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

35–044 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–44

2007 FARM BILL OPPORTUNITIES FOR

VERMONT AND THE NORTHEAST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 12, 2007

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

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

MARK HALVERSON, Majority Staff Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Minority Staff Director 

VERNIE HUBERT, Minority General Counsel 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

2007 Farm Bill Opportunities for Vermont and the Northeast ........................... 1

Monday, March 12, 2007

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from Vermont ......................................... 2

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, a U.S. Senator from Vermont ........................................ 3

Welch, Hon. Peter, a U.S. Congressman from Vermont ....................................... 4

Panel I 

Douglas, Hon. James, Governor, Vermont ............................................................ 6

Panel II 

Folsom, Jacklyn, President, Vermont Farm Bureau, Cabot, Vermont ................ 15

Magnan, Mark, Dairy Farmer, Fairfield, Vermont ............................................... 13

Roberts, John, Butterwick Farms, West Cornwall, Vermont ............................... 18

Panel III 

Daley, James, Campaign Director, Northern Forest Alliance, Stowe, Vermont 27

Hall, Richard, East Montpelier, Vermont .............................................................. 24

Wonnacott, Enid, Executive Director, Northeast Organic Farmers of Vermont, 

Richmond, Vermont ............................................................................................. 25

Panel IV 

Berlin, Linda, Ph.D., University of Vermont, Department of Nutrition and 

Food Sciences, Burlington, Vermont .................................................................. 38

Meyer, Andrew, Vermont Soy, Hardwick, Vermont .............................................. 35

Rowell, Willard Jr., Highgate Center, Vermont .................................................... 37

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Berlin, Linda ..................................................................................................... 48

Daley, James ..................................................................................................... 52

Douglas, Hon. James ........................................................................................ 65

Folsom, Jacklyn ................................................................................................ 72

Hall, Richard ..................................................................................................... 75

Magnan, Mark .................................................................................................. 77

Meyer, Andrew .................................................................................................. 83

Roberts, John .................................................................................................... 88

Rowell, Willard Jr. ........................................................................................... 91

Wonnacott, Enid ............................................................................................... 94

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Burlington Schools Food Service, prepared statement ......................................... 100

‘‘2007 Lake Champlain Action Plan’’ ...................................................................... 102

Page

IV

200 signatures from Food Service, Custodial Staff, Farmers, Teachers and 

Other Members of the Community to Hon. Patrick Leahy, Hon. Bernard 

Sanders and Hon. Peter Welch ........................................................................... 110

Various letters from citizens and organizations in response to the testimony 

provided by the Committee ................................................................................. 182

(1)

2007 FARM BILL OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

VERMONT AND THE NORTHEAST 

Monday, March 12, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Montpelier, Vermont 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., Vermont 

State House, Hon. Patrick Leahy presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Leahy and Sanders, 

Representative Welch. 

Senator LEAHY. Good morning. Welcome to the Senate Agriculture Committee’s first field hearing this year examining the 

2007 Farm Bill. 

Just so people understand, we are going to have a series of these 

hearings around the country. Other senators will be doing different 

parts of the country. One of the reasons we are doing this one is 

that we wanted to make sure that people who might not otherwise 

be able to go to Washington could do this. There will be hearings 

in other States, the people who might not be able to appear in 

Washington at our other hearings can appear here; it will all be 

part of the record. 

We have Susan Keith here, who is Chairman Harkin’s deputy 

chief counsel, and Eric Steiner, who is here to represent Senator 

Chambliss. Senator Harkin is the chairman; Senator Chambliss is 

the ranking Republican member on the Committee. 

And so the rules will be those rules of the Senate. We will also 

hold the record open for 5 days to make sure that anybody that 

wants to add something to it, they can, and in your statements we 

the people who come to testify have prepared statements. We will 

put the statement in the record, and if you could keep your comments to just a few minutes. Your whole statement will be made 

part of the record, and after the record comes out, if you find things 

that you wish you had added to it, we will keep it open for that. 

I do want to welcome Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman 

Peter Welch to the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am a former 

chairman of this committee, and as acting chairman today, I have 

invited them to come. Senator Sanders will be—because of some of 

his committees, be actively involved as we go through the Farm 

Bill. 

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer had asked if we could 

have Congressman Welch here because he will be able to report 

back to his caucus what is going on, and so I ask unanimous consent to the Committee on its rules to allow them participate. 

2

I hear no objection. It is nice being chairman again. And Governor Douglas, of course, was kind enough to accept my invitation 

to appear and will testify in just a couple moments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. We all know how important agriculture is to our 

State’s future. Farming in our State of Vermont is more than a job 

or an industry. It is a way of life. Our landscape is defined by our 

farms, our fields, our forests. And they define much of our economy. In particular our agriculture economy depends on the hundreds of millions of dollars the dairy farmers bring to the State 

every year, so we have to make sure that remains a vital part of 

Vermont life. 

But our dairy farmers are not going to be able to survive unless 

they can receive a fair price for the milk our farmers produce, and 

with the current depression in milk prices, coupled with the everincreasing fuel costs, near-record feed costs, it is almost a perfect 

storm operating against the dairy farmers, and we need help in 

making sure they get a fair price from the marketplace. 

I think everybody in the room would agree that the Northeast 

Dairy Compact was the single best tool for getting a fair price for 

milk out of the market and not from the government. But the current administration did kill the Compact in 2001. They had the 

votes to block it and, of course, the president’s veto pen to make 

sure it does not come up. 

In 2002 the Vermont Congressional Delegation led the effort to 

create the Milk Income Loss Contract, the so-called MILC program. 

This was modeled on the benefits of the Northeast Dairy Compact. 

The MILC program has delivered nearly $60 million to Vermont 

dairy farmers since 2002. Now, it is not perfect, but it has been an 

essential safety net for many of our farmers. Unlike the—many of 

the large commodity programs run by the Federal Government, the 

MILC program is targeted to small family run—generally family 

run farms, and it only kicks in when the milk market price plummets, so it really is targeted for small farms. 

But it expires in the coming month before the new Farm Bill will 

take effect, so we start with a baseline which is very little funding 

available for dairy programs in the next Farm Bill. It is a difficult 

challenge, but it is imperative, and I have spoken in the full committee, full Agriculture Committee, that the program must be extended for a short time to assure that dairy programs will have an 

adequate level of funding during the consideration of the Farm Bill. 

And actually, a lot of what you are going to say or hear here today 

will be part of the ammunition I will be able to use in that debate. 

There are a lot of other things. There are the important conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, to rural development assistance for our communities, funding to help working forestlands. We will hear how the Farm Bill 

can help that. 

And in case anybody thinks it is just commodities, remember, 

this legislation has one of the largest anti-hunger initiatives Congress will consider. Far too many people in our communities lack 

the ability to put food on their tables. In fact, the most recent surVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35044.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
3

vey of food security by the Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that 35 million people in the United 

States live in households that face a constant struggle against hunger, 35 million in the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth. 

I know that the Administration stated recently they had stopped 

using the word hunger. They call it food security instead. A hungry 

person knows what hunger is. It is almost like calling ketchup a 

vegetable. Hunger is hunger. And that is what we are going to call 

it in the 2007 Farm Bill. 

And finally, there are going to be new opportunities in the next 

Farm Bill to expand the agriculture economy in Vermont, on energy production. Vermont is home to many emerging technologies 

like taking waste products to produce energy. We lead the Nation 

on a per-capita basis—now, this is interesting. We lead the Nation 

on a per-capita basis on organically certified farms. I take a certain 

amount of joy in that since, as I authored the 1990 Organic Farm 

Bill. So we want to find ways to expand that. 

Organics is the fastest growing sector in American agriculture, 

roughly about $14 million nationwide. We also want to talk about 

broadband coverage in Vermont. This also comes under Farm Bill. 

It is interesting what is in here, all the rural development, nutrition matters, organic, broadband. And so I will put the rest of my 

statement on the record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Leahy, thank you very much for 

chairing this meeting, and thank you very much for your leadership on agricultural issues for so many years. The Vermont Delegation historically has taken saving family farms very seriously, and 

I’m proud of the leadership role that we have played with Senator 

Jeffords, and I know that Congressman Welch is going to be active 

in playing a leadership role in the House, as well. 

As Senator Leahy indicated, this Delegation is aware of the crisis 

in dairy. We know that the prices farmers are receiving today in 

real dollars are perhaps 50 percent of what it was 20 or 30 years 

ago. We are aware that every month another farmer—more farmers are going out of business, and we are all aware that if we lose 

family based agriculture here in the State of Vermont, it will be an 

horrendous disaster for this State for so many reasons. 

It will be a disaster economically in its impact on our rural way 

of life; it will impact what Vermont is all about. It will be an environmental disaster. It will be a disaster in terms of tourism. 

We are, in my view, the most beautiful State in the United 

States of America, and you know why we are the most beautiful 

State? Because you keep the land open. And if we lose that, we lose 

so much. So I think I can speak for all three of us in that we are 

pledged to do everything that we can do to preserve family based 

farming here in the State of Vermont. 

The bad news is that prices are historically low, but the point 

that I want to make this morning is I want everybody to understand that if you think it is just Vermont dairy farmers who are 

up against the wall, you are wrong. The crisis facing family based 

4

agriculture exists throughout the United States of America, in 

dairy and in other commodities. 

According to the USDA’s July 2006 Backgrounder, since 1980 the 

number of dairy operations in the United States is down by 75 percent. We have lost three-quarters of our dairy operations in this 

country since 1980, and it is not just dairy. We are losing family 

based agriculture in every commodity, and what is also happening, 

as the people in this room know, that while the small farmers are 

going out of business, the big guys are becoming bigger. Farmers 

in all commodities are being squeezed by the continued consolidation at the processor and the retailer level. And I know this is an 

issue that Senator Leahy has looked at not only in Agriculture but 

on the Judiciary Committee, as well. A single dairy processor, Dean 

Foods, now controls 30 percent or more of U.S. fluid milk, and 

Dean Foods has regional control in our area, which is as high as 

70 percent. 

The University of Missouri reported recently that in commodity 

after commodity, a small number of commodities dominate, and 

that is true whether it is beef packing; it is true whether it is pork 

packing; it is true whether it is flour milling; it is true whether it 

is ethanol production. Almost every commodity, fewer and fewer 

large corporate interests control production and distribution. The 

consolidation of agriculture puts family farmers, the people who actually raise and grow our food, at the mercy of fewer and fewer 

large buyers, and that is an issue that we are going to have to address. 

In my view, and I have been meeting with farmers all around the 

State, I know that there is a lot of support for the Northeast Dairy 

Compact concept. My hope is that we can move forward with a regional approach, have regional compacts around the country which 

will bring us national support. I think we are in agreement that 

we would rather get help for our farmers from the marketplace 

rather than from the government. 

As Senator Leahy indicated, we have made real progress with 

the MILC program. It is going to be a very, very tough fight, but 

we hope to perhaps do even better. 

My one request of everybody as I conclude is please reach out to 

your friends and your organizations in the Midwest, in the South, 

all over this country. The opposition to us as we go forward trying 

to protect family based agriculture will be very, very strong. We 

need a strong grassroots effort to counteract that opposition, so let 

us work together, and at the end of the day let us preserve family 

based farming in this State, and let us expand it and strengthen 

it. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator LEAHY. Congressman Welch. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A U.S. CONGRESSMAN 

FROM VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. Senator Leahy, I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing and inviting me as a Member of Congress to 

participate, and I want to thank you on behalf of Vermonters, too. 

You have been doing this since 1974, a member of the Agriculture 

Committee, serving as chair at various times, and really being a 

5

leader that has held us together, and we are going to need that 

leadership again more than ever this year. 

The Vermont farm community must be heard as Congress prepares to write the 2007 Farm Bill. I want to thank Senator Sanders, also, for your unwavering commitment that you are taking 

with you to the Senate and certainly that you had as a member of 

the House, and I am going to try to carry on that tradition that 

you just described. And I have never, ever been more impressed 

with our extended farm community as I have been in the past 2 

months as a new Member of Congress. 

So many Vermont farmers, suppliers, innovators, and members 

of our community have taken the time to talk with me, meet with 

my staff, invite me to your farms, and even come to Washington 

to talk about the challenges we face. These are tough times, but 

everyone is certain that they are going to do what they can to give 

us a bright future. 

We are here today to give the Vermont agricultural community 

the opportunity to be on the record, express your needs, and work 

together toward a better agricultural policy for all Vermonters, and 

I am committed to working as a strong and united delegation with 

Senator Leahy; with Senator Sanders; and of course with our Governor, who is here today; and the General Assembly, who has been 

taking leadership efforts on behalf of Vermont agriculture. 

And I will fight hard for dairy, for our organics, for conservation 

programs, forestry, and our innovative energy programs and our 

nutrition programs. We have got to build coalitions of like-minded 

members from the Northeast for a regional approach, and I will 

work, too, to be successful in that effort. 

I understand, as Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders and all of 

you know, that a local agricultural economy is critical to Vermont. 

It is critical to our Nation. It produces jobs and value-added products. Our farmers are the stewards of the land and keep our land 

open. It is what makes Vermont what it is. 

Our dairy farmers need a stable price, and they need a fair price. 

It is that simple. Our organic farms must be protected from weakened standards lobbied for by corporate giants. And we should be 

pursuing energy-saving initiatives and nutrition programs that also 

help to strengthen our family farms. There are going to be obstacles along the way. We know that. There always are. But a onesize-fits-all dairy policy for our country is as good as no policy at 

all. 

And I tell you what I hope many of you already know: We are 

committed to bringing home the strongest possible Farm Bill for 

Vermont, and we hope for your help, and we appreciate your advocacy. This is important for you, but it is extremely important for 

all Vermonters. Make no mistake. Every Vermonter has a stake in 

a good Farm Bill. 

Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

We find when we have these field hearings in other States we 

get one advantage we rarely get in Washington. We usually have 

the Governor of the State testify, and I am delighted that my 

friend, Governor Jim Douglas, is here this morning. 

Governor, you know your way around here well. 

6

I might mention as the Governor’s coming up here to take his 

place, I also want to thank the Legislature for letting us use this 

room and Francis Brooks, the new Sergeant-At-Arms, for making 

so many things available to us. 

I could not help but think sitting here, Governor, I remember as 

a little boy sitting here in a parent’s lap and kind of wondering 

what this awesome place was. It was just huge. You know, two, 

three, 4 years old, this huge place. It shrunk a little bit. It seems 

to be the same place. I never thought I would be sitting here like 

this. 

Governor, thank you for being here. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES DOUGLAS, GOVERNOR, VERMONT 

Governor Douglas. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You are 

still a youngster, so we are glad you are here with your colleagues 

and do want to welcome you to our Statehouse, to your Statehouse. 

As you noted in your introductory remarks, not everybody can 

conveniently get to the national capital, so it means a great deal 

to have you here and give Vermonters an opportunity to talk about 

a very important matter for the future of our State and indeed our 

Nation. 

It is meaningful that you have given us the chance to help as you 

formulate the new Farm Bill and support this. All three of you gentlemen have noted that we work together. We are all in this together. We are of a common mind when it comes to preserving the 

family farm and ensuring the success of agricultural enterprises in 

our State and others, so you have the full support and cooperation 

of my administration as you work to formulate the Farm Bill and 

develop legislation that helps our farmers and forest owners across 

Vermont and our region. 

Reauthorization of the Farm Bill, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, 

has far-reaching impact on a variety of areas, including forestry, 

commodities, conservation, energy, research, trade, food stamps, 

and rural development with a vast majority of the budget allocated 

to fund food assistance programs. 

The Food Stamp Program is a vital nutrition assistance program 

serving primarily children and elders. It gives Vermont families the 

buying power they need to make good nutritional choices. I would 

urge the committee to strengthen the Food Stamp Program by increasing the minimum benefit of $10, which has not changed in 

over 20 years, and increasing the amount of savings a family can 

have and still qualify for food stamps and streamlining the application process in order to reduce barriers to participation. 

This makes it even more important to work together to ensure 

that we are utilizing the funds available to assist our agricultural 

community in the most effective manner possible. Agriculture and 

forestry are the cornerstones of Vermont’s economy. Farmers 

produce $3 billion worth of agricultural products every year, and 

the forest-based economy contributes a billion dollars annually. It 

is our second largest manufacturing sector. 

As you are aware, this past year has been extremely challenging 

for farmers in Vermont. Inclement weather has resulted in very 

poor crop conditions. As a result of these conditions, my administration, in cooperation with our Legislature, has provided $11.6 

7

million in direct assistance to dairy farmers over the past year. 

While this aid was necessary, this type of support, especially from 

a small state, is not sustainable. Other approaches are required. 

An income safety net is needed for our dairy farmers due to the 

extreme fluctuations in price and market. The best way to provide 

an income safety net would be a regional pricing initiative, similar 

to the Northeast Dairy Compact, that would help stabilize the marketplace. At the very least, as you have noted in your introductory 

remarks, we must improve the current support available to farmers 

through the MILC program. 

The Vermont dairy industry would also benefit from a reliable 

method of price discovery for dairy commodities. A more transparent and audited price reporting system would ensure a viable 

dairy commodities market that would allow dairy producers to better manage milk price risk. 

We support revenue insurance for dairy farms as developed by 

the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. I think the priority is 

to work together to garner support for these options that contribute 

the most to farm gate prices for our dairy farmers. 

The key title of the Farm Bill will deal with energy. The Renewable Energy Grants Program, as administered by USDA Rural Development, has been important to many of our dairy farms. Today 

there are six farms using or planning to build digesters funded in 

part by these grants. Renewable energy systems have tremendous 

public benefits to help farmers address high energy costs; reduce 

methane emissions, odor, and pathogens; while allowing for better 

management of the manure resource to better protect our public 

waters. 

There are many opportunities, I think, for Vermont to be a leader in energy, both on the farm and in the forest. Vermont has 

joined a national initiative and formed a 25 by 1925 committee that 

intends to address these needs. 

I have asked the committee to develop specific recommendations 

that you and your colleagues can consider for the energy portion 

of the Farm Bill. They include allowing a greater percentage of 

total project costs to be grant-funded, allow for a lower non-Federal 

match so that farmers can utilize USDA-NRCS EQIP dollars and 

9006 dollars in the same project, raise the threshold of total project 

costs before requiring an independent feasibility study, streamlining the required paperwork, and eliminate the need for an independent qualified consultant on projects over $1.2 million. 

One of the objectives of my administration has been the Clean 

and Clear initiative for the environmental improvement of Lake 

Champlain. Programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, or CREP; the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, or EQIP; the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, or 

WHIP—you folks are good with acronyms down there in Washington, I think. The Farmland and Ranchlands Protection 

Senator LEAHY. We still call it hunger, though, not food security. 

Governor Douglas. The Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program—it is all consonants, so that does not work. These have been 

major benefits to our farmers in the environment. It is imperative, 

though, that regional conservation equity remains in place for 

these programs to have continued success. 

8

Farmers cannot afford mandates associated with environmental 

issues. Our goal is to provide the resources and financial assistance 

needed to help farmers comply with environmental laws. Vermont 

should be recognized as one of the few states that have made significant contributions to programs dedicated to conservation. 

My Commission on Climate Change was established to examine 

the growing scientific consensus that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are affecting the temperature and 

variability of the Earth’s climate. I know that agriculture, state 

and across the Nation, can play a significant role in reducing 

greenhouse gases. Stable and managed forests are significant carbon sinks and contribute to clean air and water. By working together, the State and Federal Government can more effectively develop programs to implement practices that will reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions and increase soil and biomass carbon sequestration. 

Removing the prohibition of interstate shipment of state-inspected meat products will level the economic playing field for our 

small businesses and help small meat processors grow and expand 

into new markets. Foreign produced meat and poultry products can 

be freely shipped and sold anywhere in the Nation, which allows 

them to have greater market access than state-inspected processors. 

Without change, the growing concentration of the slaughter industry will continue to leave smaller farmers and ranchers with 

fewer buyers for their livestock and poultry, further depressing 

their financial situation. 

Our diversified farmers, as well as the rural economy, can benefit 

from several other Farm Bill policies, specifically continuation and 

increased funding for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. 

This program allows for innovative initiatives that improves the 

competitiveness of emerging and expanding diversified farms. 

In order to realize lasting economic success, it is imperative that 

farm owners have access to the best business assistance possible to 

improve their profitability. Vermont began its Farm Viability Program 4 years ago and has received Federal assistance through 

NRCS. The consideration of a Farm and Ranch Profitability Grant 

Program to improve the profitability of farms through technical assistance for business planning would further support the effort. 

For farmers to compete in today’s market, it is necessary to have 

access to the most up-to-date technology. That is why I proposed 

that Vermont offer universal access to broadband and wireless 

technology anywhere in our State by 2010. There are provisions in 

the Farm Bill that can assist Vermont in this endeavor and help 

connect our rural areas, making all aspects of business easier and 

faster for farmers. 

In addition to all of these provisions, our farmers can benefit 

from several other Farm Bill policies, including farm credit policies 

that better address the needs of new and startup farmers and financing opportunities for processing and marketing, regional food 

security and food safety policies, changes to organic standards as 

proposed and endorsed by Vermont NOFA, adequate funding for research and extension initiatives, and food nutrition guidelines. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to address 

some of the issues the agriculture community faces in regard to the 

9

Farm Bill. Our Secretary of Agriculture, Roger Albee, and his team 

and I look forward to working with you to develop a Farm Bill that 

addresses the economic needs of the farmers of this great State. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. James Douglas can be found on 

page 65 in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Governor. I know that you have this 

active dairy task force here in Vermont looking at ways to support 

the dairy industry, and the State, you and the Legislature, made 

a significant financial commitment to dairy farmers last year. It 

came at a particularly difficult time and an important time. You 

add to that the $60 million we brought in from the MILC program 

since 2002. It is a pretty strong partnership here in Vermont. I 

think—I do not know of many States where the Legislature, Governor, and the Congress have tried to work so hard at some of 

these things. 

What about efforts collaboratively with other states? New York 

is a significant dairy State. Pennsylvania is a significant dairy 

State. I mean, like everybody here, I would love to get back to a 

regional dairy program, a Northeast, Southwest, Southeast, Midwest. I guess California would be one by itself. But what about collaborative efforts? 

Governor Douglas. That is a very good point, Mr. Chairman. 

Vermont’s obviously a small State, all by itself, although we are the 

largest dairy State in New England, and through the New England 

Governors’ Conference, which I have the honor of chairing this 

year, we will continue to adopt resolutions, send them to you for 

your consideration to highlight the importance of a strong dairy industry regionally. Although other States do not have that many 

dairy farms, in New England they consume a lot of milk, including 

most of ours, so it is very important that we work together as a 

six-state region. 

Beyond that, you are exactly right. The State of New York is a 

big dairy State. The State of Pennsylvania is, and the three States 

together, New York, Vermont, and Pennsylvania, produce about a 

sixth of the Nation’s milk, and we are very close, as you know, to 

the population concentration of the Northeast, so it is important 

that we maintain that strength. 

Last year our agriculture agency joined with its counterparts in 

those two States to form a Northeast Dairy Leadership Team, and 

they adopted a memorandum of understanding. They are pursuing 

regional strategies, not just on pricing but on promotion, on raising 

the knowledge and understanding of the public about the dairy industry to improve collaboration with universities, with extension 

systems around the region. So that kind of regional cooperation 

strengthens our hand, obviously because we are such a small State, 

and also provides some real leadership on a regional basis. 

So we are pursuing that, and we are even reaching out to our 

friends in the upper Midwest where our interests have not always 

converged, but Secretary Albee is a good personal friend of the Wisconsin commissioner and his deputy, and we hope that we will be 

able to establish some good relationships. 

Just one other note, if I could, following up on your initial comment, I really believe that the State has done a good job, and I 

should have noted in my introductory remarks that Congressman 

10

Welch was the Senate President Pro Tem in this building and 

played an important role in fashioning the farm relief effort that 

we put together last summer. 

I had the chance to meet with Secretary Johannes during the recent National Governors’ Association meeting, and he was impressed favorably with the fact that the State had stepped up to 

the plate, that we were not only——

Senator LEAHY. He has told me the same thing. I think it is important. 

Governor Douglas. Well, thanks. So we are not only asking for 

your help; we are willing to do our part. 

Senator LEAHY. I see Senator Kittell and the representatives are 

here, too, of the chairs of the Senate and House Agriculture Committee, which is helpful. We were worried about Peter when he 

came up here. He was looking kind of wistfully at that other chamber. I had to bring him back—I had to guarantee to the Speaker 

I would bring him back. 

Senator Sanders? 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

And, Governor, thanks for being here. Governor, the opposition 

to strong legislation to help family based dairy is going to be 

strong. You indicated correctly we will have regional problems. Although we are making some progress in bringing the regions together. 

Could you talk a little bit about, in your judgment, how the State 

of Vermont can deal with processors who would much prefer the 

government to help family farmers rather than it coming out of 

their profits, and maybe the White House as to how we can get 

them on board the idea of regional compacts and what kind of pressure or help we can solicit from them. 

Governor Douglas. I do not know if I can answer the latter question, Senator, but I am certainly happy to continue to voice my 

views to the executive branch in Washington as I have done for a 

number of years now. 

Senator SANDERS. Do you see any movement on their part in 

supporting a compact type approach? 

Governor Douglas. I guess I would say I was pleased to see the 

Secretary include the milk subsidy program in the budget for the 

first time, admittedly at a level that we might not find satisfactorily—satisfactory, but at least it is there, so that is a small step, 

I think, in the right direction. I know the Secretary grew up on a 

dairy farm in the Midwest and understands the challenge of this 

part of the industry, so maybe we will have some more support, but 

I certainly agree with your observation about the processing, and 

we have had some real challenges in Vermont for the adequacy, as 

I mentioned in my remarks, of adequate slaughterhouses, for example, and so in the budget I presented to the Legislature, there is 

support for a couple of mobile processing facilities that many of the 

farmers suggested, both for animals and vegetables, would be very, 

very helpful. 

We have got a new dairy processing facility in Hardwick; we 

have got a cheese plant in Swanton that has taken over a facility 

that went out of business; we have got the new cheese cave in 

Greensboro form artisan cheeses. We helped the Water Buffalo opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35044.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
11

eration in Woodstock and Addison County expand over the last couple of years, so there are some new processing initiatives. We are 

still working on a yogurt plant. We want one for Vermont, and we 

are working with our co-ops and others to help——

Senator SANDERS. Jim, let me switch gears for a minute. Tom 

Harkin of Iowa has a representative here, and what they will tell 

you is in the Midwest they are moving very aggressively in terms 

of biofuels. Far more aggressively than we are in Vermont or New 

England. Do you have any thought about how farmers can pick up 

some additional income as we struggle with global warming and 

break our dependence on fossil fuels and produce locally grown 

biofuels? 

Governor Douglas. I think that is a very important point, and I 

hope that the energy portion of the Farm Bill will consider that 

and make it even more successful. As I noted, we have a number 

of methane digesters in Vermont now. I know you are aware of 

that. Congressman Welch visited at least one recently to see its operation, and we appreciate the USDA Rural Development grants 

that have helped facilitate them. 

But there are other possibilities, too. We have a farm in southwestern Vermont that is growing canola seed and milling it into 

biodiesel. We have research at Shelburne Farms under way now 

with wood pellet production developing——

Senator SANDERS. Switchgrass, as well, I heard. 

Senator LEAHY. Cellulosity. 

Governor Douglas. Yeah. And it is a product that is less—has 

less moisture and is more fuel efficient than wood chips, which we 

have some, of course, in operation in Vermont, as well. I think 

algae is a real possibility for the future, and our agriculture agency 

is looking at that potential. 

But the basic point that you have raised, Senator, is an important one. We have, we estimate, about 100,000 acres of farmland 

in Vermont that is unused, and what better way given the challenges of the financing of a dairy operation to use it than for energy crops? That will help us with our commitment to the 25 by 

1925 initiative, and I hope and believe that it will be an important 

part of Vermont’s agricultural future. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Congressman welcome back to the Statehouse. 

Mr. WELCH. Oh, good to be back. Thank you. 

Governor, it was terrific the work that the Legislature did, really 

unique in the country, to provide some help when the Federal Government did not do its job. 

I just want to ask you a few things about energy. I mean, there 

are two issues for our farmers. One is a better price for their milk, 

and two is lower expenses, and anything that we can do to help on 

the stable and fair price side or on the cost side is going to add to 

the bottom line, and it is that simple. 

One of the big issues that you have been talking about already 

is energy, and I am wondering if you could expand on ways that 

you would see Vermont, your administration, and the General Assembly partnering with us in the Federal Government to address 

12

energy costs for our Vermont farmers. What, you know, specific improvements do you see that could be made to Section 9006 to make 

it easier for farmers that is in the Farm Bill to take advantage of 

renewable energy opportunities? 

Governor Douglas. Well, I suppose more money in this section 

would obviously be useful, but I am indeed grateful for the support 

that Congress through the USDA has provided for energy grants 

in the past. 

We need to contain energy costs, you are absolutely right, Congressman, because of the heavy dependence on the use of energy 

on the farm, whether it is in equipment or electricity running machinery or—running equipment and lighting the buildings. That is 

why I believe that the possibility of generating energy or producing 

energy on the farm is a key strategy. 

Mr. Williamson, the farmer I alluded to with the canola crop in 

southwestern Vermont, now makes enough biodiesel on his farm to 

power all of his machinery and equipment, plus some, so reducing 

energy costs could be—could be achieved by growing the energy 

crop right on the farm. 

Second, this is a bigger issue than the subject of this hearing. We 

are looking at our energy future in a broader context. Our major 

sources of electricity have been very cost effective in recent years. 

They are emission free, as you know: A nuclear plant and the 

hydro facilities in Quebec. But we need to plan for our future and 

continue to find some ways to keep the cost of electricity competitive. So that will be an important part of what we accomplish. 

I believe that the Climate Change Commission that I appointed 

will come up with some ideas that will help our reduced consumption and thereby the cost of operation across our State, as well, so 

I think a combination of looking at costs and producing on the farm 

itself are really where we need to be. 

And I want to renew my thanks to you for your help here last 

year and over the last couple of years. We had some other important strategies a couple of years ago to reduce borrowing costs for 

farmers, to enhance the property tax exemption for farm buildings 

in our current use program, and it was a tremendous cooperative 

bipartisan effort that I enjoyed working with you on, Peter, and I 

look forward to continuing to work with you and your new colleagues in Washington. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Governor. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Governor. You know, you would be 

interested in knowing a group of us from the Senate Agriculture 

Committee were just meeting informally the other evening and we 

were talking about alternative fuels and realized there is a lot 

more than ethanol. There is methane, there is cellulosity, and this 

will be a significant part of the—of the Farm Bill. We will do our 

best to do that. I would like to—a number of things I will talk 

about later I would like to see. 

Governor, I know you have a million other things to do, and I 

notice you have several members of your staff who I understand 

will be staying here through the hearing. Thank you very much. 

Obviously when you see the final record, if there is anything else 

you would like to add to it, the record will stay open for at least 

5 days so you can do that. 

13

Governor Douglas. Thank you. In fact, I am going to submit a 

statement that is a little longer than what I offered this morning. 

Senator LEAHY. I saw the statement, and I appreciate that, and 

that of course will be part of the formal record. Thank you. 

Governor Douglas. Thank you for being here, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. The next panel will be Mark Magnan. Many of 

you know Mark. He operates Magnan Brothers, a 600–cow dairy off 

the Chester Arthur Road in Fairfield, and he’s a member of the St. 

Albans Co-op; Jackie Folsom is president of Vermont Farm Bureau 

and operates a small—I understand a 55–cow dairy? 

Ms. FOLSOM. That is right. 

Chairman LEAHY. About right?—farm with her husband, Roy, in 

Cabot and Agri-Mark members. They are Agri-Mark members. 

John Roberts operates a 200–cow dairy farm in Cornwall and is an 

Agri-Mark director. 

Mr. Roberts and his wife and my wife and I were going to plan 

more about this hearing on Saturday evening, but we were distracted by the birthday party for Judge Sessions and spent more 

time roasting the judge than we might have on this. 

But you are all people I know I have consulted with and my staff 

has consulted with over the years, and I appreciate you being here. 

And please, we will start in the order I called you. 

Mr. Magnan, please start with your statement. And again, understanding your full statement will be made part of the record. 

Any questions that are asked afterward, if you on the way home 

think, ‘‘What I should have said was,’’ you get a 5–day, catch-up, 

do-over time to change for the record. And I mention that again, 

and I realize I have said it several times, but these hearings are 

going to be held around the country for people who might not be 

able to come to Washington, or the expense of coming to Washington for a hearing, and this is going to be integral and a very important part of the Senate Agriculture Committee’s records. 

Mr. Magnan, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MAGNAN, DAIRY FARMER, FAIRFIELD, 

VERMONT 

Mr. MAGNAN. Thank you, Senator. I want to thank you for coming to Vermont to bring this hearing so farmers can be heard and 

for your leadership on ag issues over the years. I also want to 

thank Senator Sanders and Congressman Welch for being here for 

their time. 

As was said, I represent Magnan Farm. I am a lifelong farmer. 

I farm with three brothers, my parents. There are also 11 nieces 

and nephews that take a keen interest in the farm. We do milk 600 

cows and have another 600 head of young stock. We crop roughly 

1100 acres. 

I think this Farm Bill presents an important opportunity. It only 

comes once every 5 years, and it is more than just about dairy 

farmers. It is about consumers, communities, agribusinesses, the 

dairy infrastructure, and the State economies. Dairy farms are the 

backbones of our community. And with a strong dairy farm policy, 

you have a stronger community, a stronger economy, and a more 

vibrant future. 

14

A couple things I would like to share with you this morning are 

the challenges that we are currently experiencing and our recommendations for the committee to consider. One of the challenges 

is obviously the milk price. Our farm’s average milk price based on 

components for this year was $13 a hundredweight, far below the 

cost of production. 

Another challenge would be the volatility, the roller coaster the 

milk price takes either month to month or year to year. Very hard 

to plan a business plan on that roller coaster pricing. As an example, in 2004 we hit a high of $16.46 per hundredweight, and this 

year, as I said, $13. 

Another big problem this year we have had is cost of production. 

We have a much higher cost of feed due to the craze in ethanol. 

Farmers are on the tail wind of that—of that issue. We have much 

higher costs of sawdust, fuel, fertilizer, many insurances, and the 

problem is all these costs are escalating much higher and at a faster rate than the cost—the price of milk. 

Another area of concern would deal with MILC. This countercyclical program is essential and is very needed. The area of concern I have, though, is with the definition of a family farm. I do 

not think it results in equitable treatment of our entity where 

many family farm—many family members work together. As I said, 

it is very needed, but it should be—only be a safety net. We truly 

want to get the bulk of our milk payments from the marketplace. 

To support our farms, more dollars need to come from the marketplace, and today—in 1980 the farmers dairy—the dairy farm’s 

share of the retail dollar has eroded from 52 percent in 1980 down 

to 27 percent in 2006. 

A few recommendations I have for you this morning. One would 

be to establish a national dairy policy that supports regional production in milk. This is very important to dairy farmers in the region, the consumers, the communities, and the States they are in. 

This is essential to minimize the effect or impact that a natural 

disaster in any one region or the contamination of food, 

agriterrorism, might have on out Nation’s food supply. 

Second recommendation would be a dairy policy which would account for regional differences in the cost of production. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact had essential elements that had the 

ability to address regional differences in the cost of production. The 

current pricing system does not incorporate the cost of production. 

However, the system does incorporate cost of production for processors or manufacturers. 

Beginning with the last month, our farm has been assessed a 

new milk allowance for Class III and IV milk that was produced 

on our farm. This new adjustment is going to be approximately 23 

cents a hundredweight for every hundred pounds of milk that we 

produce, or roughly this is going to cost us over a hundred dollars 

a day on our farm alone. 

I support programs such as MILC to stabilize our price, but as 

I said, the multifamily farm should become eligible to receive multiple payments which would exceed the current annual production 

cap. I have no problem with the cap; just make it so every farm 

entity can be eligible for it. 

15

I also believe that the countercyclical program should consider 

the increase in cost of production and change the base from 16.94, 

which was set when the Northeast Dairy Compact was established 

in 1996, because if you took that 16.94 and initiated the Consumer 

Price Index, today that number should be $21, over $21. 

The fourth recommendation would be to assist in stabilizing our 

milk price. A floor price for a Class I mover is needed, or another 

discovery method for Class I should be initiated. In our region 46 

to 48 percent of our milk is used for Class I purposes. To create 

the Class I price, we should have a different pricing mechanism for 

stability. 

I also believe—I do not believe that Class I has to be established 

based on the price of milk for manufacturing; in other words, decouple Class I from Class III and IV. If we could work on establishing this Class I price, instead of relooking at it every 10 or 11 

years for that price that we are using to establish Class I, look at 

it every three to 6 years—months to reflect the cost of production, 

retail prices, and other market factors. 

I am a proponent of establishing regions in our country and mandating a supply control mechanism to manage milk supplies within 

the established regions. We recognize that our prices reflect the 

law of supply and demand, and we as dairymen can control the 

supply. There is more discussion now than ever to adopt a controlled supply mechanism. 

I believe Congress should mandate the USDA establish milk production regions and establish levels of milk production for each region. Regions should be responsible for oversupply of milk production in their region. 

The dairy industry has established the CWT program identifying 

five regions in establishing regional safeguards as it affects the 

milk supply for each region. That is a dairy farmer-run program, 

and it is a great model to follow. 

I also feel that the Federal Milk Marketing Orders should continue. They continue to support Federal Marketing Orders, but 

make them more responsive to changes in the milk marketplace 

and to dairy farmers’ needs. Senator Leahy. Thank you. And, Mr. 

Magnan, we will put the rest of your statement in the record, because I do want to give Ms. Folsom and Mr. Roberts a chance. We 

have to keep within the time limits available both in the chamber. 

You stay there, though. I have some questions. 

Mr. MAGNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magnan can be found on page 77 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. Ms. Folsom. 

STATEMENT OF JACKLYN FOLSOM, PRESIDENT, VERMONT 

FARM BUREAU, CABOT, VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Ms. Folsom. 

Ms. FOLSOM. Good morning, and welcome home. 

Senator LEAHY. I cannot tell you how good it felt to be home the 

last couple mornings to wake up in Middlesex looking out over the 

fields and all. It is——

Ms. FOLSOM. It is a nice feeling, isn’t it? 

16

Senator LEAHY. You will have to bring me kicking and screaming 

back on the airplane afterwards. 

Ms. FOLSOM. Except it is warmer down there, I think. 

Senator LEAHY. It is nicer here. 

Ms. FOLSOM. Oh, that is true. 

My name is Jackie Folsom, and I am president of the Vermont 

Farm Bureau, and as mentioned earlier, my husband and I are 

partners on a 100–acre, 55–cow dairy farm in the little town of 

East Cabot, and we do ship to Agri-Mark. Our milk travels over 

the mountain three miles and ends in up in Cabot Creamery, so 

I know all of you know when you enjoy our good products, you can 

put my face as well as others’ on that product. 

On behalf of Vermont Farm Bureau and the 4,200 members represented here today, I would like to welcome you to our Statehouse 

and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and 

guests. 

While Vermont enjoys a reputation as a strong dairy State, I 

would be remiss in not mentioning that the Farm Bureau represents all types of farms as well as foresters and many of the industries that support our businesses. We are an independent, nongovernmental voluntary organization of the families of farmers and 

foresters as well as consumers united for the purpose of improving 

the net income of its members and preserving Vermont’s rural 

quality of life. We are proud to represent our members in the local, 

county, State, and national arenas. 

Vermont Farm Bureau is the voice of agricultural producers of 

all kinds, sizes, and levels, and our focus for our national farm program affecting dairy and other types of farming includes the following: We believe the Farm Bill should replace the short-term fix 

of farm subsidies with long-term measures to restore a healthy 

rural economic infrastructure across the country, including competitive markets; a national food security program that is market 

driven; and support of a diversified agricultural economy complete 

with local marketing programs. 

We support increased funding to improve nutrition-assisted programs at schools and other institutions with the purchase of more 

fruits, vegetables, and especially dairy choices that would include 

whole milk. We also continue our support of programs such as the 

Women, Infants, and Children program. 

We urge the full funding of the Perkins Bill to provide student 

loan relief incentive for veterinary students entering large animal 

practice and that these funds be earmarked for these students only. 

It is imperative to not only maintain current veterinary practices 

in rural areas but to ensure the development of the next generation 

of large animal vets. 

We request that Congress clarify and affirm that agriculture is 

not subject to the Comprehensive Environmental and Liability Act, 

CERCLA, nor to the Environmental Planning and Community 

Right to Know Act, EPCRA. 

On the more specific issue of dairy, the Vermont Farm Bureau 

has been a leader on many issues at the State and local levels. We 

have been involved with the Governor’s Vermont Dairy Task Force, 

and I also serve on the Northeast Dairy Leadership Team which 

17

was mentioned previously, a partnership developed between Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont to address regional dairy issues. 

There are challenges inherent in the current Farm Bill that we 

in Vermont are asking to be resolved in the 2007 proposal: Retention of the Federal Milk Market Order System with orderly restructuring to include consolidations and expansions where appropriate; 

permanent reauthorization of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and the extension of this concept to other areas of the United 

States to maintain regional supplies of fresh milk in the interest 

of consumers and national security; creation of a dairy industry 

board to work with the Secretary of Agriculture to market dairy 

surpluses, and a redefinition of the term surplus dairy products to 

exclude needed Defense Department purchases and governmentmandated dairy programs; maintaining the Milk Income Loss Contract or its equivalent as a safety net, with fair and equal treatment in the implementation for all producers. This would include 

reconsideration of the cap to allow equity and equality for multifamily businesses. We request this program be included in the 

baseline for dairy. 

We would support returning the payment of the MILC to 45 percent of the Class I Boston price, remembering that the current base 

of $16.94 is a figure that is 10 years old. 

Adoption and funding of a nationwide Johne’s disease program to 

protect the health of farm animals; initiation of a study of the benefits and drawbacks of the current producer pricing series by the 

National Agriculture Statistics Service and the Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange used for the price determination of milk and examples of 

how these programs can be streamlined for effectiveness. 

Currently, 1 percent of milk traded on the CME can set 100 percent of the price of milk. We advocate for a better system to send 

price signals to the market. 

Recognize the need to modernize and expand Farm Credit’s ability to serve agriculture in our rural communities; aggressive and 

immediate action to improve the availability of foreign guest workers for dairy and other year-round agricultural operations. And although we do recognize that this may not be a Farm Bill issue, 

finding labor continues to be one of the greatest economic challenges for farmers in Vermont. We urge Congress to create a yearround guest worker category for dairy farm workers that will not 

include any provisions to deport all current immigrants. 

Support research that would develop small alternative energy 

and energy efficiency projects on farms that would not only lower 

our own energy costs but provide us with new solutions to water 

quality issues on the farm; continued strong presence of USDA offices currently in our rural communities as well as an adequate 

number of well-trained staff to serve our industry and guide our 

farmers in conservation programs and disaster assistance. 

On behalf of the 4,200 members of the Vermont Farm Bureau, 

I would like to thank you again for listening to us today. I know 

you will take our concerns back to Washington and work for all of 

your farmers and foresters to make the 2007 Farm Bill an opportunity to keep our industry strong into the future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Folsom can be found on page 72 

in the appendix.] 

18

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, Ms. Folsom. 

Mr. Roberts. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBERTS, BUTTERWICK FARMS, WEST 

CORNWALL, VERMONT 

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator Leahy, Senator Sanders, Congressman 

Welch, thank you for being here. 

My name is John Roberts, and for the past 30 years my wife, 

family, and I have dairy-farmed in Cornwall, Vermont. We ship our 

milk to Agri-Mark/Cabot, and we’re proud of the award-winning 

cheese and other dairy products that we produce. We started with 

32 cows and now milk 200, most of them Brown Swiss. 

In addition to being a dairy farmer, I must unwittingly be a lover 

of rollers coasters, because financially that is what life on the farm 

is like, where the rapid downward sweeps are longer and deeper 

than the exhilarating, invigorating upward climbs, and we gamble 

with a financial crash into the ground. 

Having said that, I am basically an optimist. I hope that we have 

reached a unique confluence of events that is going to mark a turning point in the pricing structure for milk. And the hope that a 

niche market like organic milk might be the savior of the industry 

is complicated by the low ceiling based on evidence in other developed countries for demand. 

Dairy farmers need the opportunity to make a profit, not a guarantee. We need to be able to make financial plans that, with good 

management and fiscal responsibility, are not derailed by events 

beyond our control, whether those events include adverse weather 

or sudden change in the demand/supply balance. 

Many years’ efforts, financed by dairy farmers through their promotion activities and the CWT, have helped to increase and impact 

the supply balance. But the present pricing system does not reflect 

current costs of production and thwarts these positive efforts. In 

this day of instant communication, we must devise a system that 

clearly responds to costs of production changes, whether it is the 

price of corn or the price of diesel. The simple fact is that farmers 

need a greater share of the retail dollar. Where it used to be that 

nearly 50 percent of the retail dollar came back to the farm, that 

number is now less than 30 percent. 

The ability to recover costs of production is almost nonexistent 

in any meaningful way. Processors and retailers being that bit closer to the consumer can recapture their costs of production more 

easily than the producer. The producer is left with slim pickings to 

make ends meet before worrying about paying suppliers and maintaining cows, farms, and equipment. And all of that money comes 

back into the local community. 

Linked to the profit opportunity is treating milk production and 

pricing on a regional basis. This would have great benefits to 

America in ensuring food security by maintaining regional, economically viable production, close to the centers of population. The 

Northeast Dairy Compact had a 4–year run of success, returning 

over $145 million to farmers. The Northeast Dairy Compact was 

supported by farmers, consumers, and legislators, and the money 

came from the marketplace to the farmer, not from the taxpayer. 

19

Although largely political concerns sunk the NDC, the process 

does provide a route map as to how a successful program to gain 

a larger share of the retail dollar back to the dairy producer on a 

regional basis could be done. 

As a foundation of economics, the demand/supply balance has an 

important impact on the price paid for milk to the dairy industry. 

However, with a perishable product, expensive to transport in liquid form, small changes in either direction can have a devastating 

impact. This adds up to a need for an effective safety net that will 

catch us all before we hit the ground and not on the rebound. 

The MILC program, widely supported by dairy farmers, is a helpful program; however, it needs restoration to its 45 percent level 

and provisions to take into account the multifamily farm operations 

and their need for an expanded cap over 2.4 million pounds of milk. 

Another point is the increasing realization among farmers that 

a positive milk supply adjustment scheme needs to be formulated, 

one that does not rely on a devastating, below-cost-of-production 

price to drive the point home. An appropriate way to signal dairy 

farmers when and how to limit production needs to be found, with 

a positive signal, an effective signal. 

Another area that has great impact on dairy farmers is the environment, both assisting us to ensure that we are compliant in the 

area of reducing our environmental footprint, reducing non and 

point source pollution in particular. Clearly there is also the desire 

amongst farmers, dairy farmers, to be positive stewards of the land 

and the environment. In addition to this is the increasingly important role that farmers may play in the generation of energy, whether it is wind, manure, or—or biomass generation. 

In summation, like Charles Dickens said in the ‘‘Tale of Two Cities,’’ ‘‘We live in the best of times; we live in the worst of times.’’ 

The last few years of rapidly gyrating milk prices, adverse weather 

impacts, and supply/demand imbalance have laid bare the inadequacies of the present pricing formula for milk. In some ways it 

is exciting to think we have an opportunity here to establish a 

timely and effective pricing mechanism, probably including a supply management component that will offer the dairy farmer an opportunity, but not a guarantee, to make a profit and establish an 

effective long-term economic planning for farms, both for farms and 

for the families. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts can be found on page 88 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. And thank you very much. 

I think I will start with Mr. Magnan. You touched on one thing, 

and I think it should be emphasized. Even if your milk prices go 

up in the next couple of months, you are not going to see—and correct me if I am wrong on this, you are not going to see corn and 

feed prices come down at all with the demand for ethanol. Would 

it be safe to say that at least in the foreseeable future those prices 

are going to stay high, perhaps even go higher, as the increased demand for corn and for ethanol? 

Mr. MAGNAN. That is what the market looks like. 

Senator LEAHY. And that I do not mean to put words in your 

mouth, but does that limit your ability to grow your business? 

20

Mr. MAGNAN. Absolutely. To grow and sustain. 

Senator LEAHY. You also mentioned your family operation, and 

it is very typical of what I remember as a child growing up here, 

but somewhat disappearing: You have your family, your three 

brothers, your parents, and so on. As you know when we first wrote 

the MILC program back in 2002, I tried to expand the cap to allow 

operations for multiple families. We won some of the milk battles 

and lost some of them. 

We also know the MILC program is designed for family farms, 

but talk to me just a little bit: How do we set a definition that 

takes care of a situation like yours, which is not untypical at all? 

Mr. MAGNAN. No. Well, in order to answer that, I guess I will 

have to tell you why we have the industry that we have. It was 

pure economics that we all decided to work together. It just made 

sense then to have one milking unit, one line of equipment, to save 

costs. So that cost, that price of milk, is what drew us together 

other than the fact that we do enjoy each other’s company and——

Senator LEAHY. You never have any family arguments? Careful. 

You are on the record. 

Mr. MAGNAN. Well, I will say I hope that continues. I think that 

is what our milk price should breed. I think it should encourage 

families to work together. My wife and I currently have a 2–1/2–

year-old son, and he would just as soon fall asleep in the pickup 

drawing cows than he would in his crib, so we want that opportunity. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, Mr. Magnan, I can assure you that I will 

continue to work in the——

Mr. MAGNAN. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY.—Agriculture Committee to try do not need to 

give the MILC program to huge corporate farming, but——

Mr. MAGNAN. No. 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. It is designed to help family farms, 

and you and I both know what family is. 

Mr. MAGNAN. Absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY. We have to define that a lot better. 

And, Mr. Roberts, other than having quoted from one of my favorite Dickens books about the best of times and the worst of 

times, you also referred to the roller coaster in milk prices. 

How do you do away with this peak and valley? I mean, you 

must have some nights that you wake up about 2 o’clock in the 

morning and realize you are not only in the valley, but the valley’s 

going deeper. How do you do that nationally on a program to eliminate that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I mean, I think it is going to be very difficult. I 

mean, there is a lot of history here. I mean, my sense of where we 

are with the way the Federal order system and the way price is 

milked is priced is that we have kept adding little details each time 

without effectively going back and saying, you know, what is 

changing? We have gone a long way from calling up 40 cheese 

plants in the M&W system years ago and figuring out that is what 

the price of milk is. We know pretty well what the supply and what 

the demand is going to be. So we need a system that reflects. 

As Jackie mentioned, you know, right now on some of the commodity exchanges, there are forces that impact very small changes 

21

in the supply and the demand and have a tremendous impact on 

the price, so we need to have some way of reflecting that. There 

is, of course, a consolidation in the processing industry around this 

country. There is one company in particular that dominates the 

processing industry in the Nation. I think they are headquartered 

in Texas, for some reason. And—but, you know—and I think we 

need to have a good look at that, whether this is an effective way 

to regionally price milk. 

And I have been a skeptic of supply management for many years. 

I have looked—you know, at one time years ago we talked about 

supply management and quotas as being a way to save the family 

farm. If you look at what has happened in Europe and what has 

happened in Canada, I believe that they actually had an accelerated loss of family farms under a quota system. 

However, having said that, we have got to figure out a supply 

management system, and I am game to do that. I am game to have 

a system that maybe does not include—or does not impart a huge 

financial burden in buying quota to a farmer and therefore can inhibit young people getting into farming, dairy farming, or something like that. So I do not have a formula for an answer for you 

at this point, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Roberts, I think I am going to have my staff 

continue conversations with you as we go into this, and I do want 

in the meantime to ask Mrs. Folsom, who is representing the Farm 

Bureau but also is a dairy farmer herself, as I mentioned, you meet 

a lot with the Farm Bureau. You know that there are many around 

the country who do not like the idea of a Dairy Compact. 

Ms. FOLSOM. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. Would I be safe in saying that you would prefer 

a Dairy Compact if we could do it? 

Ms. FOLSOM. That is in our Vermont Farm Bureau policy right 

now, yes. 

Senator LEAHY. Unfortunately, it is not in the national——

Ms. FOLSOM. I know that. 

Senator LEAHY.—Farm Bureau policy. 

Ms. FOLSOM. Actually, this was the first year at American Farm 

Bureau in Salt Lake City that they did not make an attempt to delete the words Northeast Dairy Compact, so that is in the American Farm Bureau policy currently. You will find their lobbyists are 

not excited about it. 

Senator LEAHY. No. I can tell you they are able to contain their 

excitement——

Ms. FOLSOM. I am sure. 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. When they come before the Senate 

Agriculture Committee. 

Ms. FOLSOM. That does not reflect Vermont Farm Bureau. 

Senator LEAHY. When I start to raise it, you can see their shoulders hunch. 

But we did have the MILC program. If the MILC program had 

not been in place since 2002, would you be missing a lot of your 

members today? 

Ms. FOLSOM. Oh, I am sure. I am sure. We share the concerns 

that both the gentlemen here have expressed in regards to the cap, 

because that does make a difference, and I think that although the 

22

Governor stated earlier that the help that the State was available—made available to us last year, it is certainly nothing that we 

are looking to continue. That is not sustainable, and we would 

rather have the help with the MILC program. 

Senator LEAHY. I suspect in a small State like Vermont, you 

have to assume that cannot be sustainable. 

Ms. FOLSOM. We certainly did appreciate the support of Senator—when he was senator, Senator Welch here and the Legislature and the Administration in Vermont, but we recognize that it 

is not sustainable, and that is why we are really trying to speak 

with one voice as to what we need, and the MILC program currently is—is pretty much the best bet what we have got. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Ms. FOLSOM. Although as you can hear, we would like the Compact back. 

Senator LEAHY. So would I. 

Ms. FOLSOM. I know. 

Senator LEAHY. So would I, I can assure you. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

The number of $16.94, price of $16.94, came from the Northeast 

Dairy Compact a number of years ago. As Mark indicated, costs 

have soared since then. If you had your wish fulfilled, what do you 

think would be a reasonable number in the year 2007? Mark? 

Mr. MAGNAN. Well, I think the Consumer Price Index which 

right now—as I stated right now would be $21.79. 

Senator SANDERS. That to you would be a reasonable number. 

Jackie? 

Ms. FOLSOM. As a dairy farmer, I would not argue with that 

price. I think Bob Wellington, who is an economist, as you well 

know, is looking at a little above $17, $17.20 or something like 

that, but certainly 21 would be wonderful. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. But—John? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I would support that, too. Definitely. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. So we have got to recognize that 

costs have soared since that number was determined. 

Some of us have long believed in supply management. We’re 

hearing more and more of that now from farmers, and I know it 

is a long and complicated issue. Very briefly, who wants to take a 

shot at kind of describing what you think briefly, what kind of supply management system makes sense? 

Mark, do you want to—yeah. 

Mr. MAGNAN. I would not like to see it on a per-farm basis. I 

would like to see it on a regional basis. 

Senator SANDERS. Regional basis. Yeah. 

Mr. MAGNAN. That would take the pressure off any individual 

farm. It also would enhance ag in any region, and I think every region, especially the Northeast, would have the ability to control its 

own supply. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Ms. FOLSOM. I do not think Vermont Farm Bureau has a specific 

policy to supply management, but we certainly are looking at a 

more regional basis. That is one of the reasons we are working 

with the Northeast Dairy Leadership Team and the PennsylvaniaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35044.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
23

New York pieces, but it certainly makes more sense to do it regionally than farm by farm. 

Senator SANDERS. John? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Again, I would support a regional basis. I think—

but we also must need to make sure that it is nationwide at any 

one time so we do not have situations where some of these large 

dairies out West who can add cows very rapidly, and I mean in excess of 5,000 cows operations, of which there are many, but none 

in Vermont, and, you know, can add cows very rapidly and have 

an impact on the supply. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. One last question. Jackie, you and 

I have worked on agritourism. Do you see that as a potential mechanism for bringing revenue income to farmers’ pockets in the 

State? 

Ms. FOLSOM. We have worked on agritourism, and I continue to 

do that at the national level with the ag census. This year we will 

be having a question about the economic benefits of agritourism on 

farms, so we are very excited about that. I think it is an option. 

I think it is not for everybody, as you well know, but it certainly 

is picking up speed all over the country. As I talk to other Farm 

Bureau members, they are talking about that type of diversification. It enables farmers to stay on the farm, but also more importantly to educate consumers about who we are and what we do, 

which is a huge piece that sometimes is missing. So I think it has 

its place. I think it is another choice that farmers can make, and 

as I said, it is not for everybody, but for those that make it work, 

it is great. 

Senator SANDERS. Good. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Congressman Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Yeah, we will be brief. You have been very helpful. 

Mark, let me just ask you, what are some of the specific things 

that we could get out of the Dairy Compact and try to get them 

into—if it is called the MILC program, that would make it better 

and incorporate the benefits that we enjoyed when Senator Leahy 

was successful in getting that Dairy Compact Bill passed? 

Mr. MAGNAN. If you could get the Class I price moved up for——

Mr. WELCH. All right. John, how about you? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that is the same—same point of view, yes. 

We can have an effect and impact that. 

Mr. WELCH. Jackie, you have a smaller farm. Would that be the 

same for you? 

Ms. FOLSOM. Definitely. We have a smaller farm, but actually, 

our cows were being sold. We are in transition to selling to a young 

man right now, so that is an exciting thing. That, but also getting 

the cap redirected or redefined I think would find would help our 

farmers here in Vermont. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Well, thank you very much. 

Senator LEAHY. What we are going to do is take a 5–minute 

break. We are going to come back because we are running somewhat behind, partly because all this is so important. I am going to 

have to be arbitrary and run the gavel, something I would not do 

if I was closer to election time, but I will be very arbitrary on the 

5–minute rule when we come back. 

24

Thank you all very much. 

[Recess.] 

Senator LEAHY. As part of the next panel, we will have Richard 

Hall. He operates in East Montpelier. It is a 600–, 700–cow dairy, 

which has participated in several USDA Conservation Cost Share 

programs, tried a number of conservation innovations; Jad Daley—

James Daley of the Northern Forest Alliance, which is currently 

working in local management of town-owned forestland; and is 

Enid Wonnacott here? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Yeah. 

Senator LEAHY. I thought I saw you here earlier. Come on down, 

please. 

Ms. Wonnacott is the executive director of the Northeast Organic 

Farmers of Vermont, NOFA. It is based in Richmond. She actually 

testified, I recall, at one of these field hearings back in 1989. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. That would be me. 

Senator LEAHY. Time, time goes by. 

So we will start, Mr. Hall, with you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD HALL, EAST MONTPELIER, 

VERMONT 

Mr. HALL. OK. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to come and testify. 

I am Richard Hall, and I am the president of Fairmont Farms. 

We—presently, actually, we have about 1100 mature milking cows, 

we are milking in two different facilities, and about 850 young 

stock. We have recently gone—over the last 3 years gone through 

some generational transfers on our farm and bought out my mom 

and dad and also a neighbor, Austin Cleaves, that was part of our 

farm and brought in my wife’s nephew, Tucker Purchase, and—and 

that is our current ownership right now. 

And we have a background that goes back; Austin and my dad 

have been working closely with NRCS. We incorporated in 1993, 

built a new facility. We had some difficulty getting cost share assistance because we had a new facility, and we sought out other 

funds. 

We actually secured a community development grant through the 

town of East Montpelier which we paid back, and that is how we 

built our first manure storage. And as the herd grew, we—and we 

needed to comply with large farm permits, we tried for EQIP funding. It is highly competitive. We actually tried three times and finally were granted a contract in 1904. 

Some of the positive experiences we have had with EQIP, we did 

receive excellent assistance as we went through the planning process. We had a lot of people working with us, and they were able 

to work closely with the manufacturers to make adjustments and 

changes in some of the designs that we made in our manure storage. Also, the overall farm evaluation that was done in other areas 

that needed work I thought was very complete, but yet it was—it 

was also practical. 

The actual engineering of the manure storage, like I said prior, 

was real cutting edge. We kind of changed our ideas as we went. 

They were able to adapt to our changes. We were using a lot of 

sand, and we were dealing with sand-laden manure and wanted a 

25

structure that we could drive into and remove solids off the bottom, 

and they were able to come up with a real good design that fit our 

needs. It was also—we were under a fair amount of pressure to get 

this done in terms of our large farm permit, and the staff was able 

to work fairly quickly to make sure we got it done within that construction season so we met the needs of our permit. 

Some of the challenges that we did have as we did it, we secured 

a line of credit to cover the expense of the project ahead of time, 

figuring at completion the payments would be made. The payments 

were very slow. It was probably about 6 months after completion 

that we finally did get reimbursed on that. It was probably about 

$6,000 worth of extra interest costs that cost the farm. 

I think there is, once we are kind of going through the process, 

a little bit of lack of flexibility once these designs are all made previously and then as—during construction there is a lot of advice 

given and things need to change, and we need to be able to make 

those changes, and that can be difficult at times. 

Also, there is a couple of years ahead of time that you start planning for this EQIP project. Then the EQIP is—is only—it is a 5–

year—it is a 5–year program, and to me it is really a long period 

of time, and ideas on the farm would change during that period of 

time, and we need to be able to change that. I thought that we 

could also use some more technical assistance and not have to hire 

as much outside help. 

Future plans, we are going to go through the grant application 

process this coming spring for a methane digester, and we definitely will not proceed unless we can receive grant money for that 

and are looking forward to a lot of the benefits that the digester 

could bring to us and certainly are hoping that will continue to get 

funded at a high level. And we—on our second farm we are going 

through permitting on that, and there is going to be continued need 

to be—money to take care of environmental issues there. 

And that is all I had. I just briefly wanted to say that the—although this is very important to us, all these environmental programs—or these programs that help us pay for these environmental fixes on the farm, the milk price really is primary to this, 

and if we had the money and were more profitable, a lot of these 

things would take care of themselves and we would not need as 

much outside money. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall can be found on page 75 in 

the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. You probably would not be surprised to know 

you are not the only person who has told me that. And you are so 

right. 

Ms. Wonnacott. 

STATEMENT OF ENID WONNACOTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHEAST ORGANIC FARMERS OF VERMONT, RICHMOND, 

VERMONT 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Thank you very much for allowing me to be 

here. 

My name is Enid Wonnacott. I am the executive director of the 

Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont. I have been at 

NOFA for 20 years, and I have witnessed several farm bills. They 

26

have not historically promoted policies that favor small farms, nor 

local food systems. Rather, they have been directed to the production and export of commodity crops. 

Michael Pollan recently wrote that most Americans are not engaged in the process of creating the Farm Bill, that many people 

do not know a farmer nor care about agriculture. But we all eat. 

And he recommended that this time around let us call it the Food 

Bill. Of course, Vermont’s different in that most Vermonters know 

farmers. Most Vermonters care about agriculture, but it begs the 

question: How would our agricultural system be different if our 

country created a food bill or a farm and food bill every 5 years? 

Many people question why the national market for organic food 

increases more than 20 percent a year or why organic farming is 

the fastest growing agricultural sector in Vermont. There are currently 394 organic producers in Vermont growing food on 66,000 

acres, over $60 million in gross sales, and by the end of 2007 18 

percent of the dairy farms in Vermont will be organic. 

The growth may be based on science or fear or taste, but more 

than these factors, I think consumers want to know where their 

food comes from. They want a food experience. They want the opportunity to buy food directly from the farmers of Vermont and 

from their neighbors. 

NOFA-Vermont supports a Farm and Food Bill that focuses less 

on the development of export markets and more on the development of local and regional markets. With relocalization as the 

screen, some of the highlights of a 2007 Farm and Food Bill would 

include support for organic programs that will help bridge the gap 

between demand for organic food products and supply, including reauthorization of the Organic Certification Cost Share—it has made 

a big difference for a lot of farmers; an organic conversion program 

that is rooted in on-farm technical assistance; a credible and respected national organic program that works to maintain the integrity of the organic label. 

Senator LEAHY. Yes. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. And the removal of Federal regulatory barriers 

that impede the development of local and regional markets, especially for meat. It would include a nutrition title that meets the 

mutual goals of market development and food access creating a 

new Child and Youth Nutrition Program modeled after the Senior 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program that supports local food purchasing contracts to low-income child-care centers, summer feeding 

programs, and school food programs; that enables food stamps to 

be used at farmers’ markets, farm stands, and CSAs, which is supported in USDA’s new proposed WIC rules. Currently $4 million a 

month is being spent in Vermont in food stamps, none of which are 

being captured by farmers in Vermont. And that is because local 

markets do not have the capacity to accept electronic benefits. 

A nutrition title that supports the components of the child nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act, specifically Section 122; access 

to local food and school gardens, which was authorized but not 

funded by Congress; and a title that would strengthen the Food 

Stamp Program by increasing the minimum benefit. 

This Farm and Food Bill would support a research title that 

mandates a risk assessment on emerging agricultural technologies, 

27

like genetically modified organisms. This analysis needs to take 

place at the Federal level to provide clarity for the States. That levels the playing field with research on organic and sustainable agriculture. Despite the growth in organic, funding for organic research 

has remained stagnant at a half of 1 percent of all research dollars. 

A research title that prioritizes classical plant and animal breeding within the National Research Initiatives’ germplasm program 

to maintain genetic diversity and seed and breed stock that is 

adapted to changing environmental and climactic conditions; and 

an energy title that supports energy efficiency for small farms and 

support for on-farm energy production. Currently most of the funding support has been for larger farms and not necessarily appropriate to scale for small farms, and by small in Vermont I mean 

less than 80 cows. The support has been for farms of larger than 

80 cows. 

There are many current programs that support these priorities 

that NOFA-Vermont has taken advantage of and appreciate, including the value-added producer grants, community food projects, 

competitive grants program, Farmers’ Market Promotion Program, 

Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, and SARE. NOFAVermont currently receives or has received Federal support for our 

program work from these important programs. 

In closing, now that we are beeping, I would like to advocate for 

the work of the Commission on Small Farms in their 1998 report 

entitled ‘‘A Time to Act.’’ Many of the recommendations of NOFAVermont and complementary national organizations are embodied 

in the Commission’s report. The Commission, for instance, recommended the creation of a new title from the 2002 Farm Bill——

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Ms. WONNACOTT [continuing]. The small farm title. Thanks. 

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

94 in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Daley. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES DALEY, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, 

NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE, STOWE, VERMONT 

Mr. DALEY. Chairman Leahy, I would like to ask for permission 

to offer an amendment to my colleague’s suggestion of a Farms and 

Foods Bill and make it Farms, Foods, and Forests Bill. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Good. I like that. 

Mr. DALEY. The headlines——

Ms. WONNACOTT. I support that. 

Senator LEAHY. As you know when I became chairman of the 

Committee, I changed the name to Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, so——

Mr. DALEY. And in fact, I wanted to start by noting, in case 

Vermonters are not aware, that you have been I think the single 

greatest champion for U.S. Forest Service state and private forestry programs of any member of the Congress, at least in the time 

I have been doing this work. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. DALEY. And in fact, if you only take away one theme from 

my comments today, it is that our Department of Forests, Parks, 

28

and Recreation is doing a tremendous job of working with landowners and communities on forest conservation and stewardship, 

and if we can fund the programs that they use, that would be, you 

know, a great assistance that the Farm Bill could provide to the 

future of our forests here in Vermont and across the country. 

One bit of context that I want to offer before diving into some 

policy recommendations, if you are not familiar with the ‘‘Forests 

on the Edge’’ study that was just completed by the U.S. Forest 

Service, I commend it to your attention, and what the Forest Service found is that 44 million acres of private forestland across the 

country will be developed in the next 25 years, and when you look 

at the State of Vermont, almost the entire State is projected to see 

medium or high rate of change from forest development. 

The Connecticut River watershed, of course, close to Congressman Welch’s heart, is ranked in the top 20 watersheds in the Nation for projected future development. So we are looking at suburbanization of Vermont’s forests by subdivision and development 

on a massive scale, and I would suggest to you that puts the 

Vermont way of life at risk. 

The good news is that this has really unified the forest community in ways never seen before. We kind of figured out in the great 

words of Benjamin Franklin that we will either hang together or 

we will hang separately, and so we have—we have come together 

to develop a comprehensive forest policy package for the next Farm 

Bill that is supported at the State level, at the regional level, and 

actually we have now got a new national Forests in the Farm Bill 

Coalition that includes the hardwood lumber manufacturers on one 

side of the table and the wilderness society on the other. 

And so I just want to give you four areas of policy recommendation that are focuses for us and then close with a couple of words 

from the next generation of Vermont forest landowners. 

My four areas of policy recommendation. The first is to fund existing programs that work. You, Senator, have led a letter for many 

years asking for annual appropriations for State and private forestry programs, and we need that promise to be kept. We established these programs in the Farm Bill. We need as many of them 

to have mandatory funding as possible, but as we have learned 

with some programs, even mandatory does not seem to be enough 

to actually deliver that funding, so we need to fund the programs 

that work, like forest stewardship, forest legacy, forest utilization 

and marketing, and others. 

Two, the forest community has come together behind a new State 

forest planning process that would mirror the recent State wildlife 

plans that have been completed across the country, and this would 

give us under the leadership of our own great State forester here, 

Steve Sinclair, and others like him across the country a comprehensive and coordinated approach to how we apply these programs. And I think that would help in getting annual appropriations if we could show that they are performance based and are 

truly efficient. 

Third, we need to deliver reliable cost share and incentive funding for forest landowners. One of the great reasons why these forests are being sold across the country and across Vermont is that 

the gap between forestland’s value for development has risen 117 

29

percent in Vermont since 2001, but the costs associated with 

forestland ownership and the returns associated with forestland 

ownership have not kept pace. So if we can find cost share and incentive funding to help compensate private landowners for the values that they are delivering to the public, that will help close that 

gap between the value they are able to derive from owning forests 

as forests as opposed to feeling compelled to sell land for development to get a reasonable rate of return. 

Two concerns on that front. The national momentum is clearly 

to push that cost share and incentive funding into conservation 

title programs. And if that happens here in Vermont, two things 

would be required for that to work here and in States like New 

York that, as you know, Senator Leahy, are also dairy—heavy 

dairy States. If, for example, EQIP is going to provide cost share 

funding for landowners, No. 1, we still want the state foresters and 

not NRCS to be the entity that works with landowners and directs 

that funding; and second, the forest funding should be separate 

from the ag funding so that forestlanders do actually eventually get 

to the head of the line. 

The last thing I want to talk about is community forest programs. You noted, Senator Leahy, that my organization, the Northern Forest Alliance, has been leading something called the 

Vermont Town Forest Project here helping communities around the 

State take leadership for forest ownership, conservation, and management statewide, and so we have two proposals. 

One is a new Community Forest and Open Space Program that 

would deliver funding directly to communities for acquisition of 

forestland. When private landowners can no longer afford to hold 

those lands, we think communities are a great new landowner that 

can continue to deliver those benefits to the State of—people of 

Vermont. 

And second, a community wood energy program. Senator Sanders, this goes directly to something that you said earlier: How can 

we find sustainable energy solutions here at home? We have a vision for how we can use town forests to help feed local wood energy 

heating systems in our schools and in our public buildings so we 

can create a closed-loop system of sustainable carbon-neutral energy from our forests here in the State of Vermont. And we would 

love a little bit of assistance through a new community wood energy program to help create that new looped energy system using 

our own forests. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley can be found on page 52 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. And thank you all for keeping within 

time. I am just going to just go to one question. I may do—send 

you follow-ups afterwards, but——

Mr. Hall, you’ve talked about EQIP and FRPP, these working 

lands conservation programs. As you know, in the last bill we put 

in this regional equity requirement that guarantees small States a 

small State minimum, get at least $12 million per year in conservation funding, but I was struck by what you said about sometimes how long it takes getting through the bureaucracy. The 

30

money might be there, but getting through the bureaucracy, which 

can be overwhelming to a small farmer. 

And you spoke to some of the things that can be done. If we took 

away from this, what would be the No. 1 thing that could be done 

to speed up during these kind of conservation grants for people like 

yourself who want to use them? 

Mr. HALL. You mean as far as getting payments out, you are 

talking about? 

Senator LEAHY. You talked about how long it can take in your 

planning and all that—you are paying interest charges and——

Mr. HALL. Right. 

Senator LEAHY. What do you do to speed that up? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I think to simplify the contracts is probably a 

good idea, and I have no idea what happens on the other end with 

how much paperwork has to be done, but I assume it is just immense, and I did not really understand sometimes what the delay 

was all about, but there is a tremendous delay to get this money. 

Senator SANDERS. A delay in a Federal program? We are 

shocked. 

Senator LEAHY. That is right. 

Mr. HALL. So I cannot really speak to exactly what should be 

done, but——

Senator LEAHY. But certainly the delay——

Mr. HALL. It is too cumbersome. 

Senator LEAHY. We certainly should find a way to speed this up 

is what you’re saying. 

Mr. HALL. Yes. And then the other part I was just speaking 

about is——

Senator LEAHY. I am thinking of the huge backlog there is right 

now. It just makes no sense. 

Mr. HALL. Is the length of the contract, I think is just a little 

bit long, and you are trying to look out too many years ahead, and 

things change on the farm in the meantime, so——

Senator LEAHY. And, Ms. Wonnacott, I know that you seem discouraged about some of these farm bills, but I think you would 

admit that the Organic Foods Production Act was part of a Farm 

Bill. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Right. 

Senator LEAHY. And that has had some positive effects. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. We had to fight every single major lobbyist for 

12 years to get it through. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. Had to change the chairmanship with the Agriculture Committee, but we did it, and it is something that so many 

of those that lobbied against it said it would be a colossal failure. 

We now have a $15 billion industry and growing. We have the most 

certified organic farms in the country on a per-capita basis here in 

Vermont, so there has been some positive. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY. And I have seen some of the food stamp usage 

at farm market—farmers’ markets. I do in Montpelier when I go 

to the farmers’ market there on weekends when I am home here 

in the summertime. 

31

Ms. WONNACOTT. That is the Farm to Family Coupon Program. 

Senator LEAHY. I see that, too. Which was another program we 

started in the Farm Bill. 

What is the most significant threat to the strong standards of the 

current organic labeling law and regulations? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. The pasture standard. 

Senator LEAHY. The which? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. The pasture standard. 

Senator LEAHY. Yes. I think that I would hear that same answer 

in a number of other parts of the country; would I not? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Yes, you would. 

Senator LEAHY. I also found as one big threat was remember 

back a couple years ago when one producer of organic chickens in 

another part of the country tried to change——

Ms. WONNACOTT. Outdoor access. 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. In a midnight rider and what was 

organic feed for it. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Yes. And the outdoor access requirement, too. 

Senator LEAHY. Yes. Mr. Daley, you want to close the gap between the returns private forest landowners can realize from their 

act as far as—versus the development costs. If you could write one 

thing into the Farm Bill, into the forestry title, and there will be 

a forestry title, to narrow that gap, what would it be? 

Mr. DALEY. Well, we are very excited about the prospect of 

Senator LEAHY. Why don’t you pull that microphone a little closer. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. I’m sorry. 

Mr. DALEY. We are very interested in the potential of using the 

conservation security program to reward forest landowners for outstanding forest stewardship. CSP has been a very successful program in rewarding agricultural producers watershed by watershed 

to reward them for stewardship that conserves public values like 

water quality, and we think that especially in this part of the country where most watersheds are either predominantly forested or at 

least equal parts forested and agricultural, that we ought to similarly reward forest landowners for outstanding stewardship that 

protects water quality and other public values. 

And that is the kind of financial compensation that I think private landowners deserve for the environmental benefits that they 

are delivering to the public, and that would, again, provide some 

financial returns that would close that gap between the value they 

can derive from holding forests as forests as opposed to converting 

it for development. 

Senator LEAHY. Some of us who live nearby with forestland listen to this a great deal. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. I will try to be brief. 

Enid, let me start off with you. By the way, congratulations on 

the growth of NOFA. I remember going to your meetings a few decades ago, and I was just there a couple weeks ago. You had 800 

people. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. 950. 

Senator SANDERS. Who is counting? 

Senator LEAHY. And growing. 

32

Senator SANDERS. And young. And a lot of young farmers were 

there, family farmers. 

Enid, you indicated correctly that there has been an explosion in 

the number of people in Vermont and America that are now gravitating toward organic foods. The transition, whether it is dairy or 

vegetables or whatever it may be going from conventional to organic, costs a bit of money. In your judgment, what kind of direct 

Federal assistance to farmers in fact would make sense covering 

that transition cost? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. I think the most helpful is an on-farm technical 

assistance program. 

Senator SANDERS. I am sorry? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Is an on-farm technical assistance program. It 

is not necessarily a conversion payment. The market processors are 

actually supplying some conversion payment. What the farmers in 

Vermont have found the most helpful is on-farm technical assistance. We have been able to supply that from a grant from the 

Vermont Agency of Agriculture and also through the Farm Viability Enhancement Program with cash-flow analysis and business——

Senator SANDERS. And NOFA is supplying that? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Yeah. We are a service provider for the Farm 

Viability Program, so we have five technical assistance staff right 

now working with farmers, and it really comes down to an individual farm-by-farm decision and process, and it is hard without 

on-farm technical assistance to make a successful transition. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Daley, some years back when I was Mayor of Burlington, we 

started the first wood chip burning plant in the State, which is still 

going very strongly, and one of the things that a lot of people are 

not aware of is that to the best of my knowledge, Vermont leads 

the whole country in the number of schools that are now heating 

with wood chips. I think, what, we are over 40 schools now? 

Mr. DALEY. It is a significant number; I know that. 

Senator SANDERS. And it is a growing number, and that is a good 

step forward, because it saves school districts money, it provides 

local jobs, and it is friendlier to the environment. 

As we talk about biofuels in general and try to deal with the potential disasters of global warming, talk a little bit about the role 

that you see our forests playing in providing biofuels to heat our 

State and so forth. 

Mr. DALEY. Absolutely. And, you know, there—of course, things 

are happening at two different scales. As you mentioned, you have 

got, you know, the McNeil Generating Station in Burlington and 

larger scale use of biomass and then community-scale biomass, as 

you talked about with the Fuels For Schools Program and other 

smaller scale efforts, and we have been focusing most of our attention in this proposal on the community scale side of things. We 

think that that is where just a little bit of additional technical assistance and funding would make the greatest impact, and we 

think at that Vermont scale we really have an opportunity to create a model that will lead the Nation. 

So I do think that there is a wonderful opportunity for us to find 

a carbon-neutral energy source where it is not only a beneficial 

33

model environmentally but we are sort of becoming forest and energy locavores, if you will, and so that is what we are trying to establish through this idea of a community wood energy program 

where we would be using, you know, town forests to actually supply town energy needs so that people can actually see the costs and 

the impacts of where their energy is coming from. 

Senator SANDERS. And you save a lot of money on transportation, 

as well. 

Mr. DALEY. Exactly. Which of course we know that when you 

truck something from one place to another, that has an energy 

cost. And we think there is a way to rewire the system pretty dramatically that here in Vermont we can create something that 

would be a model for the Nation. 

Senator SANDERS. I agree with you. 

OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. That is an exciting concept. 

And incidentally, the grants for transitioning to organic, that is 

one of the things I raised in the last Senate Agriculture hearing. 

It is one of the things that is going to be looked at in the next 

Farm Bill. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Great. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Congressman Welch? 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Hall, I know you have done a lot of work on nutrient management, and I am wondering for your recommendations on how 

the USDA can best support local nutrient management efforts. 

Mr. HALL. We have gotten a lot of support on the nutrient management piece of the puzzle. We did on our large farm permit on 

the East Montpelier dairy and we have——

Mr. WELCH. You want to get that microphone a little bit? 

Mr. HALL. And we have recently at our other farm in East 

Craftsbury with the MFO. We are getting financial assistance 

through the State to help develop those plans, and there are some 

really good planners, and we have some choices of who we can—

who we can have, so that has worked quite well for us. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

And, Enid, I want to thank you for NOFA’s great work. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. WELCH. When I first came to the Legislature in 1981, I was 

on the Agriculture Committee. I remember the NOFA folks coming 

in, and I think all five members were in the committee room. 

But—you have touched on this a bit, but what are the specific 

recommendations that you would make for the 2007 Farm Bill to 

help farmers who want to make the transition to organic? 

Ms. WONNACOTT. You know, as I said, I think that largely it is 

a technical assistance issue. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

Ms. WONNACOTT. There is—and specifically for dairy is where 

the greatest technical assistance is needed. Organic vegetable production is a much older industry. There are a lot of farmer mentors. There is research that has already been done, and there is 

much more university expertise and support. 

On the dairy and livestock, there are—it is a much younger industry largely because until the National Organic Program, you 

34

could not legally certify organic meat or label it as certified organic. 

So it is a much younger industry. There are fewer farmer mentors, 

and there is very little research that has been accomplished, and 

there are existing regulatory barriers. So I think there are certainly policy initiatives that could help that transition, but on a 

day-to-day——

Mr. WELCH. Technical assistance. 

Ms. WONNACOTT [continuing]. What is going to help success is 

on-farm technical assistance. 

Mr. WELCH. Great. All right. Thank you. 

And, Jad, you are doing great things in West Fairlee with the 

forest there, and you have described that very well. It is quite exciting to get that the regionalization, which is the theme we are 

hearing over and over again: Intensify what we have; take advantage of it; keep it local. 

What are some of the other specific things that we can do in the 

Farm Bill to help foster sustainability in forestry, in local valueadded production? 

Mr. DALEY. Well, you touched on the West Fairlee town forest 

and the acquisition of that town forest, and I think that is actually 

one of the most exciting opportunities that we have for fostering a 

sustained timber economy in our State and sustainable use of our 

forests. You know, we have got towns like West Fairlee, which is 

a small town of less than a thousand people, that is looking to purchase 1800 acres of forestland that will be managed for a host of 

forest products as well as public benefits. 

On the other side of the State you have got the town of Goshen, 

which is a town of 250 some residents, that has generated about 

$250,000 of logging revenue from its town forest, both feeding local 

timber supplies and helping, you know, balance the local budget for 

that very small community. And they have even used some of the 

wood for local concerns like rebuilding historic structures in the 

town. 

So to me I think that the idea of community forests is sort of a 

shining example of how we can create a sustainable forest economy 

and culture moving forward in our State. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY. I want to thank all three of you for being here, 

Jad, Enid, and Richard, and do not be surprised if you get some 

calls from either me or my staff as we are going forward in this 

Farm Bill. You are going to hear yourself quoted a lot in Washington as we get in that debate. 

Thank you very much. 

Our next panel will have Bill Rowell. Bill and his brother operate 

the Green Mountain Dairy in Highgate. That is a well-run, 900–

milker operation. He is a member of St. Albans Cooperative. And 

the Rowells have participated in the USDA Rural Development Renewable Energy Grant Program that is included in the 2002 Farm 

Bill. 

Your farm survived a few years ago when the Grateful Dead had 

a major concert, which I read about, in Highgate. 

Andrew Meyer is well known to all of us. He has been very active 

in rural development initiatives. Of course, I used to see him on alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35044.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
35

most a daily basis when he was working for my colleague Jim Jeffords in Washington. He’s at the center of a number of ventures in 

the Hardwick-Greensboro area. The USDA Rural Development just 

awarded NVDA a grant to fund a feasibility study for an agriculture incubator building. He and his brothers have an organic 

dairy operation and continue to get high-quality milk—or milk 

quality awards. He has established the Vermont Soy Company. It 

is an alternative crop for farmers. 

Linda Berlin is also very well known to all of us. She is a food 

nutrition specialist with the UVM Extension. She is a board member of the Campaign to End Childhood Hunger. 

And if I can just mention personally, thank you. Thank you for 

that. 

And she has an extensive knowledge of the whole range of USDA 

food and agricultural programs. 

And going from my right to left as we have been, Mr. Meyer, we 

will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW MEYER, VERMONT SOY, HARDWICK, 

VERMONT 

Mr. MEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate this 

opportunity to discuss the importance of the USDA’s Rural Development programs and am pleased to address the entire Vermont 

Delegation today. My name is Andrew Meyer, and I am from Hardwick. 

As you began the discussions and debate over the 2007 Farm 

Bill, your continued support and understanding of the importance 

of how rural development programs impact the economic viability 

of Vermont and other rural States is critical. 

Mr. Chairman, I grew up on a small dairy farm in rural Vermont 

and believe strongly in the significance that farming has on 

Vermont’s rural character and economic viability. I share my time 

now on our family’s organic dairy farm along with two new ventures that I have started: Vermont Soy and Vermont Natural Coatings. Both new companies seek to convert raw agricultural materials from local producers into value-added products. 

Vermont Soy, a new food processing venture, is launching a new 

line of soy products, as well as other organic products. Our goal at 

Vermont Soy is to source high-quality soybeans from local farmers. 

To assist area farmers, we are conducting soybean variety trials 

and developing technical and infrastructure support necessary to 

enable farmers to grow for us. As more Vermont dairy farmers seek 

additional profit-making opportunities, growing soybeans along 

with other specialty crops may prove beneficial. 

Vermont Natural Coatings, another Hardwick business that we 

have engaged in, produces whey-protein-based, environmentally 

safe wood finishes. Our new patented formulations, invented 

through research at the University of Vermont, converts a cheese 

by-product into a high-performance, safe wood finish. Similar to 

Vermont Soy, our goal is to convert local raw materials into valueadded products for farmers. 

Both companies have been supported by rural development programs, including staff support, financing, marketing and technical 

assistance. Farmers and small businesses alike can benefit from 

36

continued support from programs, such as the 9006 Renewable Energy Program, the Producer Value-Added Program, rural enterprise 

development grants, and increased marketing and technical assistance. 

Although functional and useful, some programs require a streamlined application process, small project set-asides, and a greater 

percentage of total costs covered. 

Another area of importance that deserves review and attention 

is the need for rural Vermont’s telecommunications infrastructure. 

For Vermont’s rural businesses to be competitive in today’s markets, they will need to have access to a high-speed regional network system. 

Supporting agricultural-based businesses and ventures in rural 

America is critical. To be successful, programs in the 2007 Farm 

Bill need to sustain and enhance infrastructure that supports new 

innovations in food- and agricultural-based products. For example, 

the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont has a vast resource of agriculture and forest raw materials; however, because the region lacks 

the necessary infrastructure to convert those raw materials into 

processed goods, the communities and producers in that area do 

not benefit from those value-added markets. 

The town of Hardwick, recognizing the market opportunities in 

this area, is quickly becoming the agricultural center of Vermont, 

where agricultural-based businesses are building partnerships with 

local agricultural producers to create and produce high-quality 

value-added products. Currently the Industrial Park, which is 

named the Agricultural Food Park, is home to our two new companies and also Vermont Milk Company, which is now processing 

Vermont milk, and the Sugarman, processing and producing—

packaging Vermont maple syrup. 

Recently the town, as the chairman described, received a Rural 

Business Enterprise Grant to conduct a feasibility study on the expansion of our Agricultural Food Park with the creation of a new 

food incubator building. In addition to the food business incubator, 

the creation of a Functional Food Technology Initiative as part of 

the 2007 Farm Bill would create opportunities that build and 

strengthen on the region’s ability to add value to new products. 

The Rural Development title of the Farm Bill has great potential 

for stimulating Vermont’s economic foundation. One of the areas 

that should be addressed is the enhancement of biobased products. 

Recently a nonprofit was started in Hardwick called The Center for 

a Biobased Economy where we are trying to educate the public 

about the importance of supporting an economy in which profitability and equity are created, maintained, and enhanced through 

practices that promote stewardship, environmental health, and social responsibility. 

Expanding and strengthening agriculture businesses so vital to 

Vermont and other rural States involves the coordination and support of many different interests. As Congress discusses and debates 

the Farm Bill, it will be important for the Vermont Delegation to 

recognize the issues that impact the ability of new agriculture sectors to flourish. 

Thank you for your time, and I will answer any questions. 

37

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer can be found on page 83 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. And I intend to ask you some questions about the broadband. 

Mr. Rowell. 

STATEMENT OF WILLARD ROWELL, JR., HIGHGATE CENTER, 

VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Rowell. 

Mr. ROWELL. Gentlemen, it is nice to see you home working in 

the field. I think the first time I came to the Capitol Robert Stafford was lieutenant Governor. I was just a boy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. ROWELL. It is always a pleasure to come to the Statehouse. 

They have good——

Senator LEAHY. I delivered newspapers to him. 

Mr. ROWELL. They have good soup here. 

Senator LEAHY. They do. 

Mr. ROWELL. We have over a thousand cows. We produce 22 million pounds of milk annually. Our cropland consists of 1200 acres 

in three towns: Sheldon, Highgate, and Swanton. Our manure 

waste stream is a 10 million-gallon-a year affair. We are located in 

the Missisquoi Bay watershed. 

Green Mountain Dairy operates as a large farm under Vermont 

ag rules, and we are in the process of implementing an anaerobic 

digester system. We hope to improve our economics; manage the 

waste stream; produce electricity, nearly 2 million kilowatts a year. 

We expect tremendous benefits to the farm. We expect tremendous 

benefits for society and the environment. We are quite excited, and 

expect to be on-line this week. 

Section 9006 encourages development of renewable energy by 

providing money to accomplish the goal. The program falls short of 

the mark. Intended money arrives too late in the process to maximize its value to the farm, and it actually creates a heightened 

burden on the farmer. 

Feasibility studies told us without the USDA grant, the project 

was not possible. Lenders were otherwise unwilling to commit. We 

received a grant, $335,000. One of only eight in the country awarded. Twenty-nine digester projects applied; eight were awarded. A 

$500,000 cap on the grant means we spent $4 million or less nationally to reclassify a waste stream as a resource. Our project cost 

us $2 million, and to date we have not received one dime. We expect to be on-line this week, and the money would have been useful. 

Pleasant Valley farms of Berkshire has been on-line for three 

and a half months. They have not received any money. Montagne 

Farms of St. Albans Bay, still under construction, probably better 

than halfway through the process; they have not seen any money. 

And Walter Gladstone from Bradford, I think he is trying to decide 

whether it is worth the risk. He was the fourth project. 

The money is very difficult to qualify. The process is simply too 

complicated if you are a farmer. It turns out the money is paid at 

the end, after the project is up and running, with receipted proof 

of payment. 

38

This grant proposal took me four and a half months to pull all 

the information together. 

Senator SANDERS. But think of all the paper you can now use for 

fuel. 

Mr. ROWELL. Well, it is kind of like a Sears catalog. 

Senator LEAHY. They have other use. I’m sorry. Go ahead. That’s 

for the older members here. 

Mr. ROWELL. It took four and a half months to write, and it was 

quite an education. It contains all of the reference material for any 

information the government might require. 

I think we are spending too much time on redundant information. You have a dedicated staff here in Vermont that is short of 

time because they are spending too much time producing information that you already have. Our budgets, all three farms mentioned, were contingent on and included the grant money. So as it 

turns out, we are jumping through hoops waiting for eventual reimbursement while the farm pays interest on a $2 million project. 

I am sure this does not work as the founders originally intended. 

If we want to see more of these projects which the country embraces, renewable energy, that has to change. Also, the level of 

funding has to increase, and for the many benefits these digesters 

provide, the number of digester projects need to increase. 

Last year we planted 80 million acres of corn. This year we will 

increase that by 10 million acres, and, weather permitting, we will 

produce 13 billion bushels of corn. A bushel of corn will produce 2.8 

gallons of ethanol, which I believe the government subsidizes at 51 

cents a gallon. Corn is a valuable resource. It has already doubled 

in price. Some of us are concerned we have created a gold rush. 

The land grab has already started. 

As this unfolds, we may see disastrous results with a sharp rise 

in food prices and everything else. We have animals to feed and a 

human population to sustain. We need to protect our resources by 

investing in infrastructure that will maximize the benefits to society. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowell can be found on page 91 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to go back 

to a couple of the points you made. 

Ms. Berlin, somebody asked when we were going to see milk 

around here. I want you to know, I am drinking Vermont Pure 

water, but I see the milk is here. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA BERLIN, Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF 

VERMONT, DEPARTMENT OF NUTRITION AND FOOD 

SCIENCES, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Ms. BERLIN. I brought the milk, but not the milk mustache. 

Linda Berlin, University of Vermont Extension. I first wish to extend my thanks to you, Senator Leahy, for chairing these hearings 

and for your ongoing and deep commitment to food and farming 

issues, and to Senator Sanders and Congressman Welch as well for 

being here today. 

My focus today will be on nutrition and hunger issues and how 

important it is for the Farm Bill to prioritize national health and 

nutrition goals along with other critical goals. While most people 

39

think primarily about the impact of the Farm Bill on farmers and 

rural communities, U.S. agriculture policy has a major impact on 

us all. Simply stated, the Farm Bill influences not just what food 

is grown but also what food is eaten. 

The U.S. dietary guidelines, based in sound science, advise that 

we increase our consumption of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, lowfat dairy products, along with other recommendations. In contrast, 

the current food environment encourages consumption of high-fat, 

high-salt, high-sugar foods which are low in essential vitamins, 

minerals, and fiber, because they are most affordable. 

The obesity and diabetes crises are national consequences of this 

situation. Additionally, rates of hunger and inadequate nutrition 

are growing despite the country’s abundant food supply. It is my 

deeply held belief that the Farm Bill needs to and can simultaneously promote public health and meet the needs of all farmers 

by setting Federal policy that seeks balance between our Nation’s 

priorities of a sound agricultural system and healthful, affordable 

food. 

In the Northeast approximately 4 million people rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, and nearly 69 million people consume 

food. We all have a stake in the 2007 Farm Bill. 

I will now expand on three priorities. First, build food security 

through the Food Stamp Program. While many people in the 

Northeast struggle with an excess of calories, nearly 1 million 

households, about 13 percent, with over 5 million individuals in 

these 12 States, live in food-insecure households. Ironically, obesity 

and hunger coexist in some households because cheap, caloriedense foods with inadequate nutrition appease hunger pains. 

Over 80 percent of food stamp benefits go to households with 

children. Although research demonstrates that food stamp recipients receive more nutrients in their diets than their low-income 

counterparts who are not participating in the Food Stamp Program, benefits remain inadequate. When money is tight, caring 

parents resort to buying this, Kool-Aid, instead of this, milk. To 

save the difference in equal amounts of these is $2.60 for a gallon 

of Kool-Aid versus milk. Parents in this great dairy State of 

Vermont are faced with similar dilemmas every time they shop. 

Additionally, the Food Stamp Program currently fails to reach approximately 40 percent of eligibles. 

The second priority is to promote access to fresh local and culturally appropriate foods. The Community Food—Food Projects 

Grants Program is just completing its tenth year of providing 

money to innovative projects that promote comprehensive responses to food, farm, and nutrition issues. Senator Leahy, I know 

that you have been a staunch supporter of Community Food 

Projects since their inception. 

Here in Vermont we have used these grant dollars in various 

ways, including to get food grown on small local farms to older 

adults at congregate meal sites; to teach children the joy of growing 

and consuming fresh vegetables; and to build interest among diverse community members in providing more healthful food choices 

at schools. These projects are critical because they help to support 

the expansion of community-based food systems that are environmentally sound, promote health, and strengthen the local economy. 

40

These types of impacts reflect the core values of Vermonters. In 

order to further this important work, these grants need to be authorized—reauthorized at a much higher level. 

The third priority is to encourage and promote programs that reflect national health goals and nutrition guidelines. According to a 

recent report by the USDA Economic Research Service, for Americans to meet the fruit, vegetable, and whole grain recommendations, domestic crop acreage would need to increase by an estimated 7.4 million harvested acres. Although the limited supply 

may be a consequence of consumer demand, it is also true that current agricultural subsidies do not promote this increase. 

While some farmers are advantaged by agricultural subsidies, 

Northeast farmers do not win overall. Here, because farmers 

produce relatively small quantities of the program crops that now 

receive commodity program subsidies, much of our region receives 

just 2 cents or less from USDA for every dollar in farm sales, compared to some other regions that receive up to 15 cents. The Northeast would see a 200 percent increase in support levels if allocations were based on the value of agricultural production. By expanding the list of commodity crops to include specialty crops such 

as fruits and vegetables for human consumption, we could simultaneously address public health goals while helping some Northeast 

farmers. 

Ialso want to speak to improving awareness about what constitutes a healthful diet and how to obtain it, and I think nutrition 

education is very important in that regard, and so supporting nutrition education is important. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Berlin can be found on page 52 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LEAHY. No, I—I agree. You mentioned the problem of 

both obesity and diabetes, and the question is, we can pay up front 

or pay later. 

Ms. BERLIN. Exactly. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Rowell, I am going to begin with you, because we speak about the 9006——

Mr. ROWELL. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. Program funds. There has been a lot 

of testimony in the Agriculture Committee that we—we need to expand energy production both on and off the farms. We are talking 

about solar, mini windmills, things like this. But what I hear from 

you is a lot of these projects can be good, but the process is really 

bad. 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. Did you get any impression that anybody read 

all this stuff that you prepared? 

Mr. ROWELL. Well——

Senator LEAHY. Did you get feedback to indicate that somebody 

was actually reading this? 

Mr. ROWELL. I did not, but I got the impression that if—if we did 

not produce that document, we were not going to get the money. 

And now I am getting the impression——

Senator LEAHY. Did you ever read Catch–22? 

41

Mr. ROWELL. Yes, sir. These—these provide a good management 

tool for a farm, and we have enough nutrients going into the lake, 

and I know you are a big Champ supporter, and we are trying to 

do something to do our part for the lake, for the environment, for 

our neighbors. 

Senator LEAHY. But what you are trying to do is do both, save 

the lake and keeping the nutrients out of there, but also create energy. 

Mr. ROWELL. Well, Senator, we use on our farm each day about 

50,000 gallons of water. We count that the quality will be good. In 

the event that it was not, I think we would be done farming with 

that number of animals. 

Senator LEAHY. And the percentages might vary in different 

farms around the State, but the answer would be the same; would 

it not? 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes, sir, it would. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyer, good to see you again. Let me just ask one—one question. You raised the issue of broadband access, and there was a 

broadband program in the 2002 Farm Bill. Frankly, I think it has 

been a disaster. I think it has been poorly handled. You know, 

USDA was told to get this out to rural communities, like yours. 

Even Members of the Congressional Delegation, at least some of 

them live in these rural communities. But instead this has gone 

out into areas, larger communities, where it is already available. 

There is competition, whether it is cable or high-speed telephone 

lines or anything else, where it is not as necessary. 

The program—and this you would get the same answer from 

both Republicans and Democrats who have worked on this program. It was designed to get it into small areas. Frankly, this is 

going to be a major focus on the farm bills, how we get USDA to 

get on the stick and get it done right. They do many, many things 

right, but, boy, this has not been. 

I mean, how would—you are a small business owner. How important is broadband to—to a business in Hardwick? 

Mr. MEYER. I think broadband overall generally is critical to the 

success of rural businesses. More and more programming, softwares, on-line sales, marketing are conducted through the Internet, 

and without the capacity or the ability to have high-speed, it is 

going to be difficult to expand business opportunities. 

Senator LEAHY. But how do you get that into the rural areas? 

Mr. MEYER. Well, I think there could be a number of things. One, 

the problem I think you face is that there are low-density populations in these rural areas and no infrastructure that businesses 

who want to make money on this venture are going to be able to 

do, so having a public-private partnership I think is critical, either 

creating revolving loan funds where a business can enter into an 

agreement with a public entity to—to partner and make this happen. 

Senator LEAHY. I remember my grandparents talking about how 

excited they were when electricity came to South Ryegate, 

Vermont, and they turned it on—that was a low-density area at 

that time, but we had programs through the Department of AgriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35044.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
42

culture, through Rural Electrification, and got it there. Think what 

would have happened if we had not done that. 

Mr. MEYER. Well, I do not know. It is—I live in Hardwick, so it 

is hard to say. 

Senator LEAHY. OK. 

Senator SANDERS. But you have electricity now in Hardwick, 

right? 

Mr. MEYER. Most of the time. But it is the most expensive electricity in the State of Vermont. 

Senator LEAHY. You do not live in Middlesex, do you? I do not 

even want to get into that. I do not want to get into my total parochial issues, but let me show you my electric bill sometime. 

Let us see. Marcelle’s smiling in the back. She knows. 

We have had—Ms. Berlin, we have had tremendous support for 

the Food Stamp Program. I have seen over a hundred, I think 135, 

organizations that push for a strong nutrition title. You talked 

about improving expanded fresh fruit and vegetable programs to all 

50 States. What is the biggest burden in doing that? 

Ms. BERLIN. The biggest burden. That is an interesting question. 

The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides fresh produce to 

schools, and I think my understanding is that probably the biggest 

challenges for the school food service workers who have a lot of 

work to do just to get by even opening cans when they are faced 

with fresh produce, it takes additional time to prepare those foods, 

and time means money, and so in order to expand programs that 

provide more fresh, local produce, or not local but just fresh, we 

have to consider those labor costs and expenses, particularly in the 

public school system. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. We may follow up more on that, because there is a growing urge among both sides of that in the Agriculture Committee to get more. The very same reasons you have 

spoken about. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. And let me concur with 

what everybody has said on broadband. It is beyond comprehension 

that today in the State of Vermont in our rural areas we still have 

towns that do not have high-speed Internet access. We are behind 

much of the country, and in fact, as everyone should know, the 

United States is behind much of the world, and it is not clear to 

me how a small town in Vermont without high-speed Internet access is going to be competitive and attract businesses. It is incomprehensible. And we have got to make this a priority and move aggressively. 

What this panel is about is really focusing on a number of huge 

failings of our current Federal Government. The idea that in the 

United States today we have more and more people who are hungry is unacceptable. The idea that we are not dealing with good nutrition and obesity is becoming a problem leading to huge healthcare costs through diabetes and heart disease is an issue that we 

have got to address, as well. 

We have other areas in that—I am on the Environmental and 

Energy Committees, and let me tell you there will be a change in 

Federal policy in terms of global warming, and the question I want 

you all three to touch on is what role does small, family based agriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35044.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
43

culture play in that? And, of course, tied into that is how can we 

use energy production, energy efficiency, on the farm in terms of 

saving the family farm? 

Let me start off with Linda. Linda, give us some radical and bold 

ideas in terms of nutrition, because if we do not get a handle on 

obesity and other health problems, we are going to be spending 

tens of billions of dollars treating people who are going to die earlier than they should. Give us some really bold ideas in terms of 

what the Federal Government should be doing. 

Ms. BERLIN. Well, I guess the first place my mind goes—you 

asked—is not subsidize corn production, which translates into highfructose corn syrup, which is everywhere in our food supply, which 

is contributing to, you know, our obesity and diabetes rates. So I 

know that that is not a very popular thing to say, but maybe in 

Vermont it is more acceptable. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Ms. BERLIN. Certainly, you know, we need—part of the support 

of local food systems is about getting more fresh products to people 

that taste good, that reminds people of what food should taste like, 

and so if we are talking about trying to support small-scale local 

producers, if we support—in our policies if we support bringing the 

price down of things that are good for us like that, then I think 

ultimately that contributes to our health and diet. 

Senator SANDERS. Should the Federal Government be playing an 

active role in voluntarily trying to move people to good nutrition? 

Ms. BERLIN. Absolutely. I mean, if we think about it, I think right now we spend about annually $100 billion in Medicare and 

Medicare expenses because of these diet-related diseases that we 

have, and so the Federal Government plays a role no matter how 

you slice it. We just would like the Federal Government to play a 

role in helping to improve it. 

Senator SANDERS. Good. Thank you. 

Bill, let me ask you a question. 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. There is a lot of excitement about methane digesters. We see potential there. One of the problems is, as I understand it, the technology now can be utilized by bigger farms, not 

smaller farms. 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. So I want you to touch on that, but also touch 

on—on this issue. In my view, and correct me if I am wrong, New 

England is far behind other regions of this country in terms of 

growing biofuel products on the farms. Do you sense in the State 

of Vermont that farmers believe that they can bring in additional 

revenue, not only by, in a sense, producing electricity as you are 

doing through manure to methane but by growing other biofuel 

crops? 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes. I sense that they can. We have some farms up 

in Franklin County that are growing biofuels with the hopes of 

bringing in extra income. The biodigester for us will bring in extra 

income. We are interested in that. We have a good—we have a 

good system with our government in this country. We have a lot 

of good people working at all levels to make it better, and we thank 

you all for your efforts to do that. 

44

Darwin said it is not the most intelligent or the most fit who will 

survive but those who can adapt. So we have to adapt. The environment in Vermont is quite clean, exceptionally clean compared to 

other parts of the country. We enjoy a lot of things that probably 

people in the world would give quite a lot to have. 

I think we need to see more of these digesters. I think they will 

do something as far as in the event of a natural disaster, you could 

sustain life on a farm. You would have electricity, heat. We may 

be able to grow vegetables in large greenhouses with the heat. 

There are a number of things—we are not even sure what kind of 

a tool we have yet, it is so new, but it is going to expand, and it 

is going to provide some real tremendous benefits to the population. 

Senator SANDERS. Andrew, let me just add—mention, congratulations—you know, we talk a lot about moving toward value-added 

products, a lot of talk. You are doing it, and congratulations on 

that. 

What role—or do you see a role in terms of public-private efforts 

helping Vermont farmers increase the capacity to produce valueadded products? 

Mr. MEYER. I think that what is critical as we talk about energy 

and new market opportunities, is the conversion of that raw material to a product that meets a market call, and I think that the efforts that are going on in Hardwick now are looking to do such 

things public-private partnerships that create the infrastructure to 

allow a farmer to convert his or her products into cheese or a cannery that can produce meat products or other dairy products, and 

in our case a soy product and other diversified crops. I think there 

is tremendous potential for converting the raw materials into dollars in the farmer’s pocket. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you all very much. 

Senator LEAHY. I could not help but think during John Hall’s answers and now Bill Rowell’s, this is the only agriculture hearing I 

have been in in 30 years where both Dickens and Darwin were 

quoted. And it did not start a major debate from the audience at 

the same time. 

Congressman Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. I—Senator Leahy, I just want to thank 

all of the witnesses, you folks and the people who preceded you, 

and time is growing late, and all my questions have really more or 

less been asked and answered, but I just want to make an observation, Senator Leahy. Every witness has focused on I think a central 

insight that we need regionalization, that in a time of globalization 

where there are these forces that are completely beyond the control 

of our local communities, our small State, or even our country, that 

if we are going to maintain communities, we have to respond with 

intensifying regional approaches to solving a myriad of problems. 

And it is based on that insight that if you produce locally and 

you distribute locally using local resources and you integrate that 

into the local economy, it has the prospect of creating jobs, preserving the environment, reducing global warming, and promoting 

communities that are integrated where people are dependent, one 

another, on their efforts in working together. And I have just found 

that this path-breaking work that was done on the regional comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35044.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
45

pact, whether we call it that or not, that focus on regionalization 

is absolutely essential to underlie what it is we do, I think, in this 

Farm Bill. 

I want to thank you all. 

Mr. ROWELL. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. And I want to thank everybody for being here. 

I especially want to thank Senator Sanders and Congressman 

Welch for taking the time to do it. It has been an important hearing, but I could not help but feel it made me awfully proud to be 

a Vermonter and to see so many Vermonters here. I think over the 

years Vermonters’ voices have been heard a great deal in the various farm bills. We just want to make sure that they are implemented the way we Vermonters say they should be. So I thank you 

all, and I especially thank my two colleagues I am privileged to 

serve with. 

We stand recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 12, 2007

48


35044.001
49


35044.002
50


35044.003
51


35044.004
52


35044.005
53


35044.006
54


35044.007
55


35044.008
56


35044.009
57


35044.010
58


35044.011
59


35044.012
60


35044.013
61


35044.014
62


35044.015
63


35044.016
64


35044.017
65


35044.018
66


35044.019
67


35044.020
68


35044.021
69


35044.022
70


35044.023
71


35044.024
72


35044.025
73


35044.026
74


35044.027
75


35044.028
76


35044.029
77


35044.030
78


35044.031
79


35044.032
80


35044.033
81


35044.034
82


35044.035
83


35044.036
84


35044.037
85


35044.038
86


35044.039
87


35044.040
88


35044.042
89


35044.043
90


35044.044
91


35044.041
92


35044.045
93


35044.046
94


35044.047
95


35044.048
96


35044.049
97


35044.050
(99)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 12, 2007

100


35044.051
101


35044.052
102


35044.053
103


35044.054
104


35044.055
105


35044.056
106


35044.057
107


35044.058
108


35044.059
109


35044.060
110


35044.061
111


35044.062
112


35044.063
113


35044.064
114


35044.065
115


35044.066
116


35044.067
117


35044.068
118


35044.069
119


35044.070
120


35044.071
121


35044.072
122


35044.073
123


35044.074
124


35044.075
125


35044.076
126


35044.077
127


35044.078
128


35044.079
129


35044.080
130


35044.081
131


35044.082
132


35044.083
133


35044.084
134


35044.085
135


35044.086
136


35044.087
137


35044.088
138


35044.089
139


35044.090
140


35044.091
141


35044.092
142


35044.093
143


35044.094
144


35044.095
145


35044.096
146


35044.097
147


35044.098
148


35044.099
149


35044.100
150


35044.101
151


35044.102
152


35044.103
153


35044.104
154


35044.105
155


35044.106
156


35044.107
157


35044.108
158


35044.109
159


35044.110
160


35044.111
161


35044.112
162


35044.113
163


35044.114
164


35044.115
165


35044.116
166


35044.117
167


35044.118
168


35044.119
169


35044.120
170


35044.121
171


35044.122
172


35044.123
173


35044.124
174


35044.125
175


35044.126
176


35044.127
177


35044.128
178


35044.129
179


35044.130
180


35044.131
181


35044.132
182


35044.133
183


35044.134
184


35044.135
185


35044.136
186


35044.137
187


35044.138
188


35044.139
189


35044.140
190


35044.141
191


35044.142
192


35044.143
193


35044.144
194


35044.145
195


35044.146
196


35044.147
197


35044.148
198


35044.149
199


35044.150
200


35044.151
201


35044.152
202


35044.153
203


35044.154
204


35044.155
205


35044.156
206


35044.157
207


35044.158
208


35044.159
209


35044.160
210


35044.161
211


35044.162
212


35044.163
213


35044.164
214


35044.165
215


35044.166
216


35044.167
217


35044.168
218


35044.169
219


35044.170
220


35044.171
221


35044.172
222


35044.173
223


35044.174
224


35044.175
225


35044.176
226


35044.177
227


35044.178
228


35044.179
229


35044.180
230


35044.181
231


35044.182
232


35044.183
233


35044.184
234


35044.185
235


35044.186
236


35044.187
237


35044.188
238


35044.189
239


35044.190
240


35044.191
241


35044.192
242


35044.193
243


35044.194
244


35044.195
245


35044.196
246


35044.197
247


35044.198
248


35044.199
249


35044.200
250


35044.201
251


35044.202
252


35044.203
253


35044.204
254

Æ