Arkansas and, I think, Oklahoma, when they were 

trying to sue one another. And maybe this didn’t have much effect 

on the Farm Bill, but I think it shows us the extent that the between-state standoffs can be a problem. And we need to put something maybe in the Farm Bill that will address this, where this is 

covered and won’t be thrown in the hands of other people that 

maybe interpret our laws. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Hunt? 

Mr. HUNT. Specific to the pork industry, I think our pressing 

issue environmentally would be manure management today. We’ve 

made a lot of strides in that area, making tremendous improvements, but that still is a pressing issue for our industry. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Mr. Giles, farmers in Georgia have seen 

a huge increase in poultry production. And folks like Mr. Ham have 

been utilizing some of your excess material there. And that’s a 

growing problem, I know, around the state. Is that your most 

pressing problem or one of these others? 

Mr. GILES. I think it would probably be. For the last five or 10 

years, it has been an issue that we’ve addressed and it is pressing. 

We all know that chicken litter, manure, is a valuable fertilizer. 

It’s a great organic fertilizer. Sometimes it’s not produced in the 

state exactly where it needs to be. So one thing that the NRCS 

State Technical Committee has developed a pilot project last year 

through EQIP to develop a program that provides incentives for 

moving the litter from an area where it’s high production to an 

area where it’s in greater need. And this has been, I think, good 

timing because of energy costs and commercial fertilizer costs. It 

has provided another option for manure transfer for farmers in 

south Georgia. 

53

Another emerging area there are also in terms of manure management, innovative ways to address and utilize manure energy 

production, which there is a plant in north Georgia which has announced that they will use chicken litter to produce energy. And we 

have some other opportunities in that way, so research is important. 

I think an issue that is growing in importance and on the horizon for us is ammonia. As you know, there was an air emissions 

agreement that was proposed by EPA. And that process is ongoing. 

There will be a study that will be looking at risks associated with 

ammonia emissions and what are the actual risks and what are the 

actual emissions. So that’s an issue that we think is something we 

really need to keep an eye on. And research, again, is going to be 

important there. 

And third, I’ll just echo what Dr. Strickland said about the manure, the court case in Texas and Oklahoma and Arkansas which 

characterizes manure as a hazardous substance. I realize this may 

not be a Farm Bill issue particularly, but it is a very important 

issue, not only for our animal agriculture but also for any farmer 

who uses manure as a fertilizer. The risks associated with Superfund laws, we think, are tremendous, and we don’t think it was initially intended to cover manure. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. To Dr. Strickland and Mr. Hunt, during the 

last Farm Bill debate, there was considerable discussion on competition in the livestock marketplace, and this included marketing 

issues such as bans on packer ownership of cattle and forward contracting as well as mandatory country of origin labeling. What effect would these sorts of restrictions or mandates on marketing 

have on cattlemen and pork producers? Should Congress reauthorize the livestock mandatory price supporting program? And if so, 

are there any needed changes to that program? 

Dr. STRICKLAND. Well, we believe in a free market system. And 

there’s been some suits on some of those. And, of course, some of 

those might have been settled. But we feel like that right now, 

there’s not really anything that needs to be in the farm program 

as far as the market controls there. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. How about the mandatory price support 

issue, though? Do we need to reauthorize that, in your opinion? 

Dr. STRICKLAND. Well, I don’t know as we necessarily do. We 

have a marketing reporting system that gives us information. That 

might be more important in some of the feed lot areas, you know, 

than maybe it would be with ours. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. OK. Mr. Hunt? 

Mr. HUNT. Your question on the concentrated livestock with 

packer bans, you know, just look back over the years and look at 

the evolution that our industry has taken. It didn’t happen by 

choice. It just was predicated on different issues dealing with our 

antitrust laws. Every industry that I know of today, there’s just a 

tremendous amount of consolidation, unfortunately. 

In our business today, I think food safety is our No. 1 priority. 

And what we see is a company or a packer out there producing 

pork products, their goal is to ensure the quality all the way from 

the bottom line, from the farm. And that’s, I think, been a major 

contributor to our consolidation, having that product produced, 

54

having a hands-on impact through the whole step of production all 

the way to the table. 

So it’s certainly an interesting structure that we have in our 

country today, and it would be detrimental to change that at the 

current times. Specific to mandatory pricing, we would not be in 

favor of that, just simply because of the economics and expense involved in that process. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Dr. Dreelin, everybody’s going to have 

to keep in mind that any new program efforts will most likely take 

away from existing programs, given the fact that the Federal deficit obviously continues to be a problem. You alluded to that. But 

given these budget constraints, what can we do, in your opinion, 

that’s going to be most helpful for landowners? Is there any kind 

of new concept, new idea, that we should look at as far as developing or take some of our existing programs and do a better job 

with those programs? 

Dr. DREELIN. In terms of incentives? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Yes. 

Dr. DREELIN. I like the programs that are there. I think do a better job in coordinating what’s there that so we know they’re being 

used efficiently and not being duplicating and coordinating with 

the other agencies. I think, also, there are other organizations, for 

example, The Nature Conservancy, that has been extremely helpful 

in coordinating these types of programs. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Do you use CRP at all in your personal family operation? 

Dr. DREELIN. We have received incentives to plant longleafs and 

prescribed burning through the conservation program, yes, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Ham, what’s the right balance between 

land retirement programs like the Conservation Reserve program 

and working land programs like EQIP? How do we need to look at 

this both financially as well as otherwise in the next Farm Bill? 

Mr. HAM. I think we’re pretty close to the right balance now. 

Most of our land in my part of the county is already in CRP and 

will remain in CRP. I don’t think it will ever come back out. You’re 

dealing with mostly beef cattle in my area of the state and poultry 

producers who can take advantage of EQIP real easy, in-fence and 

outstreams and trying to help the water quality. So I think you 

have the balance in my area of the state. I’m not as sure nationwide, but I’d be glad to get that information to you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS. Jim and I want everybody in the audience and 

all members of the panel to know that Saxby Chambliss has been 

leading the way to convince the Japanese, from a sound science 

standpoint, that they should reopen their markets to the American 

beef industry. And that applies as well to other countries in Asia, 

not only Japan but China and also Korea. And we’ve got a problem. 

You have the Japanese government—is he a prime minister or premier? I can’t remember which. But at any rate, Koisumi, is going 

to be stepping down. They’ve got an election in September. And 

they’ve got two outfits. One is very similar to the USDA and AFIS 

and FDA but looks at it from a sound science standpoint. And then 

you’ve got this other outfit that runs around the countryside and 

holds town hall meetings and basically says do you want zero risk 

55

or do people want zero risk and there isn’t such a thing as zero risk 

in the talks on trade technology. 

They’ve had—what, Saxby?—23, 26, 28 cases of BSE. They import their cattle from China, and you know that’s really safe. And 

we’ve inspected 700,000 critters, and we’re headed for 800,000 and 

possibly a million. So he’s been meeting with the Ambassador and 

working overtime to open up those markets. That’s cost us $3.2 billion——

Senator CHAMBLISS. Right. 

Senator ROBERTS [continuing]. A year. That’s just really not satisfactory. And then you get back to the trade talks on a level playing field, and you take a look at that and you really scratch your 

head and say, ‘‘Wait a minute here. This just isn’t right.’’

And I’m going to make this quick. But Saxby even went over to 

Russia and dragged me along. And I’m his Doberman. I can’t say 

anything on the Intelligence Committee. And I get very frustrated. 

So he has a chain and he has it around my neck, and I’m the Doberman. And so when he needs somebody to get obstreperous, then 

he just takes the chain off. 

And he was in St. Petersburg. And we were talking to the oligarch and the guy in the Armani suit who intelligence indicated 

was not a friend of the United States. And he wasn’t. He was a hot 

dog, and he was rather sort of a jerk. And he was in charge of the 

export-import licenses. And he was going on and on. And we’re 

helping them. We’re helping them with AFIS to clear up their BSE 

problem. They import the same kind of cattle from other countries 

that have not been inspected, but we can’t seem to break through 

with Russia. 

And so the Chairman was being very gracious and, like you are 

supposed to do on a Code L, said, ‘‘What can we do to help you in 

regards to BSE, and how can we resolve this issue?’’

And this oligarch stood up and said that basically he had a lot 

of problems with the United States because of the recent infestation of BSE. And I said, ‘‘Why? We’ve only had one Canadian cow 

out of 700,000.’’

And he said, ‘‘Well, in 1998, several mink’’—mink, you know, 

fury animals, coats—‘‘had, you know, BSE.’’

And I was a little stunned by that. And I had read the intelligence report. And I didn’t much care for him, anyway. So I just 

said, ‘‘Are you feeling all right.’’

And he said, ‘‘Well, of course.’’

And I said, ‘‘Are you sure? Is your eyesight OK?’’

And he said, ‘‘Well, yes.’’ And he was getting a little perturbed 

with me. 

And I said, ‘‘Well, I just wondered. I didn’t know if you could tell 

the difference between a mink and a cow.’’

And Saxby gave me a fast look and tried to kick me underneath 

the table. And that didn’t work. And so I said, ‘‘Moreover, Mr. 

Chairman, I’ve heard an awful lot of this. And you’ve given our position. And, Mr. Minister, I don’t think you’ve been really cooperative at all. I just have other things I can do with my time, so I’m 

leaving.’’ And I just got up and left. And just before I slammed the 

door, I said, ‘‘By the way, I’ll send you a picture of a mink and a 

cow so you can know the difference.’’

56

I slammed the door. And I turned the wrong way. And I had on 

a pass. And I was walking down a hallway with an awful lot of 

Russian women who had red hair—they dye their hair—and other 

people who certainly wintered well. And I was trying to get out. 

And I said, ‘‘How do I get out? Who speaks English?’’

And finally somebody said, ‘‘Try the staircase.’’ So I went down 

the staircase and got out, finally. 

And I looked way down the way, and I had gone way too long. 

And there was the white van. And then by the time I got there, 

out came the Chairman and our whole delegation. And they looked 

at me, and Saxby said, ‘‘Look, OK. You’re the Doberman. But the 

next time you go off the chain, let me know.’’

And that just sort of indicates our efforts to try to get some fair 

trade there. You know, there’s a process announced here just yesterday with Japan. But some of us felt that we should be introducing sanctions legislation. And we did. And we said, ‘‘OK. 

Through the U.S. trade representative, if not by September 21, if 

we don’t have an agreement here and if the beef is not moving, we 

want sanctions across the board to cover the 3.2 billion.’’

So if that’s what we have to do in order to get tough and play 

fair for the farmer, that’s what we’re going to do. That was a 

speech, not a question. Jim, thank you. I’ll make this quick. 

Dr. STRICKLAND. Let me take this opportunity to thank the entire Committee and also, of course, the secretary. I think he mentioned those sanctions when we were up there early in Washington. 

But the autos, we know, have flaws, and one of them can’t seem 

to stop the import of others. So——

Senator ROBERTS. I’m going to pass on some of the questions that 

the Chairman has already answered, with the exception that, Mr. 

Giles, you indicated and all of you indicated that you want to tap 

into the Conservation Reserve Program. Kansas has more CRP 

acres than any other state. We have a working relationship with 

hunters and with conservationists and with environmentalists. And 

it’s not productive land. And there is concern in many counties 

where you have a lot of acreage that is tied up, some of which could 

come back into production. That is not an instant answer, but it 

is a possible answer. And I just wanted to put that caveat in there. 

Let me see if there’s anything else. 

Dr. Dreelin, you mentioned The Nature Conservancy. I don’t 

know what we’d have done without your help in regards to the 

Cheyenne Bottom, which is over by Gray Branch, Kansas, and one 

of the largest migratory waterfowl bus stops coming from the north 

to the south. And it’s worked out, you know, very well. 

Do you have any criteria by which you can measure carbon sequestration, more especially along the forest ground that you have? 

Dr. DREELIN. I don’t have a good answer for that, but I’d be 

happy to research it and convey that information to you. 

Senator ROBERTS. We’ve got a guy name Dr. Jim Rice out of K 

State. And I went down to the South Pole with Ted Stevens, which 

was quite a trip. And I looked at all the ice corridors. And, yes, we 

are going through global warming and, yes, it’s a challenge and, 

yes, agriculture can be part of the answer. 

And one of the things you want to think about is you can’t explain carbon sequestration much to anybody expect carbon in the 

57

air, bad, carbon in the soil, good. And if you go through certain 

cropping practices that you ought to go through anyway, you can 

achieve that. And I never thought about it in terms of the forest 

land. But if you could quantify that in any way, that could be part 

of the farm program and part of the energy section of the farm program. We’ve done a lot of research on that, but we haven’t been 

able to quite quantify it to justify it to the taxpayers. But it’s something you ought to think about. Let’s see if there’s anything else. 

Jim, your testimony mentions the problems that gross income restrictions have on conservation program participation caused since 

the 2002 Farm Bill in Georgia. I assume this has been a major 

issue for your poultry producers. In Kansas this has restricted the 

ability of our cattle feed lots to use the program and our cattle 

feeders to use the program. Any suggestions on any modifications 

we could make to those limits that would allow these producers to 

make the conservation steps they desire to make and they should 

make with their operations? 

Mr. HAM. Well, I think if they’re going to play, they’re going to 

have to play by your rules. I think it needs to be more flexible and 

it needs to be more driven from the locals. If there’s a way to move 

some of the control down locally, then I think that would help tremendously. That would let the participants know that they’re being 

judged by their peers and not so much being judged by people from 

outside the area. I think that would help. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, that works pretty well for the whole 

damn Federal Government. 

Mr. HAM. I didn’t mean that in the sense of everything else, but 

I think you get the gist of it. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, yeah. You know, we’re means testing 

these programs, and the people who really could make use of them 

and really make a difference are means tested out of the program. 

I know that’s always a tough thing to fight because, you know, people look at the amount and people say you have a large operation, 

obviously you can afford it. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I’ve enjoyed this a ton. I think 

we’re probably a little late. But I want to thank the witnesses for 

taking the time, thank all you folks for taking the time out of your 

valuable schedule to come and listen. It’s been very educational for 

me, and we’ll work very hard for you. And, obviously, I’m going to 

work very hard with your outstanding Chairman. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, Pat, thank you very much. Thanks to 

all members of this panel for being here. Again, your insight has 

been very helpful. We look forward to dialoguing with you as we 

move toward next spring and the physical writing of this Farm 

Bill. And we’ll be calling on you folks, I’m sure, from time to time. 

I, too, want to again thank all of you all for being here today. 

We’ve had a great crowd, and for the most part everybody has 

stuck around for the entire hearing. And we appreciate that very 

much. 

Sanford, thank you, my good friend. We appreciate Vivian letting 

you off today to come spend the morning with us. And I thank you 

for all your good work. Thanks for your friendship. 

58

Mac Collins, Mac, thanks for your being here and sitting and listening to these folks that are the hardest working folks in Georgia. 

And they’re great people, men and women. 

I’m not sure whether Richard’s still here or Gene is still here. 

Yeah, Gene, there we go. Thank you guys, again. Thanks for your 

hard work in Atlanta and thanks for being here to pay attention 

to an issue that is critical to all of America but particularly critical 

to our state. 

To all the witnesses, I want to thank each panel again. Your testimony has been very valuable to us. I want to encourage anyone, 

and that’s anyone here today or if you know of anybody who has 

an interest in what’s going to be written in the next Farm Bill, that 

you can submit a written statement to the record. All you have to 

do is visit the Committee’s Web site, agriculture.senate.gov. And 

you can get the details on how you submit that statement. We can 

accept a written statement that will be included in this hearing for 

up to five business days. We’ll keep the record open for 5 days for 

the submission of that. 

Just looking out there, I hadn’t seen him before, but I see Jody 

Redding out there. Jody is the representative for this part of the 

state for my close personal friend, good friend of Pat’s, Senator 

Johnny Isakson. Jody, thank you for being here, buddy. Johnny is 

a great friend of agriculture, and what a terrific guy to have to 

work with. 

Thank all of you for your interest in agricultural policy. We look 

forward to, again, staying in touch with all of you as we go through 

the preparation for the next Farm Bill. And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Hearing Adjourned] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 23, 2006

60


30131.001
61


30131.002
62


30131.003
63


30131.004
64


30131.005
65


30131.006
66


30131.007
67


30131.008
68


30131.009
69


30131.010
70


30131.011
71


30131.012
72


30131.013
73


30131.014
74


30131.015
75


30131.016
76


30131.017
77


30131.018
78


30131.019
79


30131.020
80


30131.021
81


30131.022
82


30131.023
83


30131.024
84


30131.025
85


30131.026
86


30131.027
87


30131.028
88


30131.029
89


30131.030
90


30131.031
91


30131.032
92


30131.033
93


30131.034
94


30131.035
95


30131.036
96


30131.037
97


30131.038
98


30131.039
99


30131.040
100


30131.041
101


30131.042
102


30131.043
103


30131.044
104


30131.045
105


30131.046
106


30131.047
107


30131.048
108


30131.049
109


30131.050
110


30131.051
111


30131.052
112


30131.053
113


30131.054
114


30131.055
115


30131.056
116


30131.057
117


30131.058
118


30131.059
119


30131.060
120


30131.061
121


30131.062
122


30131.063
123


30131.064
124


30131.065
125


30131.066
126


30131.067
127


30131.068
128


30131.069
129


30131.070
130


30131.071
131


30131.072
132


30131.073
133


30131.074
134


30131.075
135


30131.076
(137)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JUNE 23, 2006

138


30131.077
139


30131.078
140


30131.079
141


30131.080
142


30131.081
143


30131.082
144


30131.083
145


30131.084
146


30131.085
147


30131.086
148


30131.087
149


30131.088
150


30131.089
151


30131.090
152


30131.091
153


30131.092
154


30131.093
155


30131.094
156


30131.095
157


30131.096
158


30131.097
159


30131.098
160


30131.099
161


30131.100
162


30131.101
163


30131.102
164


30131.103
165


30131.104
166


30131.105
167


30131.106
168


30131.107
169


30131.108
170


30131.109
171


30131.110
172


30131.111
173


30131.112
174


30131.113
175


30131.114
176


30131.115
177


30131.116
178


30131.117
179


30131.118
180


30131.119
181


30131.120
182


30131.121
183


30131.122
184


30131.123
185


30131.124
186


30131.125
187


30131.126
188

Æ