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

30–127 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–821

FIELD HEARING ON 2007 FARM BILL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, 

AND RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 11, 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):

Field Hearing on 2007 Farm Bill ........................................................................... 1

Friday, August 11, 2006

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho ...................................................... 1

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

Dillin, Tim, Idaho Grain Producers of Idaho, Porthill, Idaho .............................. 7

Esplin, Keith, Potato Growers of Idaho, Blackfoot, Idaho .................................... 13

Evans, Jim, USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, Idaho Dry Pea and Lentil 

Commission, Genesee, Idaho ............................................................................... 8

Vanderwoude, John, United Dairymen of Idaho, Nampa, Idaho, testifying 

on behalf of Idaho Dairymen’s Association ........................................................ 10

PANEL II 

Hawley, Kyle, Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts, Moscow, 

Idaho ..................................................................................................................... 23

Knight, Lloyd, Idaho Cattle Association, Roberts, Idaho ..................................... 25

Mansfield, Terry, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, on behalf of the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Boise, Idaho ................................... 28

Miles, Rebecca, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho .................................................. 3

Noh, Laird, The Nature Conservancy of Idaho, Kimberly, Idaho ........................ 27

PANEL III 

Bohach, Gregory, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of 

Idaho, Moscow, Idaho .......................................................................................... 40

Frei, Christine, Clearwater Economic Development Association, Lewiston, 

Idaho ..................................................................................................................... 44

Roach, Lorraine, Idaho Rural Partnership, Grangeville, Idaho ........................... 42

Simon, Roger, The Idaho Food Bank, Boise, Idaho .............................................. 46

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 58

Bohach, Gregory ............................................................................................... 61

Dillin, Tim ......................................................................................................... 70

Esplin, Keith ..................................................................................................... 74

Evans, Jim ........................................................................................................ 78

Frei, Christine .................................................................................................. 82

Hawley, Kyle ..................................................................................................... 86

Knight, Lloyd .................................................................................................... 92

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued

Mansfield, Terry ............................................................................................... 99

Miles, Rebecca ................................................................................................... 104

Noh, Laird (with attachments) ........................................................................ 106

Roach, Lorraine ................................................................................................ 124

Simon, Roger ..................................................................................................... 126

Vanderwoude, John .......................................................................................... 130

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Idaho Rural Partnership, prepared statement ...................................................... 136

Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association, prepared statement ......................... 137

(1)

FIELD HEARING ON 2007 FARM BILL 

AUGUST 11, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION AND

RURAL REVITALIZATION, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Moscow, ID 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. at the University of Idaho, Hon. Mike Crapo, chairman of the subcommittee, 

presiding. 

Present: Senator Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Before I get into my opening statement, let me 

gavel this hearing open. This is a hearing, a formal hearing of the 

Senate Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization relating to the Federal farm policy. 

Idaho is very fortunate. Not every state is going to be able to 

have a hearing. In fact, I believe most states are not going to be 

able to have hearings, and we are fortunate to be able to be one 

of the states that is going to be able to have a hearing in terms 

of providing input to the next Farm Bill. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for the time and effort that 

they have put in to preparing their testimony and traveling here 

to participate in today’s hearing. 

As Congress prepares to write the next Farm Bill, there is really 

nothing more important than getting input from farmers and 

ranchers in rural communities and others who are most affected by 

the Federal farm policy. 

Hearings such as this, which is the eighth Senate Agricultural 

Committee field hearing held across the nation, and the 11 field 

hearings that are being held by the House Agriculture Committee 

are essential in that process. 

The world trade negotiations increased energy and other farm 

input costs and the far different Federal budget situation than the 

projected budget surplus that we had when the 2002 Farm Bill was 

written add significant changes to crafting the next Farm Bill. 

However, it remains clear that producers must have a proper 

safety net, broader foreign market access and assistance with meeting the increased demands of our natural resources. 

Through strong leadership the Senate Agriculture Committee, 

Chairman Saxby Chambliss, we are going to be working to write 

2

a Farm Bill that meets these challenges while enabling success for 

U.S. agriculture. 

The bottom line is that we need to ensure the Federal farm policy addresses the needs and complexes of agriculture, while continuing to enable farmers and ranchers to provide a safe and abundant food supply. Also helping them strengthen our rural communities, our businesses and supporting the stewardship of our rural 

communities. 

This is not a small task. With more than 25,000 farmers and 

ranchers in Idaho producing more than 140 commodities, Idaho has 

an important voice to lend in writing the next Farm Bill. 

Today we are going to hear from witnesses representing various 

Idaho agriculture sectors, and we are also going to hear testimony 

from conservation, rural development and nutrition groups and the 

Nez Perce Tribe. 

There is ample opportunity beyond today to provide input for the 

next Farm Bill as well. The record for this hearing is going to remain open for five business days, and formal comments can be submitted during that time. Or anyone who’s interested can submit informal views through the Senate Agriculture Committee website or 

through my own website, or by simply contacting me or my staff. 

I look forward to our discussion today and to valuable input that 

we are going to receive from Idahoans as we craft this next bill. 

Now, as we move forward with the witnesses, I want to remind 

all of the witnesses that as you were invited, the letter told you to 

prepare your testimony to last 5 minutes. Your written statements 

and testimony will be included as a part of the record. But I ask 

you to pay very close attention to the 5 minute limitation on your 

oral presentation, because we want to get engaged in some give 

and take on the questions and answers, and we do have a lot of 

witnesses to testify. 

And if you are like me, your 5 minutes is going to be done before 

you are. I never seem to get everything I want said, said in the 

time limits that I have when I’m giving a speech or make a presentation. 

So, what I would encourage you to do, Andree Duvarney is sitting right over here, she has some little time cards to help you remember where your time is. Andree, what do your cards say? 

Ms. DUVARNEY. And I have 2 minutes warning, a 1–minute 

warning, and then a time up. 

Senator CRAPO. OK. And I encourage you as the time is up, to 

please just kind of wrap up whatever thought you are on at that 

point. 

Understand that you will have an opportunity to make the rest 

of your points or to present other information in a question and answer period or to supplement the record, but we do want to have 

you—we do want to try to keep everybody on time so that we can 

get everybody through in terms of their testimony, and have an opportunity for dialog. 

So, I would encourage you to do that. And if you go too far over, 

I will likely rap the gavel here to remind you to wrap up so that 

we can keep ourselves on pace. I hate to do that and I hate to run 

such a tight ship, but we have learned that we have to do that, or 

3

we won’t get everybody’s testimony concluded and have the opportunity for some give and take and questions and answers. 

Now, I also want to announce one other change. As you may 

have noticed—if you picked up a schedule, we had originally scheduled three panels to take place. I note, though, that we have Ms. 

Rebecca Miles here with us, who is the Chairman of the Nez Perce 

Tribe, and I have asked Rebecca to speak first in the first panel. 

So what we will do is proceed with the panels as they have been 

listed on the schedule, with the exception that we will have Rebecca speak first and represent the interests of the Nez Perce 

Tribe. 

And, Rebecca, you are free to proceed. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA MILES, CHAIRMAN, NEZ PERCE 

TRIBE, LAPWAI, IDAHO 

Ms. MILES. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Good morning. Taac 

Maywee. I appreciate the time to be moved ahead. 

For the record, my name is Rebecca Miles, and I currently serve 

as the Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, and 

I would like to present the Tribe’s testimony in support of the reauthorization of the Farm Bill. 

I would like to thank the Senator for this important opportunity 

to work toward a unified vision for the Nez Perce Tribe and the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

In May of 2005 the Intertribal Timber Council, of which the Nez 

Perce are a proud member of, assisted in strengthening and 

crafting a way for tribes and the U.S. Forest Service to work toward a government to government relationship that respected each 

Tribe’s unique treaty with the United States. 

The result was draft legislation developed by the ITC referred to 

as the Tribal Forest Service Cooperative Relations Act. The draft 

legislation authorizes the Forest Service assistance for tribal government, similar to the way the U.S. Forest Service provides assistance to state government. 

In addition to addressing this issue of parity among the tribes 

and the state, I would also strongly urge the reauthorization specifically for tribal access to Forest Service lands for certain cultural 

and traditional purposes. 

There are seven sections that assist in achieving that endeavor, 

and are as follows: 

Section 101 would allow tribal governments to participate directly in the conservation easements provided in the Forest Legacy 

Program. 

Section 102 would authorize assistance to tribal governments for 

tribal consultation and coordination with the Forest Service, conservation education and awareness activities, and technical assistance for forest resource planning, management and conservation. 

Section 202 would authorize reburial of tribal remains on National Forest Service lands. 

Section 203 would authorize Forest Service provision of forest 

products from National Forest Service lands to tribes, subject to a 

Forest Service-tribal agreement. 

4

Section 204 would authorize temporary closure of the National 

Forest Service land for tribal traditional cultural and customary 

purposes. 

Section 205 would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from disclosing to the public any confidential information learned from an 

Indian tribe or a member of an Indian tribe when the tribe or 

member requests that confidentiality be preserved. 

Section 206 provides severability and a savings language for the 

trust responsibility, in existing agreements, and reserved for other 

rights. 

The Forest Legacy and tribal assistance programs in Section 101 

and 102 are from the 2002 Farm Bill conference deliberations. Section 102, tribal assistance programs, is in the same form developed 

by the conferees and accepted by the Forest Service just before the 

provisions were drafted from the Conference Bill when an unrelated difference of opinion caused all Senate-side forestry provisions to be eliminated. 

The assistance authorities are based on provisions for state governments in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, which also 

includes a Forest Legacy Program. 

The Title II provisions dealing with protecting tribal traditional 

and cultural activities on National Forest Service lands are based 

on legislative suggestions developed and presented in the U.S. Forest Service’s June 2003 Report of the National Tribal Relations 

Program Implementation Team. 

The ITC also played a major role in identifying the shortcoming 

of the Forest Service in relation to these traditional and cultural 

resources and activities essential to each Tribe’s way of life. 

The ITC has been diligent in working with Congress but also the 

National Association of State Forester’s organization to seek support under the State and Private Forestry Office. The NASF has 

met with the ITC on several occasions, and it was the intent of the 

ITC to clearly delineate the Tribes’ efforts from the states, by communicating early on that the ITC seeking the establishment of new 

funding and a program to handle tribal affairs. 

With this stated, it is important to recognize and inform you of 

the ongoing dialog between the two groups that has fostered a 

great working relationship between the two organizations, the ITC 

and the NASF. Also personal friendships between each of the respective Board members, and mutual understanding of the ongoing 

forest health and Federal forest management issues have strengthened this relationship. 

Our hope is that the Nez Perce will be afforded funding and 

other resource opportunities under the reauthorized Farm Bill, in 

a larger effort to truly assist fish, wildlife, and vegetative resources 

management for our original 7.5 million acre Reservation that was 

ceded to the United States, which the U.S. Forest Service and BLM 

currently manage. 

Much of the Nez Perce Tribe’s territory is managed by the Forest 

Service, and as such, the Forest Service holds a trust responsibility 

to ensure the protection, enhancement, mitigation, restoration and 

of course utilization and access to these important resources. 

5

At this time, Senator Crapo, I’d like to thank you for your consideration of my presentation to you today. We look forward to the 

successful outcome of the Farm Bill reauthorization. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miles can be found on page 104 

in the appendix.] 

Ms. MILES. I have with me Mr. Aaron Miles, who is also the natural resource manager for the Nez Perce Tribe, if you should have 

any questions for us. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Rebecca. I truly appreciate the attitude and the opportunities that we have in working 

closely with the Nez Perce Tribe under your leadership. 

I can tell you that as I have been working on multiple issues 

throughout the region here in the last few days, and frankly over 

the last months, and the time period since you have become Chairman, it is a constant comment is made to me by many of the people 

throughout the region, that they appreciate the good working relationship that we have with the tribe and the opportunity that we 

have to develop collaborative opportunities to improve the circumstances. 

So, I just first of all want to publicly thank you and the tribe for 

your approach to being a good partner with all of us on these 

issues. 

In your testimony you indicated your support for tribal access to 

forest lands. Could you please explain a little bit more the importance of this and what you have in mind there? 

Ms. MILES. Sure. I can explain briefly, and then Mr. Miles can 

continue. 

Senator CRAPO. Certainly. 

Ms. MILES. Access to those lands are vital to our tribal members 

who go and practice our cultural rights to gather berries, roots, 

hunting, those types of activities. Those are the types of activities 

that are important that our tribal members bring to us when they 

don’t have access to these areas that they may have had access to 

previously. 

Mr. Miles? 

Mr. MILES. Yes. Senator Crapo. Yeah, that is exactly right. There 

are times when the tribe needs to work more collaboratively, and 

I think the provisions in this hopefully that will be in addition to 

the reauthorization of the Farm Bill will assist in us achieving that 

with the Forest Service. 

Their examples, specific examples, were their closures where the 

tribes are not allowed to be in but they should be for cultural and 

traditional purposes that are very—lead right into the religious 

way of life, too. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. And, again, I noted in your testimony, Rebecca, that Sections 101 and 102 that were in the 2002 

Farm Bill conference, and then were dropped during the conference, those are Sections 101 and 102 of the Inter-Tribal Timber 

Council’s agreement. 

Is that what you are referring to? 

Ms. MILES. Yes. 

Mr. MILES. Yes. 

Senator CRAPO. And those are still today not law, is that correct? 

6

Mr. MILES. Yeah. That’s what we understand. We are hoping to 

get those back in through this reauthorization. 

Senator CRAPO. And I apologize that I am unfamiliar with the 

circumstances that took place at that time. But the reason they 

were dropped from the conference was because of the Senate side 

forestry provisions that were omitted from the conference? 

Mr. MILES. Yeah. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I will take this information back as we develop the next Farm Bill and try to determine why those provisions 

were dropped by encouraging you to work closely with me and 

make sure I understand all of the background that you can provide 

to me on that as we move forward. 

Mr. MILES. Senator, also, one other comment, the Inter-Tribal 

Timber Council has been fighting really hard also to change the 

name to state tribal and private forestry, in addition. And we’ve 

worked with NASF quite a few times. We’ve met with them several 

times to address all of this. 

And originally they were kind of against this whole notion of 

tribes as governments getting involved with Forest Service management. And so we worked to dispel all of that, and I think they 

are very supportive of even the name change that we had requested, as well. 

Senator CRAPO. Good. Well, as I indicated, I have had a lot of 

conversations about management issues in which the tribe is involved, and the Forest Service officials in the area are certainly I 

think pleased with the relationship they have and looking forward 

to developing an extended relationships between the two. So, I 

would encourage that. 

I have no further questions. I want to just thank you again for 

presenting your testimony and for your working in partnerships 

with us. 

Ms. MILES. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Enjoy your time here in 

Idaho. 

Senator CRAPO. I will do that. 

All right. At this time we will call up panel number 1, which is, 

as I think for those of you who know you are on the panel, start 

coming up please, panel number 1 is Mr. Tim Dillin, the Vice-President of Idaho Grain Producers of Idaho, from Porthill; Mr. Jim 

Evans, the Chairman of the USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council from 

Genesee, and the Idaho Dry Pea and Lentil Commission; and a 

slight change from the schedule, we have Mr. John VanderWoude, 

who is here representing the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, from 

Twin Falls. No. Not Twin Falls. 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. I’m from Nampa. 

Senator CRAPO. From Nampa. That is what I was going to say. 

And then Mr. Keith Esplin, who is the Executive Director of the 

Potato Growers of Idaho from Blackfoot. 

We welcome all of you here with us. And, again, I remind you 

to watch out for Andree. She will be monitoring you closely. But 

we look forward to your testimony. And we will go in the order I 

introduced you. 

Mr. Dillin, you may proceed. 

7

STATEMENT OF TIM DILLIN, VICE-PRESIDENT, IDAHO GRAIN 

PRODUCERS OF IDAHO, PORTHILL, IDAHO 

Mr. DILLIN. Thank you, Senator. On behalf of the Idaho Grain 

Producers Association, I’m pleased to be here and I am pleased to 

have been invited. 

My name is Tim Dillin. I raise wheat, barley, and canola in 

Boundary County, Idaho. Just a stone’s throw away from the Canadian border. 

I currently serve all wheat and barley growers of Idaho as VicePresident of the Idaho Grain Producers Association. 

On behalf of the IGPA, National Association of Wheat Growers, 

National Barley Growers Association, I would like to thank you 

personally for your help in requesting the FAPRI analysis for both 

the wheat and barley industries. The analysis is and will help us 

draft a better Farm Bill proposal. 

Let me start by saying that the Idaho Grain Producers Association believes that we should write a new Farm Bill in 2007. A new 

Farm Bill and the support it provides to agriculture is far more important to Idaho growers immediately than waiting for a possible 

restart or eventual conclusions to the WTO talks. 

We must never negotiate away our ability to sustain America’s 

agricultural producers. 

Now for commodity programs. The 2002 Farm Bill has many 

strong points. The wheat and barley growers that I represent here 

today believe that the next Farm Bill should build on these 

strengths. But, while wheat and barley growers generally support 

current policy, much of the safety net provided by the 2002 Farm 

Bill has not been effective for wheat farmers. 

Since 2002, wheat growers have received little or no benefit from 

two key components of the current bill; the counter cyclical program and loan deficiency payment program, for two main reasons. 

The loan program and LDP program have not worked well for 

wheat growers. The target price on the counter cyclical program for 

wheat was set considerably lower than market conditions indicated. 

In the final hours of negotiations of the 2002 Farm Bill, the target price for wheat was reduced when other crops were not. That 

reduction reduces the safety net for wheat growers. 

For Idaho’s wheat growers, IGPA recommends that Congress increase the direct payment rate for wheat growers and improve the 

price and safety net by increasing the target price for wheat. 

Idaho’s barley growers also need more from the next Farm Bill. 

Over the next 20 years—Over the past 20 years U.S. barley acreage has declined by 73 percent and production has declined by 65 

percent. 2005 harvested acres of 3.3 million acres were the lowest 

since USDA began collecting statistics in 1890. 

IGPA and the National Barley Growers Association believe that 

the U.S. barley has lost significant competitiveness in its traditional Northern Tier growing region due, in large part, to distortions in the Federal farm programs. And there’s a chart in my written statements. 

For Idaho’s barley growers, IGPA recommends that the 2007 

Farm Bill focus on equity for barley growers by ensuring that direct payments, loan rates and target prices provide a reliable safety 

8

net and preventative planning distortions that jeopardize the competitiveness of barley production. 

Idaho wheat and barley growers also understand that other cropping groups want to be included in the 2007 Farm Bill. IGPA does 

not oppose this request but we will remain steadfast in our position 

that adding new crops will require additional money to be authorized or appropriated for the 2007 Farm Bill. Distributing what we 

have now among more crops is unacceptable. 

On conservation. Idaho wheat and barley growers are some of 

the best environmental stewards in the world. IGPA believes that 

conservation programs must continue to be an important component of all Farm Bills. 

Conservation programs, however, must continue to be designed 

to encourage conservation and not become the distribution system 

for the farm safety net. Conservation compliance regulations, CPR, 

CSP and EQIP, and all other conservation programs, have improved our environment. They have been successful because they 

provide cost sharing and incentives to put conservation on the 

ground. 

Idaho wheat and barley growers support continued funding for 

the conservation programs that are currently in the 2002 Farm 

Bill. IGPA recommends that each program be funded at a level 

that will allow the program to succeed and accomplishing its purpose. 

IGPA will oppose any attempt to shift money from commodity 

title to the conservation title. 

We would also recommend to your subcommittee that the administration of all conservation programs be provided by the Farm 

Service Agency and that the 2007 Farm Bill authorize and adequately fund NRCS to provide technical service for conservation 

programs. 

We believe that the focus of conservation programs must be to 

continue providing incentive to agriculture to adapt conservation 

practices and never be authorized to distribute commodities for 

payments. 

And just one final note. I talked to Steve Johnson yesterday, and 

it’s about energy. And we would continue to support alternative energies, and also anything that we could do to alleviate our current 

energy situation, especially with the upcoming planting season. 

And on that note, Senator, I would like to thank you for holding 

hearings in Idaho and we will continue to do anything we can to 

help you in writing the next Farm Bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dillin can be found on page 70 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Dillin. 

Mr. Evans. 

STATEMENT OF JIM EVANS, CHAIRMAN, USA DRY PEA AND 

LENTIL COUNCIL, IDAHO DRY PEA AND LENTIL COMMISSION, GENESEE, IDAHO 

Mr. EVANS. My name is Jim Evans. I am a farmer of dry peas, 

lentils, chickpeas, wheat and barley near Genesee, Idaho. I am the 

Chairman of the USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, a national organization representing producers, processors, and exporters of dry 

9

peas, lentils and chickpeas across the northern tier of the United 

States. I also serve as the Chairman of the Idaho Pea and Lentil 

Commission, an organization representing Idaho pulse producers 

for over 40 years. And usually every Tuesday I take out the trash. 

Idaho farmers would like to thank you for serving on the Senate 

Ag Committee as we approach the 2007 Farm Bill. Since you are 

Chairman of the Ag Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and 

Rural Revitalization, I would like to begin my comments with the 

conservation title of the Farm Bill. 

The Council believes that our farm policy should reward producers for managing soil based on a long-term environmental sustainability on working lands. 

First topic. CRP. Conservation Reserve Program has had many 

environmental benefits, but the way it has been managed has been 

devastating to rural communities. It puts fertilizer companies out 

of business. It puts implement companies out of business. It takes 

out rural jobs. Most of the landlords move to Arizona or California. 

It doesn’t really bring money back to Idaho. 

In the next Farm Bill, CPR should be limited to only the most 

fragile lands and whole farm bids should be difficult to obtain. 

CSP. In order to achieve environmental and conservation goals 

of this great country, we need to fully fund the Conservation Program. I personally can’t qualify for CSP, even though I am in the 

Clearwater drainage, because I have another farm that’s bigger 

that’s in the Snake River drainage. So I don’t qualify. 

Sign up for the current CSP program is time consuming, complicated, and it often fails to recognize accepted conservation practices in a local area. The program should reward producers for 

achieving conservation goals based on systems that are economically sustainable and result in significantly improved soil, air and 

water quality. 

The CSP should be modified to reward producers for addressing 

conservation goals in their local watersheds and should encourage 

farmers to diversify their crop portfolios. 

Research. To compete successfully in a global economy we need 

to increase our investment in agricultural research. The USDA Agriculture Research Service and our land-grant Universities have 

faced decreasing budgets for years. We support increasing agriculture research budgets in the next Farm Bill. 

Energy. We fully support programs in the next Farm Bill to enhance the development of biodiesel fuels. But we also believe that 

crops like lagumes which do not take energy and actually put energy back into the soil should be rewarded for that benefit. We 

should be able to get a payment of some kind for that renewable 

energy source. 

The Marketing Loan Program, the LDP program. I can’t say 

enough how much this has helped our industry along. It gives us 

a safety net. I could go to my banker and get a loan now and I have 

a little bit of cushion there to know what’s going on. 

We support the counter cyclical, direct and counter cyclical payment. Pulse crops are the only crop who do not get a payment. We 

would like to be included in that program because we are excluded 

from Cuba and a lot of different countries that are right 90 miles 

off our shore. 

10

Planting flexibility. Specifically, the 1996 Farm Bill, we were allowed to plant on all our acres. Chickpeas especially are a vegetable crop, and we cannot plant those crops on program acres. We 

would like to be able to do that. 

WTO. We support the WTO if it is on an equal playing field. We 

have other barriers that we need to address with the WTO program. We have a file sanitary issue with India and China. Every 

time they want to put on a trade barrier, they put on some kind 

of sanitary rules and regulations, and they kick us off. Cuba is one 

country that we want to get into. A year ago we shipped 50,000 

million—50,000 metric tons of peas into Cuba. With the administration’s new red tape and guidelines, we’re down to about less 

than 7,000 metric tons. It is a 200,000 metric ton market, and Canada gets it all. 

In conclusion, I would like to say good farm policy should encourage farmers to take advantage of market opportunities and reward 

them for crop diversity and management practices that help the environment. 

Every country protects their agricultural base in some form or 

fashion. The recently failed WTO negotiations proved that most 

countries are unwilling to leave their farmers unprotected. 

If U.S. farmers are to compete against subsidized competition, 

high tariffs and phyto-sanitary barriers, we must maintain a 

strong farm program and protect our agricultural producers and 

their precious natural resource base. 

And I want to thank you for coming to Idaho, and I will answer 

any questions that you have at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans can be found on page 78 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Evans. 

Mr. VanderWoude. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN VANDERWOUDE, BOARD MEMBER, 

UNITED DAIRYMEN OF IDAHO, NAMPA, IDAHO 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. Senator Crapo, my name is John 

VanderWoude. I am a dairy producer out of Nampa, and a United 

Dairymen of Idaho board member, and presently a Republican candidate for the Idaho House of Representatives, District 21–A. 

I’m hoping as a politician now I am allotted a little more time 

because I know politicians never stick to their time. Also I have a 

problem that this speech was written, so I haven’t practiced it, and 

so I’m proceed on. 

The Idaho Dairymen’s Association was formed as a dairy producer advocacy group in 1944 as a dairy producer Board of Directors that are elected by their peers. 

All dairy producers in Idaho are members of IDA and pay a 0.1 

cent per hundred weight assessment to cover the cost of the organization. 

A little bit about myself. I’m a son of an immigrant, so if you 

want to do work on the immigration bill, we can debate that. 

My parents immigrated to California after World War II, with 

four children. They decided to have six more after that. And fortunately I was one of those. I dairied in California for a while, milking cows for my dad. 

11

In 1976 I bought my own cows and started dairying down there. 

Seeing the change in land values in California in 1980, I moved to 

Idaho, started milking cows in Idaho for 6 years. 

And then went on one of the government’s favorite programs, the 

buyout program to quit milking cows. That idled the dairy for 5 

years. At that time I bought a milk testing lab. I ran that with my 

son for a while. And then I sent my son off to college, and unfortunately I sent him off to Iowa to go to college. He roomed with some 

dairymen’s sons and come back and decided he wanted to milk 

cows again. So, we bought some cows and I’m back in the dairy 

business. The education didn’t do him any good. 

Some people asked, ‘‘Why did you sent your kids to Iowa?’’ I said, 

‘‘So they’d come back.’’ And they all did. As you can see, my oldest 

son works in the milk testing lab with me, and my daughter has 

moved to Boise with her husband. 

The upcoming Farm Bill debate should be utilized as a time to 

review the determined long-term effectiveness of the agricultural 

programs. 

Since the 1930’s the government has attempted to assist agricultural producers by replacing the signals of the market that would 

impact price by keeping supply and demand in check with government signals. If the intent of the government’s support program is 

to provide an adequate return on time and investment, then the 

outcome shows that the programs have failed. 

In 1981 the Class III price, which is the basis for all milk pricing 

and presently the high water mark for pricing in Idaho, averaged 

12.57. In 2002 it averaged 9.74. And in 2004, it averaged 15.39. 

Of the 48 months representing 2000 to 2003, 40 percent of the 

time the monthly Class III price was below the 9.90 support price 

with November of 2000 dipping all the way down to 8.57. 

This extreme volatility in pricing that is lower than the prices 

producers received over 30 years ago is a direct result of failed government programs that do not allow the market system to work. 

The same results can be seen in the corn market. The average 

price per bushel in 1981 was 2.92. Today that same bushel sells for 

2.40. I can also give you a personal example—I am down to 2 minutes. I am not even done with the first page. 

Senator CRAPO. We’re going to hold you to your 5 minutes, but 

we will get into this in the question and answer. 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. A personal example of that, I have a brother 

that dairies in California, and the government pays him $65,000 

not to grow rice. He grows corn and alfalfa just like I do for his 

dairy. That’s what he wants to grow. 

Why is the government paying him $65,000 to not grow rice? 

That’s part of the failed policy of the program. 

Another example of that is the Milk Income Loss Contract. I believe that it interferes with the free market system by sending false 

market signals. It also interferes with other government dairy price 

support programs. This discriminates against producers and their 

operations based on size. 

In 2004 the United States Department of Agriculture economic 

effect of U.S. dairy policy and alternate approaches to the milk 

pricing report to Congress stated that there is basically an incomVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:22 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30127.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
12

patibility between the MILC and preexisting dairy subsidy program. 

The milk price supporting program, which dates to the depression era, Agricultural Adjustment Act, should also be reviewed to 

determine if it is fulfilling its purpose as intended or inhibiting the 

market system to function. 

Under that program, the government steps in and buys dairy 

products when the price falls below a certain level. If that support 

price is set low enough, it provides some income security to farmers 

while allowing the market to slowly clear and production to fall to 

the point where prices can rise again. 

It is our belief that that program no longer serves its stated purpose and allows the price of milk to stay low for an extended period 

of time, longer than if the market system were allowed to function 

without government interference. 

As I stated above, many times since 2000, the Class III price 

dropped below the support price. When this occurs, the pay price 

for Idaho producers, both when we are in the Federal marketing 

order, or now that we are no longer in the Federal marketing 

order, drops below support. 

Another sample I can give you, a personal example, I have no 

time left, a personal example is that I received a letter from my 

processor this past week saying that the government make allowance for cheese was 25 cents higher because of their cost of producing cheese, and so now my price was 25 cents lower. Where is 

the make allowance for the dairy producer that allows him to 

make. 

Last, I would like to comment on what we would like to see in 

the Farm Bill. 

Another suggestion we would like to see considered in the Farm 

Bill would be the addition of the Cooperative Dairy Research Center in Magic Valley. It would be a huge help to the industry to mitigate its effect on the environment and be a productive way to bring 

together schools, government agencies and others to work together 

toward helping dairymen in Idaho be great stewards of the state 

land and resources. 

We already have huge interest and cooperation between the 

Idaho Dairymen’s Association, the University of Idaho College of 

Agricultural Sciences, the College of Southern Idaho, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy through Idaho National Lab, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service, and we 

are hoping it won’t be long before funds can be allocated and further plans can be made toward making this dream a reality. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. VanderWoude can be found on 

page 130 in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. VanderWoude. 

Mr. Esplin. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH ESPLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

POTATO GROWERS OF IDAHO, BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 

Mr. ESPLIN. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I 

might tell Mr. Dillin that the reason I am here is because all of 

the potatoes growers are home harvesting their wheat. 

13

I am Executive Director of the Potato Growers of Idaho, and 

prior to taking this job in 2001, I was a full-time potato grower, 

and my family continues to do that. I also have a brother that’s a 

dairyman. 

Before I begin my specific comments on Farm Bill titles, I feel 

compelled to raise an issue, that if not resolved soon, will affect 

specialty crops more than all the titles of the Farm Bill combined. 

I refer to the rapidly developing shortage of immigrant farm workers. It is imperative that comprehensive immigration reform that 

includes the ag jobs provision for agriculture be passed as quickly 

as possible. 

We applaud the vision of the Senate in passing this comprehensive reform and request that everything possible be done to maintain the important provisions for agriculture in the House-Senate 

conference committee. 

Current efforts to tighten the border are contributing to an already critical shortage of farm workers. Many of our resident farm 

workers are being enticed with much higher paying jobs in the Wyoming gas and coal fields. 

One of Idaho’s premier potato seed farmers told me that he 

couldn’t get enough workers to sort seed potatoes last spring at any 

price. And we are hearing of shortages on the harvest workers coming up already. They are quite severe. 

Other specialty crops have even higher labor needs than potatoes. Irreparable harm will be done to the suppliers of our nation’s 

fruits and vegetables if a workable guest worker program is not enacted soon. 

Now to the Farm Bill. Potato growers currently do not receive 

and do not want to receive direct payments of any kind from the 

next Farm Bill. 

We do believe, however, that there are many things that Congress can do to improve the competitiveness of our industry by investing in infrastructure, expand the use of the conservation programs for specialty crop producers, improve our export possibilities, 

provide protection from invasive pests, expand research, and help 

to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables as targeted 

USDA’s nutritional guidelines. 

Farm programs shouldn’t put any sector of the ag economy at a 

disadvantage. Perhaps the greatest priority in the 2007 Farm Bill 

is to maintain the prohibition of planting fruits and vegetables on 

the land where growers receive direct payments derived from having a base in a program crop. 

Because of the urgency in addressing the matters I am discussing here today, the Potato Growers of Idaho believe that a new 

Farm Bill should be adopted as scheduled, rather than extend the 

current Farm Bill as has been suggested. 

We support the broad principles of the specialty crop coalition of 

which the National Potato Council has helped co-chair. 

We believe that it is in the best interests of America to support 

a strong specialty crop industry. 

Agricultural areas where specialty crops are grown support a 

much larger economy. Additionally, many specialty crops also support a large value-added processing industry. 

14

Some of the specific Farm Bill titles, I have some comments on. 

The conservation programs—EQIP. As a member of Idaho’s State 

NRCS technical committee, I have worked hard to make conservation programs more available to specialty crop producers. 

We have achieved some success, with NRCS beginning to fund 

some innovative IPM programs through the Environmental Quality 

Improvement Program, EQIP. But much more can be done. 

We believe that a mandatory allotment of EQIP funds for specialty crop producers, similar to what currently exists for livestock, 

should be adopted. Environmental benefits are reduced pesticide 

applications can be achieved by helping growers adopt new practices, including IPM and organic production. 

Also under conservation, the Conservation Security Program envisioned by writers of the last Farm Bill truly included some innovative concepts. However, the program was not designed to work 

for specialty crop producers. 

Some potato growers have been able to adapt practices that allowed them to participate in CSP, but it would be very difficult for 

most. Producers of other specialty crops that require more soil cultivation, such as sugar beets, dry edible beans, and onions, will 

most likely find it impossible to qualify for CSP. 

The biggest problem with CSP, however, is the slow and completely unfair way in which it is being implemented. It is absolutely unfair and improper that one grower may be receiving payments of 40,000 a year, while a competing producer, in a different 

watershed, has not even had an opportunity to sign up; and at the 

current rate, may never get that chance. 

The CSP program either needs to be revised and adequately 

funded or canceled. And if it is canceled, we recommend that EQIP 

funds should—or if it is funded, then EQIP funds should be used 

to help growers qualify for CSP, or if it is canceled, then perhaps 

that money could go into EQIP. 

Under risk management. Multi-peril crop insurance continues to 

be unaffordable for many potato growers and specialty crop producers. The current program does not adequately protect seed potato producers. 

We suggest a pilot project that would redirect subsidies used for 

crop insurance into a disaster saving account program that would 

help producers buildup a savings account to use in times of crop 

disaster. 

We would also like a pilot program to develop a workable seed 

potato insurance product. We offer our assistance in developing 

these kinds of programs, which would also reduce the need for ad 

hoc disaster assistance. 

We also have serious concerns about the pilot adjusted gross revenue program. We believe that despite efforts to make the program 

work, it is still too subject to fraud and is still marketing distorting. It also doesn’t work for producers that are consolidating 

and expanding their operations. 

Also the AGR Lite program will not work for most potato and 

specialty crop producers due to the gross revenue limit. 

Just real fast. We also support the energy—anything we can do 

to produce our own energy and we believe that could have a great 

impact on us. We believe that transportation needs are great. We 

15

need help in those areas. We would also like to see research expanded, including a significant research into organic production 

and conversation to organic systems. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Esplin can be found on page 74 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Esplin. 

And I want to thank each member of the panel for being concise 

and watching the clock there. I told you you’d run out of time before you would run out of things to say. But please be aware, I 

have personally read your testimony, and not only have I, but our 

staff has, and the Senate committee staff will also review it very 

carefully. So, the points that you may not have been able to get to 

in terms of what you were able to say in your oral testimony are 

not lost. And we will have an opportunity to get into them a little 

bit more here in the suggestion. 

There is a tremendous amount of wise input in the testimony 

that you have provided. I won’t myself in this discussion here be 

able to get into everything that we would like to. So please don’t 

hesitate, and I’m speaking not only to you, but to everyone here, 

please don’t hesitate to contact me or my office and discuss the concerns that you have as we move forward in developing the Farm 

Bill. 

Mr. Dillin, the question that I had for you is, how would you 

prioritize in terms of the importance, in your opinion, the various 

farm programs that we generally have in the commodity title, and 

really what I am asking is, can you, if you can, rank the relative 

importance of the direct payment program versus the Marketing 

Loan Program and the counter cyclical payment program. 

Mr. DILLIN. Senator, I would say for wheat, about the only thing 

we’ve really gotten out of it for wheat are the direct payments. Like 

I say, we really haven’t been able to capitalize on the counter cyclical or the LDP’s, because of the loan rate. 

Barley, we have gotten a counter cyclical payment. We received 

another one this year. And that’s good news and bad, I guess, because that means the price of barley was low enough to trigger the 

counter cyclical payment, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. 

I know that NOG has gotten their Farm Bill proposal pretty 

much wrapped up, and I think barley, I think they’ve got the 

FABRI study back, or will be getting it back, so they will be coming 

up with their Farm Bill proposal for that. 

Senator CRAPO. And you don’t have any objections to including, 

say, the pulse crops in the programs, as long as we expand the 

funding so we increase the pie, if we increase the size of the program? 

Mr. DILLIN. Correct. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Evans, would you like to comment on that 

whole issue any further, the relative importance of these programs? 

I know that you were seeking to have the direct and counter cyclical payments expanded to pulse crops. 

Mr. EVANS. Yes. We would like to have a direct or counter cyclical payment program. We support everything—I mean, the loan 

LDT program for our industry is probably the key thing. 

As we do the WTO negotiations and we are moving toward socalled green payments, or different ways of rewarding farmers for 

16

good soil practices, I don’t want to move away from the loan program until we know what we’re jumping into. I don’t want to jump 

into—I don’t want to high drive into an empty swimming pool, is 

what I’m looking at. 

Senator CRAPO. I think that’s a very good way of putting it. In 

fact, let me interrupt you for a moment. I would of like to just toss 

this question out to anybody on the panel that would like to further 

discuss it. 

But it seems to me, as you all know, there’s a lot of pressure in 

the world trade negotiations for the United States to modify its 

farm programs, sort of as an incentive for other countries to come 

to an agreement with us in terms of the WTO negotiations. 

My position on that is, as you have expressed, Mr. Evans, and 

that is that I believe that we in the United States would be very 

willing to modify our national farm policies and programs to fit a 

WTO agreement that we could reach with other nations, but that 

would be after the agreement is reached and after all nations were 

bound to the same terms. 

And at that point I think we would be willing to discuss what 

types of modifications should be made. 

But I think it would be a very serious mistake for the United 

States to unilaterally adjust its farm programs in contemplation 

that other nations just might then think it’s a good idea to follow 

suit, with no binding agreement. 

Anybody want to jump in on that general issue? Do you agree or 

disagree with what I am saying, or how do you feel we should deal 

with the WTO? Mr. Dillin? 

Mr. DILLIN. Senator, I believe that the American farmer, we can 

out compete and probably play on the world stage just as well as 

anyone can, if we have a level playing field. 

If we can send our products into other countries, living right on 

the Canadian border, it seems strange that they have vital sanitary 

rules that I can’t ship barley to a dairy producer that wants to buy 

it seven miles away. But yet they can bring everything into the 

U.S. We need—if we have a level playing field, we can compete. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, and you have raised another aspect of this, 

one which I am very aggressively working with our U.S. trade representatives on, and that is that we see nontariff barriers, like the 

phyto-sanitary barriers and others, utilized regularly against U.S. 

commodities, in what are in my opinion unfair ways, unjustified 

ways. 

The solution to that has to be a very effective enforcement mechanism, I guess, where we force ourselves and other nations to stay 

with the rules that we can all agree to, which has to be another 

part of all of this. It won’t be necessarily in the Farm Bill. It will 

be in the trade negotiations. But it is critical, and that’s one of the 

reasons why I say, I think we should develop our farm policy based 

on the current status quo, of world trade negotiations and economic 

circumstances, and then be prepared to adjust it if and at such 

time we get a trade agreement that is binding on all nations. 

Any other comment on that general issue? 

Let me go on, then, and move to you, Mr. VanderWoude. Milk 

policy in this country has been a challenge, to say the least, for 

decades, and we still face it. 

17

I appreciated your testimony about the difficulties that you and 

the Idaho dairymen see with the general milk policies that we have 

today, the milk programs, as well as the milk income loss contract, 

the MILC program. 

As you may be aware, I have been one of the leading opponents 

of that program in Congress. And we continue to see it sort of limp 

along and maintain, although sometimes we think it is on life support, it continues to be maintained. And partly that’s because of national politics. 

And it’s my hope that at some point we will be able to get a rationale milk policy. 

But could you just discuss with me a little bit more, if we can 

get to the point in Congress, where we are able to adjust the milk 

programs, we’ve got the votes to change what we have now, and 

to move to something more sensible, what should that be? 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. I think we should move to basically a market system where the market takes care of itself. 

The system we have now, is, you know, when the government 

buys up the surplus, every time the government reports what it 

has in inventory, affects the price we’re getting. So they are really 

not removing the surplus, they are just storing it and suppressing 

the price. 

Senator CRAPO. Right. 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. We need to get to the point where the market clears itself and there’s not that interference with the inventory 

pricing on milk. You know, we need to make the adjustments, then, 

in the milk industry. 

We have, you know, in the testimony that’s written we have the 

CWT, which is cooperates working together. 

The dairymen are assessing themselves and removing cows off 

the market. 

If we can continue with that program, we will control the supply 

and be able to control the prices and monitor that without the government inference. 

But if we put in our ten cents to get rid of cows and the government gives back the ten cents to the guy who doesn’t get rid of 

cows, one of them is defeating the other one, and the status is staying the same. 

We need to have the government get out of trying to falsely support the price of milk, and let us do it on a market system. And 

even Idaho is no longer in the Federal milk marketing order. 

Like I said in my testimony, we’re still getting an adjustment of 

25 cents down, because the Federal marketing order says there’s 

a make allowance on cheese. 

Senator CRAPO. Right. Boy, I appreciate that. Because I see it 

the same way you do. And one way or another, we’ve got to get the 

national milk programs, whether it be the Federal marketing order 

system or whether it be the MLIC program, or others, we’ve got to 

get them eliminated and moved to a system that would allow a 

true market to operate. 

It seems to me that the governmental management of the milk 

market nationally has worked to the detriment of consumers and 

producers. And somehow—and to the Federal budget. So some how 

18

we’ve got a lose, lose and lose proposition right now, in terms of 

the way it’s working. 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. Yeah. You know, as it shows there, we spent 

two billion dollars on the MILC, and yet everybody is talking 

about, well, we need to cut government spending. Well, we’ve got 

a good idea of how you can cut two billion of it out. 

Senator CRAPO. And say two billion right there. 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. Two billion right off the top. 

Senator CRAPO. And the producers would be better of, as well as 

the consumers. 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. Yeah. The thing you look at, and I look at 

it, you know, 30 years ago when I bought my first car, it was 3,000, 

and gas was 30 cents. 

The government doesn’t control cars or gas. 

Now the car is 30,000 and the gas is three bucks. Almost like 

three bucks. 

But the price of milk is about the same, what the farmer gets 

paid. 

The government’s I think interfering with what would have been 

a free market, would have allowed us to be a little more reasonable 

priced on our milk. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I also want 

to let you know I appreciate your testimony on the Collaborative 

Dairy Research Center in Magic Valley. I think that’s a very good 

idea. We’re trying to figure out a way to boost that idea. 

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. One of the things that we as a dairy industry have found in the last couple years, we’ve had lawsuits from 

the environmentalists, and there isn’t solid research to document 

what the problems are, or solve the problems. 

We’ve got dairies that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to solve a problem that didn’t solve a problem. 

We need to get some research dollars behind the environmental 

issues in the dairy industry, especially in Idaho where we’re like 

the fourth largest state in the union with the number of cows we 

have, and we need to get some solid research behind that so we can 

solve the problems that are created. 

Senator CRAPO. I definitely agree. 

Mr. Esplin, again, thank you for your friendship and for being 

here today and for your testimony as well. I want to talk to you 

on several issues that you raised. 

The first of course being immigration. I agree with you, that we 

need a comprehensive bill. There are some who are saying that we 

just need to move ahead with border enforcement now. 

But what your testimony illustrates, is that the border enforcement, which is needed and which is a necessary part of any comprehensive bill, is already happening, as a matter of fact, and we 

need to do it better. 

But what it’s doing is, it’s showing that without the other piece 

with it, that it reduces the availability of workers. 

And we need to have a system, as I see it, in which those who 

desire, foreign workers who desire to work here, and have a legal 

status and be able to travel freely back and forth between their 

country and ours, and to have the various aspects of worker status 

clearly spelled out. 

19

What I am talking about there is the wage and the labor policies 

and the other aspects of it, the health care issues, the pension 

issues, and so forth, all worked out and understood. 

It seems to me, it’s hard to predict what Congress’ will is on this, 

because, as you know, there is a difference between the Senate and 

the House. But I believe that there is a majority that would agree 

to a comprehensive bill if that comprehensive bill involved a legal 

status other than citizenship. 

The question I think comes down to whether those who are here 

and who have come here illegally should be granted a track toward 

citizenship or should they be granted a track toward legal status 

for employment. 

Would you like to comment on how critical the citizenship piece 

of the proposal is to the ultimate solution? 

Mr. ESPLIN. That’s a good question. 

Senator CRAPO. It’s a difficult one to ask. 

Mr. ESPLIN. We believe we’ve got to have more than just a guest 

worker program, because I think the H2A program, takes in about 

2 percent of our workers, and even as it is, it’s overwhelmed right 

now. And even if we did everything we can to streamline it, it 

would create—we’d have to create almost overnight a huge bureaucracy to handle the size program we’d need. 

And that’s because we’ve let the problem go on so long and the 

needs have gotten so great. 

As far as the legalization part, that’s a difficult one to say. My 

personal concern would be about, you know, creating a second class 

level of people in the United States. 

I was in a Caribbean country once, with the British empire, and 

no one could get citizenship there, even after being born there, and 

it was down to the point where even 20 or 30 percent of the people 

were all that could vote or do anything. 

And I think we have got to be real careful we don’t get long term 

trends that would be bad for the country. But if they could have 

the same path as anyone else, while they are working——

Senator CRAPO. To apply for citizenship. 

Mr. ESPLIN [continuing]. While they are still working, I think 

that would be a workable program. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. I kind of think so, too. And 

I agree, I should have mentioned that. 

I don’t think there is an objection to allowing anyone who is not 

a citizen to apply for citizenship, in the same track that everyone 

else who wants to apply for citizenship here has to follow. And if 

we could establish something like that, maybe it would work out. 

I wish I could tell you how that is going to play itself out in the 

Congress. It is probably—I won’t say ‘‘probably.’’ It is one of the 

most contentious and most significant issues that we have before 

us in Congress right now. 

I do believe that it will be engaged. It’s not one of those issues 

that I think will be put on the back burner. It is hard to know right 

now where that consensus will ultimately come out. 

Mr. ESPLIN. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. With regard to, a number of you raised a question of energy, and again, that’s another one of those issues that 

20

is not just in the context of the Farm Bill, but in many contexts, 

is one of those that is critical. 

And I’m glad there is an energy title in the Farm Bill where we 

can try to do those types of things where our food and fiber policy 

of the Nation can help us to address long term, energy policies that 

we need to address. 

I have found it is interesting, several, I can’t remember which 

one of you suggested, that their—was it you, Mr. Evans, about the 

crops that are able to conserve energy. 

Mr. EVANS. Yes. 

Senator CRAPO. That we should focus on the conservation as well 

as on the assumption side of the energy equation. 

I think that’s a very wise suggestion, which I will take up. 

I don’t know that I have a specific question for any of you, other 

than maybe a request, and that is that you either today or in the 

future continue to give us your suggests as to what we can do in 

the context of farm policy, to address and strengthen our energy 

situation in the country. 

I’ll just make a quick statement, and that is we are still somewhat constrained in the Congress because of different approaches 

between—different parties and different regions, with regard to 

what our energy policy should be. 

Some of us, and I’m on this side, believe that we need to significantly diversify our energy portfolio. Meaning, that we should not 

be so dependent on petroleum. We should move into many other 

types of energy, whether it be biobased energies, the renewable 

fuels, the things like, you know, ethenol and so forth, nuclear 

power, wind and solar, and increase the research on the hydrogen 

potential. And really be very broad and diverse in our approach to 

becoming less dependent on petroleum. 

But we also realize what while we do that, there will still be 

probably several decades, assuming we could successfully make 

that transition, it will take several decades to do so, and during 

that time we will still be very dependent on a proper petroleum 

policy in this country, and we will need to be as expansive as we 

can be in an environmentally safe way to developing our own resources. 

But in any event there is a big battle over that, and I would just 

encourage all of you to keep us posted on your thoughts as to how 

we could address it. Anybody want to jump in right now with anything, or——

Mr. ESPLIN. Senator, one thing I read, it was a study done by, 

I don’t know which university, it pointed out that prior to World 

War II, about half of the U.S. farm land was producing energy. It 

was energy to feed the horses that produced the rest of it. 

Senator CRAPO. That’s right. 

Mr. ESPLIN. And after the war, we’ve been basically in surplus 

commodities ever since we’ve put everything under production of 

actual food crops. So, I think it’s totally natural and fitting that we 

put part of our land back to producing energy again. 

Senator CRAPO. That’s a very good suggest. We have tremendous 

resources and the inventive creativity of the American people can 

solve this problem, if we can come together and be unified in an 

approach. 

21

One other question. Actually, a couple other questions before I 

excuse you and move on to the next panel. 

A number of you have mentioned the conservation programs in 

general, and the CSP program in particular. And I am very aware 

of both the support for the CSP program because of what it can 

provide, if properly implemented, but also the concerns about the 

CSP program in the sense that it is not being fairly implemented 

and we will see farmers who are able to access it and farmers who 

are not able to access it in a way that creates a competitive disadvantage and a serious disparity in our agricultural communities. 

So, I guess maybe again I just want to let you know that I am 

and we in Congress in general are aware of that. 

The problem that we face there is that the CSP program is so 

good, if you will, or potentially so good, that to fully fund it would 

go far beyond the budget potential that we have for the entire conservation title. 

And so we’ve got to figure out a way to make it fair within the 

budget constraints that we have. 

This was the same battle that we had when we were first considering it in 2002 as a new program. 

And I just welcome any of your suggestions. I have already received some suggestions from others who are not testifying here 

today, and we are going to continue to discuss this issue a lot, I 

am sure. But any suggestions that any of you might have, I would 

appreciate. 

I’m not surprised that you don’t have the answer on the tip of 

your tongue, because if you did——

Mr. VANDERWOUDE. I might suggest, we’ve got to quit farming 

the government and start farming the land. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, that’s a very good point. Quit farming the 

government, and start farming the land. 

One of the things that the CSP program and other conservation 

programs are helpful in doing is providing some resources to agricultural producers to meet the environmental mandates that the 

Federal law is placing on them. 

But still it doesn’t explain how—it doesn’t explain how we are 

going to fairly implement this program. 

And so I just encourage you to keep thinking about it, and as you 

come up with ideas, please feed them to us, and let us know. 

The last question I’ll toss out to this panel is, another issue that 

Mr. Esplin raised, and that is whether a new Farm Bill—whether 

the Congress should continue working aggressively on developing 

a new Farm Bill or should we simply extend the current Farm Bill. 

Any thoughts on that? Mr. Esplin, do you want to elaborate a little bit first? 

Mr. ESPLIN. Part of the reason that we believe we should go 

ahead and develop the new Farm Bill now, is that we feel like specialty crops have been disadvantaged since the last Farm Bill. 

Although we are not asking for any direct payments, I think specialty crops get about 1 percent of the Farm Bill spending and 

produce, it depends on whether you add in horticulture and everything, 30 to 50 percent of all farm receipts. 

So, basically the specialty crop coalition’s approach to put more 

money into research and export programs and things like that, 

22

would raise that up to about 7 percent. And we feel there has been 

a real disparity that needs to be corrected there. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Any other thoughts on that issue? 

Mr. DILLIN. Senator, like I said, Idaho grain producers are—we 

are firmly committed to having a new Farm Bill written, just because of the inequities mentioned in my testimony. So, we would 

really like to see a new Farm Bill. 

Senator CRAPO. That would also give us an opportunity to loot 

at the CSP program and some of the other things like that, too. 

Mr. EVANS. One comment I would like to make. 

Senator CRAPO. Yes. 

Mr. EVANS. If we do rewrite the Farm Bill, it needs to be a longterm commitment, like the loan program that’s been in business—

I mean, there isn’t a farmer that’s farming now that hasn’t used 

the loan program. And be it good or bad, it worked to a certain extent. 

And we need some kind of safety net for our young farmers of 

25, 24, 25 year old kids that are coming out here so that when they 

go to apply for a two or three or $400,000 loan, they’ve got some 

kind of cushion that they’re going to be farming next year and the 

year after that. 

Senator CRAPO. I think that is a very good point. Let me tell you, 

what I am hearing you say is something that has been said to me 

a lot. I think you all probably know, either I or Don Dixon or somebody else on my staff, has held about 23 or 24 meetings around the 

state already, not formal hearings like this, but informal meetings 

in various regions of the state. 

And one of the very consistent messages that we got was that, 

yes, we should rewrite the Farm Bill now, we should engage in 

that, because they are he can inequities, there are improvements, 

there are issues that we need to refine. 

But the basic structure of the Farm Bill, with the commodity program in particular, should be preserved, refined and improved, but 

the basic structure of the safety net should be preserved. 

Any disagreement with that? 

Mr. ESPLIN. On the milk part——

Senator CRAPO. Except on the milk part. 

Mr. ESPLIN. Put it in CSP. 

Senator CRAPO. I should have pointed that one out. 

You know, I do have one other question. And that is, as you 

probably all know, there’s going to almost certainly going to be an 

effort to reduce the payment limits in the next Farm Bill. There’s 

always that effort. Any thoughts on that issue? 

Mr. ESPLIN. That’s one tough one. But I know that, you know, 

the reality is modern day farms are large enough to where a lot 

of our farms already, if you look at fairness, aren’t being treated 

fairly by the current payment limits, but to lower them further 

probably would not—would increase a lot of inequities. It would 

probably be like maintaining the milk program for the smallest 

producers, without benefiting the overall industry. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Well, I appreciate that. Those are the 

kind of perspectives that are going to be very helpful for us. 

The Farm Bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation 

that our nation deals with every five to 7 years. And we have a treVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:22 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30127.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
23

mendous opportunity now in very important and difficult times to 

make some significant policy decisions that will have very far 

reaching ramifications in many aspects, not just in farm country, 

but in many aspects of our economy and our global dynamics. 

So, I thank you for your testimony today, I thank you for your 

thoughtful insights, and encourage you to keep it coming. 

Thank you. We will excuse this panel. Thank you. 

We will now move to our second panel. And while I’m—the second panel, please come on up, while I’m introducing you. 

Our second panel consists of Mr. Kyle Hawley, President of the 

Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts from Moscow; Mr. 

Lloyd Knight, the Executive Director of the Idaho Cattle Association; Mr. Laird Noh, trustee of the Nature Conservancy of Idaho, 

from Kimberly; and Mr. Terry Mansfield, the Deputy Director of 

the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, from Boise. 

We welcome all of your here with us today. I will remind you 

guys to watch Andree. She’s the most important person up here 

today. 

And with that, we will go with you in the order that I introduced 

you. Mr. Hawley, you are free to begin. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KYLE HAWLEY, PRESIDENT, IDAHO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, MOSCOW, IDAHO 

Mr. HAWLEY. Good morning, Senator Crapo. I am Kyle Hawley, 

President of the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts, 

and a farmer here in the Moscow area. 

The Idaho Association of Conservation Districts was founded in 

1944 and represents Idaho’s 51 conservation districts. I present my 

testimony on behalf of the Association. 

I started farming in 1978 and our family operation is located in 

the Palouse prairie, one of the most productive, but also one of the 

most erodible rain-fed agricultural areas in the world. 

We raise winter wheat, spring wheat, spring barley, peas, lentils, 

and several turf and reclamation varieties of grass. 

I am a proud graduate of the University of Idaho. 

I will now get down to the main purpose of the hearing: What 

changes need to be made to the 2002 Farm Bill to make the 2007 

Farm Bill more workable, fair, effective and efficient. 

Number 1. Technical assistance. Technical assistance is the key 

to getting programs implemented and conservation applied to the 

landscape in a timely, efficient and effective manner. Without adequate technical assistance, the available financial assistance cannot 

be effectively utilized. 

Technical assistance support needs to come from each individual 

Farm Bill program. 

Number 2. Financial assistance. We believe that cost share rates 

should be correlated to the benefits that society receives from implemented conservation practices. Local conservation district priorities should also be considered in establishing these rates. 

Number 3. Conservation Security Program. CSP. It is a great 

program. However, it is receiving considerable criticism due to insufficient funding. If the program continues at a seriously underfunded rate, we would recommend the following: Give each state an 

24

annual allocation of funds; give each state their allocation prior to 

the state making their watershed selections; make watershed selections at the state level; make contract selection and funding 

amounts at the state level. 

Number 4. Conservation programs. To improve effectiveness and 

efficiency we believe the tool box of conservation programs should 

be grouped into the following four main categories: Easement programs; cost share programs; land retirement programs; and land 

stewardship programs. 

Categorizing programs by their purpose would help program participants and those technicians assisting them save time in selecting an option that would meet the producers conservation objective 

and best fit their operation. 

Number 5. Energy policy. We need to develop a comprehensive 

energy policy that dove tails with our farm policy. This energy policy would emphasize conservation measures and reward those who 

conserve energy; reduce our dependency on foreign oil; and encourages the development of biofuels. 

Number 6. Farm policy. America needs a farm policy. American 

farmers need a strategic farm policy. We as agricultural producers 

need to know how our politicians, the government and the people 

of America really feel about the future existence of farmers. 

I started farming in 1978. My production costs were fairly reasonable compared to the prices I received for my commodities produced. 

Today most production costs have doubled or tripled, as what 

they were in 1978. However, the price I receive for my commodities 

are the same or less than what they were in 1978. 

Is it possible we might find ourselves in a food dependency situation similar to our current oil dependency situation? If so, this 

issue should be considered a matter of national security. 

It would be in our nation’s best interest to discuss these issues 

in an open forum. Therefore, we recommend and encourage Congress to organize a national agricultural summit where officials, 

agricultural organizations and producers would discuss these 

issues. The output would be a long-term strategic plan establishing 

American farm policy which would be reviewed annually and upgraded when appropriate. 

A appropriate title for this summit be the future of U.S. agriculture and the American farm family. 

In conclusion, society should not expect conservation to occur 

until after the farmer’s and rancher’s livelihood are fully supported. 

On behalf of the Idaho Association of Conservation Districts, it 

was an honor to be able to testify before you today. I want to thank 

you, Senator Crapo, for allowing me to testify and give you my 

thoughts on the 2002 Farm Bill and how it might be improved for 

2007. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawley can be found on page 86 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Hawley. 

Mr. Knight? 

25

STATEMENT OF LLOYD KNIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

IDAHO CATTLE ASSOCIATION, ROBERTS, IDAHO 

Mr. KNIGHT. Good morning, Senator. 

Senator CRAPO. Good morning. 

Mr. KNIGHT. My name is Lloyd Knight. I’m Executive Vice-President of the Idaho Cattlemen’s Association, a trade association serving Idaho’s cattle industry here in the state. 

We appreciate you having this hearing in the state. We have had 

a great opportunity to visit with your staff, Stacy, Andree and Don 

Dixon, about some of our views and talk about our operations, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to share some of those thoughts this 

morning. 

As with most agricultural producers in the country, our members 

have been anxious to begin work in crafting the 2007 Farm Bill. 

As cattle producers, our members’ livelihood is tied to many 

other agricultural commodities. Livestock consumes three out of 

four bushels of the major feed grains in the country, like corn and 

barley, and cattle in feedlots account for nearly one-fourth of the 

total grain consuming animal units, and all beef cattle account for 

nearly 30 percent. 

However, unlike many ag commodity groups, however, we have 

a little bit different take on ag policy. 

Our industry in Idaho is made up of over two million head of cattle on family operated farms, ranches, and feedlots across the state. 

Cash receipts from cattle and calves in 2005 were over a billion 

dollars, and those sales account for nearly one-quarter of all farm 

receipts. Our members are an independent lot. We want the opportunity to run their operations as they see fit with minimal intrusion from the government. 

As the nation’s largest segment of agriculture, the cattle industry 

is focused on continuing to work toward agricultural policy which 

minimizes direct Federal involvement; achieves a reduction in Federal spending; and preserves the right of individual choice in the 

management of our resources. 

There are portions of Federal ag policy that we can work on together to truly ensure the future of the cattle business in the 

United States. Conservation programs especially present some of 

the best opportunities. Our operations are very highly regulated 

with regards to environmental issues. The 2002 Farm Bill provided 

excellent opportunity for our members to work with NRCS and 

gain the technical assistance and cost share assistance that they 

needed to help achieve compliance with all of these environmental 

regulations. 

Even our cow/calf operations are being faced with the prospect of 

having to come into compliance with regulations at EPA regarding 

CAFO requirements, Clean Water requirements, permit requirements, and NRCS in those conservation programs has been very 

helpful in ensuring that they have a tool available to try to keep 

up with those new requirements. 

The goal of conservation and environmental programs is to 

achieve the greatest environmental benefit with the resources 

available. 

One of the best programs we see is EQIP. Cattle producers 

across the country and certainly across the state participate in this 

26

program. And they found it very helpful and we encourage full 

funding for that to continue, make sure it has the resources available. 

These environmental issues are a huge challenge for our industry. We understand the need for environmental regulations to protect resources downstream, and we believe those producers that 

knowingly and willingly pollute and violate Clean Air and Clean 

Water Act should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

However, the use of other vehicles such as EPA SuperFund to 

sue agricultural producers in an attempt to get larger settlements 

is egregious and threatens the future of ag producers, both large 

and small. 

This, combined with EPA’s talk of regulating agricultural dust, 

animal emissions and other naturally occurring substances makes 

us all concerned for our industry. 

Although these items are not addressed in the Farm Bill, we ask 

that you help us, step in and help ag producers fight the fight and 

have effective and sensible environmental regulation. 

All of the other ingredients in the Farm Bill are also important. 

Obviously the beef industry is facing significant trade challenges in 

the last several years. We appreciate the help you have provided 

in helping to open up those markets across the world, around the 

world. 

We really support those government programs such as the Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program 

which help extend those opportunities for U.S. beef. 

We recognize that 96 percent of the world’s consumers are outside our borders. We want to make sure we get beef on their tables, 

as well. 

Animal I.D. is another significant issue. We are—we continue to 

believe, our members continue to believe that in the importance of 

a voluntary animal identification system. We are supportive of the 

U.S. animal identification organization, or USAIO, a privately held 

data base that would help provide that trace-back mechanism for 

livestock. 

We know that you have visited with our members a number of 

times about that issue, and that is one that we want to ensure is 

included in the discussion surrounding the Farm Bill. 

Since my time’s up, I’ll wait for questions. Thank you, Senator. 

I don’t want her mad at me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight can be found on page 92 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Smart man. 

Senator Noh, I’ve got to just interrupt a minute here. Again I 

want to welcome you, Laird. I served 8 years in the Idaho State 

Senate with Senator Noh, and it was a pleasure to work with you 

then and to see you here today. Thank you for coming. 

Mr. NOH. Thank you, Senator. I have closed my eyes and still 

hear your voice resonating in the dome of the Senate. 

Senator CRAPO. Oh, you’re so nice. 

27

STATEMENT OF LAIRD NOH, TRUSTEE, THE NATURE 

CONSERVANCY OF IDAHO, KIMBERLY, IDAHO 

Mr. NOH. But good morning, Chairman Crapo, and again I want 

to thank you for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and for your particular attention on this critical issue of 

conservation in the 2007 Farm Bill. 

My name is Laird Noh of Kimberly, Idaho. Our family has been 

continuously in the business of producing lamb wool, and sometimes cattle, on rangelands since the 1890’s, through five generations. 

I did serve probably too long in the Idaho Senate. I also served 

as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain 

Sheep Marketing Association, which markets some 70 to a hundred 

thousand lambs each year. 

But I am here today testifying in behalf of the Nature Conservancy, for which I have been a trustee of the Idaho chapter for 20 

years. 

The Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. 

We have helped conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the 

United States and Canada by working in partnership with private 

landowners, businesses, like-minded organizations and state and 

Federal Governments. 

The Nature Conservancy has identified proposals which we believe will improve existing USDA conservation programs and enhance wildlife habitat. Attached for the record is a copy of the complete Conservancy Farm Bill platform. But for the purpose of this 

hearing, I would like to highlight one particular area—our nation’s 

grazing lands. 

The Conservancy recognizes in this regard very fully that farming, ranching, and conservation work hand in hand to reach mutual goals. 

So the Conservancy has two major themes which we think about, 

as opportunities for grazing land conservation in the new Farm 

Bill. Number 1, we want to keep ranchers ranching, and Number 

2, we want to reward good stewardship of our nation’s grazing 

land. 

We believe these themes address the two overarching threats 

grazing lands face today; conversion to other uses, and degradation 

from threats like invasive species, altered fire regimes, and sometimes inappropriate grazing practices. 

Grazing lands provide many benefits to people, including clean 

air, water, forage for livestock, and habitat for wildlife. These lands 

include the prairies, the great plains, Savannahs in Texas and 

Florida, and shrub lands and deserts throughout the west. These 

lands cover about 40 percent of the U.S. and comprise nearly 80 

percent of our western landscapes. By some estimates over 70 percent of all mammals and birds in the U.S. use grazing lands during 

some part of the year. 

In Idaho there are 32 species of concern which exist on these 

lands under the state wildlife management strategy. Currently the 

annual loss of these rangelands in the 11 Western States may be 

as high as two to three million acres, and another million acres lost 

every year in the great plains. Despite these great losses, conservaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:22 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30127.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
28

tion and management of rangelands remain alarmingly underfunded when compared to forests and other western land types in 

particular. 

The 2002 Farm Bill took great steps for protection of our rangelands, with the creation of the Grassland Reserve Program. Under 

GRP, ranchers can enroll in rental contracts or easements that prohibit the development and other activities incompatible with conserving such lands. Congress authorized GRP to enroll up to two 

million acres, at a cost of up to $254 million. 

However, this program has already used up its authorized funding and is now left to languish until the next reauthorization of the 

Bill. 

The demand for this new program was tremendous. In fiscal 2004 and 2005, USDA allocated $147 million, but 2.4 million went 

unfunded. 

We think this is a very important program. I have some comments about it in the expanded portion of my remarks. 

I want to say that our real goal is to keep ranchers ranching on 

the land, and also encourage good stewardship programs. 

For example, the new Farm Bill should increase funding incentives to present control of invasive species. This year the Idaho 

NRCS office made funds available to fight invasive species through 

the Conservation Innovation Grants Program. It works. We need it 

in Owyhee County, which you are very familiar with, Senator, to 

deal with leafy spurge and a number of other programs. 

Conversion of our working lands, invasive species, declining 

water resources, climate change, all threaten our natural resources 

and habitat while increasing agriculture, forestry yields. Conservation practices, carried out through USDA can produce significant 

benefits. But these tools need to be more sharply focused, and I 

think they can do so, and be a great tool. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Noh can be found on page 106 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Noh. I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. Mansfield? 

STATEMENT OF TERRY MANSFIELD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, ON BEHALF OF 

THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, 

BOISE, IDAHO 

Mr. MANSFIELD. Good morning, Senator Crapo. Thank you. My 

name is Terry Mansfield. I am Deputy Director with the Idaho Department Fish and Game. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the conservation title 

provisions of the Farm Bill. 

From our perspective, there is no Federal program that delivers 

more funding on the western landscape for fish, wildlife and habitat conservation than the Farm Bill conservation provisions. 

They have played a key role for farmers and ranchers with financial incentives and technical tools to enhance the quality of soil, 

water and wildlife habitat. 

These programs work. They are very popular with the landowners because they are voluntary, incentive based and promote 

29

partnerships among agricultural producers, state and Federal Government agencies, particularly the wildlife agencies. 

Although I’m here today officially representing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, my comments also reflect the interests of 

the Association of the Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

I would like just by the way of background just bring things into 

focus. The Farm Bill’s landscape scale programs benefit fish and 

wildlife habitat and help support the stat’s roles and responsibilities to conserve and manage fish and wildlife. 

Consider the following accomplishments of the 2002 Farm Bill: 

128,000 acres of wetlands have been restored and; 

498,000 general signup CRP acres enrolled; 

69,000 acres of riparian buffers were established throughout the 

west. 

Similar benefits are occurring in Idaho. In recent years NRCS 

has been progressive in working with the Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game to implement the technical service provider program using Farm Bill conservation programs to deliver a wild 

range of valuable fish and wildlife habitat projects on private 

lands, including many that benefit at risk species. 

Some examples would include in 2005 the WHIP program focused on addressing native fish habitat concerns in the Tieton and 

Bear River drainages. 

A special EQIP program has been developed to assist landowners 

with at risk species projects. 

During the last 3 years, the Department of Fish and Game has 

entered into partnership with the NRCS, through the TSP program, where our personnel actually work at the NRCS offices and 

they’ve assisted 235 private landowners with 331 Farm Bill conservation practice requests. 

We appreciate the partnership with NRCS and efforts to improve 

fish and wildlife habitat in Idaho. 

Based on our experience, we think the net effectiveness of our cooperative efforts could be enhanced by refining some programs and 

eliminating a few practical barriers to completing approved 

projects. 

My written testimony includes more details but I would like to 

just touch on a few specific examples from improvement in Farm 

Bill conservation programs. 

Although the Technical Service Provider Program currently delivers cost-effective assistance to landowners, we believe another 

valuable benefit is the collaboration of local partnerships fostered 

among private landowners, state and Federal agencies. 

We recommend TSP program be continued in the 2007 Farm Bill, 

but we think there are some constraints dealing with the balance 

between funding and the procedures for technical assistance and financial assistance could come into balance. This would allow for 

more projects to be provided to landowners in a timely manner. 

In short, technical assistance is insufficient to implement financial assistance currently available and the demand for CRP, WRP, 

EQIP and WHIP is far greater than the current levels allow. 

Either an increase in technical assistance, or once again streamlining the administrator procedures in the balance would be helpful. 

30

Conservation Reserve Program provides many benefits to Fish 

and Wildlife in Idaho, including mule deer, Columbian sharp tail 

grouse. In Idaho, for example, sharp tail grouse annual harvest has 

increased three sold since the 1980’s, based largely on enrollment 

of CRP lands. 

We also would like to have considered a national priority area involved in CRP wherein we could focus more attention on recovery 

of at risk species, such as Columbian sharp tail grouse. 

We also recommend there could be some modifications, refinements in the 25 percent county cap. 

Another concept worth consideration here in Idaho, although the 

Farm Bill programs are valuable tools to address fish habitat 

needs, they are currently underutilized. The national fish habitat 

initiative will incorporate Farm Bill conservation programs to restore and enhance fish habitat by expanding the use of the existing 

tools. 

This trend will likely increase landowner interest and demand 

for TSP. 

A new concept that we would like to have considered as well 

deals with open feeds. Public access to private land and across private land to public land is becoming more difficult for Idaho hunters and anglers. 

Reauthorizing the Farm Bill in 2007 should consider including 

voluntary landowner incentives to provide public access as an 

added benefit to the investment in these conservation programs. 

In conclusion, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game strongly 

supports reauthorizing the Farm Bill in 2007, including refinements and expansion of conservation programs as I have described. 

This national commitment to a balance—to balance the needs of 

agriculture with voluntary Fish and Wildlife conservation programs 

will continue to be of critical importance in assisting farmers and 

ranchers in Idaho and throughout the west to conserve soil, water, 

wildlife, and fisheries. Thank you, Senator. 

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

99 in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Mansfield, and thank 

you to all of the panelists for your testimony today. 

Obviously this panel is focusing on the conservation title, whereas the previous one focused on the commodities title. But really we 

can discuss everything in the farm will that is there and what 

should be there in the future. So I would encourage you to engage 

with us on that. 

Mr. Hawley, the first question I have for you is, and in fact I will 

make this open to the entire panel, obviously we have a different 

budget climate than we had in 2002. In 2002 we were actually 

looking at very significant projected surpluses, and we were able to 

get major increases in conservation titled programs because of that. 

Which have resulted in a tremendous amount of good, as Mr. 

Mansfield has indicated, in terms of the actual implementation of 

these programs. 

Today we’re looking at budget deficits. We are engaged in a war 

in Afghanistan, Iraq, and there are problems in the context of our 

national security, both here at home and as well as overseas that 

indicate that we’re not going to be able to be reducing our national 

31

defense spending or our homeland security spending much at all, 

if at all. And that those budget pressures will increase. 

Given that, there will probably be a competition in the development of the Farm Bill, not only between the Farm Bill and other 

needs, like national security and so forth, but there will probably 

be competition within the titles of the Farm Bill. 

And so the question I have, and I know this is a tough one to 

answer, but it’s one that we are going to have to answer and deal 

with in Washington, is as we approach the development of the 

budget allocation in the Farm Bill, is the current allocation between the commodity programs and the conservation title adequate, should we be adjusting it, should funding be moved from one 

direction to the other, or do we have the balance about right? 

I know it’s not a fair or fun question, but do you want to start 

out, Mr. Hawley? 

Mr. HAWLEY. It is a very tough question, and I mentioned about 

an annual agricultural summit. And why I mentioned that is because it seems that we’re living in a much more dynamic environment now than we were when we developed the 2002 Farm Bill. 

And these primary questions are very difficult to answer every 

5 years. They need to be answered, or at least discussed, on an annual basis. Because the fuel prices have doubled in the last few 

years, we have a war, like you said, and other variables that are 

unpredictable, and influences the agricultural sector directly. 

And one thing that hasn’t been brought up yet today that I think 

is something that needs to be discussed very strongly, is the fact 

that the new generation of agriculture interests, the young farmers 

and ranchers are not coming to the forefront. In some sectors, yes, 

they are there, but other sectors, obviously the farm economy is 

poor enough, that the children aren’t interested in coming back to 

the farm. 

And what does that mean 20 years down the road from now? And 

these issues need to be all incorporated into a massive discussion 

so we could have appropriate answers coming forth for funding. 

Is it important to have funding available to enhance the—or be 

an incentive for the children to come back to the farm, or anyone 

to invest in the farming operation? 

If not, we’re going to go to huge corporate farms, and how would 

conservation programs, would they be effective, and would they be 

interested, would they be of interest to corporations? 

I know I’m not answering your question at all. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, you’re pounding around the edges. 

Mr. HAWLEY. But I think the bottom line is, that the American 

farmer has to have a fair system globally to sell his commodities, 

he has to be assured of a future, because as I mentioned earlier, 

it’s hard to sell conservation when a farmer’s livelihood is at risk. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Anybody else want to jump in on 

that? Mr. Mansfield? 

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if I could, please, just two 

thoughts. 

One of them, regardless of the balance of the mix of the total 

funding package, I think we owe it to everybody to be cost-effective 

and efficient. 

32

And my comments and the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies’ comments, technical service provider program. I think 

there are some barriers involved, administrative barriers. And 

whatever the funding level, the balance, between technical assistance and the financial assistance I think could be improved. So, the 

net cost-effectiveness, regardless of the mix between commodity 

and conservation, I think that could be a focus, and we certainly 

see some room for improvement. 

The other emphasis that I have tried to include in my comments, 

is pay me now or pay me later. You have certainly led the way on 

the thinking relative to species at risk before it becomes too late, 

before the less flexible government intervention with listed species 

takes place. 

So, I think once again that collaboration, that voluntary relationship, but net costs end up much lower and much more effectively 

focused if we could get ahead of the mix. And I think some of the 

refinements we can make internally will help. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I think, Senator, part of the answer to your question is that the Farm Bill, it needs to be comprehensive, and it 

needs to recognize that our country is really in transition, especially out west, to where the Farm Bill provides tools that are necessary not just on the commodities side but there is a value that 

the public puts on the natural resources. The public is interested 

enough and obviously Congress has been interested enough in natural resources, that they will a lot of times put requirements on 

landowners. And those things aren’t cheap. 

If the public wants to have wildlife and they want to have clean 

water and they want to have clean air, it’s fine if they say, we demand that this happen. 

But certainly in the case of our members that have utilized, say, 

EQIP funding, it’s really an issue of the public putting a list of demands in front of landowners, saying, we want this, and the landowners saying, you know, we need help with that. 

You can’t put, you know, technical and capital intensive demands 

on landowners to maintain the status of natural resources that 

they have, without giving them some assistance along the way. 

It is really kind of helping meet that public interest and that 

public commitment half way. 

So, certainly while you don’t want to be put in the position 

where, as I think the gentleman from the grain producers in the 

previous panel said, you know, we don’t want those monies to compete directly with commodity monies. We don’t want them coming 

out of each other’s pots. We know to some extent in D.C. that’s to 

go to happen, but I think certainly farm policy in the country has 

to recognize that there’s a balance there. 

And that assistance is necessary because that is something that 

has been imposed upon our members, some of those different requirements, and we need that assistance. And especially with a 

changing landscape out west. I mean, we want this to be a working 

landscape, as Senator Noh referenced, we want this to be a landscape where you have working farms and ranches, and in order for 

that to happen, we need help ensuring that these operations can 

meet those obligations. And that conservation funding is essential 

to that. 

33

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Senator Noh? 

Mr. NOH. Mr. Senator, I will have to be a little bit careful speaking for a national organization. I don’t want to misrepresent their 

policies. But maybe a couple thoughts. 

One, following up on Mr. Knight’s observation. Scattered developments across our western rangelands, it doesn’t appear to be good 

national policy, whether it’s oil policy, energy policy, or whatever 

the case may be, and that’s where some of these programs really 

do come to bear. 

We also think it is important to focus and target these limited 

funds where they will do the most good. 

For example, our organization has thought it would be useful to 

have an enhancement component to the GRP program similar to 

that of the conservation and reserve, CREP Program, so that cooperative state and other funds could be targeted, for instance, at 

sage grouse problems, because none of us are going to benefit if 

some of those species end up on the list, and then I guess we will 

have a need for more graduates from this great institution right 

here. 

And then there is an equity component. One of the concerns of 

the Conservancy under the GRP program which has lots potential, 

is that as I understand the way it now works with a regional component, is the states of Rhode Island and New Hampshire, which 

together represent a land area the size of Owyhee and Elmore 

Counties, receive more funding than the entire state of Idaho. 

So that’s another example of maybe an area, without getting into 

these allocation warfares, where we might benefit some of the 

western goals. 

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that, all of the comments that you 

have made there. 

Let me ask another unfair and tough question in this same line 

of thinking. And that is, once we do get a budget worked out for 

the Farm Bill and we figure out how much is going to be in the 

commodity title and allocated among the various titles, within the 

conservation title we are going to have some competition. 

As we’ve already heard today, the CSP program is seriously underfunded. The CSP program is the new kid on the block, so to 

speak. The other programs that we have had, like EQIP, and CRP, 

WHIP and so forth, have been there longer, are more established, 

what I would call the traditional, established conservation titled 

programs from the Farm Bill. 

And in the last Farm Bill development, we basically made a decision that they would be protected and we would try to add CSP in 

on top. Which is one of the reasons that we were unable to fund 

CSP fully. If we would have put CSP in and funded it first, then 

we would have had to bump out some of the other traditional programs. 

And again in the last Farm Bill we kind of got past this problem 

because we were flesh with money, and we were able to fully fund, 

or do what we thought was adequate for the traditional conservation program. And add in the CSP program, and give it a healthy 

amount of funding to see if we could get it started. And it was sort 

of done in a way that we were going to do it and see where we 

needed to go with it, once we got it going. 

34

Now we have, what, 4 years of experience moving down that 

track, and we see that there are some serious inequities with the 

way that the CSP program is being implemented. 

We also see that it actually is a very helpful program and accomplishing a lot of the intended objectives. 

But there’s going to be that competition again, as we come to a 

budget sensitive Farm Bill in the future, budget sensitive conservation title, between various programs. 

And the question I am leading up to is, do we make the same 

decision again, namely, do we protect the traditional programs at 

their current levels of funding, and then see what we can do in 

terms of budget to get more money into the CSP program, or do 

we start winnowing down the existing programs and moving our 

prioritization into the CSP program. 

Anybody want to tackle that one? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Senator, I think from our perspective, I think you 

need to prioritize those programs that do the most environmental 

good. Do the most environmental good. 

For us, the traditional programs have always again been programs that helped get a lot of new work done on the ground that 

hadn’t been done before. 

For example, if an operator saw a need, if it would help the 

water quality in his area, to help move some pens off of a creek, 

for example, or to put in some different water sites, some of those 

things, utilize EQIP funding and technical service from NRCS to 

do that, you know, to us that is a greater priority because that is 

a realized benefit to the environment, to the resource today that 

wasn’t there before. 

So, to us that’s more of a priority because he’s doing that for a 

number of reasons. Not only to be a good steward, but also because 

there are probably some regulatory obligations there that he needs 

to meet. 

So, from our perspective, those kinds of programs probably provide, and those kind of projects, to us are higher priority to our 

members. Not to say those other programs aren’t beneficial. Not to 

say they sometimes don’t accomplish the same thing. But somehow 

maybe there needs to be a way to build into the program a way 

to prioritize funding toward those things that meet some of those 

obligations. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Mansfield? 

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of thoughts, and 

one of them would be, you know, look at the landscape level effects 

and so on, and certainly the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, 

and WRP, not only in the West but nationally, have accomplished 

some major goals. They’ve provided vehicles by which nongovernment organizations involved in conservation would be very effective 

in bringing private side dollars in. They’ve meshed some partnerships between state and Federal agencies, Federal agencies on the 

Department of Agriculture side and the Interior side. And they 

rolled toward the implementing the North American waterfowl 

goals and things of that nature. 

So, I guess, you know, just some thoughts would be, couple that 

with the proven effectiveness, landscape level effects. But also the 

35

momentum of people being used to working in those partnerships. 

I think several of the commodity interest folks talked about longer 

term visions and continuity. 

I think it would be hard to argue against looking at the longterm continuity, in some cases in CRP, it’s getting people acquainted and comfortable, and then rolling it forward. 

The old rule of business, take care of your current customers 

well, make refinements, adapt as you go. 

So those are certainly some thoughts that as you face a really 

hard choice of prioritization and creating new ones, I think then if 

we also focus, can we be innovative, can we use some of these existing tools in a little broader fashion. Fish habitat and some water 

quality issues, current tools can do it. And I just think that may 

be at least something to consider as you look at those hard choices. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Anybody else want to jump on that 

one? 

Mr. NOH. Well, jumping on it is not really the right——

Mr. KNIGHT. Backing into it? 

Mr. NOH. Yeah. Easing into it. It’s my understanding that the 

Nature Conservancy has not drawn any conclusions on the CSP 

program. Kind of adopting a wait and see attitude, since it’s new. 

But this seems to me that it makes sense that we do have proven 

programs, and particularly as we look at the western landscapes 

and the grazing landscapes, that they are not uniform. 

We do need a diversity of tools, and we have had experience with 

a number of them. And we need to look for ways of strengthening 

those programs, perhaps modifying some of them, and look for 

ways again that in the long-term we’ll keep good working farmers 

and ranchers on the land that’s good, long-term policy for all of us. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I note, Mr. Hawley, in your testimony you indicated that if the CSP program—excuse me, if the 

CSP program continued but in a seriously underfunded fashion, 

that you had some suggestions there. 

Could you elaborate a little bit on what your ideas were there, 

as to how we could do this better, assuming we’re not going to have 

an ample amount of money to simply solve it with dollars? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Right. The suggestions were based on shifting a lot 

of the responsibility for management to the state level. 

That way the state could develop its own priorities for the CSP 

and the inequitability, or the inequities that are currently being 

faced, would be managed out toward the state’s priorities for certain watersheds. We think it would be associated with managing 

special CRP areas. Just give the states a lot more flexibility. 

Right now it is being managed mostly from the national level. 

Sometimes the watersheds that maybe are the highest priority 

aren’t necessarily selected because of the adjoining state’s influence. 

For example, in Idaho, on the western side of Idaho, we have a 

lot of collaboration with Washington and Oregon, and they may 

have a high priority watershed, and Idaho may not, or vice versa. 

And I think we could also build confidence that more locally driven 

decisions would be made instead of at the national level. I’m not 

trying to bad mouth, you know——

36

Senator CRAPO. I agree with you, that it’s better at the local 

level. 

Mr. HAWLEY. So that’s the crux of the issue. And we’re just concerned that at the current funding rate of CSP, that these inequities are going to become worse and worse and possibly end up destroying the program altogether. 

There are many producers that are very angry over how it’s been 

administered so far. 

Senator CRAPO. That’s true. Anybody else want to say anything 

on the CSP program before I move on? 

Let me move to the technical service provider issue, and Mr. 

Hawley and Mr. Mansfield, you both mentioned this in your testimony, so I may focus on you here. But Senator Noh and Mr. 

Knight, don’t hesitate to jump in if you have opinions on this. 

You may be aware, I held a hearing on this, in this subcommittee, in Washington, D.C., just a couple weeks ago, and we 

reviewed the whole TSP process, and how it was working and so 

forth. 

And the general consensus of the testimony that we received that 

day was that the TSP provisions were very helpful, but that we 

could improve, again, and there were some areas of suggested improvement. 

And I think that that would be consistent, that’s what I heard 

both from you, Mr. Mansfield, and from you, Mr. Hawley, today as 

well, that it’s a good program, but I also detected that there are 

some ways that we could improve it. 

So, would you both be willing to elaborate a little bit on what you 

would think we ought to do with regard to the TSP program? 

Do you want to start, Mr. Mansfield. 

Mr. MANSFIELD. Senator, I would be happy to try and fill in a 

little more, and it is based on some experience. 

As you well know, for commitments to be made here by, say, 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and our colleagues in other 

states and so on, scarce positions, if you will, and so on, and resources within the state agency. 

Although we can accomplish our goals together, to have that 

work in some streamline fashion, we look at removing any administrative barriers, and whether they meet the actual funding allocation, the funds set aside and the procedures for funding technical 

assistance, be it a partnership with a state wildlife agency, or be 

it getting the archeological surveys done, declare a project on a 

weapon restoration project, there could be some focus on cleaning 

those things up. And once again maybe there needs to be a little 

more flexibility in regions or states to do it. 

Certainly we have found in our NRCS to be more than innovative within the constrains of the hard wired, broad brush approach 

nationally, for example. And so I think that would be an area in 

which to step it down gives some state authority to make those arrangements. 

Once again, if there could be some continuity, multi-year agreements or funding to the degree we could, makes it much easier for 

a state agency like the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, to 

commit resources to build continuity. 

37

As it is now, we are putting three positions right in the NRCS 

offices, and it’s hard to describe the intangible benefits associated 

with improving our relationship with private landowners, making 

the Federal Government’s program more effective. 

And quite frankly, we can bring the expertise to help address the 

practical incentives on landowners’ projects, that’s our expertise, 

and we can bring it to bear in an effective way. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. And in fact I think that Idaho 

and one other state are sort of leading the way in terms of these 

partnerships, and it looks like we are doing it well and doing it 

right. And that issue of continuity of contracting is one that came 

up in Washington when we held the hearing there, too. So we are 

going to try to solve that problem. 

Mr. Hawley, did you want to add anything? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, I was just going to agree with Mr. Mansfield, 

that the program has in a way opened up that relationship between agencies to some degree. And I think that’s a huge benefit 

to have agencies cooperate and learn from one another and developing strategic plans for the future. 

The TSP program was kind of slow to start out with, but as we 

have learned to refine it in our own minds, it’s become a very beneficial program. 

I know, for example, in status reviews of CRPs, there have been 

some TSP services used here locally, and it’s worked out real well. 

So, I don’t know specifically what changes we need to make. 

They’d be maybe small. And I think as we move along, we could 

produce those new ideas for change. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. And now to move a little bit more 

to Senator Noh and Senator Knight on the grazing issues. 

Senator Noh, I noted with appreciation the objectives that you 

talked about in terms of the Nature Conservancy’s objectives, of 

wanting to keep ranchers ranching and to reward good stewardship. 

I think that that is a very good approach to the general policy, 

in terms of stating that the overall objectives that we want to 

achieve in this context. 

In the category of keeping ranchers ranching, you had talked 

about the need for increased funding for the GRP, the FRPP and 

the WRP programs for the ranching community, and also the need 

under rewarding good stewardship, to focus on incentives in funding to address the basic species. 

I was wondering if you could address that in just a little more 

detail, in terms of how you think we might approach that with regard to the invasive species, and the other aspects, of rewarding 

good stewardship on the land. 

Mr. NOH. Well, Mr. Chairman, invasive species we know are extremely difficult. I had dinner with my daughter last night in a restaurant in the mall over here, and one of their featured dishes was 

something comprised of yellow star thistle honey. So, we can eat 

them. 

Senator CRAPO. So what did you order? 

Mr. NOH. But the key, it is such a big program, but the key obviously I think is to again target, to try to get out in front of the 

problems, educate the public. 

38

You know, I know there were difficulties here in the North Idaho 

lakes with mill soil, where people without an adequate knowledge 

base were unwilling to use the herbicides, and so you go out into 

the lake and pull these things, and sometimes it multiplies by fragmentations. 

So there has to be a strong education come along, to try get out 

in front of it. It takes lots of resources. I don’t have any magic 

ideas. 

In terms of stewardship, again I think flexibility is important. 

For instance, as ranchers move into improved grazing management 

programs, it often requires, and this isn’t the Conservancy position, 

this is my personal experience, it’s often important, you know, to 

rest a particular component of the grazing regime for one or 2 

years. 

Sometimes to be able to do that, it requires some water developments, perhaps some fencing, perhaps a controlled burn situation 

to enhance the forage and the forage diversity on the rested piece 

of property. 

So, those are the kinds of fundings that need to be available to 

assist the ranchers as they get into improved grazing programs to 

increase their stewardship. 

And it’s ideal again if these things can be carried out on a cooperative basis, where you have got the agencies and the ranchers 

and others working together, very much as with your leadership 

appears to be developing out in the Owyhee, which used to be one 

of the tougher areas of the state to get cooperation. 

So, those are the kinds of programs that I think could go a long 

ways toward enhancing stewardship. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Knight, do you want to add anything in on that? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Don’t say ‘‘used to.’’ I think it still is. 

I think Senator Noh I think was completely accurate. I mean, the 

flexibility and the ability to work in those cooperative efforts I 

think is important. 

We especially see, with our members, for example, that have 

been involved in local working groups related to sage grouse, where 

there are a lot of folks from, you know, different agencies, landowners, and other interested groups around that table, you know, 

as they identify some priorities for those kinds of efforts, it’s helpful to have some funding and flexibility available so that if somebody wants to, for example, and your example was very appropriate, water development, and fencing, and some of those things, 

riparian protection, those are things that cost money, as well, and 

having that ability to get some assistance with those projects, can 

get on the ground and running quickly, is very important. And 

so——

And it helps to keep those working ranches out there. I mean, 

one of the things—I mean, obviously, especially in Idaho, one of the 

things that’s the biggest challenge to our operators, is, you know, 

when you look, just like any agricultural producer, but when if you 

look at some of these things that folks want to you do, and the 

costs associated with it, the last thing we want are the condos to 

replace the cows on the private lands, you know, out there in some 

39

of these areas, and a lot of our operators are in areas that are very 

popular to folks moving into the state. 

And when you look at our operators that are in places like Custer County, and Lemhigh County, and some of those, they need 

some assistance in helping make some of these projects a reality 

so they can stay viable. It is very important. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Again, Mr. Knight, from your testimony I assumed, but I want to be clear on this with you, that in 

terms of the conservation programs, the Cattle Association would 

probably rate EQIP as one of the highest, is that fair? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I think so, Senator. I mean, I think it’s probably the 

program that our members have utilized the most, and so that’s—

if I rate it in the order of importance, it’s because I know it’s the 

one that they seem to be most familiar with. 

I mean, we’ve had operators in, say, the Lemhigh drainage that 

have utilized some CSP and some of that. But EQIP I think is really our primary program. 

Senator CRAPO. How has the GRP program been received? 

Mr. KNIGHT. You know, I haven’t heard from my members a lot 

about GRP, quite honestly. And that is not to say it hasn’t been 

received well. We just haven’t had a lot of discussion about GRP 

here. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, it hasn’t had the funding it needed, for one 

thing. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Well, yeah. And I would probably defer, just because of my lack of knowledge, rather than try to amaze you with 

my ability to make up an answer, I would prefer to have Stacy contact the folks in D.C. at NCA. 

Senator CRAPO. That’s always a fair option. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I try to be as fair as I can. 

Senator CRAPO. Senator Noh, what are your observations on how 

the GRP program has played out so far? 

Mr. NOH. Well, Mr. Chairman, again I think, as I emphasized in 

my testimony, it is a good program. Again, it is the old story, there 

is a huge demand, and probably one of the reasons why many of 

the producers aren’t familiar with it, is because they have had no 

opportunity to be exposed to it. 

I think I gave an example in my testimony, in Idaho where a 

very high ranking program in the Henrys Lake area, 2 years in a 

row, it didn’t make the cut, even though it was No. 5 out of 130 

applicants. 

Senator CRAPO. Because there wasn’t enough money? 

Mr. NOH. Because there wasn’t funding. And part of that I suspect is this regional allocation and the way the monies are distributed over the nation, in terms of penalizing the large landscape 

areas in the West. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Well, thank you. I have a lot more 

questions, but that pretty much, we are pretty much running out 

of our time for this panel. 

I want to say again, as I have said many times, how appreciative 

we are of the thoughtful analysis that has been provided by you, 

both in your written and in your oral testimony, and encourage you 

to continue to provide it to us. 

40

I believe that the Farm Bill and the policies that we will address 

in it or so far reaching, they go—they are literally going to have 

international consequences as well as consequences that we are all 

aware of in terms of environmental, commodity impacts and so 

forth. We’ve got to get it right. 

And so I appreciate your help in working on that, and encourage 

you to continue to do so. With that, we will excuse this panel. 

Thank you very much. 

We will now invite up our third panel. While they were coming 

up, I will introduce them. 

Our third panel consists of Dr. Gregory Bohach, Associate Dean 

of the College of Agriculture and Life Science at the University of 

Idaho, here in Moscow; Ms. Lorraine Roach, a Board member of 

Idaho Rural Partnership, from Grangeville; Ms. Christine Frei, Executive Director of the Clearwater Economic Development Association from Lewiston; and Mr. Roger Simon, the Executive Director 

of the Idaho Food Bank from Boise. 

We welcome all of you here with us. And as I have said to everyone else, we thank you not only for your attendance but the 

amount of work and effort that you have put in to give us your 

counsel and guidance on these issues. And we will have you go in 

the order that I have introduced you. 

So, Mr. Bohach, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY BOHACH, ASSOCIATE DEAN COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY 

OF IDAHO, MOSCOW, IDAHO 

Mr. BOHACH. Good morning, Senator Crapo. I want to thank you 

and your staff for the opportunity to present in these proceedings, 

and for you listening today as you have always in the past. Thank 

you very much. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. BOHACH. I’m here to talk about research funding at the University of Idaho and other land-grant universities across the United 

States. 

As Associate Dean, my responsibility is mainly the experiment 

station director. So I’m responsible for facilitating land-grant research at the university. 

I want to start off by saying that I have listened to the testimony 

of some of the grower groups earlier this morning, the grain producers, the pulse crop producers, potato growers, and the dairy and 

beef growers, raisers, and they talked about the research cooperation, the support with the University of Idaho. 

I just want to mention that the programs that they mentioned 

for the Farm Bill related to research, we are strongly behind. We 

are particularly excited about the dairy and beef research facility 

proposed for southern Idaho. We just met with the dairy producers 

last week, started working out a business plan. I think the potential is there for the dairy industry and the beef industry, especially 

in relation to the environmental stewardship. I think it’s enormous. 

I want to start off, though, by saying that I want to spend most 

of my time talking about a situation with research funding and 

hope that some revisions can be made in the Farm Bill to address 

that. 

41

I will put on one of my minor hats at the University of Idaho, 

and that is a researcher. I do research in infectious diseases, mostly related to human infectious diseases which has been funded 

largely by NIH, and I also work on animal infectious diseases, 

mostly bovine mastitis, which has been funded by the USDA and 

the United Dairymen of Idaho, and also probably most importantly, 

by cash formula funds, and probably most importantly by Hatch 

formula funds, because thinking about it, without the Hatch formula funds, my research program would probably not be viable, 

and I doubt that I would even have a job here at the University 

of Idaho. 

I just did some calculations this week. It takes about a half a 

million dollars a year to run my research program. And of that, 

half a million dollars, 25,000—20 to $25,000 on the average has 

been provided by Hatch dollars. So, the state of Idaho is able to leverage those Hatch dollars by at least 16 to one in Federal competitive grant dollars. That is important point to keep in mind. 

I want to start off by setting the stage here, I need to watch the 

time I know, three key features to keep in mind. 

Despite the fact that since 1997 Federal funds for NIH and NSF have increased by 10 billion and $875 million respectively, in fact 

the NIF budget as you know, has doubled, we are strongly supportive of that. 

Adjusted for inflation, agricultural research dollars for the university experiment stations have actually declined by 24 million 

dollars. And extension dollars have actually declined even greater 

than that. 

Second, there has been a movement by the current administration, as you know, to remove formula funds for research. Several 

models have been proposed which differ in the rates at which the 

funds are eliminated. Either rapidly or more gradually. 

And third, there is currently no dedicated Federal research institute to advocate for and/or administer agricultural research funds. 

Food, agricultural and natural resource programs currently are divided among the ARS, CSREES and the Forest Service. 

The result is we believe that there is frequent duplication among 

agencies, no clearly defined lead agencies to address critical national issues, and a lack of integration across agencies. 

And I participated in a subcommittee of the Western Agriculture 

Experiment Station Directors, and we came up with a policy statement which I presented in my written testimony, but I just wanted 

to touch on a couple of quick components of that. 

I think that we want to have a functional combination of both 

formula and competitive funds in order for the system to work. 

Both Federal—Both formula and competitive funds have their advantages and disadvantages, and those are outlined very thoroughly in the written report that I provided. 

I wanted to wrap up by saying that what we would propose for 

the Farm Bill, and this is based upon a committee called CREATE–

21, creating research extension and teaching excellence for the 21st 

Century, which was commissioned by the NASULGC group, the 

National Association of Land-Grant Universities. 

And basically there were several components. I will go over these 

briefly. 

42

We would propose the creation of an institute that controls and 

regulates research funding, administers research funding, specifically for agriculture. The Research Fund Institute would be headed 

by a director, an eminent scientist, nominated by the President and 

confirmed by the Senate for a 6–year appointment. 

We also propose doubling of funding within 7 years from the cur- rent $2.7 billion per year to $5.4 million per year, and the major 

components are, that the formula fund distribution would remained 

intact, but the add-on dollars would go largely to a competitive program. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bohach can be found on page 61 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Dr. Bohach. 

Ms. Roach? 

Ms. ROACH. Well, I’m used to the university folks talking in 50 

minutes increments. 

Senator CRAPO. He had to cram a lot into his 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LORRAINE ROACH, BOARD MEMBER, IDAHO 

RURAL PARTNERSHIP, GRANGEVILLE, IDAHO 

Ms. ROACH. Chairman Crapo, thank you very much for inviting 

the Idaho Rural Partnership for participate in this panel. 

For the record, my name is Lorraine Roach, and I’m a member 

and a past Chairman of the Idaho Rural Partnership Board. I also 

serve with Dr. Bohach on the Dean’s Advisory Board for the College of Ag. and Life Sciences here at the University. 

Senator CRAPO. Am I pronouncing your name wrong? Is it 

Bohach? 

Mr. BOHACH. That’s the way my grandparents pronounce it. 

Senator CRAPO. Mine gets pronounced wrong a lot, too. 

I’m sorry, Ms. Roach. You can go ahead. You can add 20 seconds 

because I interrupted you. 

Ms. ROACH. One of the key reasons we’re here today is because 

we’re all challenged to do more with less. 

And I guess I would like to share three key thoughts with you 

today as part of my presentation. 

I’m a private business owner, and like businesses in today’s 

world, government agencies have to collaborate with each other 

and with their stakeholders in order to maximize their effectiveness and leverage their limited resources. 

Second, that this type of collaboration, coordination and 

leveraging is absolutely critical in rural community development 

because the resources are even more limited there than they are 

in urban areas. 

And third, that the National Rural Development Partnership, or 

NRDP, which includes the State Rural Development Council, is an 

effective and efficient way to foster this interagency collaboration 

and that the NRDP should be reauthorized in the 2007 Farm Bill. 

In this book, The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, which I 

know you are familiar with——

Senator CRAPO. I have read it. 

Ms. ROACH [continuing]. He describes that technology and global 

communication systems are now enabling businesses to collaborate 

and work in real time across national borders and continents. He 

43

says that traditional command and control hierarchical ways must 

open up to a new horizontal connect and collaborative style. 

But his observation doesn’t justify the business survival in the 

global economy, the same factors that are changing business relationships also affect government. 

In 1990 the President’s Initiative on Rural America created what 

later became the National Rural Development Partnership, which 

is a working group of Federal agency representatives and a network of 40 State Rural Development Councils administered 

through the USDA. 

The purpose of the NRDP was to reduce barriers to rural development through collaboration and communication among Federal 

agencies and with their state, local, tribal, private and nonprofit 

stakeholders. The Idaho Rural Partnership, or IRP, is the state 

council in Idaho. 

As a business owner who lives in rural Idaho and who works in 

rural communities across the U.S., I volunteer as an IRP board 

member because I have seen this concept of collaborative problem 

solving truly work for rural communities. 

The NRDP model of connection and collaboration was frankly a 

pretty novel idea 16 years ago when it was begun, but it is an essential and cost-effective way to get things done today. It provides 

a way to maximize the efficiency of every single dollar that is spent 

to aid rural communities and residents and farmers and ranchers. 

Let me share just a couple examples of how the partnership 

solves problems and reduces regulatory barriers. 

The State Rural Development Councils have initiated a process 

called rural community assessment, or in some states rural community reviews or community resource teams. This process allows 

the community to invite a team of experts to spend several intense 

days helping them find ways to address their community’s most 

difficult challenges. 

The visiting resource team is a volunteer group of Federal, state 

and private experts selected specifically to provide technical expertise and resources that that community needs. 

Frankly, the results from this process have been astounding. The 

communities have come together, agreed on solutions, and then effectively tapped Federal, state and local resources to address their 

problems. In other words, this process helps communities to help 

themselves. 

In the past farmers and ranchers were required to submit multiple conservation plans to various state and Federal agencies. The 

Idaho Rural Partnership convened a task of the different agencies 

and worked with them to develop a single on-line planning format. 

This program, called the Idaho One Plan, won a national award 

and is now being implemented across the United States, and there 

are more details about that attached to my printed remarks. 

Other rural issues present the same types of regulatory challenges, from wastewater to health care, transportation, housing, 

business development, etc. 

The state councils can help find solutions through collaborative 

partnerships, ultimately benefiting thousands of communities and 

millions of rural citizens and businesses across the nation. 

44

There are dozens of Federal, state, local, private and tribal organizations involved in rural development work. Certainly there’s 

plenty of need. Enough to keep all of us busy. But these entities 

often don’t coordinate with each other and leverage the resources 

as much as they could. 

So the State Rural Development Councils, like IRP, provide a 

forum for them to come together, connect, identify opportunities to 

collaborate. 

This is a win-win situation for the Federal Government, for the 

state council partner organizations, and most importantly, for rural 

communities and businesses. 

The NRDP was authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill, and I strongly 

encourage your support of its reauthorization in the 2007 Farm 

Bill. Rural communities need this collaboration model now more 

than ever, and the comparatively low cost of the partnership 

reached a huge return on investment for the Federal Government 

and American taxpayers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roach can be found on page 124 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Ms. Roach. 

Ms. Frei? 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE FREI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CLEARWATER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, 

LEWISTON, IDAHO 

Ms. FREI. Good morning. On behalf of the Clearwater Economic 

Development Association, thank you for the opportunity to address 

the Federal farm policy. 

Dedicated to the economic and community vitality of North Central Idaho, CEDA provides Region 2 counties and communities with 

project development, grant management and project implementation assistance, and reaching businesses with startup and small 

business financing. 

CEDA recognizes that our region’s resource-based economy, driven primarily by agriculture and timber, is highly influenced by government policy that drives forestry, conservation and rural revitalization. 

Today my comments will be specifically focused on USDA rural 

development programs and services, and their benefits to our region. 

The intermediary relending program provides financing for business startup and expansion projects that create jobs in rural communities; contribute to the diversification and expansion of the 

local economy; and/or provide business ownership opportunities to 

traditionally undisturbed population groups. The $650,000 IRP loan to CEDA in 1998, for example, has re- sulted in $1.4 million of CEDA financing for 27 rural business development projects. This financing leveraged an additional $2.6 

million of investment into the same projects, and helped to create 

and/or retain 154 jobs in rural North Central Idaho. 

The rural business international grant program funded a feasibility study that helped a major Clearwater County employer retain over 40 manufacturing positions with decent wage opportunities. 

45

In the past 5 years with RBEG funds CEDA provided 12 microloans for business startup and expansion projects. These projects 

helped to create 18 jobs in economically distressed rural communities. 

The Rural Business Opportunities Grant assisted eight small 

rural producers in their assessment of new product markets and 

the development of strategies for penetrating those markets, resulting in nine retained or created jobs. 

RPEG funding also provided for a regional tele-communication 

study that assessed the infrastructure of the most under-served 

rural communities. This study will be used to prioritize regional actions to address tele-communication shortfalls. 

The interest that this study generated contributed to the recent 

action by the Idaho State legislature to set aside and distribute 

money for telecommunication infrastructure. Since 2001 the USDA rural development awarded over $2 million 

in grant and loans for community projects such as fire stations, 

emergency service equipment, library renovations, and school improvement projects in our region. Since 2002 $10 million in loans and $6.82 million in grants were 

also awarded in the region for water and sewer infrastructure and 

solid waste management projects. 

In the past 5 years CEDA worked diligently with eight communities on community facility and community program projects that 

were financially made feasible because of the loan and grant programs of the USDA rural development. 

Currently CEDA is working on three more projects that will be 

seeking rural development funding. One of the most financially 

challenging projects has been with the city of Lapwai and the Nez 

Perce Tribe on a collaborative project to construct a regional wastewater treatment plant. 

It is important for those who develop the Federal farm policy to 

understand the funding needs of our region. 

Looking over CEDA’s 5 year history with rural development 

funded projects, we estimate that fewer than one-third of the 

projects would have been completed without USDA grant and loan 

assistance. Grants for water and sewer projects in particular are 

critical to keeping the utility rates in a $35 per month range that 

is affordable to low income people. 

In addition to its grant and loan programs, rural development 

provides valuable technical assistance to communities in the areas 

of rate structuring, financial packaging and budgeting for capital 

replacement. 

The most difficult community projects to complete in our region 

are fire stations and emergency response facilities and projects. As 

more people move into the urban areas, adequate and accessible 

fire protection and emergency response is more critical. 

In the past year CEDA has interacted with as many as eight fire 

districts in the need of funding for facility projects. R.D. programs 

could be improved with increased grant funds and a program that 

allows for grant only assistance. 

This is the first time in CEDA’s history that our organization has 

been directly involved in addressing housing issues. As property 

values continue to escalate, the need for USDA rural development 

46

housing programs such as mutual self-help programs become more 

imperative. 

In conclusion, I cannot emphasize enough the need for the existing USDA rural development programs and the hopes CEDA has 

that the programs receive adequate funding. Infrastructure, the 

No. 1 obstacle to economic development. Small business opportunity and financing is the other. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Frei can be found on page 82 in 

the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Simon. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER SIMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE 

IDAHO FOOD BANK, BOISE, IDAHO 

Mr. SIMON. Good morning, Senator, Chairman. I don’t think you 

and I have ever been in a situation where we have been dressed 

the same. I wear the tie——

Senator CRAPO. We’ll work at it. Let’s put it this way. I’m going 

to be in jeans, if I can. 

Mr. SIMON. I understand, sir. My name, as you know, is Roger 

Simon. I’m Executive Director of the Idaho Food Bank, the premier 

hunger relief agency serving Idaho and Idahoans in need. 

I have served in this capacity for 13 years and have been actively 

administering nonprofit corporations for more than 30 years. 

The Farm Bill is thought of by many as the cornerstone of service for our farmers, whether they be large or small. However, it is 

much more than that. The Farm Bill keeps grocers throughout 

Madison County in business. That being the home of BYU Idaho, 

and one of our top counties in the country in terms of the production of potatoes. Also, though, 17 percent of residents of Madison 

County live in poverty. 

In Shoshone County, retail is our largest industry, and yet one 

out of every four children there live in poverty. 

The Farm Bill, the provider of food stamps, is an essential solution there. 

Whether we want to admit it or not, the Federal Government is 

the largest supplier of food assistance in our country. And yet hunger in America, hunger in Idaho is much more serious than it has 

ever been. 

Families seek emergency food sources when they do not have 

enough money to purchase the food that they need and other basic 

needs. 

The quality of the food that is purchased is directly related to the 

funds that are available. So, what you have is the odd situation of 

people threatened with hunger and concurrently suffering from 

obesity. 

Without support such as available through the Farm Bill, the 

very high fat items will continue to be what’s available. And we as 

a society will continue to pay more and more as a result of that. 

The CSFP program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, an TEFAP, The Emergency Food Assistance Program, are effective programs that should be temporarily expanded. 

47

Please keep in mind that these Federal programs have absolutely 

no direct benefit to the Idaho Food Bank, so I have no self-serving 

interest in sharing that with you. 

Concurrently, Federal tax incentives such as included in the recently passed Pension Reform Bill need to be made permanent to 

provide incentives to donate that food and other items to the food 

banks and pantries across the country. 

The Food Stamp Program needs to expand eligibility. Children 

can qualify for a free or reduced price lunch in the schools if the 

family’s living at 185 percent of poverty. But to get food stamps at 

a different eligibility criteria is in effect. All programs need to be 

inclusive. And the Federal Government needs to establish a comprehensive base for eligibility; one that assures that families’ needs 

are met. 

Among those eligible for food stamps in Idaho, only around 50 

percent are receiving them. And according to the Idaho Department 

of Health and Welfare, 48 percent of those that receive them are 

children. 

One of the wonderfully unique things about the Food Stamp Program is that it’s a natural setting for people to receive food. Not 

only is our government helping economically disadvantaged and 

creating employment within the grocery industry, but people who 

are receiving food are doing so in an appropriate setting. 

How many people in this room have had to stand in line at a 

food pantry or soup kitchen versus at a grocery store? One is natural. 

Let me reiterate some points. Many of them were edited out to 

stay within my time, but are within the written testimony. 

The 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization is the most critical piece of 

legislation facing this country this year. It impacts every single 

person. The Farm Bill is essential for farmers, small businesses 

and low income families, especially in rural communities. 

With the increasingly high costs of farming, farm subsidies from 

the government spell the difference between either success and 

total ruin, for many who commit their lives to feeding our country. 

Nearly 35 million Americans are threatened with hunger, including 

13 million children. Expansion of the Federal nutrition program is 

effective appropriate response. 

The Farm Bill includes a range of nutrition programs. Participation rates vary from state to state. In Idaho, as I mentioned before, 

the Food Stamp Program is only reaching about 50 percent of those 

that are qualified. 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program has become the cornerstone to the nutritional service for our senior citizens, even 

though Idaho does not take part in this program. It should be expanded to all 50 states. We are an aging society, we must address 

that. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program provides a way to direct some agricultural surpluses. 

Partnering with food banks across the country increases the supply to front line agencies and most importantly to people in need. 

This collaborative partnership should be written into law for efficiency purposes. 

48

Obesity is a serious problem, especially among our lower income 

children. It could be addressed in the Farm Bill with focus on nutrition, fruits, vegetables, and education. Its investment will impact 

everybody. 

Creating inclusive standards for the myriad of Federal nutrition 

programs will help eliminate confusion. 

The Food Stamp Program, as I said before, is the most natural 

method for people to receive food for themselves. The check-out line 

in the grocery store is the best way to do it. 

In conjunction with expansion of the Food Stamp Program, an 

outreach education program that simplifies enrollment is necessary 

to help eligible people access the services they need. 

Again, Senator, I thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony on what I consider to be one piece of legislation impacting 

this entire this country. 

It has been an honor to come before you today, as it is each time 

we work together. 

The Farm Bill, 2007, if done correctly, will be the foundation for 

a strong society. Ronald Reagan made a comment saying, ‘‘All great 

change in America begins at the dinner table.’’

When you and other people in this room go home tonight, to your 

families, realize that you’re in the position that the President spoke 

of. Help bring all Americans to that table. 

Thank you very much for your time and for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon can be found on page 126 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Simon. 

You know, the testimony of this panel has reminded me of the 

fact that we call this the Farm Bill, but it is much, much more 

than just a Farm Bill. And it has intentionally been expanded to 

be more than that. 

And I agree, Mr. Simon, it one—you said ‘‘the most.’’ I would certainly put it up there with one of the most important pieces of legislation that we address, whether you were talking about the environmental impacts or the commodity issues or energy issues or the 

rural development issues, the nutrition issues, the research issues 

and what have you. 

And I thought it might be interesting just to list off what the titles of the Farm Bill are. And I don’t know that I have them all 

here. But there is obviously the commodities title, which is where 

it gets its name, probably from being the Farm Bill. 

And then as you know from the other testimony that we have 

had here, we have the conservation title. There is a trade title, 

which has enormous consequences in many different areas. The nutrition programs, including the Food Stamp Program and the others, and more, that Mr. Simon has talked about. The credit title, 

dealing with your finances and other aspects of how we are economically going to approach the whole business of food and fiber 

in our nation. There’s the rural development title, which of course 

we’re going to talk about a little bit on this panel. The research 

title. And the energy title. And the energy issues are becoming central, as they should have been, for a long time. 

In some of the meetings that have been held around the state, 

it has been suggested we probably ought to add another title, for 

49

transportation, which is becoming a bigger and bigger issue in all 

of these arenas. 

So this panel gets to help us broaden our focus a little bit beyond 

the traditional commodity and conservation titles to some of the 

other very critical pieces of the legislation. 

And, Dr. Bohach, if I could summarize the message I took from 

your testimony, it would be that we don’t have an NIH for agriculture. 

Is that sort of a good summary? 

Mr. BOHACH. Exactly. Exactly. 

Senator CRAPO. And the proposal that you make is intriguing. Do 

you have a name for this institute yet? 

Mr. BOHACH. It hasn’t been named yet. 

Senator CRAPO. I want to create an acronym here so that we can 

start talking about it. National Agricultural Institute. NAI. I don’t 

know. 

Mr. BOHACH. There have been names like that, proposed similar 

to that. 

Senator CRAPO. The idea is that it would be a permanent institute, such as the NIH is, for health research, and a director. 

Tell me a little bit more about the proposed director. Would this 

be an appointment by the President for a term? 

Mr. BOHACH. Nominated by the President, Mr. Chairman, and 

approved by Congress, for 6 years. 

Senator CRAPO. For a 6–year term. 

Mr. BOHACH. Yes. Which is similar to agencies, other institutes. 

Senator CRAPO. Right. I think that it is a very good idea. 

And then you have suggested that the research funding, which 

I also found it interesting that if inflation adjusts agricultural research, it has not kept pace with inflation. It has actually gone 

down about 24 million. Was that over how many years? 

Mr. BOHACH. Since 1997. 

Senator CRAPO. Since 1997. And I think most of us are aware of 

the big push we’ve had for the last 15 years to double and then 

again double our research in the medical and health care arena. 

And we’ve seen the benefits that have started to come from that. 

And so I can certainly agree with you with the idea for doubling. 

You have heard probably all the budget discussion we have had 

with the other panels. That is not an easy—It’s an easy objective 

to agree with. It is not going to be an easy one to achieve. 

I’m intrigued by it. And I’m going to try to work on it. You suggested that there were advantages and disadvantages of both the 

formula funding and competitive funding. 

Could you explain that a little bit, what you mean? 

Mr. BOHACH. The advantages of competitive funding, I could list 

a few, the most obvious one I think is that it gets the highest level 

of scrutiny by peer review and refereed reviews. 

The problem with that is that it is not very reactive. And if I 

submit a proposal to NIH this time of year, we don’t see the money 

for another year, basically. We don’t even get notified if it is going 

to be funded for at least 6 months. 

And that really is the advantage, the formula fund, the main advantage, for example, using formula funds, tax dollars, we were 

50

able to identify potato sys-nematode very early this year, and get 

a heads up on it, try to limit it. 

Similar problems have been dealt with, using cash funds. 

Another example of responding quickly is in the area of bio-energy at the University of Idaho, where we have over the years used 

Hatch funds to develop very strong programs in bio-diesel and ethanol production. And that’s really going to help us deal with our 

current energy situation, much more rapidly, and respond, because 

we have the infrastructure here already. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I tend to agree with you. I was talking 

with someone a little while ago about the energy crunch that we 

face, and we were talking about the very difficult decisions that we 

have to face right now, and we don’t really see an easy solution. 

In fact some have suggested that there is no solution to the energy 

situation that we face right now. 

And the gentleman that I was talking with said, you know, 

America has faced a lot of challenges throughout its history. And 

every time the American creativity and the American spirit and ingenuity that we have, has come up with a solution. 

And he said, we’ll do the same thing with regard to energy. And 

it will come from research and from our investment into the development of new ideas and new science and new technology that will 

provide answers. 

And I think that kind of reasoning is the justification for the suggestion that you make, that we invest in this critical research. This 

isn’t just research to try to help us be more effective and more productive in agriculture. That’s a big part of it. But it is an investment in our competitiveness and our ability to maintain the quality 

of life we have in America and to expand it to all people and to 

preserve the American dream. 

So, I appreciate your commitment to that and your work on it. 

With regard to the proposal that you have put forward, I assume, 

when you say that you would like to have the new dollars, if we 

can get them into this project, go to competitive funding, is that because ultimately you would like to see the balance to be about half 

and half? 

Mr. BOHACH. Right. The formula, if completely funded, would be 

approximately, this may not be exactly, but it would be approximately 48 percent competitive, and the remainder would be, probably a bit more, 52 percent, formula funds. 

Senator CRAPO. I apologize. I have not yet seen your testimony. 

But have you attached this proposal? It came from what organization? 

Mr. BOHACH. You mean——

Senator CRAPO. The proposal for—the NIH for agriculture. Didn’t 

that come from a group that you’re working——

Mr. BOHACH. Oh. Sorry. It came from the NASULGC croup. 

Land-grant——

Senator CRAPO. Have you attached that to your testimony? 

Mr. BOHACH. It’s in the folder, yes. 

Senator CRAPO. I’ll get to review it, then. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Roach, I appreciated your reference to ‘‘The World is Flat.’’ 

I think there is a lot of wisdom in that book, and in the analysis 

that is being made by many, about how we are changing the way 

51

that we conduct business, conduct everything, you know, conduct 

life globally here on this earth. 

And one of the dynamics, and I guess this is going to relate to 

your testimony, as well, Mrs. Frei, so you can both jump in on 

these questions, any of you can on any of these questions, but one 

of the dynamics that I have noticed is that as our economy has 

been up and down, and fortunately now we are at a situation 

where I think we’ve got 12 or 16 consistent quarters of growth, it 

hasn’t been the explosive, expansive growth that we saw in the late 

1990’s and the early part of this century, but it has been consistent. 

But as we have seen this regrowth from the dips the economy 

took, the overall numbers look really positive. I mean, you can look 

at jobs that have been created. You could look at revenue. And all 

sorts of other, different types of factors. Manufacturing and so 

forth. 

And it’s been a little misleading, in my opinion. Because I believe 

that the urban areas are driving those numbers, and yet our urban 

areas could not on their own claim such wonderful news. 

Would you agree, and would you comment a little bit on that, 

both of you? 

Ms. ROACH. I absolutely agree. In Idaho, certainly we have areas 

that are seeing growth. Valley County is groaning under the 

growth that they’re seeing. But we have other counties in Idaho 

that are still shrinking, and losing jobs, and losing population. 

Perhaps even more significant is that many of our rural areas 

are seeing the aging of their populations even more rapidly than 

they’re seeing the lack of growth, or the shrinking, because they 

are seeing some influx of retirees, but they are seeing predominantly an out-migration of youth. 

And as the world flattens, the technology allows people to come 

back to the rural communities, young families can come back to the 

rural communities, bring their jobs with them. 

My company is an example of what’s called the loan eagle. I work 

all over the country, but I can be based in Grangeville, Idaho, because of technology. I still have some technology challenges there, 

which hopefully the telecommunications strategy that Christine 

talked about, can help resolve that. 

But we aren’t seeing the same types of growth as you note. 

That’s why I think that the national rural development partnership, the state councils, is vitally important, because what they do 

is bring to the table all of those different resources, all of the agencies, all of the nonprofits, all of the different entities that serve 

rural communities, and say here are some specific issues, specific 

problems, how can we work together, leverage our different resources and solve some of these issues creatively. 

And it’s that creativity that’s going to help resolve some of the 

rural—the thorniest rural problems. 

One of our challenges, as you know, with NRDP is there was 

funding authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. That funding has never 

actually happened to the extent, and it wasn’t meant all to come 

through USDA, it was meant to come from each of the Federal 

agencies as well as the states and the other partners who have a 

role in rural America. 

52

One of the challenges of a partnership like this is that not only 

are we trying to creatively collaborate and solve problems, but we 

are looking at where there are Federal regulations or Federal policies that are barriers to rural development, and so by definition, 

one or more of any of those partners sitting around the table is 

going to be on a hot seat when we are discussing a particular regulation or policy. 

Because USDA happens to be the agency with the most programs 

and the most money and the most policy and regulatory authority 

that affects rural America, they tend to be in the hot seat sometimes more than other agencies. 

So, this program sometimes tends to be a bit of a challenge for 

them internally because we’re addressing a lot of things, like the 

one plan where we were involving Agriculture, EPA, and State Department of Agriculture as well as Federal. 

So, oftentimes it is a bit uncomfortable for some of our partners 

as we discuss how we can improve or facilitate or refine policies 

and regulations that are creating barriers, because one size doesn’t 

fit all. And as you know, many of the policies tend to focus more 

on urban solutions as opposed to rural solutions. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Ms. Frei, do you want to comment? 

Ms. FREI. I just wanted to say that——

Senator CRAPO. Pull that mike a little closer. 

Ms. FREI. I believe that in the United States, the more spread 

out people are throughout the nation, the more stable and healthy 

we are. 

And I think one of the challenges, when legislators look at how 

they’re going to spend money, the tendency is to think, the dollars 

for the greatest amount of people. I mean, that’s just a natural 

tendency, let’s help the most people. 

But the challenge, when you’re looking at rural development, if 

you want to keep people healthy and communities healthy in those 

rural communities, that can’t be the criteria. And we have to look 

at what’s going to help those communities to survive, and it may 

be more costly to preserve those—to preserve certain services within the community than it would be in a larger community. 

However, I think overall it makes for a healthier nation. And I 

think, I was looking at the USDA rural development, thinking 

about it over the last 2 weeks, I cannot imagine our rural communities surviving without USDA rural development, and the services 

they provide. They’re very traditional programs that have done a 

great amount of good, and I hope that they continue to be funded. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. You know, as you were talking, I was 

thinking about, an example of what you were talking about, in 

terms of the benefit to our whole society, of making sure that we 

maintain the diversity, and the strength of our rural areas, is the 

Universal Service Fund, or the commitment we have on telecommunications, where we pay a little extra, we all pay a little 

extra in our telephone bills to make sure that we have telephone 

service in the rural communities. And it has made a tremendous 

difference to the whole nation, as well as to those communities. 

And I think that those kinds of things are very critical for us to 

understand. 

53

That kind of leads me into another aspect of this. As we talk 

about the rural communities and their needs, Ms. Frei, you mentioned at the end of your testimony, that our No. 1 issue is infrastructure in terms of the obstacles to economic development; No. 2 

would be small business opportunity and financing. 

And I will just toss this out to all of you on the panel. I believe 

that. And one of the things that I have been committed to in many 

different contexts, is trying to build out the infrastructure in our 

rural communities. 

The question I have is what do we mean when we say infrastructure in our rural community? What do we need in terms of infrastructure in our rural communities? 

Ms. FREI. I would like to address this. 

Senator CRAPO. Sure. 

Ms. FREI. There is an example, last night, yesterday afternoon 

we met with the Work Force Development, members of the Work 

Force Development Council for the State of Idaho in Region 2. 

And interestingly enough, the conversation was supposed to be 

about work force development, correct? 

Senator CRAPO. Correct. 

Ms. FREI. We spent half the time talking about telecommunication issues. 

This is an example of telecommunication, fire stations, community centers, water, sewer, garbage, those kinds of services, are so 

necessary, and it’s like, in North Central Idaho, many of our rural 

fire districts have been able to get assistance and funding, this is 

an example, for equipment, because after the 2000 fire season, 

monies were made available for them. 

But the problem is, is that they may have some of the equipment, some of the equipment now that they need, made real improvements in that area, vehicles that they need, but they don’t 

have the fire station to put the equipment in. 

That’s a major problem. Because in order to take care of that 

equipment, you need to have a controlled environment, and it has 

to be in an area in which it’s going to be able to serve the community, the people in the community. 

And it is getting to be more and more of a problem because more 

and more people are moving out into the urban interfaced areas. 

And so the need those services are increasing. 

And energy is another issue that I see as an infrastructure issue. 

And also the last one would be transportation. 

Senator CRAPO. So you think maybe a transportation title would 

be helpful in the Farm Bill? 

Ms. FREI. It couldn’t hurt. 

Senator CRAPO. Did you want to add anything, Ms. Roach? 

Ms. ROACH. No. That’s fine. 

Senator CRAPO. I see some—Did you want to say something, 

Roger? 

Mr. SIMON. Actually, I’d like to connect the last two questions. 

Senator CRAPO. Yeah. 

Mr. SIMON. The first one, you talked about growth going on for 

14 quarters, what is it? 

Senator CRAPO. Yes. 12. 

54

Mr. SIMON. The growth we’ve seen, much of it has been in the 

service industries, which has meant that we’ve got people who are 

operating, often part-time, often without benefits, often with below 

living wages, whether urbanly located or rurally located. 

What the result of that is, in some ways, is that we also at the 

same time have had the largest increase in applications for Welfare 

going on in the country, food stamps, other things that somehow 

we have had all of this growth, but we have a huge increase in 

need that’s occurring. 

And this ties back again to providing a base level for our population. 

When you talk about the wonder of living rural, you have a huge 

cost to just get from point A to point B, because in the city, it’s 5 

minutes away. Somewhere else, it’s an hour away. 

When you don’t have the same kinds of shopping opportunities, 

if you will, it’s much more expensive. 

And so, again, that Farm Bill comes back into play here in terms 

of assuring standards, assuring the subsidies for the people, whether it be for the food stamps, assuring that people go into the grocery stores, and the grocery stores in a small town, and can afford 

the food that’s available there. 

Senator CRAPO. You know, to follow up on that for just a minute, 

in your testimony you indicated that the participation of among eligible people in the Food Stamp program was only about 50 percent. 

Mr. SIMON. 48 percent. 

Senator CRAPO. Yeah. In your view, why are about half of the eligible people not involved in the program? 

Mr. SIMON. We do an inadequate job of making folks aware that 

the services are available. We also have a very strong stigma associated with participation in governmentally supported programs 

within our country, and especially within Idaho. A very much of a 

‘‘pull yourself up by your boot stamps’’ kind of an area. 

Therefore, if it’s government-related, it’s not good. 

Although oftentimes the people saying that are also receiving 

supports, ironically. But that’s not connected for them. 

I think that’s a very serious problem. We know that across the 

country where there has been focused outreach and education, and 

even assistance in applications, done by food banks, for example, 

we’ve see increases of up to 70 percent and above for participation 

levels. 

That helps the entire economy. As we talk about, you know, even 

as I talk about those grocery stores in Kambiah, in Orofino, wherever they might be, you need to be able to have the person afford 

the food there. The food stamp allows for that to occur at times, 

it allows that person to access that food in a natural type of a setting. Just as we may have a pantry located down the road, the 

owner of the grocery store needs to be able to make ends meet, too, 

and what that does is the food stamp provides an economic boost 

to that community. 

Senator CRAPO. And if we were to expand the eligibility for food 

stamp, wouldn’t those who were newly eligible face those same 

kind of obstacles that you’ve just discussed? 

Mr. SIMON. That’s why in my testimony I suggested that an outreach education component be a critical part of this program. And 

55

I am not talking about major dollars. I mean, it doesn’t need to be 

that expensive. But that we need to somehow move that outside of 

it being controlled automatically by State Departments within each 

of our states, but that we develop on a national level, the materials 

that can be distribute throughout our country, to assist people in 

accessing that material, and we removed the stigma that’s associated with receiving food stamps. And we’ve gone a long ways there 

with the Quest cards, with other types of cards that are much more 

natural for folks. 

Ms. ROACH. Senator Crapo, the comments that were just made, 

I think there’s an interesting connection between what Christine 

just said about the meeting yesterday, the folks from Work Force, 

and the reason that that meeting ended up spending a lot of time 

talking about telecommunication infrastructure has to do with access to increasing levels of skills. And it’s more—it’s difficult for 

people in rural areas to access the training that they need. 

We have people who are unemployed, we have people on food 

stamps, people who are making low wages, and yet I talk to business owners who can’t find the workers who have the skills that 

they need. They have the jobs available, but they don’t have the 

work force. 

So it is all interconnected, and it has to do with education, it has 

to do with retraining, it has to do with training beyond high school, 

vocational education, all of those things are wrapped into it. 

But telecommunications is a critical piece. Because if we can increase our capacity to deliver training and to deliver educational 

services to people who need it, then we have more opportunity for 

people to get jobs that are going to be increasingly needed in a 

global economy. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Ms. FREI. I would just like to comment on that, too. 

Senator CRAPO. Sure. 

Ms. FREI. Also we need to keep our mind open when you are 

working with very rural communities. It may not be the traditional 

telecommunication infrastructure. 

And some of the barriers that I’ve seen within the last few years, 

this is what we do in urban America, and this is going to translate 

out in rural America, and it doesn’t. 

We need to look at different kinds of systems and not rely on the 

traditional service providers that have been providing it. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, and that’s why the partnerships and 

groups that particularly the two of you are members of, are so 

helpful in helping us fine tune it and make it work properly. 

Yes? 

Mr. BOHACH. I also just wanted to add, that I think that would 

be an excellent place for the university extension and outreach, especially with our experts on nutrition and rural sociology. 

Senator CRAPO. That just shows the collaborative approach that 

Ms. Roach talked about and that we all have been involved in. 

Ms. ROACH. Extension is represented on the Idaho Rural Partnership Board, as a integral partner. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I want to thank everyone on this panel. 

Again we are running out of time. We always run out of time on 

these hearings, which is one of the reasons why we keep the record 

56

open for 5 days so that folks can continue to send us information, 

and really, like I said at the outset, the record, in terms of giving 

us input on the Farm Bill, is just open. Get ahold of us whenever 

you want to, to let us know about your thoughts and your ideas 

and suggestions. 

Again, I want to thank all of you on this panel. 

And I’ll just make a few concluding remarks here, and then we 

will wrap up the hearing. 

I believe that the testimony that we’ve received today has been 

outstanding. And for those of you who haven’t had a chance yet to 

read all of the testimony, the depth was much greater in the written testimony than we had an opportunity to do here in the actual 

hearing. Which is always the case. 

But it’s been—it provides a tremendous bank of resource for us 

to utilize at the Committee as we develop this legislation. 

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Congress deals with on a regular basis, and as I said before, I believe 

that the times that we are living in, the situations we are facing, 

literally in terms of international economic and international security issues as well as our national issues that go right down to the 

rural level, and to the individuals at the dinner table, are becoming 

much, much more intense an interrelated, and as a result of that, 

the consequences of us getting it right in this Farm Bill are increased dramatically. 

Because it really is much more than just a Farm Bill. It’s a bill 

that helps to facilitate that interrelationship between so many of 

these issues that involve so many of our people here and across the 

globe. So, again, I want to thank everybody for your testimony, and 

for the time that you have given to attend here today and to prepare for us. 

And with that, we will close this hearing. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X

AUGUST 11, 2006

58


30127.001
59


30127.002
60


30127.003
61


30127.004
62


30127.005
63


30127.006
64


30127.007
65


30127.008
66


30127.009
67


30127.010
68


30127.011
69


30127.012
70


30127.013
71


30127.014
72


30127.015
73


30127.016
74


30127.017
75


30127.018
76


30127.019
77


30127.020
78


30127.021
79


30127.022
80


30127.023
81


30127.024
82


30127.025
83


30127.026
84


30127.027
85


30127.028
86


30127.029
87


30127.030
88


30127.031
89


30127.032
90


30127.033
91


30127.034
92


30127.035
93


30127.036
94


30127.037
95


30127.038
96


30127.039
97


30127.040
98


30127.041
99


30127.042
100


30127.043
101


30127.044
102


30127.045
103


30127.046
104


30127.047
105


30127.048
106


30127.049
107


30127.050
108


30127.051
109


30127.052
110


30127.053
111


30127.054
112


30127.055
113


30127.056
114


30127.057
115


30127.058
116


30127.059
117


30127.060
118


30127.061
119


30127.062
120


30127.063
121


30127.064
122


30127.065
123


30127.066
124


30127.067
125


30127.068
126


30127.069
127


30127.070
128


30127.071
129


30127.072
130


30127.073
131


30127.074
132


30127.075
133


30127.076
(135)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

AUGUST 11, 2006

136


30127.077
137


30127.078
138


30127.079
139


30127.080
140

Æ