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

20–614 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–283

NOMINATION HEARING OF CHARLES F. CONNER

TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 6, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEVEN MEEKS, Majority Legislative Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Nomination Hearing of Charles F. Conner to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 01

Wednesday, April 6, 2005

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia, Chairman, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 01

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 04

Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from Vermont ............................................. 03

WITNESSES 

Conner, Charles F., Nominee to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 05

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from Indiana ......................................... 03

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Letters to Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Tom Harkin ................... 26

Conner, Charles F. ........................................................................................... 30

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Conner, Charles F. (Biographical Information) ............................................. 34

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Baucus, Hon. Max ............................................................................................ 92

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 95

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 96

Roberts, Hon. Pat ............................................................................................. 101

Salazar, Hon. Ken ............................................................................................ 103

Talent, Hon. James .......................................................................................... 106

(1)

NOMINATION OF CHARLES F. CONNER TO BE 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2005, 

U.S. SENATE,, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY,, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:17 a.m., in room 

328–A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Saxby Chambliss, 

chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Chambliss, Lugar, 

Talent, Coleman, Harkin, Leahy, Conrad, Baucus, Lincoln, Nelson, 

and Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We are here today regarding the 

nomination of Chuck Conner to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. 

Mr. Conner is no stranger to this committee. From 1980 to 1985, 

he served as Senator Lugar’s agricultural aide. From 1985 to 1987, 

he was a professional staff member with the Senate Agriculture 

Committee. From 1987 to 1997, he served first as Minority Staff 

Director, then as Majority Staff Director of this committee. 

I will have to say, just from a personal perspective, having 

served in Congress for 10 years, I have known Chuck for basically 

all of those 10 years, and Senator Lugar, you made an excellent 

choice when you chose Chuck Conner to join your staff. He is certainly someone who has extensive knowledge of agriculture and of 

our programs and has been a very good person to work with over 

the years. 

Mr. Conner was President of the Corn Refiners Association from 

1997 to 2001. Since 2001, he has been the Special Assistant to the 

President for Agricultural Trade and Food Assistance. 

Mr. Conner is accompanied today by his wife, Dru, and their four 

children, Katie, Ben, Andrew, and Emily. We are pleased to have 

all of you with us. Also in attendance today are Chuck’s brother, 

Mike Conner, and his sister-in-law, Sally Lindsey. Welcome to each 

of you. 

Senator Harkin is not here yet, but we will give him an opportunity to make any comment he wishes to when he comes in. 

I want to let you all know what we are going to do this morning. 

Because of the Joint Session later this morning, I will ask my colVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Feb 28, 2006 Jkt 020839 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20614.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
2

leagues either to submit their opening statements for the record or 

present them during the first round of questioning. We have the 

session at—I believe we need to be on the floor at 10:30, so we are 

going to try to move this along, and that is our reason for bumping 

up the time table. 

With that, I would like to turn to Senator Lugar for an introduction of Mr. Conner. Senator Lugar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an 

especially high moment for me and I am grateful to have this opportunity to introduce to my fellow members Chuck Conner. He is 

a true friend of American agriculture and certainly a loyal friend 

of mine. 

Almost 20 years ago, Chuck Conner was a young member of my 

staff, was with me when former Secretary of Agriculture John 

Block visited our farm and announced the first Conservation Reserve program. It is fitting that both Chuck Conner and the Conservation Reserve have matured during that generation into pillars 

of American agriculture, in my judgment. 

He began working for me, as you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 

in 1980 in my personal office as a legislative assistant handling agricultural issues. Chuck was always in tune with agricultural 

issues on a national level, but more importantly, he understood the 

issues farmers were facing and that he faced in the fields of Indiana. In fact, he grew up on one of those Indiana farms in Benton 

County, was an active participant in the family’s 1,100–acre corn 

and soybean farm, and paid for his college education at Purdue 

University by starting his own hog operation that I believe blossomed to nearly 20 registered Chester white sows. 

Chuck combined this formative experience and his Bachelor of 

Science work in agricultural economics at Purdue just prior to coming to Washington to serve on my staff. Subsequently, Chuck has 

been an integral figure in forming Federal agricultural policy. 

While working with me as a member of the staff and later as the 

staff member and Staff Director of this committee, Chuck helped 

usher forward farm bills through the Senate, including the 1996 

FAIR Act that ended 60 years of Federal reduction controls. 

Chuck’s work in the Senate can be seen in moving American agriculture to a more free market system, thoughtfully making the 

USDA more efficient, making food safer, reforming the farm credit 

system, updating commodity futures laws, and preserving and improving our nation’s child nutrition laws. 

Chuck later played important roles in policy development as 

President of the Corn Refiners Association, and most recently as 

President Bush’s Special Assistant for Agriculture. 

I have had the distinct pleasure of witnessing Chuck succeed in 

each of these professional pursuits. More importantly, my wife 

Charlene and I have also enjoyed watching Chuck marry another 

Hoosier who also worked in my office. His wife, Dru, is with us 

today. They have done a tremendous job in raising their four children, Katie, Ben, Andrew, and Emily. 

3

Chuck has always possessed sound character, an ability to work 

in a bipartisan manner to improve our nation’s food and fiber infrastructures. As both a farmer and Senator on this committee, I am 

confident that Chuck will serve our nation superbly as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture at the United States Department of Agriculture. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make this statement. I will ask your leave in a few minutes to go do my duty on 

the floor as we proceed with the other responsibility I have in foreign relations. There will be a vote probably about 10:10, so this 

may influence the work of the committee likewise. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your continued strong leadership as a member of this committee. I just received that same information, that there is a vote on your bill at 

about 10 this morning. I will just say, too, there is a possibility we 

may not finish until after the speech of President Yushcenko. If we 

are not finished, we can come back and we will resume the hearing. 

Senator Leahy had a quick comment. 

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

VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it. I 

couldn’t help but think, I was talking with Chuck Conner earlier 

and it feels like old times with Dick Lugar and myself and Chuck. 

I have known him for a lot of years. The President could not have 

made a finer choice. He really could not have made a better choice 

for the No. 2 slot at USDA. 

I know during the time he worked for Senator Lugar and worked 

with this committee, part of the time I was chairman, part of the 

time Senator Lugar was chairman, and we all benefited by his good 

judgment. I told him today he has that facility, which very much 

reflects Senator Lugar, that he always kept his word, and it made 

our life a lot easier as a result. 

It was in 1990, we did a farm bill in about a week, a 5–year farm 

bill that had taken, 5 years before, had taken seven or 8 weeks, 

but because we could work together, we worked out probably 95 

percent of the Farm bill by consensus and a lot of that is because 

of the great work that Chuck was doing. 

I know there are going to be a lot of challenges ahead. I want 

to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your effort to protect the programs. A lot of them are facing funding cuts. I know you have been 

working with Chairman Gregg on that. Obviously, I wish we didn’t 

have any cuts, but we are in far better shape because of the work 

you are doing. 

Chuck Conner and I talked earlier about some of the feeding programs. It has been a hallmark, a bipartisan hallmark of this committee from the time of Dole-McGovern to Dole-Leahy to LugarLeahy, feedings programs that have gone through here. It has 

worked very, very well. 

We will have questions on the MILC program here. Chuck knows 

well there have been divergent views on dairy in this committee. 

We have found something we can bring a lot of those views together. 

4

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, your leadership is going to be very helpful to us, but you are going to be helped by having such a consummate professional at USDA. I compliment the Secretary. I compliment the President. I hope that doesn’t hurt you, Chuck——

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY [continuing]. I compliment you all for this, and I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put my full statement in the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I turn to Mr. Conner, let me say that we 

received a letter this morning addressed to Senator Harkin and 

myself from over 60 commodity groups that are in support of the 

nomination of Chuck Conner for this position. 

[The letter can found in the appendix on page 26.] 

Senator LEAHY. Also, Mr. Chairman, if you do reach a point 

where you are going to be voting, you have my proxy to expedite 

this in any way you can. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Harkin, we are just getting ready to turn it over to Mr. 

Conner, but if you prefer to go ahead and make a statement, we 

will let you go ahead, whatever is your preference. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

late to the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Harkin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IOWA, RANKING MEMEBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator HARKIN. I will put my whole statement in the record. I 

won’t burden you with reading the whole thing, but again, just to 

welcome Chuck Conner here, to congratulate him on his nomination to serve as Deputy Secretary. 

Obviously, I first met Chuck when I came here in 1985 when he 

was with Senator Lugar and we have had a great relationship ever 

since. I can say without any hesitation or any fear of contradiction 

that any time that we worked on farm legislation in the 1980’s—

we had some pretty tough bills in those days, on the credit bill that 

we passed, Chuck was working on that—on through the 1990’s, 

every time we had any dealings, Chuck was always there, open, 

above board, willing to work with us, just a great person to work 

with. 

Then I followed him through his work in the administration on 

the last Farm bill when I was privileged to be chairman for a brief 

shining moment and Chuck was representing the White House and 

we had a great relationship. We got the Farm bill through in a 

great bipartisan manner and had a great signing in the White 

House. 

I just say that in the 20 years I have known Mr. Conner, Chuck 

Conner, I can say that he is an outstanding individual, someone I 

admire greatly, someone who knows agriculture, cares about rural 

America deeply, and I just congratulate him on this new position, 

look forward to working with him, and hope we can expedite this, 

Mr. Chairman, and get him confirmed as soon as possible. 

5

Thank you, Chuck, for so many years of service to this committee, to agriculture, and to our country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Chuck, before we ask you to testify, would you please stand and 

let me swear you in. 

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. CONNER. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is one question we need to ask you for the 

record, before you make any comment. Do you agree that you will 

appear before any duly constituted committee of Congress, if asked 

to appear? 

Mr. CONNER. I will, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and we look forward to 

your comments. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. CONNER, NOMINEE TO BE 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Harkin, members of the committee, I am grateful to the Committee on Agriculture. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, also for promptly scheduling 

this hearing to consider my nomination. I am humbled and honored 

to have been nominated to serve President Bush in this way. 

I want to begin my opening statement by thanking the man who 

is responsible for many of my professional successes. Senator 

Lugar, as most of you know, has had a profound impact on my life. 

You will note from my information that I was only 22 years old 

when Senator Lugar took a chance and offered a farm boy from Indiana the opportunity to come to Washington to work on food and 

agricultural policy. On the day that I started working for Senator 

Lugar, I left behind tearful relatives in Indiana and flew on an airplane for the first time and traveled to Washington, DC. My life 

would never be the same, and the next 17 years were some of my 

very best. Senator Lugar, you have modeled for me a life of integrity and decency in public service, and for that, I will always be 

grateful. 

Senator Lugar, as he mentioned in his opening statement, has 

had a large impact on my personal life, as well. He also gave an 

opportunity to a young woman from Fort Wayne, Indiana, to work 

in his office. My wife, Dru, and I met and were married while 

working for him and I will always be grateful to him for providing 

me that opportunity to meet my wife, and, of course, now to have 

our four terrific children who are here with me today. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed by the Senate and by this committee, 

I want you to know that I will be guided by my experiences that 

have helped to shape my professional career over the last 24 years. 

I have seen this committee through many leadership changes. 

Herman Talmage, a Democrat from Georgia, was the chairman of 

this committee when I started working here in 1980. Senators 

Lugar, Cochran, and Leahy, I believe, are the only members still 

serving from those days. The issues have changed somewhat, but 

one thing that has not changed is the fact that this committee continues to accomplish great things through bipartisanship efforts. 

6

During my tenure as Staff Director of this committee, I hope, Mr. 

Chairman, that I demonstrated my desire and ability to work with 

both sides of the aisle. We may disagree, but we can debate those 

disagreements knowing that each participant has a common goal, 

the goal of promoting the welfare and interest of the farmers and 

ranchers of this great land and those who produce the products 

that sustain us. That is a value shared by Secretary Johanns and 

President Bush. If confirmed by this committee and the full Senate, 

I pledge to you that I will continue to make every effort to work 

with both sides of the aisle and to reach out to all regions of the 

country. 

Second, my firsthand experiences have developed in me an appreciation of the honor and importance of production agriculture. I 

grew upon a family farm. I watched my father toil every day of his 

life just to provide a modest living for his family. If confirmed, I 

will be an advocate for the farmers and ranchers. The farmers and 

ranchers who provide an abundance of low-cost food and fiber for 

this country and others around the world should be given the opportunity to earn a decent living for their family. This applies to 

the farmers and ranchers of Georgia, Mr. Chairman, North Dakota, 

Vermont, California, wherever the case may be, and including, of 

course, the farmers and ranchers of Indiana. 

Third, I believe we must do everything we can in order to keep 

a competitive advantage around the globe for U.S. farmers and 

ranchers. This principle means that, just like President Bush and 

Secretary Johanns, I am firmly behind our trade negotiations and 

their efforts to reduce tariffs and duties on our agricultural exports. 

It is difficult to remain competitive if big duties must be paid in 

order to export. I believe this can be done in an environmentally 

sensitive manner by using incentive-based programs, many of 

which are targeted at working lands. To remain competitive, we 

also must utilize our strong agricultural research system, which I 

am a strong advocate of, and must get this information into the 

hands of our producers. 

Mr. Chairman, my experiences on this committee have not been 

limited to farm programs. The late 1980’s and early 1990’s were 

difficult years for American agriculture. The senior Senator from 

Vermont, Senator Leahy, was the chairman of the committee during many of those years and we faced difficult challenges. We tackled issues like rescuing the Farm Credit System, promoting conservation programs, providing a safety net for the poor, reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, managing our National 

Forest System, and strengthened our rural development programs, 

and many others. All were priorities of the chairman and ranking 

member, and it has gone a long way toward preparing me for the 

awesome responsibility that awaits me if I am confirmed by this 

committee. 

I close, Mr. Chairman, by simply thanking the members of this 

committee, past and present, for your help in preparing me for this 

job. If confirmed by this committee and the U.S. Senate, I can assure you that I will work hard to earn your support and respect 

and to live up to the standards exemplified by the members of this 

committee. 

7

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to answer any 

of your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chuck, thank you very much for that fine opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conner can be found in the appendix on page XX.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Traditionally, the Deputy Secretary has acted as 

the day-to-day Chief Operating Officer of the Department. What 

management skills area would you bring to that aspect of the Deputy’s job? 

Mr. CONNER. Mr. Chairman, one of the responsibilities that came 

upon us in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s was legislation that was 

proposed by this committee to actually do what was regarded as 

probably the most comprehensive reorganization of the management structure of the Department of Agriculture. This, as you can 

imagine, was a very controversial piece of legislation. Any time you 

are talking about changes, changes in offices, perhaps even relocating or collocating offices, as was the case, these are very controversial matters. 

Over the course of a long period of time, we successfully produced legislation that both Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy 

championed, had broad bipartisan support, and really is the framework of the existing Department of Agriculture as we know it 

today. Certainly, that was a big training ground, if you will, for my 

understanding of the structure of the Department of Agriculture, 

how the management system works within that agency. 

Just generally over the years, many, many experiences have prepared me for this job. Most of all, Mr. Chairman, what prepares me 

for this job is the heart that I have for the American farmer and 

rancher, and that is basically what the agency has, as well, and 

whether it is career people, political people, they serve at USDA because they want to promote the welfare and interest of the farmers 

and ranchers. 

We are going to get along well. There are many, many fine professional people over at USDA whom I have worked with for many 

years. I look forward to working with them, as well, in this capacity. 

The CHAIRMAN. One frustrating area for this member has been 

the lack of communication with the administration relative to agricultural issues, and no greater point on this can be made than the 

recent issue relative to the budget. I don’t know of any member of 

this committee who had any dialog of any sort with the administration prior to that budget coming out, and that is very frustrating 

to us because it has to be a team effort, particularly on something 

as sensitive as the budget. 

What level of communication do you think is necessary, and if we 

are going to improve that dialog, how do you intend to improve the 

relationship from a communications standpoint between the Hill 

and the administration? 

Mr. CONNER. This is an area, Mr. Chairman, that I know Mike 

Johanns and I want to focus upon a great deal, and the current 

Secretary has already done a great deal to promote that increase 

in communication. The Secretary is quick to pick up the phone to 

call. I certainly know that he is quick to respond to your requests 

8

and is eager to do so, and certainly, Mr. Chairman, I am going to 

be that way, as well. 

I want to work with this committee, obviously. If it is not clear 

from my opening statement, I regard this committee as my home 

in many ways, professionally speaking, and it would give me no 

greater pleasure than to have a very close working relationship 

with this committee, with the House Agriculture Committee, where 

I have many colleagues whom I have worked with for many years. 

I just can’t imagine attempting to run the Department without that 

close working relationship. 

The CHAIRMAN. You alluded to this in your opening statement, 

but let me just ask you again. We live in a country that is very 

large and very diverse and we are blessed with a variety of soil and 

climatic conditions that allows us to produce a wide range of food 

and fiber products. Different parts of the country face different 

challenges and have different histories and needs. New England 

dairy farmers face issues that are different from Midwestern corn 

and soybean farmers or Western cattlemen or Southern cotton producers. 

Do you agree that there are regional differences in American agriculture and that the government programs should not attempt to 

penalize any region of the country? 

Mr. CONNER. I agree with that statement, Mr. Chairman. I will 

openly acknowledge to you that perhaps my knowledge of the agricultural commodities in this country outside of what I grew up 

with, which were corn, soybeans, wheat, cattle, hogs, those kinds 

of issues, my knowledge of those perhaps came the hard way, sitting around this committee. It probably began in 1985 when I actually became a professional staff member on this committee and 

Senator Jesse Helms was chairman of this committee at that particular time and I had to learn in a hurry about tobacco——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNER [continuing]. Peanuts and issues like that. I believe 

I have done so. Obviously, when Senator Leahy, and the relationship we had with him during all of those years, Vermont agriculture was very, very unique, as well, in that situation. I may 

have a few lumps and bruises over the years, but I believe my 24 

years has given me a hearty understanding of just how broad and 

diverse American agriculture really is. 

The CHAIRMAN. From personal experience, having a keen interest 

in tobacco and peanuts myself——

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. You learned well, Mr. Conner. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have always been very knowledgeable and 

very helpful to this member as a member of the House as well as 

over here. 

With that, I will turn to Senator Harkin. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, Chuck, congratulations on this appointment. I look forward to working with you. I just have a couple of things I want 

to cover with you. 

Back in 2001 and 2002, when you were representing the White 

House, you were engaged in the Farm bill negotiations quite intiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Feb 28, 2006 Jkt 020839 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20614.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
9

mately. One that I know that you were engaged in was the energy 

title because we came up with a new energy title for the first time. 

We discussed this at length and it received pretty broad bipartisan 

support, to put an energy title in the Farm bill. 

In that title, as you will recall, there is a provision, Section 9002, 

that requires all Federal agencies and departments to purchase 

bio-based products identified by USDA as long as they are reasonably equivalent in price, performance, and availability. It is a very 

simple title, 9002, but this is a very vital but often unheralded provision that will greatly benefit American agriculture, help drive 

rural economic development, wean our country off foreign sources 

of oil, and provide tangible environmental benefits. 

Now, that is in the bill. That doesn’t just say the Department of 

Agriculture. It says all Federal departments and agencies, from the 

Department of Defense to Department of Interior to everything else 

shall—it doesn’t say may—shall give a preference to bio-based 

products in their purchasing as long as they are equivalent in 

price, performance, and availability. 

Well, not much has happened. Last year, I asked GAO for a 

study on this to see what had happened. About a year ago, it came 

out with a pretty scathing, I thought, indictment of the USDA for 

not doing anything on this. Still to this date, we still don’t have 

any action from USDA. Not one product has been designated for 

purchase after all this time, and yet the language is very clear. It 

says, ‘‘shall give a preference.’’ This wasn’t something slipped in. 

This was discussed. People thought this was a great way to start 

getting the Federal Government to be a purchaser of these products. 

Now, about a year ago about this time, President Bush was in 

Iowa and I had the privilege of riding in the car with him and I 

talked about this with him and he became quite intrigued. I didn’t 

expect him, obviously, to know about it. He doesn’t know about all 

these little things in the bill. He called a staff person over, whose 

name I don’t know, and said, ‘‘Talk to Harkin here about this.’’ He 

talked about it and he took some notes, but not much has happened. 

It has been very frustrating for some of us who worked hard on 

the energy title to see that provision there, to see the great purchasing power of the Federal Government. I remember I told President Bush, he said, ‘‘Well,’’ he said, ‘‘we are for ethanol.’’ I said, ‘‘It 

has nothing to do with ethanol.’’ He said, ‘‘What are you talking 

about?’’

He was drinking water out of one of these little plastic cups. I 

said, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, how many of those plastic cups do you think 

the Department of Defense buys every year, just the Department 

of Defense?’’ He said, ‘‘Obviously a lot.’’ I said, ‘‘Well, that is what 

we are talking about. There is a plant right north of Omaha, Nebraska, right now, Dow Cargill, makes these cups out of biodegradable starch. McDonald’s is buying them. If McDonald’s can buy 

them, certainly the Department of Defense could buy them.’’ Well, 

that got his interest. That is when he called the staff guy over and 

had him talk to me. 

I just want your thoughts as Deputy Secretary, since you will be 

operating the day-to-day operations, to make this program a high 

10

priority. Specifically, will you work to get the first rules designating items for purchase published in the Federal Register and effective as soon as possible? 

Mr. CONNER. I will, Mr. Chairman, or Senator Harkin. I acknowledge to you this is a mandate in the Farm bill, and I will also 

acknowledge to you that it has probably taken us too long to get 

this in place. I can’t recall the precise timeframe, Senator Harkin, 

but we are moving and getting closer on this——

Senator HARKIN. Good. 

Mr. CONNER [continuing]. We can expect some action on this relatively soon. 

Senator HARKIN. Great. 

Mr. CONNER. I can assure you, though, that if confirmed and I 

get over there, that we will get this done because it is a mandate 

of the Farm bill and it should be done. 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that very much. You can see why 

I am a fan of Chuck Conner’s. He is straightforward. He just says 

it right the way it is. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. He said what you wanted. 

Senator HARKIN. He is just straightforward. He doesn’t beat 

around the bush. 

The second thing, with your indulgence, and you knew I was 

going to ask about this, the Conservation Security Program. 

Mr. CONNER. I did know that. 

Senator HARKIN. You knew I was going to get to that, right? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HARKIN. Participation in the first CSP sign-up was much 

lower than NRC has expected. This year, with 220 watersheds, 

there will be much less money per watershed from the contracts, 

and the President has proposed even less money for new contracts 

next year. Again, I am concerned that the Conservation Security 

Program as enacted in the 2002 Farm bill is being eroded by restrictive rules and limited funds. Again, we designed a program. It 

was supported across the board. We walked into this with eyes 

open and we knew what we were doing. Compromises were made. 

Agreements were made in the Farm bill. The President, when he 

signed the Farm bill, Chuck, as you remember, touted loudly the 

conservation provisions in that Farm bill when he signed it. This 

program was intended to be attractive to producers that would generate significant and lasting conservation benefits from widespread 

participation. 

I would just, again, like your commitment that USDA will help 

achieve the original program objectives of the Conservation Security Program. 

Mr. CONNER. Senator Harkin, you are correct. I did anticipate 

this question a little bit, and you and I have had a few conversations about this since the Farm bill. I recall, Senator Hark, I believe it was actually the very first meeting that I had when I came 

to the White House was with you early in that Farm bill stage and 

you, for the first time, shared with me some of the thoughts that 

you were looking at with regard to the Conservation Security Program. 

11

As I told you then and I continue to feel, Senator Harkin, I am 

intrigued by this concept. I believe we—this is something we need 

to give full attention to, because I believe the notion of providing 

some financial help to producers, but at the same time, too, making 

that help based upon the conservation activities that they are putting in place on that farm, is a long-term sustainable, if you will, 

farm program that I have a lot of personal interest in. 

Now, having said that, I know that the first sign-up did not go 

as well as the Senator would expect. I guess I was pleased that we 

were able to go forward with the sign-up, because as I have told 

you before, it probably took us too long to get to the stage of that 

first sign-up because it does seem like we passed the Farm bill 

quite some time ago, and I recognize that as I told the Senator 

when we met several months ago. 

Some of that reason for delay, in this case, I won’t put all of that 

upon the backs of the people at USDA because there have been a 

lot of legislative changes to the Farm bill since its enactment dealing with this particular program, and I know the Senator would 

have preferred those changes not happen, but nevertheless, there 

are—those are significant changes that were more than just dollar 

changes. They did, in order to achieve the amount of money that 

Congress had allocated, they required a different type of program, 

perhaps, than had we not had those kind of budget limits. 

Now, we are working very, very aggressively on this, Senator 

Harkin, and I know Mike Johanns has jump-started this again 

after his process. We do have another rule out for comment. I can’t 

really go into the details, obviously, of that comment, but I will just 

say we are improving our outreach as reflected in this rule and getting input from the organizations, the farm organizations and the 

conservation community to make this a better program and perhaps do better than we did in that first sign-up for you. 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that, Chuck——

Mr. CONNER. It is, again, our full intent to get this thing up and 

running well. 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that very much. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, it was not right that the Congress pay for 

disaster assistance by invading the Farm bill. Disasters are emergencies. I have said that many times on the floor and I continue 

to say that. We shouldn’t penalize Florida because a hurricane hit, 

or Georgia. Sometimes hurricanes hit Georgia, too, I guess. We 

shouldn’t penalize Kansas because a tornado has hit or something 

like that. These are natural disasters and emergencies. 

We have never before ever invaded the Farm bill to pay for a disaster until, what, 2 years ago? Until 2 years ago, the first time. It 

was a mistake then. It was a mistake last year to do it again. 

Those of us on Agriculture have really got to pull together and just 

not allow this to happen again. It is wrong and it should have 

never been allowed to happen, and that is what you are referring 

to Mr. Conner, in terms of the changes legislatively that caused 

this program to be disrupted. 

Hopefully, it will not be happening in the future and we can restore the program again to what it was in the Farm bill. Both the 

former chairman, Senator Cochran, and others have stated on the 

floor, it is in the record, that this program should be reinstated to 

12

operate as was intended in the Farm bill for the duration at least 

of this farm bill. Now, if the committee wants to change it when 

the next Farm bill comes up, well, then that is fine, but it shouldn’t 

be changed in between that. 

Thanks very much, Mr. Conner. Thanks for your indulgence, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Conrad. 

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you 

back here in this room, Chuck. 

Mr. CONNER. Likewise, Senator Conrad. 

Senator CONRAD. I first of all want to say I am delighted at this 

appointment. Chuck Conner is a pro. Chuck Conner’s word is good. 

We dealt with a lot of issues in this committee. We didn’t always 

agree, but it was never disagreeable. I know Chuck will bring that 

same attitude to USDA. I would say the only thing that would have 

been better, if they had made you the Secretary. 

Mr. CONNER. No, thank you. No, thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CONRAD. I hope that word goes out. 

Now, I want to just visit with you, and I see somebody else in 

this audience that would have made an outstanding Secretary, too, 

Congressman Combest. Senator Harkin and I and Congressman 

Combest and Congressman Stenholm spent a lot of time negotiating the last Farm bill. They were outstanding individuals with 

terrific staff assistants, as you always provided, Chuck. 

Let me just go to the larger question here. According to OECD, 

the international scorekeeper, Europe is providing $277 an acre of 

support per year to their producers—$277 an acre of support in Europe. The comparable figure here is $48. They are outgunning us 

more than five-to-one. 

On export subsidy, Europe accounts for 87 percent of all the 

world’s agricultural export subsidy. We account for 1 percent. They 

are outgunning us there 87–to-one. 

We are now entering negotiations to attempt to level the playing 

field, and as we enter the negotiations, the administration sends a 

budget up here that says, cut agriculture, that is 1 percent of the 

budget, the budget that passed the U.S. Senate, cut agriculture 16 

percent. In my State, that means the average farmer is going to 

lose about $5,000 of income. On top of that, the administration 

says, cut from crop insurance another $538 million, putting that at 

risk. 

I just want to say, I don’t see the rationale for these cuts. I don’t 

see the rationale for cutting the farm program in the middle of it. 

I certainly don’t see it being done as we enter into trade discussions to try to level the playing field for our producers. If we look 

at the trend lines, they are ominous, because we have moved from 

a dramatic trade balance, trade surplus in agriculture, and now 

they are telling us this year we may actually have net imports of 

food and food stuffs into the United States. 

Could you tell us how it makes any sense to you that in the context of Europe providing much more support to their producers 

than we provide to ours, why we cut support from our producers? 

13

Mr. CONNER. Well, Senator Conrad, you might be surprised that 

I anticipated this question, as well, and I appreciate the context in 

which you are raising it. You have always been a gentleman in 

these debates and I admire that in you. 

Let me just say, I don’t believe you have ever heard me apologize 

for the $19.1 billion, I believe, dollar level, aggregate level of support that the U.S. has authorized under our trade laws versus, as 

you have noted, the sizably higher amount that our European 

counterparts are allowed to have. If I am not mistaken, I believe 

their agriculture and our agriculture are comparable on a total 

basis, yet their aggregate level of support is some three times, almost four times, perhaps, higher than our level. You certainly will 

never hear me apologize for that. 

Now, with regard to the budget situation, let me just say, Senator Conrad, first of all, that we feel like we have turned the corner 

on the agricultural economy in the last couple of years. That is in 

no way a reflection, a statement upon absolutely every region of 

the country because we have a big and diverse agricultural system 

and there are always pockets. In general, I don’t think you can dispute the record net farm income that we have seen in the last 2 

years, the record low level of debt-asset ratios that we have seen, 

record amount of production, record amount of exports this past 

year——

Senator CONRAD. It sounds like a pretty good endorsement of the 

last Farm bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNER. Well——

Senator CONRAD. Would you want to endorse the last Farm bill? 

Mr. CONNER. Senator Conrad, as you know, I was a strong advocate of the last Farm bill, as was the President. Continuing on 

that, though, obviously——

Senator CONRAD. If we could have only had the Secretary on 

board. 

Mr. CONNER. Our challenge is obviously to sustain that recovery 

in American agriculture so that it is not a hiatus but something 

that is continuing over time. 

I believe firmly, and I believe the President and the administration believe firmly, that one of the key elements of sustaining that 

recovery in agriculture as well as the remainder of the economy in 

terms of job growth is getting our arms around this Federal budget 

deficit, and——

Senator CONRAD. Well, I understand you have to be up here and 

be a good soldier. I just wanted to make the point. Look, it makes 

absolutely no sense to be cutting agriculture when Europe is providing much more support than we are, and when we are right at 

the dawn of negotiations to try to level the playing field. 

One other question, if I could, on a parochial basis, in Devil’s 

Lake, you are familiar with—you have heard me talk about this before—we have this lake that has risen 26 feet. The lake is now 

three times the size of the District of Columbia and it is flooding 

more and more land. When you were still here, Chuck, you saw me 

put up a number of charts then about how this lake had risen dramatically. 

14

We have now got an additional 100,000 acres of crop and grazing 

land that have been flooded by the overflow of this lake and it continues to rise, threatening another 200,000 acres. Many of these 

producers are suffering very, very significant losses. Will you be 

willing to work with these producers to explore existing USDA programs that they might utilize to reduce these losses or offset them? 

Mr. CONNER. I will, Senator Conrad. You know me, and one of 

my trademarks is I am accessible to not only farm organizations, 

but individual farmers who call. My direct line is generally readily 

available and it rings a lot. I am accessible to these producers. Obviously, we will talk to any group of them that you send my direction, but let us continue to take a look at this and see what we can 

do for them. 

Senator CONRAD. I look forward to working with you, Chuck. 

Mr. CONNER. I appreciate that. 

Senator CONRAD. We really are delighted at your appointment. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me add my congratulations and appreciation, also, for your 

nomination, Chuck. In our brief time together, we have had more 

than one opportunity to work together, and that has always been 

a very positive experience for me. 

Senator Conrad, if you have that excess water and could channel 

it to Western Nebraska where the drought continues, we will be 

glad to take our share. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. I am concerned about the future of trade as it 

relates to agriculture. I am more concerned about it from the 

standpoint that at the end of the day, with many of the trade 

agreements, you would have to say that they are stronger on imports than perhaps they have been on exports, and I don’t know if 

we are now a net importer of food, but I have heard such suggestions. Do you know, are we now importing more food than we are 

actually exporting in terms of agricultural products? 

Mr. CONNER. I don’t have the precise numbers in front of me, 

Senator Nelson. I believe there was a quarter in which we were. 

I am not aware that for a given marketing year for agricultural 

products that we are importing more for that given year than what 

we are exporting, again, because we have seen record exports this 

past year. 

Senator NELSON. As it relates to importation of agricultural products, we have to be very concerned that we not become a net importer on any extended period of time. If we like importing 60 to 

70 percent of our fuel, we will love importing 60 to 70 percent of 

our food, which brings me to the question about trade agreements. 

I know you are not going to the USTR, but my sugar farmers in 

Western Nebraska and the panhandle are very concerned, and I 

have spoken to other sugar interests around the country about the 

CAFTA agreement because of the importation of more sugar, and 

I wanted to bounce an idea off you for consideration in the future. 

If we can divide—you mentioned food and fiber, but also an agricultural program, a Farm bill which I hope we will talk about in the 

future is the Food Security Act, could also have another ‘‘F’’, and 

15

that is ‘‘fuel’’ because of what we are doing today in growing our 

own fuel. 

I wonder if there is a thought about how we might import virtually unlimited amounts of sugar if they go to fuel as opposed to 

food so that we can continue to grow our own food. Almost every 

country that produces its own rice is very reluctant to import much 

rice because they never want to be dependent on anyone else. It 

seems to me that sugar may fall into that category, but on a very 

different basis. Recognizing that sugar can also be fuel, I wonder 

if you have any thoughts about what that might entail if we were 

to consider CAFTA and other future trade agreements that might 

involve sugar or other commodities in requiring those to go to the 

production of our own fuel. 

Mr. CONNER. Senator, I appreciate the comment and the question. Your idea about—I believe sugar-to-ethanol would be a simple 

way to sum that up—is an intriguing one. Certainly from my past 

work at the Corn Refiners Association, where we were heavily involved in the ethanol question, sugar is a carbohydrate. It is a 

starch. Obviously, those starches can be readily converted into 

fuels with the technology that we have today, much as we do with 

corn and other biomasses. The technology is there. 

I am not certain, Senator, and perhaps some of your folks at the 

University of Nebraska and others could help us to know just what 

the economics would be and just how much it would involve to 

make that conversion relative to using other feedstuffs, but it is an 

intriguing idea that we would be happy to talk with you further 

about that. 

Senator NELSON. I appreciate that, and I can say from my experience of having been to Brazil on a few occasions and checking out 

their ethanol industry, which is based largely, if not entirely, on 

sugar, where they have referred to it as ‘‘drink the best and burn 

the rest’’——

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON [continuing]. That it does make some sense to 

consider how we might channel that sort of importation so that it 

doesn’t disrupt food production in the United States. A good deal 

of our effort for protection of our own production is referred to as 

subsidy. There is no question about it. We also deal with imports 

that are under-priced coming into the United States because of 

larger subsidies in other countries. 

Let me add my comments to Senator Conrad’s about the cuts to 

agriculture. I don’t think that they are well thought through at the 

present time and I hope that in your new position, you will spend 

a great deal of time working with us to see how we can even out 

some of this potential disruption to our agriculture production. 

Mr. CONNER. You have that commitment, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, and good luck. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Talent. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will restrict 

myself to one area because I know we have a vote on. 

Mr. Conner, thanks for being here. Congratulations. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you. 

16

Senator TALENT. I agree you are going to do a great job. 

Let me just bring up the issue of locks and dams with you. We 

are trying to compete internationally. We are demanding that our 

ag community accept—a lot of people are pressuring them to accept 

less and less in terms of domestic support, notwithstanding what 

the foreigners are getting, and then we are not keeping the promises that we made regarding, among other things, the transportation system. We have the Mississippi River system. Two-thirds of 

our grain goes down that system. We have locks and dams 600 feet 

when they should be 1,200 feet wide, built 70 years ago for paddle 

boats. 

I would like you to tell me that you are going to assist the Secretary in being an advocate within the administration for rebuilding this system, for making these locks and dams wider, fixing this 

infrastructure so that we can get our product to market. The only 

people benefiting from this current system are the Brazilians, and 

we really need the Department of Agriculture to make that clear 

within the administration. I just hope you will do it. That is my 

only question and comment. 

Mr. CONNER. Well, I will, Senator. Let me assure you, growing 

up in the Midwest, I fully understand the impact that the Mississippi River has on commerce coming out of that region of the 

country. It is not important, Senator, it is absolutely essential and 

I recognize that. What has been going on in terms of the last couple 

of decades with the efforts to stop one dollar’s worth of rehab, renovation from going on in that region is very, very unhealthy for 

American agriculture. We flat out have to be able to get our bulk 

agricultural commodities out of that portion of the Midwest and 

down to New Orleans to a point of export or we are absolutely dead 

in the water. 

I will be an advocate of that, I can assure you, and look forward 

to working with you on that. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you. We need to stitch together the old 

brick-and-mortar coalition in both parties. We have some people 

who are opposed to this from an environmental standpoint, which 

is ridiculous. These barges—one of these barges replaces 800 to 900 

trucks. It is the best thing we could do for the environment, to 

make this river system work better. It is like a one-lane highway 

now with no shoulders and it is carrying so much of the nation’s 

commerce. 

I know you believe that. I wanted to give you a chance to say 

that on the record. I really hope you will go in there and fight the 

short-sighted people at the Office of Management and Budget on 

this issue. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We do have a vote open, but I have 

told the floor that we need to finish this hearing, so we will continue. We are going to go to the Capitol at 10:30, so I think we are 

OK. 

Senator Lincoln. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and certainly thank 

you for your leadership in this committee. We are grateful to you 

for all that you do. Certainly to Mr. Conner, we do welcome you 

back home to the Agriculture Committee. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you. 

17

Senator LINCOLN. You have done a tremendous amount here and 

we are all very, very proud and congratulate you on your nomination——

Mr. CONNER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LINCOLN [continuing]. Know that you will be a hard 

worker. 

I also share your respect for Senator Lugar. He is a devoted 

member of this body, and having helped to start the Senate Hunger 

Caucus last year, I have found no other member as dedicated and 

as compassionate and passionate about those issues, so I share 

your respect for Senator Lugar. 

Your background and your willingness to serve are certainly an 

indication of your commitment and your dedication to agriculture 

and I thank you for that. I, too, grew up on a farm. My dad was 

a farmer. I watched as my father agonized over the drought, the 

floods, the markets, all of the conditions and all of the circumstances which he had absolutely no control over. 

I also grew up with a man who was very proud of his country, 

very patriotic. He was the only man I ever met that loved to pay 

his taxes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. He loved to pay his taxes because he loved his 

country and he said, ‘‘You know, for what I pay in taxes, I get a 

tremendous amount, the honor and the privilege to be a part of this 

country, to serve in its armed forces, to be able to be something 

that I have always dreamed of being, and that is a farmer, to get 

my hands dirty every day and to be able to do the best job I can 

in producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply.’’ 

I share your pride in that, coming from a farm family. 

I know he believed in his government, and I know he believed 

that when his government made a contract with him, that he felt 

strongly that his government would not back out on him. I guess 

that is one of the biggest disappointments that I have had in all 

of the efforts you and many, many others put into the 2002 Farm 

bill. I see Chairman Combest in the audience there. He provided 

tremendous leadership there, as well as many of the other members of this committee. 

I guess, knowing how proud your family is today sitting there 

with you, I remember this morning dropping my children off at 

school and each of them had a little Ziplock bag of change. Their 

school and student body, each of the students were collecting 

money to find a cure for cancer, and they were distraught in that 

they felt like they should have more. I said, you have cleaned out 

your piggy banks. You have cleaned out my pocketbook. We have 

gathered up all the change and you have given, and that is important. It is important to know that each of us gives what we can. 

For Southern agriculture and the rural communities of the 

South, we do desperately want to be good Americans and we want 

to give and we want to participate in the historic debt that we have 

in this nation, in bringing it in line. We want to participate in providing the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in the 

world. 

I guess my biggest concern is that much more is being asked in 

terms of sacrifice for producers as well as the rural communities 

18

of this country in the South when you look at all of the decisions 

coming out of this administration, whether it is the decisions 

through the Department of Treasury and the OFAC Office in limiting our rice trade, whether it is—and many on this committee 

may agree with—the payment limitations for the crops that we 

grow and that we are suited for, the fact that we are different and 

the diversity that exists. 

I would just say that, both in recognizing my responsibility to 

raising my children but also the responsibility I have to the people 

I represent in the Senate, consistency is critical. It is critical in the 

trust that we develop and the important element of making sure 

that government is a positive part of who we are and what we can 

do in the global community. 

I would just ask of you, as a part of the Department of Agriculture, that we can really look at these long-term commitments 

that are being made to our farmers. I know last week I was with 

my farmers and their bankers and the folks that they do business 

with in rural America who are not just seeing cuts in agriculture 

programs, but seeing cuts in their COPS programs and their Medicaid dollars and their health care providers are up against the 

wall. I guess it is just making sure that we can provide for them, 

in the diversity that exists in this country, the peace of mind that 

their government is going to support them just as it does the other 

regions of the nation. That is something that is going to be really, 

really critical for us in the coming years and we hope that you will 

be there with us. 

I guess, in closing, my comments would be that I hope that you 

will provide us here on the committee the assurances that you will 

be an advocate for the current law that we negotiated out in good 

faith that recognizes the regional differences, where everyone came 

to the table and gave a little bit to come up with a compromise. 

I hope that you will also reassure us, or at least explain to us 

what kind of a message we give to the rest of the world when we 

say that we are ready to lower our supports to our producers before 

we get a commitment from our trading competition to help level 

the global disparities. If what we are going to do is ask our producers to be competitive in a global marketplace, let us help frame 

the environment they are in in a reasonable way. 

I guess, Mr. Conner, I am asking for your help, because I can’t 

explain to my farmers any more than what I have done, and I hope 

that you will join me and that you will bring the Secretary with 

you as we come, and perhaps travel to Arkansas so that you can 

help me explain what it is we are asking of our producers, particularly in that region of the nation, to contribute to what this great 

country is all about. 

Is there some way I can get an assurance from you on a couple 

of those things? 

Mr. CONNER. Well, let me—Senator, I appreciate your comments 

and I know they come from deep within your heart, as mine do, 

as well, and I appreciate that. 

In terms of assurance, let me just share a couple of thoughts 

with you and perhaps we can talk more about this if you want in 

subsequent questions. We are willing to work with you on these 

issues. In the President’s budget, you are at a little bit of a disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Feb 28, 2006 Jkt 020839 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20614.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
19

advantage in that if the budget process were a poker game, you 

probably wouldn’t want to bet on the President because he has to 

show his hand early in that process, and we have done that. We 

have put the issues out there on the table——

Senator LINCOLN. Well, if he is bluffing me, I am OK, but——

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. Let me know now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNER. It is a pretty poor bluff if he is, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNER. Again, let me just say, and if there has been a 

theme this morning perhaps of who I am, it is the fact that we are 

dealing with issues here that are very controversial, not just between the administration and you, Senator, but between members 

of this committee, and there are extremely wide and diverse opinions on this committee over the issues that you raised, payment 

limits being a very, very obvious one, and there is sharp, sharp division here in this committee. 

My point is simply I want to help you play a role of being the—

a bad word, I guess, in these kind of times, but the reconciliation 

person in those differences. It is a role that I have played in the 

past for a long, long time. I hope some of the testimony given here 

this morning says that it is a role that I played successfully and 

I certainly see no reason that that is going to change when I—if 

I am confirmed and become the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. 

It is the role that I played when I was with the President in the 

2002 Farm bill. Former Chairman Combest can speak for himself, 

but I believe he would tell you that that is the role that I played 

with him coming in a little bit late in the game, but immediately 

tried to move us into a constructive position. We want to be constructive in this process and I commit that to you. 

Senator LINCOLN. I appreciate that. There are many people 

around that table. There are not just these here that may disagree 

in the Congress, but there are international elements involved, as 

well, that are a huge part of this global marketplace that we find 

ourselves ever more in a competitive nature. 

I hope you won’t ask me to fold, because I don’t want to have to 

fold at this poker game——

Mr. CONNER. Indeed. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN [continuing]. On behalf of my farmers. I would 

very much like to ask you and the Secretary to travel to our part 

of the country and to answer the questions of my farmers and see 

the capital-intensive investment they have to make in the crops 

that they are best-suited to grow to compete on the world marketplace. I hope I at least have that commitment from you. 

Mr. CONNER. You do have that commitment from me, Senator. I 

can assure you that there are things in the works that are going 

to take us to your great State, and frankly, many others as the Secretary—I know his passion is to get on the road and to get some 

views of the farmers out on the local level. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I hope that will be sooner than later, because as I said, the answers that I have are exhausted in terms 

of what we need to do. 

20

Mr. CONNER. I will just tell you, Senator, the last time I was in 

your State on an agricultural matter, I was in a Tyson chicken 

plant. That was an experience beyond description, to be inside that 

plant——

Senator LINCOLN. Yes, it is. I have been there, too. 

Mr. CONNER [continuing]. I look forward to a different view, perhaps, when I come down. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. Good luck. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am told by the floor that they are going to keep 

the vote open until 10:30, which means we have 9 minutes left. 

Senator Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations, Mr. Conner, to you and to your wonderful family. I 

wish you the very best of success in this new position. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me be brief and just make three quick 

points. One, I would request of you, and you don’t have to comment 

today, but to get a response from Secretary Johanns on a letter 

that I sent to him on March 10 concerning the ban on Canadian 

beef imports. I believe that we need to move forward with a process 

that makes sure that we are protecting consumers and ranchers 

here in our nation, and it is incumbent upon the Secretary, given 

where we are, to at least lay out where we are and where we are 

going, and I made that request of him, so if you would look into 

that for me, I would very much appreciate it. 

Mr. CONNER. I will. 

Senator SALAZAR. Second, I wanted to just echo the concerns that 

you have heard here from my colleagues this morning in terms of 

investment to rural America and to agriculture. Talking about 

farmers and ranchers is sometimes like talking about motherhood 

and apple pie. It is very different when we ask our government to 

work with farmers and ranchers to walk the talk. It is easy to do 

the talk on supporting farmers and ranchers. I know that from a 

statistical point of view, you can make an argument that some 

things are improving in the agricultural economy. 

Well, at least in my State, when I travel through the Eastern 

plains of Colorado and down to the San Luis Valley and places that 

are some of the poorest counties in the United States of America, 

I can tell you that these family farmers and ranchers are suffering 

and many of our agricultural communities continue to wither on 

the vine. I will just join the chorus of concerns that you heard here 

from my colleagues about the President’s budget. 

It is easy to say you support farmers and ranchers in America. 

It is another thing to actually do it. From my point of view, Mr. 

Conner, the budget that the President has proposed does not do the 

job. It leaves out a small portion of our overall population out in 

the cold because they don’t have the same kind of opportunities in 

my State, for example, that people would have in Denver, Colorado, 

or in the larger cities. I would hope that part of the commitment 

that we see from you in your new position is to help us make sure 

that we are prioritizing what I call the forgotten America. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, given our time limits, I don’t need a 

response. I will just go yield to you so you can conclude. 

21

Mr. CONNER. I appreciate your comments, Senator Salazar. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Baucus. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would also like to chime in on the point that Senator Salazar 

made. You responded to Senator Conrad’s question about why are 

we cutting our budget now. We have to negotiate. Your basic response was, well, gee, the farmers are doing pretty well. You cited 

some numbers, farm income is up and so forth. I don’t know about 

those numbers, but whatever they are, as you know as well as anyone, it is the tyranny of averages. Average numbers don’t really 

mean a lot. We are such a large country with so many pockets of 

income that is low. There are pockets of farmers where income is 

low. Senator Salazar mentioned parts of Colorado. The same is true 

in, I would say, most of Montana. 

Those numbers you used, I don’t know, again, what all was in 

it, and I know you know this, but I just wish the USDA would, on 

a proportionate basis, stand up a little more for the producer, because the industry can pretty well take care of itself. They have 

different means, different ways of doing things. The producers don’t 

have any other ways. As you know, they are at the mercy of price, 

the mercy of the weather, and all that. The big boys, they can take 

care of themselves. The big boys also, unfortunately, have much 

better access to you because they are in Washington. They have 

people working for them in Washington. The farmers don’t. The 

farmers depend upon us. 

What I would like to know is your telephone number. You mentioned that you had an open line to everybody, and I want my Montana farmers to give you a telephone call. 

Mr. CONNER. Well——

Senator BAUCUS. Would you give me a number, please? 

Mr. CONNER. Senator Baucus, I am not over at USDA yet, but 

I——

Senator BAUCUS. Well, give me your number that you have. 

What is the number to reach you at right now? 

Mr. CONNER. At right now? 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNER. It is 202–456–7804——

Senator BAUCUS. Four–56–7804. 

Mr. CONNER [continuing]. As some of the people in this room can 

tell you, that rings at my desk. One thing you learn at the White 

House is it is a lean operation, so there is nobody there to pick it 

up but me. 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. I appreciate that, because in Montana, 

I take all calls from all Montanans unscreened. I don’t care who 

it is. I take the telephone call. 

Mr. CONNER. That is my policy. 

Senator BAUCUS. I give my personal e-mail, not the office e-mail, 

my personal, private e-mail to all Montanans. I know that it helps. 

Mr. CONNER. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. I applaud you for having the same policy. You 

gave us your number, thank you, so people have an opportunity to 

talk to you, too. 

Mr. CONNER. Absolutely. 

22

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. When I was home during the 

break, I ran into a lot of anger, frankly, from farmers who were 

wondering when will they be able to sign up for the Agriculture 

Disaster Assistance Program. We were promised first of the year. 

That was promised by USDA. Now we are told it is March. There 

is no software at the offices in Montana. Now we are told we won’t 

get checks until maybe October. 

Mr. CONNER. Right. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is inexcusable, and you will agree. There 

is not much——

Mr. CONNER. I will——

Senator BAUCUS [continuing]. I called Secretary Johanns about 

this. As things work, you have to, to some degree, and he said he 

would look into it and try to help. My office followed up with people 

at the USDA just getting the run around. The follow-up calls that 

my office is making on this are just run-around telephone calls. It 

is a stone wall. I am asking you now to follow up if you could, 

please, and see what in the world is going on here. We have to get 

that software out there. We have to get these offices up and running and we have to get those checks out earlier than October. 

Mr. CONNER. Senator, I will assure you I can do that. There was 

the software. It was out and it was up and was running for several 

hours. Then they figured out that there was some kind of a glitch 

in it and they had to shut it back down. They tried—and it’s no 

explanation other than to say we know that this is not the kind of 

performance we expect, and I can assure you we will push on this 

issue. 

Senator BAUCUS. Can you get back to—you are going to be confirmed, and you will be a very good Deputy Secretary, but within 

a week of your confirmation, if you personally could give me a telephone call and give me an update——

Mr. CONNER. Yes. I would be happy to do that, Senator, absolutely. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you want my telephone number? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNER. They know how to get hold of you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONNER. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Conner, you will find that every farmer in 

America is listening to this over C-SPAN today and your voice mail 

will be full——

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. By the time you get back. 

Mr. CONNER. Well——

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Coleman, Senator Baucus and I are 

going to go vote before the vote was ended close this down, so I am 

going to turn this over to you to wind up and let you have all the 

time you need for questions for Mr. Conner. 

Senator COLEMAN. This is a rare opportunity, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. He is under oath, so——

Mr. CONNER. They said you were my friend, Mr. Chairman. 

23

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just announce that the record will be left 

open until Friday, April 8. Mr. Conner, there may be written questions that will be submitted to you. I would urge you to get those 

back very quickly because it is my intention to bring your nomination to a vote as soon as possible next week. If you could get those 

right back to us, if there are any questions——

Mr. CONNER. We will do that, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Conner, it is a great pleasure to be with you today. I am 

looking forward, obviously, to supporting this nomination, looking 

forward to working with you. I appreciate the time you spent with 

us in Minnesota. I know you had some family conflicts there and 

figured out a way to make it happen and I am appreciative for 

that. 

I have just two questions and a statement. We had a chance in 

my office yesterday to raise some concerns and we don’t have to go 

over that again today. We did talk a little bit about the manner 

in which the quality loss provisions of the current disaster program 

for my wheat farmers is being implemented. 

Mr. CONNER. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. We have concerns under the new disaster program. The farmers are just out of luck if national adjustments are 

out of whack, which is what is happening in the local market. I just 

have some real concerns there. Can you give me some reassurance? 

Law should trump regulation. That is a pretty fair comment. I hope 

the USDA will carry out what is clear Congressional intent. Can 

you talk to me a little bit about this issue? 

Mr. CONNER. Senator Coleman, since our meeting yesterday, I 

have had a chance to very briefly, and I will say a little bit superficially, review this issue. What I have found is it is my understanding that the problem in Minnesota can be resolved if we provide some flexibility back to the State committees, to the Farm 

Service Agency State committee. In the case of—there is a similar 

problem in North Dakota, is what I understand, and I noted that 

there was a communication from Under Secretary Gebler to the 

North Dakota delegation in which some of that flexibility was 

granted in their particular case. 

I need a little bit further time to just review why additional flexibility would not be appropriate, as well, in the State of Minnesota, 

which again, is my understanding, would probably solve your 

issues there. 

Senator COLEMAN. I believe under the old disaster program, if 

quality adjustments nationally weren’t reflecting what was happening in the local markets, that the State FSAs had that kind of 

discretion. 

Mr. CONNER. That is my understanding, as well, Senator. 

Senator COLEMAN. That would go a long way to helping our problem. 

Mr. CONNER. We are on it, and I can assure you we will figure 

out what is going on there. 

Senator COLEMAN. The other issue I want to raise is I appreciate 

the President’s strong support for the MILC program. I am very 

24

appreciative of that and just want a clear sense of a commitment 

to helping us get this important program extended for 2007. 

Mr. CONNER. Yes. Senator, as you know, the President on multiple occasions indicated that he was strongly in favor of working 

with you and other members of this committee and the House side 

in extending that program. Certainly, that commitment remains 

good today and was reflected in the President’s budget and we look 

forward to that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Great. Just a last more of a statement rather 

than a question, two observations. One, standing behind a farm bill 

that still has a couple more years to go without, and this is not just 

to you, but we all have to stand behind the Farm bill. I am concerned in some of the budget discussions about the impact on growers and producers who have made commitments, saying these are 

the rules of the game. It is a little discouraging at times when 

there are budget proposals on the table that appear to put us in 

a position of changing those rules. It is hard for folks who have 

made commitments and work with their bankers and others with 

an expectation of what the lay of the land is to all of a sudden have 

a sense that land may be shifting. It is a little disconcerting. I just 

hope we continue to have great sensitivity to that and stand firm 

behind the bill that we have as we look forward to working on a 

new one. 

Then the last observation is on the issue of trade, that as we 

move forward on the WTO discussions, that again we stand behind 

this farm bill. That is important. It is important that our growers 

and producers are the great beneficiaries of trade. I understand 

that. On the other hand, as we negotiate bilateral and regional 

agreements, it sometimes pits one set of growers against another 

and that concerns me, deeply concerns me. 

If we can do the things we can to look at things and see that 

they are handled in a global context—sugar, for instance—we all 

would be better off. It is a little, I don’t know if the word is ‘‘dangerous,’’ but it is certainly a concern to me if we seem to be pitting 

one group of growers and producers against the other. Hopefully 

we will keep that in mind. 

I look forward to working with you. It is a great opportunity. The 

President has been tremendously supportive of agriculture, tremendously supportive, and the key to that is surrounding himself with 

great talent. Secretary Johanns was a friend of mine when he was 

the Mayor of Lincoln, Nebraska, and I was the Mayor of St. Paul, 

Minnesota, two capital cities. He is an extraordinary man and I 

said he is a really smart guy because he was educated, he and his 

wife, in Minnesota, so clearly that is a——

[Laughter.] 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. I know how smart he is. With 

that, I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. CONNER. Likewise, Senator Coleman. Thank you. 

Senator COLEMAN. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:36 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(25)

A P P E N D I X

APRIL 6, 2005

26


20614.001
27


20614.002
28


20614.003
29


20614.004
30


20614.005
31


20614.006
(33)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

APRIL 6, 2005

34


20614.007
35


20614.008
36


20614.009
37


20614.010
38


20614.011
39


20614.012
40


20614.013
41


20614.014
42


20614.015
43


20614.016
44


20614.017
45


20614.018
46


20614.019
47


20614.020
48


20614.021
49


20614.022
50


20614.023
51


20614.024
52


20614.025
53


20614.026
54


20614.027
55


20614.028
56


20614.029
57


20614.030
58


20614.031
59


20614.032
60


20614.033
61


20614.034
62


20614.035
63


20614.036
64


20614.037
65


20614.038
66


20614.039
67


20614.040
68


20614.041
69


20614.042
70


20614.043
71


20614.044
72


20614.045
73


20614.046
74


20614.047
75


20614.048
76


20614.049
77


20614.050
78


20614.051
79


20614.052
80


20614.053
81


20614.054
82


20614.055
83


20614.056
84


20614.057
85


20614.058
86


20614.059
87


20614.060
88


20614.061
89


20614.062
90


20614.063
(91)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

APRIL 6, 2005

92


20614.064
93


20614.065
94


20614.066
95


20614.067
96


20614.068
97


20614.069
98


20614.070
99


20614.071
100


20614.072
101


20614.073
102


20614.074
103


20614.075
104


20614.076
105


20614.077
106

Æ


20614.078