U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

30–130 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–639

REGIONAL FARM BILL FIELD HEARING: CAPE

GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

July 17, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

VERNIE HUBERT, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Regional Farm Bill Field Hearing: Cape Girardeau, Missouri ............................ 01

Monday, July 17, 2006

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

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

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

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S. Senator from Arkansas ........................................ 02

WITNESSES 

Emerson, Jo Ann, a U.S. Representative from Missouri ...................................... 07

Pane I 

Beetsma, Ron, Representing the National Grain Sorghum Producers ............... 16

Bredehoeft, Neal, Representing the American Soybean Association ................... 11

Combs, Paul T., Representing the Missouri Rice Council, USA Rice Producers 

Group, USA Rice Federation, and USA Rice Producers Association ............... 10

Helms, Allen, Representing the National Cotton Council .................................... 09

Hilgedick, Terry, Representing the Missouri Corn Growers Association and 

Environmental Resources Coalition ................................................................... 13

Thaemert, John, Representing the National Association of Wheat Growers ..... 17

Pane II 

Held, Jonothan, Representing WineAmerica ......................................................... 32

Purdum, Larry, Representing the Diary Farmers of America ............................. 33

Rogers, Ray, Representing the Arkansas Farm Bureau State Forestry Committee .................................................................................................................... 35

Sonnenberg, Dean, Representing the Sunflower Association .............................. 34

Pane III 

Briggs, Mike, Representing the National Turkey Federation .............................. 47

Hinkle, Jim, Representing the National Wild Turkey Federation ...................... 48

John, Mike, Representing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association ............... 45

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Beetsma, Ron .................................................................................................... 82

Bredehoeft, Neal ............................................................................................... 74

Briggs, Mike ...................................................................................................... 126

Combs, Paul T ................................................................................................... 63

Held, Jonothan .................................................................................................. 94

Helms, Allen ..................................................................................................... 58

Hilgedick, Terry ................................................................................................ 77

Hinkle, Jim ....................................................................................................... 133

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued

John, Mike ........................................................................................................ 119

Purdum, Larry .................................................................................................. 98

Rogers, Ray ....................................................................................................... 115

Sonnenberg, Dean ............................................................................................. 113

Thaemert, John ................................................................................................. 91

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement of Forestry in the state of Missouri .............................................. 146

Statement of Jane Williams on the behalf of the Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association ........................................................................................ 148

Statement of Max Thornsberry on the behalf of the R-CALF USa .............. 155

Statement of Missouri Department of Conservation ..................................... 165

Statement of Missouri School Nutrition Association ..................................... 168

Statement of National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture .................... 170

(1)

REGIONAL FARM BILL FIELD HEARING: CAPE 

GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI 

JULY 17, 2006

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Cape Girardeau, MO 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 AM on the campus 

of Southeast Missouri State University. The Honorable Saxby 

Chambliss, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Chambliss, Talent, and Lincoln. 

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

SENATOR FROM IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing will now come to order. 

First of all, let me welcome everybody to the second field hearing 

of the Senate Agriculture Committee. We’re very pleased to be in 

Cape Girardeau this morning. I want to thank all of our witnesses 

for taking time to be here. And they’re all busy and they’re all 

heavily involved in agriculture so for them to take away from their 

business at this time of the year, I know is critical, but we appreciate that very much. And for those of you who are here to just observe the hearing, thank you for taking time to be here. This is my 

second trip to Cape Girardeau. I’m pretty excited about being here 

today. My first trip to Cape Girardeau, I was not all that excited 

because it was, unfortunately, for the funeral of my dear personal 

friend and former colleague in the House, Congressman Bill Emerson. 

Bill was a true friend of mine, a true friend of Senator Lincoln, 

with whom he served in the House also, and Bill certainly was a 

strong advocate for agriculture. He taught me a lot about commitment, a lot about principle and a lot about faith as we worked together chairing the 1996 Farm Bill debate. 

And to come back to Bill’s home town and have a chance to, ultimately hear when she gets here, visit with his and recognize his 

widow Jo Ann Emerson, who so ably represents this congressional 

district now, is certainly a real pleasure for me. 

We’re going to be joined by Senator Jim Talent and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson shortly, and when we do—when they do 

join us, they will recognize a few other folks who are in the audience today so we’re going to save that until they get here. 

In the meantime, I am joined by my good friend and my colleague on the Senate Ag Committee, Senator Blanche Lincoln from 

the state of Arkansas. We have a number of witnesses from ArkanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY17.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
2

sas today and I’m sure a number of folks in the audience from Arkansas. And let me tell you, Blanche and I have been good friends 

for many years. This is my twelfth year in Congress. Blanche was 

a member of the House when I was elected to the House in 1994, 

and because we both have a keen interest in agriculture and other 

interests, too, in common, she and I became very good friends as 

well as good partners in working together toward what is in the 

best interests of American Agriculture. And I will have to tell you, 

there is no better partner for me when it comes to fighting for agriculture and promoting the interest of agriculture than Senator 

Blanche Lincoln. So I am really, really pleased that she could join 

us today and I will turn to her in just a minute for some comments. 

I want to thank Southeast Missouri State University and the 

people of Cape Girardeau for hosting us today. In particular, 

I’d like to recognize Doctor Ken Dobbins, President of the University, who will also join us shortly with Senator Talent and Congresswoman Emerson, as well as his assistant Debbie Bolton. I 

know they have spent many hours getting ready for this hearing 

and we greatly appreciate their hospitality and all the work that 

they have done. I also want to thank all of you for coming today, 

and I know many of you have traveled great distances to be here 

and we very much appreciate your interest and attendance at this 

important hearing. 

The committee held its first Farm Bill hearing on June 23rd of 

this year in Albany, Georgia, and I believe it was a complete success. As we continue to hear thoughts on the next Farm Bill from 

producers around the country, I look forward to hearing from the 

farmers and ranchers in this very important agricultural area. The 

committee also has hearings scheduled this week in Pennsylvania 

and a week from today in Iowa; and then we will be in Texas, Nebraska, Oregon and Montana during August. Our goal is to hear 

from producers in diversified regions as well as interests as we prepare for the next Farm Bill. We will hear today from a wide variety 

of agricultural sectors, and I especially want to thank our witnesses for taking time out of their schedules to be with us and providing their views. You are all extremely valuable to this Farm Bill 

Reauthorization process. As we approach the next farm bill, it is 

vitally important that farmers and ranchers from around the country have an opportunity to be on record with not only what they 

think of the current Farm Bill, but what they expect out of the 

next farm bill, so we look forward to your testimony. 

At this time, I would like to turn to Senator Lincoln for any comments she has before we begin the testimony of our witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINCOLN A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly 

want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing, but certainly 

for his incredible leadership. He is accurate, we are a good partner 

when it comes to working hard on behalf of American Agriculture. 

It means a tremendous amount to both of our states, and it’s a delight to work with and I’m proud to do so and look forward to what 

we’ve go ahead of us in terms of working through the issues of a 

new farm bill. But I do appreciate his leadership. He is always 

3

there for us and always working hard on behalf of agriculture and 

the issues of the committee. I also want to say a special thanks to 

the Southeast Missouri folks here for doing such a tremendous job 

in setting us up and having a great place for venue. I want to 

thank all of our panelists, but I particularly want to thank, and 

make a personal welcome, to several of the Arkansans that are 

here testifying. Of course Allen Helms is on the first panel. Allen 

is with National Cotton Council and he is a neighbor of mine over 

there in East Arkansas and I’m proud of all of the impressive leadership he has provided for production agriculture and agriculture 

in general in this country. Mr. Ray Rogers from Nashville, Arkansas, who does a great job and will—I think you will see, has a tremendous insight into the timber and forestry industry in Arkansas 

and nationally. We’re proud to have him. And my good friend Jim 

Hinkle, who also will be here with the Wild Turkey Federation 

from Mountain View, who is also a longtime friend and somebody 

I trust, who has good common sense and forward thinking in terms 

of what it is we’re looking for in the nation’s capital, that’s going 

to reflect well on the people we represent in our home state. 

I also appreciate the time that everyone has taken to come here. 

I think these are very important arenas for us to be able to discuss 

the issues. The Chairman has provided us this opportunity as one 

that we must seize, and that is to come out into the country and 

look at all of the diverse issues that we deal with in the farm bill. 

As he mentioned, there will be many more of these in other parts 

of the country. We know that agriculture is essential to our nation’s economy. We also know that it’s a part of our way of life. But 

we also know that it is different across the country and it is important for all agriculture to be well understood in the farm bill and 

certainly to be given the kind of safety net, as well as other components in the farm bill that are going to allow our producers all 

across this country to continue to provide a safe and abundant and 

affordable food supply. So we’re excited about not just today’s hearing, but also the ones that will follow that provide the kind of 

knowledge and unique insight into our nation’s farm policy that we 

need as we go into performing that task of redoing the 2007 Farm 

bill. 

I am a farmer’s daughter. I come from a seventh generation Arkansas farm family in East Arkansas. My dad was a rice farmer 

in the Arkansas, Mississippi delta. But I’m also a United States 

Senator and I’m proud to be able to bring those two things together 

in a way that I hope to be productive for Arkansas and for our 

country. I certainly take a tremendous amount of pride in telling 

others about the farmers that I represent in Arkansas, and what 

American farmers provide this nation and the world. I think today 

we enjoy the opportunity to hear firsthand, certainly farmers and 

those involved from my state and across the mid-south about the 

importance of the farm safety net and the role that it plays in their 

ability, and all of our ability, to provide a safe and abundant and 

affordable food supply that all Americans really depend on and 

sometimes take for granted. And that’s why it’s so important that 

we have these types of hearings where we can really, you know, 

better understand what it is we need to provide producers in order 

4

for them to continue to do the incredible job that we know that 

they can do and have been doing. 

So as we gear up for the next farm bill, I hope all of you will 

keep in close contact with me, and certainly with the committee 

and my colleagues on the Senate committee. We have a task ahead 

of us. It’s going to be filled with a lot of different types of issues 

as we go into much of the trade initiatives that are out there, as 

well as the safety net programs and some of the things that we 

want to see ourselves meeting as we go into those trade talks. And 

so I’m excited about that opportunity but definitely with the understanding of knowing that without the input from you all, we cannot 

be as productive as we possibly should be and could bee. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to welcome our colleagues 

here, Senator Talent and my good friend Jo Ann Emerson. Jo Ann 

and I served as co-chairs of the Delta Regional Authority Caucus 

and a whole host of other things. She is a delight to work with, as 

is Senator Talent, and I will mention, as Saxby did, how wonderfully I was received by Bill Emerson when I first came to the Congress in 1992. He was just wonderful. We had a conversation on 

the phone for 45 minutes the first time I called Bill, and I told him, 

I said, ‘‘You know, in my part of the country when you move into 

the neighborhood, you take somebody a batch of rolls or a pie or 

a cake,’’ and I said, ‘‘My cooking is not that bad, I just don’t have 

a whole lot of time.’’ And he was real cute, and we visited for 45 

minutes and when we hung up, he said, ‘‘You know, I’ve spoken 

with you more, or longer, than your predecessor in 20 years.’’ And 

he said—so Bill and I immediately initiated the civility caucus. 

And we had some wonderful meetings. And maybe—hopefully we 

can continue a lot of that, but we certainly do with our colleagues 

here in Missouri, and so we’re delighted to be here with them. 

Senator TALENT. Sometimes that caucus can meet in a phone 

booth in Washington. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. That’s true. That’s true. Well, Bill and I certainly made sure we met, and Jo Ann and I meet too. So thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of you all for being here. 

Thank you, Blanche, for making the trip out today, too, and 

being with us. And we are now joined by, as I said earlier, my good 

friends Jim Talent and Jo Ann Emerson. Jim and I served together 

in the House. Our offices actually were right across the hall from 

each other, during my—during his last couple of years in the 

House, and Jim Talent brings a lot of knowledge about agriculture 

to the Senate Ag Committee. But what he mainly brings is a strong 

work ethic. Jim, again, is one of those folks that were in your fox—

when you’re on the foxhole, you want him in there with you, particularly when it comes to agriculture. Jim is just a terrific guy. 

He’s a good friend and we also served on the Senate Armed Services Committee together. And there are a few interests in Missouri 

relative to airplanes and some other military issues that Jim is just 

as strong an advocate for as he is for agriculture. So, Jim, thanks 

for hosting us here today and allowing us to come to Southeast 

Missouri State, and I told him we’re going to leave the introduction 

of some local officials and whatnot to you, so I will turn to my dear 

friend Jim Talent at this point. 

5

Senator TALENT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I want to 

thank you and Senator Lincoln for being here. I think Senator Lincoln’s presence shows that this is a regional effort here. 

In other words, the hearing of the Senate—the Agriculture Committee, but we’re looking for the input from regional agriculture. 

We have a number of great witnesses, and we want to know what 

people think needs to happen with the farm bill. 

It’s an honor to have you here, Mr. Chairman, and you’re going 

to find out, if you don’t already know, that Missouri is a crossroads 

of American agriculture, just like it’s a crossroads of the country 

as a whole. It’s a very diverse state. We have a lot of—a wide range 

of climates and topography. I like to tell people we are seventh in 

both soybean and watermelon production. Which tells you a little 

about the diversity of Missouri agriculture. We’re second in beef 

cow operations, third in the number of turkeys raised. We really 

do have a little bit of everything. And Missouri is a big part of a 

national agricultural economy that produces and we should never 

forget it’s the safest and the most abundant, the best tasting, least 

expensive food supply, not only in the world but in the history of 

the world. There’s a lot of good people in the production chain who 

deserve credit for that, but at the heart of food production in the 

United States, and also at the center of our rural communities that 

produce our food and fiber, is the American family farmer and 

rancher. And that’s why I have been assuring everybody, as you 

have been and Senator Lincoln has been, that we are going to write 

a farm bill that supports our family farming and ranching sector 

and it’s going to be written by us in the congress, primarily the 

House and Senate Agriculture Committee. We’re—it’s not going to 

be written by our trade representatives, it’s not going to be written 

by our trading partners and it’s not going to be written by the Office of Management and Budget. So that’s why we are here and 

they are not here to get input in terms of what ought to be in that 

farm bill. I’m also a believer that it would be very unfair of us to 

change our programs, particularly to lessen or diminish them, 

while we’re in the midst of ongoing International Trade Organization. That’s why Senator Lincoln and I co-sponsored legislation to 

extend the current farm bill until well after any—the Doha round 

is completed and any new agreement has been enforced. We don’t 

want the people we’re negotiating with to believe that we’re going 

to unilaterally disarm. No matter what anybody suggests, that’s 

not going to happen. We are going to support our—we’re going to 

support programs on our family farmers and we’re not going to 

change those programs unless and until we get a good deal in 

things like market access, and that good deal is going to have go 

through the Congress to be effective. 

I also want to mention, Mr. Chairman, I’ve done this a lot 

around Missouri, what does the safe and inexpensive food supply 

cost the Federal taxpayer? Of course it’s an enormous boon on balance to our economy. But the domestic support programs are threequarters of 1 percent of the total Federal budget. For that, we sustain an agriculture industry that produces 25 million jobs, threeand-a-half trillion dollars in economic activity, and more important, 

gives us the security of knowing that we can feed our own people 

no matter what. We’re never going to be at the mercy of foreign 

6

countries with regard to food as we currently are, at least to some 

extent, with regard to energy. 

George Washington wrote in 1796 that agriculture is of primary 

importance in proportion to the nation’s advance in population and 

in other circumstances, and in Missouri, this truth becomes more 

apparent and renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an 

object of public patronage. I think he saw that we were going to 

be the storehouse and granary for the whole world, which is what 

we’ve become, and we’re all committed to that and we know that 

part of that bottom is the family farmer and rancher. And I certainly would agree with Senator Lincoln. I think that this is one 

of the great things about serving on this committee is that we do—

try and do things in a pretty bi-partisan fashion. We have our disagreements, but they’re honest disagreements; we get them out on 

the table; and we resolve them. 

I get to introduce Jo Ann Emerson, but before I do that, I want 

to acknowledge several local dignitaries who I understand are here. 

I know Ken Dobbins is here. Ken is the President of Southeast Missouri University. Ken, thank you for being here. 

And Doctor Randy Shaw, who is the Dean of the School of Polytechnic Studies. Where is Randy? I’m told he—thank you for being 

here, Randy. We also have two of our great state senators, Jason 

Crowell and Rob Mayer are here. Jason is from Cape Girardeau 

and Rob is from—Yeah, we just came from—we just came from a 

ribbon cutting for the Show Mobile, which is a great—it’s going to 

be a great touring rural health care facility. We’re going to bring 

a wellness care, as well as a primary care, to people all around 

Southeast Missouri. 

Also—I don’t know if he’s here or in the Show Mobile, but Nathan Cooper is the state representative of Cape Girardeau, and 

Billy Pat Wright, Billy Pat from Dexter is here. Thank you for coming. 

And I know Jo and I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, we had 

a loss yesterday—in Plains we had a loss yesterday. Ott Bean, a 

great state representative—you knew him, I think, Blanche, lost 

his long battle with cancer. 

It was yesterday, wasn’t it, Jo? 

Ms. EMERSON. No, this morning. 

Senator TALENT. This morning. And we don’t—I think Ott would 

probably want us to get on with the hearing and not be preoccupied 

with him, but I wanted to mention that to those who did not know 

and ask that you would keep his family in your prayers. 

It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce a really, really great 

lady, a classy congresswoman, a woman who fights for Southeast 

Missouri like a tiger in the congress, and is also a great and good 

friend of mine, and all of us here, really. She just does a fantastic 

job, including on agriculture, and I know she wants to make a few 

comments. And it’s a sign of how—how highly thought of Jo Ann 

Emerson is that she is—here we are at a Senate Agriculture Committee Hearing and she is sitting here at the table with us. 

Senator LINCOLN. And I’ll say, we initiated it, that they didn’t 

give her a subpoena. 

[Laughter.] 

7

Senator TALENT. A Senator is voluntarily giving up time to a 

House member. It just goes to show you. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF JO ANN EMERSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI 

Ms. EMERSON. I want to thank you, Jim. Thank you all very 

much. I really appreciate this moment of time to be an honorary 

Senator I don’t relish the work that you all have to do in the Senate, just given your lack of rule that——

[Laughter.] 

Ms. EMERSON. Anyway, I do want to say, first of all, Jim and 

Senator Chambliss and Senator Lincoln, I greatly appreciate this 

opportunity. Just—I have to take a couple of minutes. 

You know, Jim has come—we go together on farm tours every 

summer, and really learn so much from all of our producers, 

whether they are row crop, livestock, dairy, you name it, and, seriously, when you don’t grow up on a farm, Like Blanche did, we 

have to learn from our producers, and I can’t begin to tell you how 

much we have learned from all of you and I want to thank you for 

it, and I’m just so thrilled that we can have Senator Talent on the 

Ag Committee, because agriculture is the most important part of 

our Missouri economy and I’m very proud of the fact that we, in 

Southeast Missouri, the 8th District, have the most diverse agricultural district in the state and one of the most diverse in the country, growing everything but citrus and sugar. I also want to say, 

about Senator Lincoln, that she——

Senator TALENT. And we’re open to that, by the way. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. EMERSON. And so—do you know how much it costs to convert 

sugar beets to ethanol, right? And Senator Lincoln and I have 

worked a long time together, both in Agriculture on the Delta regional—our Delta Regional Caucus, on the Mississippi Valley Flood 

Control Association issues, and there is really no better friend that 

we could have from the other party, but I really don’t think of her 

as of the—of the other party at all because, as Jim says, and we 

all say, on agriculture issues, we work as a team and it’s very 

much more regional in nature. And Blanche’s successor, Marion 

Berry, who represents her old congressional district, and I pretty 

well introduce every bill -- AG bill together just like Bill and 

Blanche did, just like Jim and Blanche do as well. And then let me 

say about Senator Chambliss, whom I have known for many, many, 

many years, what an enormous opportunity we have having him as 

chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. You all probably 

don’t remember, or maybe you do, that back in 1996 when we were 

writing the Farm Bill of 1996, it was Saxby, Bill Emerson, Richard 

Baker and Larry Combest who was the past House Ag Chairman, 

who actually held out and we would not have ever had the concept 

of an LDP in place had it not been for the four of them. And I can’t 

tell you how important that has been to the sustaining our agriculture here in Southeast Missouri. But even more importantly, I 

have to say—and I realize that we have media here so I am on 

record saying this, I am so pleased that we have the Senate actually taking the lead on writing the farm bill this year, because 

8

when you have the nexus of the Midwest and the Mid-south, if we 

don’t have folks who understand southern agriculture and rice and 

cotton, then we just get policies that will be not good. And so with 

you all at the helm, and Senator Talent there fighting for us, I 

mean, we’re just blessed and I want to thank you all so much. I’m 

just glad that it turned out that way this year that the Senate 

takes the lead on that. You know, I have these prepared remarks 

and I know that for the record you’re supposed to give them, but 

certainly all of our Senate colleagues very well understand that—

how critical it is, No. 1, that agriculture not be taken hostage in 

any kind of budget reconciliation legislation we do. They have been 

in the forefront. I think we’ve all worked really well together in 

making sure that our negotiators at the World Trade Organization 

understand, as Jim says, that we will not unilaterally disarm. I’m 

very pleased that we had a really good effort in the Senate like we 

did in the House, in trying to extend the farm bill. Certainly that’s 

my position, and it wasn’t as popular in the House as it was in the 

Senate, you all, but needless to say, I think we understand what 

is at stake here, but I think—I’m hopeful that, again, that you all 

will hear in this hearing, and I apologize for having to leave, we 

have votes tonight so I actually have to head back to Saint Louis 

to catch a plane, but we all have a lot of challenges and we know 

we have a lot of challenges in drafting the next farm bill. Obviously 

not knowing exactly what kind of money we’re dealing with is one 

thing, but I know that you all will do the great job that you always 

do on this front to ensure that the hopes and dreams and desires 

of out producers and our constituents will take the lead in writing 

the next farm bill. 

And certainly, as I said, the Senate—I can count on you all more, 

I think, than the House side to make that happen. And so I just 

look forward to—and I want to thank you all for coming to Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri, my home town, to conduct this very, very important hearing for the future of agriculture. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Jo Ann, for joining us. 

And we wouldn’t dare come to Cape Girardeau without you being 

here. I’ve already told these folks I’m much more excited about 

being here this time than I was at Bill’s funeral last time. He was 

such an inspiration to so many of us and to have you follow in his 

footsteps is really a lot of fun for us because you bring a lot of Bill 

Emerson to—he was not just a great inspiration, but a great friend 

to me and you bring so much of him to the table. So thanks for 

being here this morning. 

All right, we’re going to start with our first of three panels this 

morning. And I will introduce this panel and, gentlemen, the way 

I introduce you is the way that you will give your opening remarks, 

and Allen, we’re going to start with you. 

Allen Helms is from Clarkedale, Arkansas. He represents the 

National Cotton Council. 

Paul T. Combs from Kennett——

Ms. EMERSON. Kennett. 

The CHAIRMAN. In South Georgia, it would be pronounced Kennett—representing the Missouri Rice Counsel, USA Rice Producers 

Group, USA Rice Federation, and US Rice Producers Association. 

Mr. Neal Bredehoeft, Alma, Missouri—now we have an Alma, 

9

Georgia, I know I’m not going to mess that one up, representing 

the American Soybean Association. 

Mr. Terry Hilgedick, from Jefferson City, Missouri, representing 

the Missouri Corn Growers Association and the Environmental Resources Coalition. 

Mr. Ron Beetsma, Chillicothe, Missouri, representing the National Grain Sorghum Producers. 

And Mr. John Thaemert, Sylvan Grove, Kansas, representing the 

National Association of Wheat Growers. 

Gentlemen, welcome this morning and Allen, we’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALLEN HELMS, NATIONAL COTTON 

COUNCIL 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for holding this hearing and providing the opportunity to 

present testimony on current and future farm policy. 

My name is Helms. I operate a diversified farming operation and 

gin in Clarkedale, Arkansas. I also serve as Chairman of the National Cotton Council. There are several key reasons for the stability of cotton production in Missouri, West Tennessee and Arkansas. They include the successful boll weevil eradication, stable and 

effective farm program and new cultural practices and technology. 

Unfortunately, the US textile industry has not fared as well. Cotton farmers are deeply concerned with the loss of our manufacturing customer base. We are committed to work with them. Manufacturers have indicated strong interest in making revisions to our 

Step 3 import policy and developing a possible WTO compliant replacement for Step 2. 

Rapid decline in raw cotton consumption by domestic mills has 

created challenges for cotton farmers who must identify export 

markets to replace domestic consumption. This adjustment places 

added pressure on our infrastructure including surface transportation and port facilities. While the cotton fiber is our principal 

product, cottonseed and its products account for 12 percent of the 

value of the crop. As ethanol production increases, one of the byproducts, dried distillers’ grain, has depressed the value of cottonseed and meal, a not intended consequence that adversely affects 

farmers, cottonseed processors and merchants. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your efforts to develop and maintain a sound agricultural policy which is so important to this area 

and to the nation. I also want to acknowledge the work by Senators 

Talent and Lincoln in—that they have devoted to maintain sound 

policies. We believe the current farm law provides a stable and effective national farm policy, a combination of direct and countercyclical payments provide an effective means of income support 

without distorting planting decisions. Direct payment provides financial stability required by our lenders and suppliers, those who 

would promote replacement of counter-cyclical payment with a 

higher direct payments risk taking land out of producers hands, so 

it is important to maintain a balance. Also, higher direct payments 

would cause unexpected problems with payment limits. We strongly support continuation of the marketing loan. Marketing loans respond to low prices, it does not cause low prices. It is effective because it triggers when necessary, and it ensures that US cotton 

10

farmers are not residual suppliers. It is also critical that all production remain eligible for the marketing loan. Arbitrary limits signal our competitors that we are willing to be competitive on only 

a part of our production. 

Frankly, most cotton farmers in the majority of the industry 

would be satisfied with an extension of current laws, the provisions 

in the legislation authored by Senators Talent and Lincoln. They 

want more US—we are increasingly concerned over the Doha Negotiations. Other countries cannot match the US level of market access. We should either withdraw or reduce our effort or offer our 

domestic support. I also want to emphasize that the agreement 

that singles out US cotton for additional inequitable trade will not 

be accepted by US cotton producers. 

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

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

for all US agriculture. Thank you for this opportunity to testify 

today and I will be pleased to respond to question at the appropriate time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Helms can be found in the appendix on page 58.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Combs. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL T. COMBS, CHAIRMAN, USA RICE 

PRODUCERS GROUP 

Mr. COMBS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Talent, 

Senator LINCOLN. I’m Paul T. Combs, a rice producer and farmer 

from Kennett, Missouri. I serve on the Missouri Rice Council and 

I’m chairman of the USA Rice Producers Group and my testimony 

today is on behalf of both USA Rice Federation and the US Rice 

Producers Association. As Congress prepares for the next farm bill, 

the US rice industry supports maintaining an effective farm safety 

net that includes a marketing loan program as well as income support payments and planting flexibility. At this time, rice producers 

and others in production agriculture face an uncertain farm policy 

due to repeated proposals to cut our farm programs and the ongoing Doha Agreement. For these and other reasons, the US rice industry supports extension of the 2002 Farm Bill in its current form 

until such time as the WTO provides a multilateral trade agreement that has been approved by Congress. 

There are a number of key factors that support extending the 

2002 Farm Bill until a final WTO agreement is in place. 

One, any reduction of current programs and spending levels on 

the farm bill results in unilateral disarmament by the US and ultimately weakens our negotiating position with other countries. 

And, two, writing a farm bill in advance of a final WTO agreement could result in a very short-term bill that must be rewritten 

when new trade bills are in place. 

No. 3, the 2002 Farm Bill was a fiscally responsible approach too 

farm policy and provides a safety net when needed. 

As you know, my Senators Jim Talent and Kit Bond, along with 

Senator Lincoln and other Senators have introduced a measure in 

the Senate to extend the current farm bill through the crop year 

11

after Congress approves a WTO agreement and we support such 

practical legislation. 

To be a viable family farm, we must use economies of scale to 

justify the large capital investment costs associated with farming 

today. Payment limits have the negative effect of penalizing viable 

family farms the most when crop prices are the lowest and support 

is the most critical. 

The US rice industry opposes any further reduction in the payment limit levels provided under the current bill, and we appreciate the efforts of the Chairman and the members of this committee to cut through the rhetoric of those who apparently would 

like to see reductions in support of rice and other farm families, 

and for your efforts in continuing to focus on the realities of the 

US food and fiber production system. 

Forty to fifty percent of the annual US rice crop is exported, so 

trade is clearly good for our industry, and despite the continuing 

trend toward market liberalization, rice outside the United States 

has remained among the most protected agricultural products. In 

addition, US policies intended to punish foreign nations to encourage regime change, disproportionately hurt US rice producers. Unilaterally imposed US trade sanctions have played a key role in destabilizing the rice industry at certain times and restraining its 

long term market potential in countries such as Cuba, Iran and 

Iraq. In conclusion, US farm policy must provide a stabilizing balance to markets and reliable planning horizon for producers. We 

urge you to recognize how well the current farm bill is working for 

US agriculture and to consider ways to maintain its structure as 

we begin the debate on the next farm bill. In the interim, however, 

the US rice industry supports an extension of the 2002 bill. 

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for holding this hearing in Missouri 

today and the opportunity for the US rice industry to express our 

views on our nation’s farm policies. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Combs can be found in the appendix on page 63.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Bredehoeft. 

STATEMENT OF NEAL BREDEHOEFT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln 

and Senator Talent. I’m Neal Bredehoeft, soybean, corn and hog 

farmer from Alma, Missouri and a member of the American Soybean Association Board of Directors, and until last week, served as 

SA’s chairman. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today. 

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

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

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

farm legislation next year. Unfortunately, the current budget baseline for farm program spending declines over the next ten years 

and will probably not accommodate the expected outlays based on 

current support levels. We would need additional funding, as was 

made available in 2001 for the 2002 Farm Bill, in order to extend 

existing programs. Given the outlook for Federal budget deficits, as 

12

opposed to surpluses in the coming years, we will be fortunate to 

keep the funding level we have. 

And after facing cuts in the agriculture budget last year, we can 

expect Congress to consider further reductions in spending after 

the elections this fall. So budge factors alone are likely to force 

Congress to look at changing the current farm bill in this year’s—

in next year’s farm bill. 

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

farm program is the potential for additional WTO challenges of 

current programs. We are familiar with the results of the Brazil’s 

case against the US cotton program last year. In order to avoid 

sanctions, the US will need to change the Direct Payment program 

to eliminate the planting restrictions on fruit and vegetable crops. 

Also, both the Marketing Loan and Counter-Cyclical Programs 

were found to cause serious prejudice and could be subject to other 

crops, including soybeans. 

We’re also watching the current negotiations on WTO agreements. Last October, the Administration offered to make a 60 percent reduction in outlays permitted under the most production and 

trade-distorting programs, including the Marketing Loan and dairy 

and sugar price supports, and a 53 percent overall reduction in all 

trade-distorting programs. ASA and other farm organizations are 

insisting that importing countries make equally aggressive reductions in their tariffs, including on soybean and livestock products. 

If an agreement is reached and approved by Congress next year, 

we will need to make major changes in current farm programs. 

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

that, No. 1, there be no further cuts in the CCC budget baseline 

for agriculture spending; No. 2, that farm programs not distort 

planting decisions between crops; and that, three, that future programs be WTO compliant to avoid challenges like the cotton case. 

To explore alternatives, ASA organized a Farm Bill Task Force last 

year, which has been working with other farm organizations to look 

at so-called Green Box programs that would be considered nontrade distorting under the WTO. 

The result of this analysis indicate a variety of options that 

would guarantee 70 percent of historical income and would still be 

WTO compliant. These options include basing the guarantee on 

whole farm versus specific commodity income, looking at using either net or gross income, and guaranteeing income for only program crops, for program crops and horticulture crops, and also livestock. The cost of these options range from 3.3 billion dollars per 

year to up 10 billion dollars per year for a 70 percent guarantee. 

Neither ASA nor any other organization participating in this 

analysis has endorsed the revenue guarantee concept. 

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

programs to create a more effective safety net for producers. 

Mr. Chairman, ASA is also very supportive of proposals to 

strengthen conservation, energy, research and trade titles for the 

2002 Farm Bill. We are particularly interested in looking at programs that would support soybeans as a source of renewable energy and to promote domestic biodiesel production through the 

Commodity Credit Corporation. The CCC has operated a bio-energy 

13

program since 2001, providing payments to biodiesel producers who 

utilize domestic feed stocks such as soybean oil. This program has 

facilitated expansion of domestic biodiesel production, but the program sunsets after 2006. Therefore, ASA urges Congress to authorize and fund a biodiesel bio-energy program. With regard to conservation and research, we are concerned by recent actions that 

have depleted funding for these programs in order to pay for disaster assistance or to cover budget reduction commitments. ASA 

supports increasing funding for conservation payments to producers on working lands such as through the Conservation Security 

Program. We also believe that a significant number of acres currently locked up in the Conservation Reserve Program could be 

farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner, given the enormous increase in no-till farming practices that have been implemented over the past 10 or 15 years. 

Finally, we strongly support maintaining funding for trade promotion activities under the Foreign Market Development and Market Access Programs, and for international food aid. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bredehoeft can be found in the 

appendix on page 74.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Hilgedick. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY HILGEDICK, PRESIDENT, MISSOURI 

CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HILGEDICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Missouri’s 15,655 corn farmers, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

this morning. My name is Terry Hilgedick. I’m a farmer from Central Missouri. I also serve as president of the Missouri Corn Growers Association and a board member of the Environmental Resources Coalition. Before discussing MCGA’s recommendation for 

the Farm Bill, allow me to show a bit of our environmental success 

story right here in Missouri. While data shows most corn growers 

are good stewards of the land, MCGA is working with producers to 

help them do an even better job of protecting the environment by 

accelerating the adoption of farming practices that improve water 

quality while maintaining or improving profitability. With those 

goals in mind, the MCGA has assembled a partnership of businesses, as well as governmental organizations, to proactively address water quality and environmental issues. It’s known as the 

Environmental Resources Coalition. This coalition is dedicated to 

maintaining, improving and enhancing land and water resources. 

In order to accomplish such a mission, ERC partnered with such 

governmental agencies as the Environmental Protection Agency, 

the United States Department of Agriculture, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of Agriculture 

and Agriculture Research Service, as well as industry groups such 

and Syngenta and Bayer. 

MCGA and its affiliate ERC, are committed to quality agricultural stewardship. This is evident in many agricultural/environmental projects which we are currently involved in. 

One of those projects, our first project, is called the WRASP program. The WRASP program dealt with the scientific discovery of 

14

how atrazine and its metabolites move throughout the entire watershed, including losses at field level and transport through the 

stream and river basins. Essential Best Management Practices for 

atrazine were developed that allow farmers to continue to use the 

product while limiting its exposure to the environment. WRASP 

was the second—was the largest automated collection project of its 

kind in the country. 

The scientific results were very positive and are currently being 

prepared for publication. 

The Stewardship Implementation Project will be viewed as the 

second stage of WRASP. It’s the implementation of a lot of the lessons learned from the WRASP research. It seeks to take the management practices developed by WRASP and disseminate them 

throughout key watersheds by engaging farmers in a friendly onfarm demonstration. A key goal for the SIP project is the fair implementation of the TMDL process, the total maximum daily load 

requirement. Additionally, data acquired in the SIP project has 

been used successfully to remove four water-bodies from the state 

303d list, which is a list of impaired water bodies compiled by the 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 

Generally speaking, MCGA and ERC support the Conservation 

Title of the current farm bill. We seek to maintain current and future funding levels at their maximum level. The general consensus 

of corn farmers is that direct payments in the commodity title of 

the bill should not be sacrificed by replacing them with increased 

conservation funding. That being said, we do have thoughts and 

suggestions we would like to offer on the Conservation portion of 

the Farm Bill. 

The 2007 Farm Bill should reinforce the original commitment of 

the Conservation Reserve Program to soil conservation rather than 

wildlife habitat. With that focus in mind, we should continue to enroll and give deference to taking the most environmentally fragile 

acres out of production. CRP management practices should be 

broadened to be more flexible to those with land enrolled in the 

program. For instance, if soil conservation is the primary focus of 

the program, allowing farmers to periodically mow CRP acres 

makes more sense than requiring tillage of those acres. 

We need to collectively evaluate the future of the vast resources 

of the nearly 40 million acres in the CRP program. Do we have a 

long-term plan for this resource? Where are we going with the resource? Will this be maintained as a land bank? 

Will it be returned to production? Can the less fragile acres be 

developed as a cellulosic ethanol reserve bank? 

The Conservation Security Program. The current implementation 

is not streamlined and consistent from county to county. We need 

forward-looking programs that the CSP will require more specially 

trained staff than before, not less. A better, more uniformly applied 

process for application, coupled with properly trained technical assistance providers, would go a long way toward improving this valuable program. 

The current program does not seem to adequately reward growers for past conservation practices implemented, such as terracing. 

There is a disproportionate incentive to encourage new conservation practices. That scenario seems to set up a double standard as 

15

those who have been stewards of the land for a long time and do 

not receive the same reward as those spurred to implement such 

practices by incentives provided by CSP. 

Recently atrazine received full re-registration from the EPA. Our 

WRASP data played a role in proving that farmers can successfully 

manage atrazine in an environmentally friendly manner. Atrazine 

is a valuable tool used in corn production and its loss would have 

cost producers billions of dollars per year to find alternatives. In 

spite of this, the CSP program takes a dim view of atrazine in the 

pest management section. The pesticide management component is 

based on an outdated Window Pesticide Screening tool standard for 

a herbicide’s environmental impact. Under this standard, any crop 

using any amount of atrazine does not qualify for payments under 

CSP. Our WRASP project directly contradicts the standard by proving that atrazine can be a benefit to the environment and farmers 

through prudent and responsible application and use. 

On to the Commodity Title. We believe that American producers 

are best served by an extension of the commodity title of the 2002 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act until a WTO agreement 

is reached. It is nearly impossible to formulate a comprehensive 

new policy with an unknown farm subsidy and trade variables 

hanging over our head. While the satisfaction level with the current bill is high, the 2002 bill is not perfect. In a given year, large 

crops at low prices allow raiding of the marketing loan program 

while growers in short crop areas in the same year are largely left 

out of the safety net. Since loan deficiency payments are based on 

current year production, revenue suffers from the reduced production as well as overall farm program benefits. 

Recommendation for the Energy Title of the Farm Bill. A wave 

of renewable fuel growth has been a God-send for rural America. 

Expansion of the farmer-owned ethanol industry can be considered 

one of the brightest spots on rural economies today. 

We attribute these successes to the entrepreneurial spirit of 

American farmers and the assistance of the Farm Bill. Any new 

farm bill must have an energy title to continue the revitalization 

of rural America. 

As significant as the WTO is, it is not nearly as important as an 

energy component in the 2007 bill. The demand for corn created by 

the ethanol industry will influence corn prices more substantially 

than will any increased exports resulting from the WTO agreement. More needs to be done to foster domestic market access rather than dealing with all too fickle foreign markets which may or 

may not materialize from a WTO agreement. 

The Federal Renewable Fuel Standard was a monumental accomplishment which provides a baseline for renewable fuel usage 

nationwide. We are open to a wise and prudent upward adjustment 

to the standard as needed to help foster the renewable fuels industry out of its infancy and into maturity. 

As our farmers move closer to providing the energy needs of our 

nation through ethanol and biodiesel production, an expansion of 

the RFS will ensure that our homegrown products have a position 

in the marketplace. 

One final point deals with crop insurance. The Federal crop insurance program can be improved with a modification to the proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY17.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
16

gram what would offer better protection to farmers without substantial cost increases. High risk designations all too often exclude 

growers that would otherwise participate in crop insurance. A subject close to the hearts of many Missouri farmers is crop insurance 

for losses caused by the man-made spring rise on the Missouri 

River. Farmers in the Missouri River valleys are being put into an 

impossible position. The level of risk that they are being asked to 

withstand is unconscionable. The inflexibility of the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers and the USDA 

through this whole process has been monumental. Although we 

have made it through one spring rise without substantial harm, do 

not assume that government imposed flowing and crop damage will 

not happen in future years. 

In summation, we believe the 2002 Farm Bill is, for the most 

part, is meeting the needs of American agriculture by acting as an 

effective safety net for our food, fiber and fuel producers. We support policies that enables American farmers to be globally competitive, responsive to markets and environmentally responsible. We 

look for programs to provide producers with access to global markets, access to capital, advances in technology and risk management. As mentioned, there are modifications that should be made 

to enhance some programs and we look forward to working with 

our partners in Missouri agriculture and the US Congress to make 

any necessary changes. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilgedick can be found in the appendix on page 77.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Beetsma. 

STATEMENT OF RON BEETSMA, DELEGATE, NATIONAL 

SORGHUM PRODUCERS 

Mr. BEETSMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for the opportunity to express my views on the next farm bill 

and the impact the farm bill will have on our family farming operation. I am Ron Beetsma. I serve as a delegate to the National Sorghum Producers. I am a partner in our family farm operation near 

Chillicothe, Missouri, where I farm with my two sons and a brother 

and operate 6500 acres. Planting sorghum is ergonomically smart—

is an ergonomically smart thing for me to do on my farm. Sorghum 

is a profitable crop that uses fewer inputs than other crops, helping 

me hedge my risk against summer heat and drought. Our farm 

also produces corn and soybeans, and we are involved in a farmerowned ethanol, biodiesel and food processing cooperatives and a 

farm-run Identity Preserves venture. I understand that foreign policy may look extremely different 5 years from now because of a potential WTO agreement and the current budget situation. If that 

is the case, I ask that you keep in mind the cyclical nature of the 

agricultural economy. Any new farm programs need to be available 

to the family farm operations like mine when the agricultural economy slows down. Looking at the current farm programs, direct payments and marketing loan programs provide our operation with the 

most protection. If Congress is to change our current programs, I 

ask that the committee preserve the equitable relationship between 

commodities. Also I would like to ask, if we do have a WTO agreeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY17.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
17

ment and we change our farm program, that those changes be vetted with the ag industry. 

I am more concerned about having good policy than I am in rushing to change the current programs because our farm laws are expiring. Regarding conservation programs, sorghum is a water sipping crop and it uses less water than other crops in my rotation. 

If a greener farm bill is to be developed, I ask that those programs 

reward crops that use less water and need fewer inputs. For example, the EQIP Program works well, but I am told by fellow sorghum 

farmers that they have seen overall water use actually increase 

rather than decrease. 

Finally, ethanol production is also making sorghum producers 

money. Fifteen percent of the sorghum crop is made into ethanol. 

But that’s about the same percentage as the corn crop. I receive 

better prices for my crops with the ethanol plants in my area. The 

next farm bill needs to expand the role of the energy market and 

strengthen those prices for my operation and my neighbors. 

You have a great challenge rewriting our nation’s farm laws. Mr. 

Chairman, the sorghum industry will work with you as you develop 

these farm programs. 

Thank you for your time and I’ll be glad to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beetsma can be found in the appendix on page 82.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Thaemert. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN THAEMERT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS 

Mr. THAEMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. My name is John Thaemert. I’m a wheat farmer from 

Sylvan Grove, Kansas, and currently serve as the First Vice President of the National Association of Wheat Growers. I thank you for 

this opportunity to discuss our members’ concerns about the current Farm Bill and our thoughts on the 2007 Farm Bill. 

The 2002 Farm Bill has some strong points and the wheat growers that I represent believe the next farm bill should build on these 

strengths. But while wheat growers generally support current policy, much of the safety net provided by the 2002 bill has not been 

effective for wheat farmers. 

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

two key components of the current bill, the counter-cyclical program and loan deficiency program. Severe weather conditions for 

several consecutive years in many wheat states have led to significantly lower yields or total failure. 

The loan program and the LDP are useless when you have no 

crop. 

Also, the target price for wheat is set considerably lower than 

market projections indicated and short crops due to weather disasters have led to higher prices. As a result, there have been very 

little support from the counter-cyclical program As you can see by 

the chart in my testimony, the support level for wheat compared 

to other commoditi4es for the 2002 through 2005 crop years is relatively low. We are not, in any way, suggesting that other crops receive too much support, we are simply stating that wheat proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY17.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
18

ducers need a viable safety net also. Undoubtedly America’s farmers would rather depend on the markets than the government for 

their livelihoods. The current economic and trade environments do 

not offer a level playing field in the global marketplace. This fact, 

coupled with escalating input costs and devastating weather related crop losses, have been especially troubling for many of our 

members. 

These issues, and a potential change in the WTO rules have led 

us to begin looking at other options for the 2007 bill. We are examining the impact of increasing the direct payment. This component 

provides the most reliable cash-flow and, as such, greatly aids in 

securing operating credit. We are also studying an increase in the 

wheat target prices more in line with today’s market conditions 

while leaving the current structure of the loan program as is. Another concept involves altering the counter-cyclical program to be 

based on revenue rather than price alone. I expect our full board 

will be looking closely at the effects of these options and others for 

the Commodity Title in the near future, and will soon recommend 

specific proposals. 

Also, our members would like to see conservation programs continue as presently authorized but be fully funded. We also believe 

strongly in the pursuit of renewable energy from agricultural 

sources and support additional incentives for further research and 

development of renewable energy, specifically cellulosic ethanol. 

In closing, I must state that we are firmly committed to developing an effective 2007 farm and food policy and welcome the opportunity to work with you to do so. 

Thank you for this opportunity and I welcome any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thaemert can be found in the 

appendix on page 91.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Let me begin this by noting that the comments that each of you made relative to your specific crop is exactly what we’re looking for as we get around the 

country. Some of the testimony we heard in—this morning was 

similar to testimony we heard in South Georgia. Some of it will be 

similar to what we’ll hear in Iowa next week. But there are other 

parts of the country that—it’s going to vary a little bit, so what 

you’ve had to say this morning is keenly important to us. We have 

a series of questions that I’m going to ask, and again, I want to 

go right down the panel, Allen, and we’re going to start with you 

on this first one, because we want to establish a record everywhere 

we go relative to these particular questions. 

How would you prioritize the programs of the farm bill generally 

and the Commodity Title specifically? How would you rank the relative importance of the direct payment program, the marketing 

loan program and the counter-cyclical payment program? 

Mr. HELMS. Of course within the farm bill, I think there’s no 

question we would prioritize the commodity programs as far as the 

market loan would be our No. 1 priority, and I think that we would 

certainly put the conservation program with a high priority, but 

the commodity programs would be the No. 1 priority within the 

commodity programs, we certainly think that the market loan is—

is our best part of the program and it’s absolutely necessary for us 

19

to be viable producers. And then the counter-cyclical program is 

certainly a very strong section in that as well. And the direct payment program certainly are important, too. We feel that the whole 

package is important to us. If I had to prioritize it, that’s the way 

I’d do it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Combs? 

Mr. COMBS. Mr. Chairman, the commodity title is by far the most 

important title for the rice producers, and that would be the highest priority for us, and that would probably be followed by conservation and then research and trade. And within the commodity 

title, the marketing loan program is by far the most important and 

it’s even more so that way in Missouri because we have several 

thousand acres of rice that are not covered by—— they’re not in 

the base program payments because our rice acreage has expanded 

so much in Missouri. We’ve got thousands of acres of rice that are 

covered by the marketing loan program but are not covered by the 

direct or counter-cyclical payment system. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bredehoeft. 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. From our viewpoint, as far as the commodity 

title, it’s important that we have a strong safety net as far as the 

soybean industry is concerned, but when you look at the other titles, when you look at research and conservation, of course the energy title is very important. Trade is very important. All four of 

those are about equally important. If we have a good safety net, 

then we can fund these other titles appropriately. I think there’s 

where you can look into the future, so to speak, and you do that 

research then it does promote new—you can find new uses. You 

can find the trade, you can find new markets, to make that commodity title it becomes important to the future. So I think when 

you have—— when you’re looking at it, the commodity title in the 

short term is the—it’s important to have a strong safety net but 

those other areas, we need to get into the research, energy, trade 

and conservation, those are the ones that will help us long term. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Hilgedick: 

Mr. HILGEDICK. Senator, I would look at the commodity title as 

the most important section, followed by the energy title. We’ve seen 

a lot of benefit out in the ethanol industry and the corn growers 

in general would be assisted by the bio- energy program. Get jump 

started with the ethanol plants going into production. The third 

most important would be the conservation section. As far as rating 

the commodity programs, given the current price forecast, I would 

probably have to choose direct payment as the most important portion, followed by marketing loan and by counter-cyclical. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beetsma. 

Mr. BEETSMA. As far as the commodity title is concerned, I would 

rank the direct payment—depending on your area, the direct payment would be probably the most important in the semi- arid areas 

where you—maybe not raise a crop, but for us, the areas that we’re 

in, the LDP is probably—would be real important. To those two are 

interchangeable. And then the counter-cyclical payment would be 

definitely a distant third. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thaemert. 

Mr. THAEMERT. As far as which type of a farm bill we would 

prioritize as top, no doubt, everybody here was testifying, to comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY17.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
20

modity title, the boom and bust cycle of production agriculture, 

we’re all aware of, if we could keep that safety net in place, everything else would fall into place behind it. 

We’ve got to keep our producers on the land. We’ve got to keep 

our agricultural infrastructure in place, otherwise the trade title 

and conservation title, we need those stewards on the land working. All those other things are irrelevant if you don’t have that 

safety net and provide that, that economic safety for those producers on the land. So the commodity title is by far the most important for our members. As far as the relative importance of the 

various components of the farm bill as is, by far, you gather that 

from my testimony, the direct payment. 

It’s pretty hard to go to a lender and say, ‘‘Well, I think I might 

get an LDP this year,’’ or ‘‘I think Japan is going to increase their 

trade with us and prices might go up.’’ But when you’ve got a direct payment, you can show that to the lender. 

They know that you’re going to get cash-flow and they know that 

you’re going to be a good credit risk. So the direct payment is by 

far our favorite tool. I think the direct payment is what you can 

build a lot of things into, too. I think direct payment should be 

looked at as possibly stacking, maybe say coupling that with an increased direct payment if you—if you go up a risk management account and put some money into cover that top tier of losses, those 

shallow losses that just eat away at a producer after—year after 

year after year of losses, if you could have a direct payment in a 

farm savings account, a risk management account that you can 

draw on through tough times, you get an increased direct payment 

as a result of establishing one of those in a local financial institution. That’s a thought that I think we could look at. Also, there are 

some private sector insurance companies that may look at insuring 

that level of loss that, again, creates those back-to-back shallow 

losses that are so devastating to producers. I think a direct payment could be used to fund some of that in the way of, say, an insurance type of payment for—for that type of program. But direct 

payment is by far. And as you guys on the committee probably 

know, we haven’t gotten, as wheat producers, much benefit from 

the counter-cyclical or loan deficiency. So it really is somewhat irrelevant to the wheat industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Combs, we’ll start this second question with 

you. Payment limits are always being shot at. Do we need to 

change payment limits in the next farm bill? 

Mr. COMBS. Payment limits should not be reduced in the next 

farm bill. 

[Laughter.] 

As we talk about in our statement, they’re already plenty restrictive when it comes to the high cost of production crops like rice and 

cotton. We don’t think they should be limited and we think that all 

production should be eligible for the marketing loan program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bredehoeft. 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. I think Mr. Combs probably covered it well. 

From my viewpoint, too, we’re—ASA is opposed to payment limits 

and, you know, with the increased cost of production, why we’re 

happy with that and we’d just as soon they not reduce it anymore. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hilgedick. 

21

Mr. HILGEDICK. I would agree with Mr. Bredehoeft. Our position 

is that we see no reasons to lower payment limits from the current 

level. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beetsma. 

Mr. BEETSMA. I am in agreement with the group. We’ve had to—

over the years, we’ve had to restructure our own ownership of our 

farming operations so it would be possible to use the payments that 

were available to us. And to—to drop it would be—farms are getting larger. They’re not getting smaller. 

And we need to keep these payments where they’re at or increase 

them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thaemert. 

Mr. THAEMERT. The National Association of Wheat Growers is officially against any type of reduction in payment limitations. 

But if we do look at an increase in the direct payment, of course 

we’ll have to increase that payment limit. There’s a $40,000.00 direct payment, $65,000.00 for counter-cyclical and $75,000.00 for 

market loan at this time. I would again point to the fact that many 

producers have not used those higher tiers of payments. So it 

would make sense if they had some flexibility to switch between 

those, whichever tier you needed that flexibility. But the direct 

payment is something we really focus on. If we’re going to increase 

the direct payment, then we need to increase that payment limitation. I like the way you phrased that question. We can expect to 

further reduce the payment limitations. Gosh, I hate to hear that. 

But we are officially opposed to that. So I know there’s going to be 

some attack on those payment limitations, but we, again, stand 

completely opposed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helms. 

Mr. HELMS. Well, I think I’d probably come right out and say 

we’d like to see them raised. We certainly don’t feel that there 

should be any reduction. As we see what’s happening within agriculture with a lot of rising—our input costs are constantly rising, 

it just makes it that much—much more difficult to be—to be able 

to work with any kind of lower payment limits. And also, we’re concerned with any rules of eligibility that might with the payment 

limits. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bredehoeft, the Doha Round of negotiations 

seeks to provide additional market access for US agriculture goods 

in exchange for cuts—forced cuts in domestic farm payments. How 

important are exports to the future of farmers? 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. Well, from the soybean industry viewpoint, 

they’re very important because we export 45 percent of our crop 

every year, not counting the soybean and meal destined for the 

livestock industry. I mean, that does get supported, too. So the exports are—trade is a very key part of our policy, that we increase 

that trade, increase those exports. Since we have 96 percent of the 

world’s population living outside of the United States, and we’re 

looking at new markets, new avenues to sell our soybeans and soybean products, naturally that’s where it’s going to go. Thus we’re 

going to have more options there than we are in the United States. 

So exports are very important to the soybean industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hilgedick. 

22

Mr. HILGEDICK. Exports are important. But in contrast to the 

growth of the renewable fuels industry and our domestic demand 

that has been so richly enhanced by it, legislation and by the entrepreneurs and various growers, we see that as probably the largest 

potential growth sector in corn demand is to provide some sort of 

energy security for the country. What has gone on the last few 

days, it’s been getting more and more and more important every 

day. So we see the need for exports—— increasing exports, but at 

the same time, demands driven by our own needs here at home 

outweigh those export possibilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beetsma. 

Mr. BEETSMA. Nearly half the sorghum crop is exported. And according to the factory, if we have a Doha Agreement, we will actually see exports decrease. You couple that with the fact that we 

would be giving up domestic support to get that market, 

Doha would not be a good deal for the sorghum industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thaemert. 

Mr. THAEMERT. We, as you know, export probably more than any 

other titles or any other commodity. This weighed heavily in our 

discussions. We discussed the adoption of biotechnology to wheat 

production and—and have struggled mightily with that and just recently come to agreement that we should adopt it halfway. We 

have a dependence on trade for wheat. Wheat is heavily dependent 

on exports. We do not, however, want to see any cut in domestic 

support. Just as I stated earlier, it doesn’t make sense to cut infrastructure, cut our—cut our producers and—just for the sake of 

maybe having trade. Trade is a fickle political tool. We’ve seen that 

and we’ve seen that many times, one country may say, ‘‘Well, now 

we’re not going to trade with you because of this, that or the other 

thing.’’ And that’s not very—that’s not very reliable for income for 

our producers. So we take care of our domestic support first. But 

the trade—trade is important. It’s one of the tools. It’s one of the 

tools that we need to keep in mind. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helms. 

Mr. HELMS. Yes, we’ve seen our domestic textile industry decline. 

US cotton has become more and more relying on trade. 

We’re exporting over two thirds of our crop currently and that 

will most likely continue to get to be a larger and larger percentage. So market access is very important to us. Effective market access into certain countries, particularly China, is very important to 

us. China is importing more cotton than our domestic industry is 

buying. So we—we particularly are interested in market access, 

and particularly in China and Southeast Asia, the Indian sub-continent, that area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Combs. 

Mr. COMBS. Mr. Chairman, we export about 40 to 50 percent of 

the rice grown, and our concern is that any additional market access be full and meaningful. And, you know, if there’s going to be 

an offset in domestic support, let’s be sure we have access. Rice 

tends to be treated as a sensitive commodity by other countries and 

we don’t need to be caught in that trap. 

Another thing we would observe is there is a market for a billion 

dollars worth of agriculture is to Cuba and it wouldn’t cost a dime 

to US taxpayers if we start trading with them. 

23

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hilgedick, some organizations have explored 

the possibility of a revenue based approach for the commodity title. 

What are your thoughts on a revenue based approach to a safety 

net as a replacement for the current commodity program? 

Mr. HILGEDICK. Senator, I’ve seen brief snapshots of some of 

those proposals that are out there. I think that’s worthwhile to 

have a look at and arrive at an opinion. We have, however, those 

sorts of—that sea of change is going to take time to enact. There 

are some concerns from myself particularly with the depth of mass 

data that—that the data base is deep enough and broad enough to 

provide the sort of coverage and sort of revenue assurance, that the 

data is not flawed and it is fair and equally applied across the 

country. I can see border—a border concern between counties as far 

as cost and as far as revenue, that that could be an issue there. 

Also, for anything to work like that for us, as far as the corn growers association in Missouri, those sorts of coverages need to be at 

the farm level so that an individual farmer has the sort of true 

safety net that he needs to continue to farm. County level support, 

particularly in Missouri, we have tremendous variability within the 

counties. And farmers could be left out of the safety net entirely, 

should a county not be hit. So we see some value in some of those 

things. I haven’t seen anything that I would be particularly prepared or ready to support at this time. I think that at least a transition period with an extension all the more important. It seems to 

make a lot of sense that we can evaluate those sorts of programs 

as they come along if they need to be evaluated because people’s 

livelihood is going to depend upon those programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beetsma. 

Mr. BEETSMA. Most of the research that’s been done on this revenue insurance has been done in the Mid-west on the corn and soybeans. In the sorghum growing areas, it—the—the risk of production is much greater and so it’s very possible not to have a crop 

in those areas. And if you have a 70 percent—70 percent of zero 

is zero, so revenue insurance would not be good in those areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thaemert. 

Mr. THAEMERT. You know, the devil is always in the detail. 

It would depend on how this thing is worked out. But as you 

heard my testimony, right now everything you’ve got is on price 

alone. If you’ve got no crop, price doesn’t mean anything. You can’t 

get a loan made on something you don’t have. LDP is—— you can’t 

get a loan on something you don’t have and LDP is worthless. Revenue definitely, I think, considers—or, needs some—deserves some 

consideration. Again, the devil is in the details. If we put something together and try to push it and it’s not been fully researched 

and it’s not something that’s beneficial, of course, you know, we 

would be opposed to that. 

But we are looking at—wheat growers are looking at some revenue based approaches. You know, I—one thing that I—I like to 

make the analogy of the farm bill, or—any other good policy is like 

a tool box that a farmer has. If you want good tools, there’s various 

components that you use. You want good components and you want 

components that you can use, that are effective. Many of the components that we’ve had in the counter-cyclical and the LDP are not 

any good for wheat producers. But we don’t want to replace that 

24

with a substandard tool either. It’s something that we want to be 

very careful about having to do. One thing I think that if we do 

go for a base program, that we look at a net revenue program. 

We’ve dealt with an 2002 bill based on prices and projections from 

2002. 

We all know what the input costs have done in the last three 

years. It’s been horrendous for fuel and fertilizer, for steel. 

Those costs have really been a burden on the producers. So that’s 

something we need to look at. If we do something along those lines, 

maybe a net revenue program of some sort we can build on. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helms. 

Mr. HELMS. We would be very concerned at this point in time to 

move into some type of revenue based program, you know. 

We don’t think you can live up to the protection—risk protection 

that we have currently with the marketing loans and counter-cyclical programs. That we just don’t feel that it’s ready to—that there’s 

anything there to—we’ve seen that would even come close to being 

as good for our risk as the programs we have, plus the fact that 

we’re not sure that it—— it’s fiscally responsible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Combs. 

Mr. COMBS. Mr. Chairman, we don’t see it even minimally replacing the commodity program. There may be a role with some 

revenue insurance in addition to the commodity program, but we 

don’t see it replacing it unless producers spend hundreds of dollars 

to develop their land to be able to irrigate and spends thousands 

of dollars a year on fuel or—or energy sources to keep the water 

on so as not to suffer production losses. So we really have to see 

a specific program. It would be hard to envision them working. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bredehoeft, your association has done a lot 

of work on this, what are your current thoughts? 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. Well, we started, like I said earlier, with a 

task force put together a year ago. We started looking at a couple 

of things, the WTO and also the budget constraints, so we started 

looking at this type of a program, revenue insurance, and of course 

we—we’re still—and someone mentioned the devil is in the detail, 

and we still got a lot of details to work through on, on how that 

would affect, you know, from one area of the country to the other 

area, from one county to the other county as far as producers and 

how their costs, of course, align and, you know, whether it needs 

to be based on net or gross or however it needs to be based. You 

know, our viewpoint is probably—there’s probably going to have to 

be something done different than we’ve done in the past, and this 

is just one option that we’re looking at right now. And you know, 

like I said, we’re not to the point that we’ve got all the details 

worked out and it’s just now that we’ve got other commodities that 

we’re working with to see how this would work out as a program 

for everyone concerned. So a lot of work to do but I think it’s truly 

an option that we need to take a look at. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beetsma, you must show an increase in conservation and energy programs coming to the expense of the commodity programs. 

Mr. BEETSMA. I believe energy should be considered a national 

security issue. We should not cut the commodity program as a 

transition to agriculture changes to food and fuel. 

25

Sorghum—as far as conservation goes, sorghum is basically the 

poster child for conservation, and many of these programs that 

have been implemented have not been successful in the sorghum 

producing areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thaemert. 

Mr. THAEMERT. Short answer. No. Again, the commodity title is 

very important to the survival of that rural infrastructure of the 

producers on the land. Those producers on the land have been 

stewards of that property. Energy, by far, is one of the brightest 

spots, new spots, that production agriculture has. We should focus 

on that. But do we want to shift away from energy—or, shift away 

from food and focus on energy, I think not. I think food is very, 

very, very, very important and is the keystone of production agriculture. Energy is a vital and very important bright spot for the 

future of production agriculture. Conservation is something that 

farmers have always been proud of and work very hard to make 

sure their farms are in compliance, if not over and above compliance. I know there’s a lot of emphasis from outside groups for conservation. Looking at how that might impact, I would like to emphasize that public funds does not equal public access. 

Property rights are still very important to the viability of rural 

agriculture on the world economy. I think that’s something that I 

would hope you keep in mind as you go forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helms. 

Mr. HELMS. I would answer what Mr. Thaemert down there did, 

no. You know, it—we feel that it would be—that it—— removing 

funds from commodity programs, for the conservation and energy 

programs would result in what we would think would be a very inequitable distribution of funds between different parts of the country, different commodities. It’s something that we don’t, in cotton, 

feel that we probably reap the full benefit of the program. We 

would hate to see monies moved to that energy type program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Combs. 

Mr. COMBS. No. It should not be moved from commodity programs for conservation. They’re apart. I mean, they’re important. 

You know, the rice industry is unique in our ability to provide conservation habitat for waterfowl. And we participate in the conservation security program, which is a good program for the wetlands. But it’s a supplement to the commodity program, not a replacement for it, as well as energy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bredehoeft. 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. No, I don’t believe that those programs should 

be replaced with a commodity programs, but I—I think what we 

need is a strong safety net in the commodity program. 

And like I said earlier, when you look at the conservation title, 

when you look at the trade title and when you look at the energy 

title, I think those are—need to be funded, you know, and—but 

they need to be funded and—and completely funded. 

Those—a lot of times they do take money out of conservation for 

some other priorities, but like I said earlier, those are the things—

those are the titles that will maintain US agriculture in the future. 

I look at the commodity title as a safety net, a short term safety 

net. But when we can increase trade and increase research, we can 

26

increase energy, then that’s where we have long term stability on 

the family farm in US agriculture. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helms. 

Mr. HELMS. I would say no, but a qualified no. As I’m representing the Missouri corn farmers, I feel that I also represent a 

youthful but exuberant ethanol industry. And the energy portion of 

the farm bill will be very important to the ethanol industry, and 

a continuation of the bio-energy program which I spoke about earlier, is key to helping get those plants up and started. The ethanol 

industry is owned by farmers and locally owned and those are long 

term projects that are expected to be there for decades. So the 

value of that is large. And secondly, we can do it cheaper than the 

oil companies. We can produce ethanol cheaper than they can. And 

a little help at the start, particularly the bio-energy program and 

some other programs that are scattered throughout the farm belt, 

is very key to getting those off the ground because they are such 

long term. It’s not 1 year, it’s a reward, a dividend long term. 

So a no, but a qualified no. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Talent. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you 

so thoroughly covering the ground. You’ve covered several subjects 

that were of great interest to me, so I think it allows me maybe 

to step back and check with the panel on a couple of things. We 

talked some about the WTO. And if I just said yes or no to you, 

how strongly do you feel that no deal is better than a bad deal? 

We’ll start with you. 

Mr. HELMS. Strongly. Strongly. 

Mr. COMBS. Very strongly. 

Senator TALENT. In other words, you’re not hungry. They don’t 

want you—you would not want our trade representatives to push 

the margin to come home with some kind of deal? 

Mr. HELMS. Right. 

Senator TALENT. That’s what I thought. And I—another point 

that is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, how you asked them to 

rank the existing programs. Now just tell me if you’re concerned 

about this because it’s a concern that I have. Most of you said that 

marketing loan program was the most important, or one of the 

most important. Not everybody. Most said that. 

It is also I think probably one of the ones that I am the most 

concerned about given the current trend of the WTO decisions. 

Do you have concerns about that? What can we do, those of you 

who really felt this was the most important, what do you think we 

can do, or should do in trying to protect that program from the 

WTO? What can we do? Do you have any ideas? You might be the 

most appropriate to comment, Mr. Helms. 

Mr. HELMS. Well, we’re aware that we very likely will get some 

reduction in our loan rates if in fact what talk is out there becomes 

a reality. What an agreement might be, I don’t know that—you 

know, and we all still realize that there will probably be a—additional to go with those reductions, and maybe a counter-cyclical 

payment. 

Senator TALENT. I meant vulnerable as an Amber box program, 

not in terms of what we negotiated, but just challenged under in 

27

a WTO suit of some kind. Not what we might negotiate away, but 

what might be taken away from us. 

Mr. HELMS. Of course to lose—to lose an effective marketing 

loan, I honestly don’t have a good answer to replace it. That’s why 

I think this is absolutely necessary that we not lose it. 

Mr. COMBS. Yeah. Let me offer one thing. I think it’s important 

that we continue the program. We lost—we lost a case on step two, 

so let’s not just throw up our hands and say, ‘‘Well, they’re going 

to get the loan now and then they’re going to get this and that.’’ 

I mean, let’s fight this thing. And if, you know, the WTO trade 

rules are not written necessarily clear and some of their procedures 

we don’t agree with, but for our government to just unilaterally say 

we’re going to throw up our hands and expect to lose, that’s wrong 

and we would urge the government to vigorously defend our program. 

Senator TALENT. Right. It would be good to win a WTO case. 

Mr. COMBS. It would. 

Senator TALENT. I’m beginning to feel like our guys are Hamilton 

Burger and theirs are Perry Mason. Anyone that laughs, that dates 

you. 

Mr. COMBS. If you think you’re going to lose, you’re going to lose. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you leave that, though, Jim, I mean it’s—

this is a critically important question, folks, and all of you all know 

how hard I fought during the budget reconciliation to extend the 

farm bill and I—I still have some strong feelings about that, but 

one problem with extending the farm bill is that we don’t want to 

expose any of our commodities to potential liability under the 

WTO. We don’t want to go through the cotton—Brazil cotton case 

again. We want to feel comfortable as to where we are. And we 

know that the market loan issue on every commodity is a problem, 

or a potential problem. We don’t know whether that’s a problem or 

not, but a potential problem. And you’re right, we thought that in 

2002 that we were WTO compliant, but we also thought that we 

were WTO compliant in step two. So Jim’s question is—and you 

may not have the answer today and we understand that, but it is 

an extremely important question, particularly if we do wind up extending the farm bill. How can we make sure, if we have to tinker 

with the farm bill in any way to extend it, how can we tinker with 

it to make sure that we’re compliant. 

Senator TALENT. That’s exactly right. Let’s all get our lawyers together, and we know what they’ve been holding, let’s find a way 

to sustain that program, or maybe tinker with something that will 

give us a better argument. And then you’re right, Paul, let’s push 

the government to be aggressive for once and stand up. That’s what 

the Chairman’s—got at and what I was getting at with that. 

What—is there anything you could—one thing I want to keep in 

mind as we do this, it seems like whenever we implement a new 

farm bill, we have this really terrible transition period. And we’ve 

all been through this where, you know, our constituents are calling 

up and they don’t understand it and that doesn’t seem ready, and 

keep in mind—— if you have any comment now, fine, and if you 

don’t, keep in mind if we ever end up tweaking this, how we might 

write this in a way, or—or signal to you all or the administration 

28

in a way that enables us to make this transition a little bit smoother. 

And keep timing in mind also. Do you have any questions or 

comments about that? But I wanted to—that’s something I wanted 

to do as far as this process. Timing certainly gets smoother after 

implementation. Yes, Mr. Holmes. 

Mr. HOLMES. We would just offer that a short term bill that you 

write and then have to rewrite with the WTO doesn’t help that 

process. In other words, nothing an ag banker likes worse than uncertainty. And if you’ve got a farm bill that’s got a 2–year horizon, 

or a 1–year horizon instead of a five year horizon, that’s a bad deal 

and that’s why we would favor what you propose was an extension 

and then a long term farm bill. 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. From my viewpoint, I would take it more down 

to the local level. When you implement a new farm bill, I know 

going into the last farm bill, there was a lot of uncertainty in the 

local offices, and even sometimes in the state offices, as we implemented that. And that’s probably, 

Senator Talent, that’s probably why you got the phone calls. 

People went to the office and, ‘‘Well, they’re not ready yet.’’

Or if they thought they were ready and they’d get halfway 

through it and something comes up and they can’t make a decision. 

And so I think there needs to be a substantial amount of training, 

I guess, before—long before we—before it’s put out to the local office so they know exactly what needs to be done. 

Senator TALENT. One other point I wanted to make, Mr. 

Chairman and then you’ve covered the ground so well, I 

don’t——

I’ll defer to Senator Lincoln. A couple of you mentioned surface 

transportation issues, the transportation issue. And yes, this is a 

hearing on the farm programs, but I don’t want to let that pass. 

We could do an enormous service to the American farmer by investing in our transportation infrastructure so we can get product to 

the market. We’re going to vote in the Senate this week on where 

to—to fund where we can get the rivers back under the control of—

or, back in operation and we need to build roads and the highways. 

And I think Mr. Hilgedick mentioned the Missouri River, Mr. 

Chairman. I just want to flag something for you. We have been 

working for a long time to keep the Missouri River open and the 

Corps is insisting on having the right to do two spring rises in appropriate seasons, producing water problems twice in the spring, 

which will eventually result in floods. We are going to get the crop 

insurance so that it covers those floods, so you may—if we don’t get 

this reversed, you may be reading the story sometime about how 

the government flooded these farmers and then paid them for the 

lost crops. And when that happens, don’t say we didn’t warn you. 

Senator Bond and I have been trying to do something about it 

because this idea of releasing all this water in the river in the 

spring is sure counter-intuitive and makes no—doesn’t make any 

sense in terms of good old Missouri logic. 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. Just for the record, I’m downstream from it. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lincoln. 

29

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the discussion of what’s most important, food production, energy, conservation, I just don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. I think that 

these are three points that we can bring together and dovetail 

beautifully as priorities of this farm bill and I hope we will. I think 

we will. They all support one another. They can support one another to the—to the degree that, you know, 

I think we can reflect that we can minimize the risk in all of 

them if we marry them together and bring them together. And I 

hope that we will. We touched on an awful lot of things here and 

I just want to reiterate that—what Mr.——

Mr. THAEMERT. Thaemert. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thaemert. What he had to say briefly, has reiterated a couple of times and that is unless farmers are allowed to 

remain the stewards of the land, the rest of these programs really 

don’t matter. And that’s what we continue to see is the loss of those 

family owned farms and the family businesses that are out there. 

And that’s truly important. 

Just a couple of questions. Mr. Helms, you pointed out the importance of the counter-cyclical program and the marketing loan programs, you know, protecting us against some of the low crop prices. 

And, you know, some people look at forms of support to farmers as 

a catchall safety net, even in the event of natural disasters, prolonged droughts that are coupled with rising input costs. I know 

Mr. Combs mentioned it, too, that your crops, which are predominate in my state, are definitely capital intensive crops. These are 

crops that you’re—you know, you’re having to go to your bankers 

and ask for a sizable investment to even be in the marketplace or 

to—in anticipation of being in the market. Others point to crop insurance. And I’d just like to kind of see if they see that as a sufficient mechanism to farmers of all sizes to recover potential losses. 

And of course if we got the same mitigation of risk for the price 

that other farmers paying for their crop insurance, we would probably love it too. But unfortunately when you do have a capital intensive crop, you just don’t get the same return on your dollar. The 

insurance industry doesn’t provide you that. It’s unfortunate but 

it’s reality. Maybe you might just elaborate on the hesitation 

among farmers, certainly cotton growers particularly, I suppose in 

our part of the country, to rely on crop insurance. Is it really a viable option? You know, given our concern and our trouble with convincing the administration to provide disaster relief to farmers this 

year, you know, should we, as lawmakers, be considering including 

a permanent disaster program as a part of the next farm bill? How 

do we bring all that together in order to allow all of our commodities to be able to mitigate their risk in the market place? 

Mr. HELMS. Well, let me start with your last point first. 

You know, I think it would be a wonderful thing if we could have 

a permanent disaster program written into the farm bill. I think 

we understand the reality of that, that it would—where the offset, 

but that—you know, the offset is obviously going to be from some 

commodity programs that we would certainly not agree with. As far 

as farm—as far as crop insurance, for cotton farmers in this part 

of the—in this area, this part of the country, has not been a very 

viable option. The premiums that are—the premiums have been 

30

very excessive. The coverage still leaves us woefully short of recovering our expenses. So that currently, as it is now, and anything 

that we see any time soon is—is woefully inadequate to us. We can 

still lose the farm and have a huge claim. So it’s—it is inadequate. 

And obviously this counter-cyclical program through the marketing 

loan, or—you know, we believe in them totally because they don’t 

cover—they don’t cover us in the case of any type of natural disaster or any type of weather disaster. 

Senator LINCOLN. Anybody else? Yes. 

Mr. HILGEDICK. If I might make a comment. With regard to crop 

insurance, I happen to fall in with them high risk category on our 

own farm and Senator Talent brought out the crop insurance situation along the Missouri River, and I farm within a stone’s throw 

of the river where we are. The fact that people sometimes will 

point out that we just ought to up our crop insurance as somehow 

a policy of risk avoidance, for me that doesn’t work and for a lot 

of growers it doesn’t work. There are huge regional differences 

within the country as far as, you know, effective crop insurance 

really isn’t reducing your risk, and in my part of the country, it’s 

not very effective. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I think that’s important that it’s not a 

‘‘one size fits all’’ across the country. And I had noticed that Mr. 

Bredehoeft had mentioned in your testimony that we need—you 

talked about the group and what you’re working about in terms of 

looking at a revenue guarantee, you do mention that it is combined 

with one or several other different types of farm programs as you’re 

looking at it. I think that that’s important to note that, you know, 

a revenue based system is not something you’re looking at just 

solely to replace everything you have in conjunction with most of 

your other programs that already exist. 

Mr. BREDEHOEFT. Combinations. 

Senator LINCOLN. And, Mr. Combs, as you know, I grew up on 

a rice farm and it’s near and dear to my heart. And I think, like 

all of us, we’ve been closely monitoring the WTO talks and if 

there’s anything my father taught me, it was that we cannot circle 

our wagons and sell our widgets and gadgets and hamburgers and 

rice to each other and survive. We know how important each one 

of you all has indicated a tremendous percentage of production that 

is traded on the global marketplace and how important that is. And 

I know that there are a lot of sensitive issues that still remain in 

and—even if—I mean, we certainly mean ‘‘if’’ we are able to convince the EU and others to substantially improve the market access offer in the coming weeks. And it’s kind of starting to get down 

to the wire. But maybe you might further elaborate on the concerns 

in the rice industry from the tone of the talks in regard to those 

designation of sensitive product lines and our trading partners. We 

know that rice is a tremendous world commodity. 

Mr. COMBS. That’s the real issue is just the whole sensitive product issue, you know, where we—for example, is treated as a sensitive product and so we gain access over 15, 18 years. Well, if the 

president’s proposal, which was a 60 percent cut in domestic support occurred in year one and you don’t get access until year 16, 

then in year 16, you’re fighting that government because of some 

phytosamitary issue and we haven’t gained anything. We’ve lost. 

31

And that’s the real danger of a trade agreement, is to get treated 

as sensitive and you get real long term access and real short term 

coverage in the tradeoff. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, 

I think I could converse with these gentlemen all day long, because 

definitely my heart is in this and I do think that there are some 

real solid solutions that we can come up with working with you, 

but we got to keep farmers in business. 

Because if they’re not in business, they’re not going to be producing energy or food products and they’re not going to be conserving the land. And I’ll tell that to the panel. My dad was a farmer and he loved being a farmer but he sure loved to turkey hunt, 

too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, gentlemen, I thank you all very much. 

I think all three of us could sit here and dialog with you because 

you are the heart and soul of the farm bill from all of our perspectives. And I would say that all of us are concerned about this issue 

of trade. It is sort of hanging over our heads as we go into this and 

all of you are aware of that. But I mentioned it in—to hear your 

comments, for the most part, you’re all very supportive of trade 

agreements and fair and balanced trade agreements. And I’ll have 

to say that we have a strong attitude and our current trade advisor 

Susan Schwab is working very hard to make sure that agriculture 

is treated fairly. That’s one of the main reasons, frankly, that we 

don’t have an agreement to this point is because the folks that 

we’re negotiating with have not been willing to be fair and balanced in their proposal like we have in the United States’ proposal. 

She and I talk regularly. I’m sure that there’s probably an email waiting on me right now because she is in Saint Petersburg 

with the president and there will be some back door discussions 

relative to Doha, but just know that while trade is important and 

is something that we have got to continue to move down the road 

from appositive standpoint, that all of us, as members of the Senate Ag Committee, understand that the heart and soul of the farm 

bill is the commodity title and we’re going to make sure that you’re 

treated fairly and it is a balanced farm bill as we go forward the 

next time. 

Thank you very much for being here today. Thanks for your testimony. We look forward to staying in touch. 

We’re going to have our next panel come down. We’re not going 

to officially stop because we’re—and take a break, because we want 

to make sure that we stay on time. So would the next panel come 

forward? (Panel I departed and Panel II was seated.) 

The CHAIRMAN. Now we move to our second panel, Mr. 

Jonathan Held from Hermann, Missouri, representing Wine 

America; 

Mr. Larry Purdum from Purdy, Missouri, representing the Dairy 

Farmers of America; Mr. Dean Sonnenberg from Fleming, 

Colorado, representing the National Sunflower Association; and 

Mr. Ray Rogers from Nashville, Arkansas, representing the Arkansas Farm Bureau State Forestry Committee. 

Gentlemen, welcome to our hearing today. Thanks again to you 

also for taking time to come and be with us. We look forward to 

32

your presentation and to have you answer a few questions. So, Mr. 

Held, we’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHNATHAN HELD, OWNER, STONE HILL 

WINERY, HERMANN, MO 

Mr. HELD. Thank you, Chairman Chambliss, Senators Talent 

and Lincoln. I appreciate being able to be here today. My name is 

Jonathan Held. Along with my parents and two siblings, we own 

and operate Stone Hill Winery in Hermann, Missouri, and farm 

145 acres of wine grapes. We are part of the thriving national 

grape wine industry. Grapes are the sixth largest farm gate value 

crop in the US at 3.5 billion dollars. In a recent economic study, 

it is estimated that in 2004, the production of wine and wine 

grapes and their related industries produced more than 90 billion 

dollars of value to the US economy. The industry accounts for 

514,000 full-time jobs. It pays 4.3 billion dollars in Federal taxes 

and almost 5 billion dollars in local and state taxes. Wineries are 

some of the best examples of ongoing viable small family farms. According to a Gallup poll last year, wine recently passed beer as the 

preferred alcoholic beverage in the United States. As a nation, we 

consume only about three gallons of wine per capita, and roughly 

25 percent of this is imported. With the strong international competition, the American wine and grape growing industry must lead 

in the production of wines with superior quality, excellence and 

value. 

Over the past 2 years, the grape products industry has come together to form the National Grape and Wine Initiative, known as 

NGWI. The goal of NGWI is to triple the economic impact of the 

US grape and wine industry by the year 2020. The target is an economic impact of 150 billion dollars annually within 15 years. To accomplish this goal, we want to establish a private- public effort to 

fund research that will make us the No. 1 producer of quality grape 

products in the world. A modest increase in the Federal investment 

for viticulture research is justified based on the industry’s contribution to the national economy and its importance as the sixth largest crop in the United States. The industry has created a national 

strategic research plan that identifies clear priorities for research 

that can help us triple our national economic impact in 15 years. 

It is imperative that we increase Federal research dollars to improve the science of making US grape products. Such a partnership 

with the Federal Government would help us level the playing field 

with our foreign competitors. I request that the 2007 farm bill include the following: Provide a mechanism to support industry-government research partnerships such as the National Grape and 

Wine Initiative; Authorize in the farm bill mandatory funding of 5 

million dollars a year from the Commodity Credit Corporation to 

establish the National Clean Plant Network of clean plant material; provide significantly increased funding to APHIS for the prevention of the introduction of plant diseases and pests; expand the 

State Block Grants for Specialty Crops Program, originally authorized in the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004; provide 

continued support for the Market Access Program; and provide a 

thorough review of all farm programs to ensure that specialty crops 

producers have access to benefits comparable to other farmers. The 

33

grape and wine industry is faced with tremendous growth opportunities both in the US market and abroad, but we need your help 

and consideration in the Farm Bill to realize the growth potential 

and stay competitive with our foreign competitors. 

Thank you for this opportunity to be here today and thanks for 

your work on behalf of American agriculture. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Held can be found in the appendix on page 94.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Purdum. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY PURDUM, POLITICAL ACTION 

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. PURDUM. Thank you for inviting me here, Senators 

Chambliss and Talent and Lincoln. 

I’m Larry Purdum, a dairy farmer from Purdy, Missouri. My wife 

Alice and I milk from 135 cows. We’ve been in the dairy business 

for 45 years. I serve on the corporate board of the Dairy Farmers 

of America and I am chairman of our Dairy Political Action Committee and chairman of the Missouri Dairy Association. 

I have also a written testimony that I would like to leave with 

you that will detail a little more than what I hit on there. 

First of all, we do support the continuation of the Federal Milk 

Marketing Order Program, but we feel like it’s something that regulates something heavy needs to occasionally be changed and 

brought up to date under current marketing conditions. 

Based on a national supply and demand situation, which are 

largely influenced by areas of the country that have large surpluses 

of milk, the national situation does not necessarily reflect the needs 

of the Class I market. Therefore, we feel the need for a separate 

pricing system that allows all Class I milk to be priced differently 

than the current. And because of this situation, we are suggesting 

a policy change that would establish a floor for the Class I mover 

at no lower than $13.00 per hundredweight. This solution would be 

market based and have no additional government cost. And we do 

think a safety net such as price supports is important. MILC, 

which I thank you people for, has been a big help in the past few 

years to the family dairy farm. But a Class I mover would also—

of the $13.00 floor would be very helpful for us. We are, however, 

becoming very frustrated in our attempts to get the order systems, 

the Federal Milk RT Order System to recognize the increasing cost 

of transporting milk to the market, the very real impact of fuel 

costs and what they play in the transportation equation, and the 

manner in which these costs are not equitably shared among all 

producers in the Federal order system. The transportation cost 

issues have become increasingly important because of, No. 1, the 

transportation cost increases of diesel fuel, and No. 2, the flattening of the Class I price which was in the process of implementation of the ‘‘Order Reform’’ by Congress in the year of 2000. Furthermore, the large increases in production nationally seems to 

cloud the view of what is needed in the Southeast and Eastern 

parts of the United States. The national price surface no longer recognized the cost to transport milk adequately. This is a problem 

when we attempt to source milk for the Southeastern consumers 

34

from out of the market or to transport it from my area to others 

of the Southeast. 

The dairy farmers who supply the Southeast markets we call the 

Southern Marketing Agency, have all banded together to try to be 

more efficient in our transportation costs. Specifically, we have 

asked that the existing transportation credit system be adequately 

funded. This system has been in place since the late 1990’s and 

helps to share the cost of bringing milk into—milk supplies from 

outside the Southeast into our market area. In June of 2005, the 

Southeast had to source 58 percent of its sales from outside sources 

outside the Southeast, milk brought in. Outside purchases in August 2005 were exactly double of August 2000. The over-the-road 

hauling cost in 1997 when the credit was implemented was $1.75 

a mile. In 2005, they have increased to $2.35. I’m sure you’re familiar with those kinds of costs. In 1997, this particular program 

would offset 95 percent of the cost of bringing in surplus milk In 

2005, the reimbursement rate, or what we could charge, covered 

only 40 percent. So we need to bring that up to date and we need 

some current receipts. The numbers we’re working off through the 

margin administrators are 10 years old and we need some cost adjustments on it. So our proposal is to update this 1997 program is 

something we need your help with, we need to push on it, to get 

USDA interested in it. Some other things that we are very interested in, is we are interested in what ends up in the WTO negotiations. You know, we’re familiar with what you’ve been talking with 

the gentlemen on the grain panel were talking about. We also are 

very interested in what happens in our immigration labor laws. 

And I will stop there, and Senator, you can ask me any questions 

that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Purdum can be found in the appendix on page 98.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Sonnenberg. 

STATEMENT OF DEAN SONNENBERG, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

SUNFLOWER ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SONNENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I appreciate the invitation to testify before you about 

this farm bill. I am president of the National Sunflower Association 

and I am here today on their behalf. I farm near Fleming, Colorado, where we raise sunflowers, corn, millet and wheat. 

Sunflower is one of the minor oilseed program crops. It is a high 

oil seed crop that is produced on two-and-a-half million acres from 

the Canadian border to the south of Texas. Most of the sunflower 

is used in the manufacture of salty snacks such as potato and corn 

chips. Another segment of our industry is the in-shell sunflowers 

that are very popular with baseball players and to many of the rest 

of us Americans. 

The Federal farm program income support in the event of low 

prices or crop failure is the single most important part of the farm 

program for sunflower growers. The safety net provided by the 

2002 farm bill, as with other oilseeds, relies primarily on the Marketing Loan Program. There is strong interest among the growers 

and the NSA to keep the Marketing Loan a viable option in the 

new farm program. If the Marketing Loan were to diminish or be 

35

eliminated, a similar provision such as revenue assurance would 

need to be developed. 

The NSA further believes that the benefits provided by the next 

farm bill must be equitable among eligible crops to prevent planting distortions, to prevent planting to harvest the highest maximum value for Federal dollars rather than marketplace. We also 

support continuation of the planting flexibility provisions that has 

been in place since 1996. 

The NSA supports the development and inclusion of a permanent 

disaster provision in the next farm bill. Such a provision would 

help mitigate the shallow losses that producers incur when crops 

do not exceed the standard 30 percent loss threshold that most crop 

insurance provides. 

While the NSA understands that the crop insurance program is 

authorized under separate legislation, we feel compelled to note 

that the overall policy provisions need to be strengthened in those 

regions of the country where multiple disasters have eroded farm 

yield history. Other provisions that need review include the cost of 

harvesting marginal yielding crops damaged by weather as well as 

the ability to expand crops into non- traditional growing areas. 

The NSA supports a stronger Energy Title in the next farm bill. 

As a part of this title, we also encourage that you develop and include options to grant Class I and II CRP in the Conservation Security Program acres back into bio-energy production. 

In closing, I want to again thank the committee for the opportunity to testify, and we understand that the WTO negotiations, as 

well as budget deficits, may limit farm program options. However, 

we are prepared to think outside the box and work with you to develop a new farm bill. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sonnenberg can be found in the 

appendix on page 113.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Rogers. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RAY ROGERS, CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS 

FARM BUREAU’S STATE FORRESTRY COMMITTEE 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Ray Rogers and I’m a poultry farmer and have 

a cattle operation and I own and operate Rogers Timber Company 

in Nashville, Arkansas. I’m currently serving as Chairman of the 

Arkansas Farm Bureau’s State Forestry Committee. 

By any measure, agriculture is the backbone for the nation’s 

economy, and an invaluable component to our national security. I 

believe the main purpose of the national agricultural policy is to 

maintain a stable, high quality affordable food and fiber supply for 

our nation. With that being said, I would like to address four issues 

in the farm bill that I think is critically important to the forestry 

industry. 

First, I strongly believe—No. 1, I strongly believe it is time that 

we increase our efforts into the area of bio- energy in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Let me say it where I think we 

can all understand it. This high energy cost in fuel is killing me 

in my small business and the farmers that’s out there trying to 

make a living that’s buying any kind of fuel and energy right now. 

The Farm Bureau, and we support full research and development 

36

for the increased production of all forms of renewable fuels both 

from agriculture resources for energy use, including bio-mass, 

which includes waste-wood products. We favor bio-diesel incentives 

with tax credits of at least 10 years in duration, and through other 

appropriate measures such as a renewable fuel standard. 

Farm Bureau also supports the 25–25 vision which calls for 25 

percent of America’s energy needs to be produced from working 

lands by the year 2025. 

Second, the environmental quality incentive program, known as 

EQIP, is a beneficial program provision. The Farm Bureau supports farmers and ranchers in their effort to voluntarily develop 

private resource management plans to manage their agricultural 

resources while meeting their production, economic and environmental objectives. EQIP provides forest landowners critical financial support on conservation practices to help maintain a healthy 

forest. 

Funds should continue to be prioritized and distributed on a local 

level, with the primary emphasis being on water quality and soil 

conservation. And I would like to see this program continued within the 2007 farm bill, though with price adjustments included so 

that the escalating prices of materials are accounted for. 

Third, the Forest Land Enhancement Program, known as FLEP, is under Title VII of the Forestry Program, totaling $100 million. 

Arkansas was allocated $500,000 a year and, as you all know, the 

first year we were funded at a rate of $473,000. In 2004, we received no funding. And down now to 2005, this past year, it was 

$112,000. Now, the main advantage that FLEP has in the farm bill 

is, it is giving—provides assistance to the small landowners. And 

when I’m talking about small landowners, 

I’m talking about landowners out there that own 31 acres or less, 

or 40 acres or less. It allows them to do reforesting practices and 

improve their forestry stands and provide for our natural resources. 

So that—that is an important program if we can get it funded fully. 

Which it hasn’t been as of yet. 

The fourth thing that I would speak of, and I’m not an expert 

on this, but as you know new international rules and disciplines on 

domestic support programs currently are being abated as part of 

the Doha Round of trade negotiations in the World Trade Organization, I believe personally that the negotiations will not be concluded before the 2007 Farm Bill. 

If that’s the case, I don’t—you know, I don’t believe we need to 

make a commitment of any kind on—until we know the market 

asset. As it sits, we must be able to take into account the agricultural policies that are developed through those negotiations for the 

future. 

The Farm Bureau does support the concept in the 2002 Farm 

Bill for the inclusion in the 2007 legislation. It is important that 

the negotiations on market access and domestic support be clearly 

defined before we draft a new farm bill or accept significant budget 

reductions. 

I would just like to close with, I know that the budget situation 

is drastically different going into the 2007 Farm Bill debate in comparison to the 2002 Farm Bill. And I also understand, and I know 

that you all know this, that the United States spends less than 1 

37

percent of the total budget on agricultural policies and the programs which support it are funded as safe food and fiber supply in 

the Unites States. And I would just ask that you all fight hard and 

work with us to try to keep that funded, as much of it as we can, 

because it is important to all parts of our farm and production agriculture. 

Thank you again for the interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. Those were very informative 

presentations. Mr. Held, let me start with you. 

There has been proposals to provide more money to the specialty 

crop industry in the next farm bill. What ideas would benefit your 

industry the most, and what ideas do you have for the funding of 

the proposals? 

Mr. HELD. Obviously research is what we’re after more than anything. Particularly we’re looking to the State Block Grants for specialty crops. There’s a huge diversity in our industry across the 

country. A lot of diversity of research is what we really need to remain competitive. We’re really concerned about foreign competition. 

Many of these foreign competitors are investing heavily in research, particularly Australia. As far as where the funding goes, 

I’m no expert on how you work the budget out in Washington, D.C. 

I have all the respect in the world for you and the job you have 

to do. But the need is there. We see a huge tremendous potential, 

triple the economic impact of this industry. To do it, we need your 

help with research. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Purdum, we’ve got a dilemma that we’re 

dealing with with respect to dairy. And that is that the aggregate 

measure of support for dairy is almost four and a half million dollars. If the WTO negotiations are successful, the United States is 

going to be restricted to 7.6 billion in our Amber Box. Those reductions would require proportional cuts in all commodities including 

dairy. So if we have to reduce the measure of support for dairy, is 

dairy going to be able to adjust to that kind of scenario, to fit—

allow us to fit that number within the Amber box? 

Mr. PURDUM. Senator, I don’t know exactly how those numbers 

would fall yet, but I would point out that dairy has been quick to 

take steps, such as the CWT. We just increased that to a dime a 

hundred. This is funded completely out of the dairy farmers pockets. We have bought and exported several tons—metric tons of 

cheese and butter and powder to other countries. We think we’re 

really trying to help ourselves that way. Unfortunately, only 70 

percent of the dairy farmers pay into that. See, it’s voluntary and—

and I wish that number would be a hundred percent. It probably 

never will be. There’s always a few who want to ride on the shoulders of the rest. One of the programs, like I mentioned, has a $13 

floor on Class I milk. It would be a straight pass through from the 

processors to the consumer. There is no cost there to the government. 

There is programs there that if we could work together, I think 

that we could get these programs that would help. And one of the 

reasons we need that, all three of you senators are from an area 

that is very deficient in milk. And we know that there’s milk in 

abundance in the western sector of the United States. 

But for the processor in Little Rock, Arkansas, or Saint Louis, 

38

Missouri or Springfield, Missouri, or Georgia or Mississippi, the 

cheapest milk for that consumer is the milk that’s close by. 

When you add the transportation cost, the cheapest milk is nearby. And we have a real dilemma in your part of the world, 

Mr. Chairman, because there just isn’t enough milk and the 

dairies are going out, exiting the business, at a rapid pace because 

of the prices of feed and energy and things and the price of milk 

in those areas. 

The Class I isn’t—it doesn’t—it’s flattened out in comparison to 

the Class III cheese prices to what it was several years ago. And 

there needs to be—we need to price Class I milk, the top quality 

milk we have that goes into the bottling plants, needs to be priced, 

in my opinion, off of something other than Class III cheese, which 

we have an abundance of it in certain areas of the United States, 

and yet it sets our milk price for Class I, our movers, to Class I 

prices. So I think we need to look at that, and as I said, I think 

the Federal orders are a very important part of our system but, you 

know, markets change and times change. And if we don’t move that 

and change with it, then it’s a broken system. And right now, we’re 

very frustrated in trying to get help to make them realize what it 

costs in transportation that we have had in trying to move milk 

from west—areas out west into the South and Southeast so that we 

have enough milk for the consumer down there. A lot of times, 

dairy farmers in all three of your states have had to dig into their 

own pockets, 40, 50 and 60 cents a hundred out of their milk pool 

to make sure the consumers had milk brought in from other areas. 

Again, as I say, the cheapest milk is the milk that’s maintained 

local and sometimes we have to have new innovative ideas to keep 

that local milk where it’s needed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Speaking of innovative ideas, you mentioned in 

your testimony, in the 2002 Farm Bill, we had a milk income loss 

contract program which it’s been somewhat controversial. 

As you know, I have a lot of friends at DFA. I also have a lot 

of friends in the dairy industry around Guthrie. Some of them support this program and some of whom don’t. What is—is there an 

official position from DFA relative to whether or not we ought to 

continue the MILC program or are there any ideas that you might 

have out there that it might be a subsidy program relative to the 

benefits that are provided to farmers from this program? 

Mr. PURDUM. Well, our corporate board unanimously passed this 

$13 floor and that included dairy farmers from all parts of the 

United States. Now, we officially stand that we are for the MILC 

payment with no cap. That’s the official stance of DFA. 

But again, we did officially also pass the $13 floor as the DFA, 

what we—what we would hope for. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Currently only dairy producer cooperatives 

have the ability to forward contract with their members. Does forward contracting provide producers with an additional risk management tool to manage price and income volubility in the marketplace? And should this option remain available only to cooperatives, or should processors and non- cooperative dairy producers 

also be able to utilize this risk management tool? 

Mr. PURDUM. Well, we have a stance, again, at DFA where the—

we want the co-op, I guess, to have that. And actually they’re just 

39

a pass through. They’re just helping me when I want to make a 

forward contract, they want me get in touch with the right people, 

or help handle it for me. And one of our problems there, Mr. Chairman, is, it’s hard to educate our producers to knowing how and 

when to use those. At times you may—it’s going to take time for 

that pass on. If they—the grain farmers are way ahead of us on 

understanding how to use futures to help. But we have—we want 

that option, you know, for our farmers. But I’m not sure that 

they’re prepared to take enough advantage of it to—they think they 

still need some safety net of some kind, but I think there are ways 

of having it we can still do it within the budget. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sonnenberg, your testimony, I notice your 

support for a stronger energy title in the next farm bill and I think 

we all agree with that. Should an energy increase—should an increase in conservation or bio-energy programs come at the expense 

of the commodity programs? 

Mr. SONNENBERG. I don’t think that it can be afforded for it to 

be. The energy programs are primarily ending up being owned by 

Wall Street and not at the farm level. If the support goes into the 

energy program, it’s going to benefit us indirectly in the form of 

higher commodity prices, which will reflect in lower costs to the 

Federal Government. I don’t think that we can set out a formula 

in front that says we’re just going to reduce the farm support in 

order to have an energy policy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Some organizations have explored the possibility 

of an energy based approach for the commodity title. 

What are your thoughts on a revenue based approach to a safety 

net as a replacement for our current commodity programs? 

Mr. SONNENBERG. I certainly think that there’s a place for it. I 

think it has to be well thought out. One problem that we do have 

is that we’re trying to expand the acreage base because we have 

an increased demand for sunflower oil. And we have a small pocket 

of sunflower production here in Missouri. It’s primarily been for the 

birdseed base. You go someplace outside of that area if you want 

to add sunflower production, you can’t get the insurance coverage 

until you have 3 years of production history. And so to come up 

with a full based coverage that would allow somebody to fall under 

protection of the insurance as soon as they add the crop rather 

than having a three year period where they’re assuming all of the 

risk would be beneficial for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers, given the budget constraints, what 

would be the most helpful program for private forest landowners? 

Mr. ROGERS. For private forest landowners, I believe the most 

important thing that the agriculture sector could do is equip the—

funding fully like EQIP or maybe increase it, because I think any 

time you cut 40 acres of timber, there’s a lot of people out there 

that just don’t replant it. And if there’s some money available to 

help do that, and some assistance there for the Arkansas Forestry 

Commission, or whatever commission oversees that, I think it’s a 

very important tool because of—it is a renewable resource but it 

takes several years to renew. And so I think any time you’ve got 

land that’s not being put in production, it needs to—to be in some 

kind of timber production instead of just sitting idle. 

40

The CHAIRMAN. Is Arkansas a beneficiary of the CRP program 

with respect to pine tree planting? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, they are. In fact, you see a lot of CRPs that’s 

went from grass to pine tree production just because—— you know, 

I believe 58 percent of Arkansas is forested, has trees on it, and 

50 percent of those trees are owned by the private sector, so it’s 

a big help. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Talent. 

Senator TALENT. Mr. Held, you mentioned APHIS. Elaborate on 

that a little bit. Do you think APHIS is under funded and if so, 

what concerns does that pose for the industry. 

Mr. HELD. I do believe APHIS is somewhat under funded. 

When you’re dealing with permanent horticultural crops such as 

grapes, we have a huge investment to plant. We’re looking at 

10,000 acres—or, $10,000 an acre to establish a vineyard, and 

three to 4 years to get it into production. 

Clean plant material is of utmost importance, and viruses coming 

in from overseas on new cultures are an issue. Introduced pests 

that we initially thought were beneficial and later proved had side 

effects, these are a huge issue. The economic impact is tremendous. 

Right now in the Midwest, we’re dealing with the multi-colored 

Asian lady beetle introduced as a beneficial insect on soybean 

crops. The downside of this is, once the soybean crop is over, they 

migrate into vineyards. Just a couple of these bugs in a lug of 

grapes basically ruins the resulting grape juice or wine. You get a 

product that smells like peanut oil that’s gone rancid. We need to 

really work on keeping these types of pests out of the country. It’s 

vitally important to expensive, permanent crops such as grapes. 

Senator TALENT. When we look at what we’re investing to upgrade an industry, you think it can all go down the tubes if you’ve 

got a virus or a pest in from abroad. It makes sense to fund 

APHIS. We appreciate what you and your family is doing in particular for Missouri’s economy and for being here. 

Mr. HELD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator TALENT. Larry, talk a little bit more about your attempt 

to update the marketing order system to reflect transportation 

costs and how important that is even within the regions. And this 

is something I don’t think we all understand. 

Mr. PURDUM. Well, as I said a while ago, you know, if you go 

back to 2000, you know, through the market administrator, what 

they allowed us to collect and what was there, we were able to 

spend—we were able to cover 95 percent of the cost of bringing in 

supplemental milk. And by the year 2005, it had fallen under 40 

percent. So that’s 60 some percent to make sure we have milk in 

all the areas in the Southeast and South where it’s needed, is actually being funded by the local producers to make sure it’s there. I 

mean, it’s—it’s on our back. It’s become on our back. Now there’s 

a few independents and a few of the people that don’t have to pay 

that. I have neighbors that sell not to a coop but otherwise, and 

they always have a better milk check than I do. That’s because 

they don’t get the 30 or 40 or 50 cents taken out of their milk check 

to make sure the plants down there—processing plants have milk. 

And I don’t know the answer to including them, but what I’m saying is, the market administrator in Washington, we—we—we have 

41

filed in January to get some help and we’ve heard nothing yet. But 

we need these numbers updated on transportation costs, Mr. Talent, because it’s really hard on the producers in all states that 

these percentages represent. We’re all in the same deal. The 

whole—actually, there’s just two major production regions in the 

United States, East and West. And we’ve got an abundance of milk 

in the West looking for homes and you have a deficiency of milk, 

and particularly Class I milk, in the East. And I know it’s hard to 

hold milk for—you know, maybe the industry is slowing down, but 

still, any encouragement to keep milk in that area, keep family 

farms in business, is the cheapest milk that can be had by the consumers. 

Senator TALENT. And they’re supposed to update those orders to 

reflect this sort of thing. I’m tired of having to do legislatively what 

they’re supposed to be doing. 

Mr. PURDUM. But I would request all three of your help, because 

we’ve tried—we’ve gone as far as we can go. 

Senator TALENT. One other thing, Mr. Chairman—I’ll ask this to 

Larry, what would the impact be if CERCLA was—if the EPA interprets CERCLA as—to cover animal waste, what is the impact on 

the industry if you become super fund sites? 

Mr. PURDUM. I don’t know how to answer that question. 

Senator TALENT. It’s pretty self-evident. 

Mr. PURDUM. It could be some really big numbers, but I don’t—

I don’t have numbers for that. But I know there is a bill and it’s 

being circulated in the house to remove manure, which we consider 

a fertilizer, from the super waste fund. And certainly we hope that 

that happens for all—all—not just dairy, all the livestock industry. 

Senator TALENT. You mentioned it in your testimony and I want 

to go over that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lincoln. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to call 

on Mr. Purdum. Keeping you in business is probably the best way 

to mitigate the risk of things that happen outside of our control 

like the cost of transportation often times. I think the cost of fuel, 

and the cost of whatever, you know, as you said, keeping you in 

business is really the best way to mitigate this and not having to 

make sure that we’re not hurting those types of additional commodities across the country. 

Mr. PURDUM. Milk is a very perishable product. 

Senator LINCOLN. You’re right. I got to tell you, from our school 

programs to those of us who go through two or three gallons a 

week, our boys are growing and it’s an important issue. We appreciate your being here. Mr. Rogers, as I’ve said before, I do appreciate how much you being here representing the forestry industry 

in Arkansas. Your testimony talks about the pulp paper industry 

in our state as being our largest manufacturer. It’s certainly enormously critical that we make every effort to sustain the facilities 

that often provide the primary source of jobs in our rural areas. 

But I’d also like to compliment you on making sure that people understand that as far as energy is concerned and renewable sources 

can be used, our pulp wood and paper industry cannot only continue to provide paper as a product, but it can also provide energy 

and other work is being done about using the leftovers on the forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY17.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
42

est floor, cellulosic conversion as well as the energy production 

that’s being talked about and some of the projects that the entire 

pulp and paper industry are—are coming together to test and to 

put it out there as an energy production. I met with some of the 

workers from one of our plants down in McGee that said, you 

know, ‘‘We love producing paper and we’ve been doing it for 25 

years, but if we could produce energy, too, we’re glad to do that.’’ 

So we appreciate the fact that renewables are a very important 

part of what we need to focus on. I also want to highlight something else that you mentioned, and I think it is critically important 

as we go forward not only with the farm bill but also in the other 

committee I sit on, the Senate Finance Committee when we talk 

about tax initiatives in the Senate to encourage a lot of the things 

that we want to see happen. Renewable fuels, we’ve got to give industry at least some certainty of how long they can expect to get 

those incentives. Because to make those major up front investments without—with just having a tax incentive from 1 year to the 

next, is not enough. I mean, they’ve got to know that they’ve got 

a certain amount of time to be able to use those incentives to be 

able to recoup some of their costs in that major investment that 

they made. And I noticed that your testimony mentioned that, looking at a 10–year window as opposed to a two year window is worlds 

of difference in terms of what you can make as an investment. 

You’ve also mentioned the EQIP program an awful lot. I think my 

first question pertains to the impact of rising energy prices and the 

input cost that our forest landowners have seen. Obviously everyone has seen that—the increase in those costs, transportation costs, 

whether you’re a commodity grain, milk, forest products or what 

have you. It has a devastating effect particularly—on all different 

areas, but some more than others because you don’t have the ability to increase your prices to the consumer because your prices are 

regulated a different way. But if you could just elaborate on yours 

or anybody else’s that you know of, experience with those rising 

fuel costs, and USDA’s cost adjustments for EQIP, and to improve 

forest management practices, that might be helpful. 

Just maybe tell us your own story. 

Mr. ROGERS. OK. Yeah, thank you for asking that question. I’m 

a small timber producer as it goes, but I still produce about 15,000 

tons of fiber a year. Now, it takes me——

I use around 2500 gallons of farm diesel, or red diesel, a month 

just to run the skidders and cutting machines and loaders. In 2004, 

I could buy that red diesel for 99 cents a gallon. Last week, or the 

week before, when I ordered my monthly fuel supply, I paid $2.59 for that same red diesel. That’s 161 percent increase 

in a 2–year period. I don’t—the timber producers or the grain haulers I believe are—are—a lot of our agriculture people that get the 

product to the mill or the processing plant don’t have the luxury 

of putting a surcharge on their fuel. Now once that product, like 

wood or plywood or pulp and paper—or paper is produced, when it 

goes out the back end and it’s hauled to California or hauled to 

New York, then those long haul companies do add a surcharge 

which takes care of their diesel increase. But we don’t have the 

luxury of doing that. 

We’re kind of at the mercy of what those mills want to pay us. 

43

And so we’re just—you know, we just have to come up with an 

increase somehow ourselves. And it comes off of my bottom line 

like it comes off of all of the other farmers and ranchers. And then 

in the logging business it’s especially critical because——

I’m just talking about the production side of it. I run seven contract truckers. We may haul that wood 100 miles. Our average 

haul probably is around 60 to 70. But you’re looking at a truck that 

gets five to six miles a gallon of diesel. You know, I—there’s truckers, contract log haul truckers, chip haulers, they’re dropping like 

flies down in Southwest Arkansas because they just can’t stay in 

business. As far as EQIP, I believe there has been some energy adjustments made in that at a rate of about 15—15 percent, I believe, 

Senator, but none of the forestry practice that I know of—and I 

may be wrong, but none that I know of in the EQIP program has 

got that 15 percent increase. It’s been given to, you know, the other 

conservation projects. So I feel like, you know, at least give us some 

help to adjust the 15 percent across the board on any kind of—— 

because you know, you go to dragging a ripper and a dozer across 

40 acres to get you ready for—the land ready to plant trees, you 

know, you’re going to spend, I mean, the cost is—it’s just an 

astronomic cost. So that’s kind of the dilemma we’re in. And I have 

three small logging crews but, you know, we employ about 23 to 

25 people, and that’s families that depend on my operation to make 

a living. So we’re kind of struggling right now with this energy 

cost. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, just to follow up on that very briefly, and 

do any of you all have comments about what our first—you know, 

some of the first steps we need to take in terms of renewable fuel, 

but Mr. Sonnenberg, you mentioned that you can’t sacrifice a commodities program for an energy program because we’re seeing so 

much of the investment for renewable energies coming from Wall 

Street. And that’s not a bad thing. 

I know some of my colleagues do think it’s a bad thing, but we 

can’t do it all by ourselves out in rural America to get us domesticated or non-dependent on foreign imports. What’s is the best 

next step in terms of renewable energy? Anybody got ideas on 

those? Gets us closer to the production of renewable fuel something 

in the farm bill? 

Mr. SONNENBERG. I think that we need submitting new acres to 

really make it viable. We’re already competing among ourselves for 

acres. I think that some of the high quality land that’s been under 

the conservation reserve program needs the opportunity to come 

back out in an orderly fashion to expand the acreage base again. 

We can achieve conservation by other means than just completely 

setting it aside to where it’s unusable for this generation and future generations. 

Mr. ROGERS. I’d like to speak to that, if I could. Now I think 

somebody in this first group mentioned that there were 40 million 

acres of land set aside in the United States under the conservation 

project. The USDA did an assessment of the potential payoff from 

expanding production of this—to create a biomass as an industry 

on that 40 million acres. And the demand on that 40 million acres, 

a larger biomass industry would depend on bio-user crops, that is 

crops that produce specifically for the use of biomass for energy 

44

production, this acreage would be drawn from existing crop land, 

idle acres and conservation research acres, and manages to avoid 

any environmental damage that we could do—would do with crops 

ranging from switch grass to poplars to bio-energy crops, and that 

it’s possible that that bio-mass energy, that 40 million acres, could 

possibly come to the fourth most important crop produced in the 

United States if we could turn around and make energy, ethanol 

or something out of that. That would be fourth in line with wheat, 

corn and soybeans. And it would also generate higher commodity 

prices because the farmers would have more land that they could 

farm, more markets. The estimation by the USDA is that it would 

be 14 percent higher with bio-energy crops using the 40 million 

acres, and that would boost farm incomes from three to six billion 

dollars a year. So I think that’s a win, win situation if you could 

help the farmers by producing biomass energy on some of these 

acres set aside. And I don’t think you have to cut commodity prices, 

and I’m not in favor of doing that because I would get hung out 

to dry by some of the rice farmers up there, Miss Lincoln, that you 

know if I said that. I don’t think you ever benefit by robbing from 

Paul to pay Peter. That you need to attack both situations and I 

think we have a means. We do the best job in agriculture production of anybody in the world, and sometimes I think we forget that. 

When you give these farmers a chance to produce some kind of energy that we can use and get us away from so much dependency 

on foreign oil, that’s got to be a better deal than what we’re looking 

at now, in my opinion. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, my reaction to the initial comment 

there, Mr. Rogers, is I’ve got a—found a place to pheasant hunt, 

too. Make sure we don’t put all them 40 million acres in——

Mr. ROGERS. We’ve got a place and I like to hunt, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. All of you raised very good points relative to a 

number of issues. But this issue of alternative fuels and the opportunity we’ve got in agriculture is just fascinating to me. It’s something that we’re going to look to take advantage of. We don’t know 

yet how we’re going to be able to do it because if we—if we put a 

lot of money into it in the farm bill, obviously it’s got to come from 

somewhere. But there’s got to be other things that we can do. And 

one reason I asked you about your pine trees and CRP, that’s primarily our CRP land in Georgia is planting the pine trees. There’s 

some restrictions on you, I know, once you put it in that CRP. 

We’re doing some research right now, as I’m sure other folks 

around the country are, maybe some at the University of Arkansas, 

but both Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia are doing a 

lot of research right now relative to the utilization of the—what 

we’ve always referred to as the trash that we leave in the woods, 

those tops and those limbs, and they’re gathering those now and 

looking to utilizing those both from an energy production, as well 

as an alternative energy production. So I think there are a lot of 

things that are on the table as we move into this farm bill that you 

all have brought up today that can be of significant help to us and 

hopefully we can take advantage of. Mr. Held, I did have one question I wanted to ask you. I just want you to give me a definition 

of what you mean by a clean plant? 

45

Mr. HELD. With horticultural crops, we plant a rooting that has 

been grown in either a nursery row or a greenhouse for roughly a 

year. If that plant has a virus infection or some other root rot disease or anything like that, we’ve gone to all this expense to put it 

in the ground and start growing it and establish the trellis and 

we’re wiped out within a few years. We need to eliminate these viruses and diseases, organisms in the plant before we put it in the 

ground. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that where most of the research is done in 

your industry? Like that? 

Mr. HELD. It’s not most of the research, but it’s one of our big 

priority areas. And currently, in the Midwest, the vines or cultivar 

that we grow, we have no source of clean plant material. 

Senator LINCOLN. What’s the longevity of a grapevine? 

Mr. HELD. It depends on the variety. The grapes that we grow 

in Missouri and Arkansas, a lot of the native American species, 50, 

75 years. Some of the more tender cultivar, such as the hybrids, 

35. If you attempt to grow some of the European grapes or the 

vines that have been brought in from California, they might not 

last but a couple of years because of our severe winters. There’s a 

few of these in Arkansas. 

Senator LINCOLN. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, gentlemen, again, thank you very much for 

being here. Thanks for your testimony. We look forward to staying 

in touch and dialog with you as we’re writing this farm bill, and 

we’re going to continue to call on you all as a resource. Thank you. 

(A brief recess was had.) 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, we’ll continue with our third panel. 

First of all, we have Mr. Mike John from Columbia, Missouri, representing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Mr. Mike 

Briggs from Springfield, Missouri, representing the National Turkey Federation; and Mr. Jim Hinkle from Mountain View, Arkansas, representing the National Wild Turkey Federation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers can be found in the appendix on page 115.] 

Gentlemen, thanks to all of you for being here. We look forward 

to your testimony and to dialog with you about some of these critical issues. Mr. John, we’ll start with you. We look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE JOHN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION AND MEMBER, MISSOURI 

CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. JOHN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln, Senator Talent. My name is Mike John. I’m a cattle producer 

from Huntsville, Missouri, and am a proud member of the Missouri 

Cattlemen’s Association and I’m also currently the President of the 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 

Ranchers are an independent lot who are focused on working towards an agricultural policy which minimizes direct Federal involvement in our operations, achieves a reduction in Federal spending, preserves the right of individual choice in management of land, 

water and other resources, provides an opportunity to compete with 

46

foreign markets and does not favor one producer or commodity over 

another. 

There are many areas we can work on together to truly ensure 

the future of the cattle business in the United States, including 

conservation and environmental stewardship. Ranchers are a partner in conservation. Our livelihood is made on the land, so being 

good stewards of the land not only makes good environmental 

sense, it is fundamental for our industry to remain strong. 

The goal of conservation and environmental programs is to 

achieve the greatest environmental benefit with the resources 

available. Programs such as EQIP are extremely popular with 

cattlemen and we hope to see this type of cost share program expanded to include more producers. Cost share and working land 

programs serve to protect both the environment and the taxpayers’ 

money. As we continue to look at this farm bill, we anticipate renewed attacks by activist groups such as PETA and the Humane 

Society of the United States who use extreme measures to try and 

force their views of vegetarianism and extreme environmentalism 

on others. Every person has a right to their own views, but to force 

them on others using questionable means is unacceptable. It’s no 

secret that these activist groups want to put the US cattle industry 

out of business and the farm bill should not be a platform for their 

agenda. Outside of conservation and activist issues, there are several other issues that have the potential to impact the long-term 

health of the beef industry. One such area is trade. US cattlemen 

have been and continue to be strong believers in international 

trade. We support aggressive negotiating positions to open markets 

and to remove unfair trade barriers to our product. We supply government—we support programs such as the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program which help 

expand the opportunities for US beef, and we urge sustained funding for these long term market development efforts. We appreciate 

the committee’s help in working to reopen foreign markets that 

were closed to US beef after the discovery of BSE. 

To grow our business, we have to look outside the US borders to 

find 96 percent of the world’s consumers. We encourage the committee’s continued strong and vigilant oversight of the enforcement 

of any trade pact to which American agriculture is a party. 

As with the 2002 Farm Bill, we fully expect to deal with several 

marketing issues. When looking at these issues, it is important to 

note that we support the critical role of government in ensuring a 

competitive market through strong oversight. This includes the role 

of taking the necessary enforcement action when situations involve 

illegal activities such as collusion in anti-trust and price fixing. 

However, government intervention must not inhibit the producer’s 

ability to take advantage of new marketing opportunities and strategies geared toward capturing more value for our beef. A ban on 

packer owner—on packer ownership or forward contracting has 

been a farm bill debate for years. We are strongly opposed to those 

efforts because we feel that Congress is trying to tell cattle producers how and when to market their cattle. This strikes at the 

very basis of our business, which is utilizing the market to improve 

our returns and make a living. Each producer should be able to 

make their own marketing decisions whether they market their 

47

cattle through traditional channels or new and progressive channels. The market provides many opportunities and cattlemen 

should be allowed to access all of those. 

As you can see, we are not coming to you with our hands out. 

Like I mentioned before, America’s cattlemen are proud and independent and we just want the opportunity to run our ranches the 

best we can to provide a high quality product to the American consumer, and even more importantly, provide for our families and 

preserve our way of life. 

The open and free market is powerful and as beef producers, we 

understand and embrace that fact. Cyclical ups and downs of the 

market can be harsh, but the system works and we remain steadfastly committed to a competitive and free market system. 

It is not in the nations farmers or ranchers best interest for the 

government to implement policy that sets prices, underwrites inefficient production or manipulates domestic supply, demand, cost or 

price. 

We are coming to you in an effort to work together to find ways 

to use the extremely limited funds available in the best way possible to conserve our resources, build our industry and provide for 

individual opportunity and success. We ask for nothing more than 

a Federal agricultural policy that helps build and improve the business climate for cattlemen. 

We look forward to working with you on the 2007 Farm Bill, 

thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. John can be found in the appendix on page 119.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Briggs. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE BRIGGS, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TURKEY 

FEDERATION 

Mr. BRIGGS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Talent and 

Senator Lincoln. Thanks for this opportunity. My name is Mike 

Briggs. I’m currently the chairman of the National Turkey Federation, which basically represents all facets of the turkey business except for the wild turkeys. The turkey industry today is very vibrant. We produce about 270 million turkeys, which is about five 

million pounds of ready to cook weight worth roughly $8 billion in 

value. I should also mention, as Senator Talent did, is that Missouri is currently the third largest turkey producing state. The key 

to our industry’s profitability is access to an affordable supply of 

feed. About 70 percent of the cost to produce a turkey is in the 

feed, and primarily what the bird eats is soybean and corn, with 

the corn being the most critical. The demand for corn worldwide 

has risen, primarily due to the fact of being used as a fuel source, 

and also the fact that China has now become a net importer of corn 

as opposed to an exporter. 

As you write the next farm bill, we would like you to remember 

that the singular most important thing that you can do to help the 

traditional feed consumer is by keeping up the support payments 

and allowing farmers the maximum amounts of flexibility to meet 

this growing demand. In writing the next farm bill, we ask that 

you do two things, one is maintain the payments so that farmers 

have maximum payments and also expand the aerable land availVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY17.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
48

able for production by ensuring that only truly environmentally 

sensitive land is enrolled in the conservation reserve program. 

Another major challenge is in the environmental area. We accept 

our agricultural environmental laws as part of our responsibility as 

good stewards of the land. Many of you are also aware that some 

are trying to extend the industrial environmental laws into agriculture and we thank those who have worked to prevent it. Whatever the environmental rules are on the books, the poultry and 

livestock producers will need to be—will need some help with compliance. In writing the next farm bill, we would urge you to, one, 

increase environmental quality incentive programs to the maximum extent possible. 

Second, consider increasing the percentage of EQIP funds that 

are reserved for livestock and poultry. And last, examine ways the 

EQIP funding could be used to facilitate projects that help turn 

animal waste into fuel. 

Finally, I’d like to mention two other matters, trade and research. Foreign markets are our fastest growing markets. The foreign market development program and market access program are 

vital to increasing value added poultry products, and we would look 

to have the new farm bill maintain that program funding at 2002 

funding levels. 

Finally, Federal agriculture research is vital to our ability to provide safe and wholesome food. One example is the work that’s 

being done in Georgia in regards to avian influenza. 

USDA researchers have played a vital role in helping not only 

those of us in the United States to protect ourselves from the Asian 

form of avian influenza, but also other countries throughout the 

world. And we urge you to maintain, if possible, increased research 

funding, especially in the areas of food safety and animal disease 

control. 

Again, I’d like to thank you for this opportunity and I appreciate 

it and look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Briggs can be found in the appendix on page 126.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Hinkle. 

STATEMENT OF JIM HINKLE, BOARD SECRETARY, NATIONAL 

WILD TURKEY FEDERATION 

Mr. HINKLE. Mr. Chairman, before I start on my text, I might 

mention that I had an opportunity to hear you speak at the national convention in front of several thousand people and you did 

a very excellent job of combining agriculture to farmers and ranchers and hunters of this country being the first conservationists, and 

I very much appreciate that speech and how you represented all of 

us in this country. I might also note that I noticed Senator Lincoln’s influence on this panel here today, that, in fact, I am the last 

one and she saved the largest turkey for last. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HINKLE. I am Jim Hinkle, board secretary of the National 

Wild Turkey Federation and former commissioner of the Arkansas 

Game and Fish Commission. NWTF is dedicated to conservation of 

the wild turkey and the preservation of the hunting tradition. We 

worked to bring the turkey population from 1.3 million in 1973 to 

49

7 million today, thanks to state and Federal wildlife agencies, 

NWTF volunteers and partners, and your committee’s efforts. Together, we spend more than $224 million on conservation projects, 

helping landowners, producers and wildlife. Most important for 

NWTF in the next farm bill is an increased focus on forest management within the conservation programs. Our forests supply more 

than 50 percent of the freshwater flow for the lower 48 states. 

NWTF’s greatest frustration regarding forestry conservation programs is with the Forest Land Enhancement Program. FLEP is a 

well intentioned program that this committee created, yet its funding was diverted to other uses despite strong support. One example 

where this program could help. NWTF’s Operation Oak Program 

with funding support from Senators Lincoln and Chambliss, NWTF 

provided over 15,000 native oak seedlings to private landowners in 

Arkansas last year, impacting over 25,000 acres of wildlife. 

If this program had been funded as authorized, we could have 

done 50 times this amount of work. The forest—excuse me, the 

Forest Stewardship Program is one of the best programs to help 

forest landowners. Through this program, natural resource professionals has developed more than 260,000 management plans, improving almost 30 million acres of land. The EQIP program promotes agriculture production and environmental quality as compatible. In Missouri, approximately $1 million is spent annually on 

forestry and wildlife practices through EQIP. However, only 1 percent of EQIP’s $1.1 billion is spent on forest 

management, and only about 5 percent of funds are for wildlife. 

The NWTF recommends at least minimal increases in EQIP funding and more targeting of funds to wildlife activities in our forests. 

Finally, we recommend that EQIP require more contribution 

agreements to allow NGO’s to assist private landowners outside 

the cumbersome technical service provider process. The CRP has 

an excellent track record of providing landscape level conservation 

of soil, water and wildlife habitat. In Missouri, about 50 percent of 

the accepted acres occurs within a 30 county wildlife, quail and 

prairie chicken priority area. Also 54,000 new acres of prairie registration and 180,000 new acres of native grasses have been planted. We recommend requiring more wildlife friendly plantings of 

CRP land such as hardwood, long leaf pines and native grasses and 

forests. We also recommend that the WHIP Program broaden the 

number of target species and place more focus on long term benefits or practices and that it is totally funded. 

Hunting is an American tradition, as you well know, with 18.5 

million participants that contribute over 30 billion annually to our 

economy. To increase the benefit of conservation programs, we 

would recommend adding additional points to the CRP environmental benefits index for landowners which will, of course, help 

open up lands to public hunting. 

Thank you again for this honor and opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinkle can be found in the appendix on page 133.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, gentlemen, very much. We—obviously, from a conservation standpoint, the greener we become 

farm bill-wise, why the more compliant we become with WTO, so 

a lot of folks are pushing us to expand our conservation title. And 

50

let me just ask you, each of you, if you will, tell me what’s the No. 

1 conservation program that your folks take advantage of? What 

improvements could we make to that particular portion of the program? 

Mr. JOHN. Well, I’d say, Senator, that the EQIP obviously is primary and improvements would be greater access—more—— more 

dollars and greater access to the program. 

The CHAIRMAN. As far as the program itself, do you think it’s 

working pretty good? 

Mr. JOHN. I think so. I mean, any kind of a working land program where you can still utilize and have activity on the ground 

and utilize a conservation program to help manage that, that process, those are all good programs. But EQIP specifically, since it already exists, is a good example of that type of program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Briggs. 

Mr. BRIGGS. I think I would agree also, Mr. Chairman. I think 

any time we can put—as we say in conservation, we put sunlight 

on the ground, anytime we can put money on the ground, I think 

these programs are very good and they’re working, but I think we 

need more opportunities to get directly to that land. 

We need to reduce the red tape every place we possibly can. For 

example, in some of the programs, we have to have an engineer 

come out onsite to approve a project. There’s a big backlog with 

that program. So it’s not what the problem—it’s not whether the 

project is good, it’s the problem in getting the money on the ground 

to effectively be used. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John, during the last farm bill debate, there 

was considerable discussion on competition in the livestock marketplace. What effect would—you talked a little bit about this but I 

want you to expand on it a little, what effect would bans on packer 

ownership of cattle and forward contracting and mandatory country 

of origin labels have—— labeling have on livestock producers? 

Mr. JOHN. Well, it’s our opinion and my opinion that those are 

almost non-competitive and non-market access type issues. 

We believe strongly that producers—progressive producers today 

are utilizing all of those tools as a way to either do a better job 

of risk management, plan for expenses, or to actually capture 

added value from their production. So we believe strongly that you 

have to have access and the market needs to be open and free, and 

free enterprise needs to take place and voluntary programs tend to 

offer those opportunities. And specifically, when you mentioned 

COOL, in the last farm bill, the language is what we’re so violently 

opposed to. It just didn’t create its desired effect. It singled out one 

basic enterprise within our whole industry and didn’t share that 

access equally, not only amongst our own species, but it didn’t put 

that same burden of cost on our protein competitors that are sitting 

at this table, so there were a lot of things wrong with the language 

of that bill. But what a voluntary country of origin labeling allows 

for producers to differentiate, and if you can differentiate, then you 

can capture value. And so we would—we would—just to reiterate, 

we’re—we don’t think we ought to be restricting market options, we 

think we ought to be opening more market options and allow producers the opportunity to take advantage of those programs. 

51

The CHAIRMAN. We have had a difficult time getting—— bringing 

to a conclusion the reauthorization of the mandatory price reporting. How important is that to your industry from your standpoint? 

Mr. JOHN. I hope you continue to be successful. It’s a—— in our 

view, it’s a bad law, Mr. Chairman, and we sure don’t want it to 

come to the light of day. Again, having said that, a voluntary country of origin labeling program that rewards a producer for meeting 

some requirement that one of our—one level of our consumers has, 

is viewed as valuable. It’s very important, and so we would highly 

encourage the ability of producers to participate on a voluntary 

level if a retailer or a food service entity or somebody determined 

that there was a value—an added value for that product and label 

them. 

The CHAIRMAN. I was asking about mandatory price reporting. 

Mr. JOHN. Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I get so—I’m tired of dealing 

with the COOL. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Somehow I got that message. 

Mr. JOHN. We would be in favor of mandatory price reporting 

and expanding on it. I think that a transparent open market is the 

best for all producers. So we think it needs to be funded and needs 

to be completed, and the sooner you can get that done and the 

sooner we can move forward, the better. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, we, from a legislative perspective, or 

a policymaker perspective, we tend to criticize USDA, as well as 

other Federal agencies, more often than we pat them on the back, 

but I have been very strong in commending USDA, but I want to 

also commend the cattle industry for the way that this BSE issue 

has been handled. I think after the first initial case was found, 

from the time we found the last one, we haven’t seen a blip there 

and it was handled very professionally by those in the industry, as 

well as USDA, and that’s what frustrates me about dealing with 

the Japanese and some of these other folks with respect to reopening their markets. But just so you will know, and you can pass on 

to your fellow cattle producers, I think we’re very close to resolving 

this issue again, and then hopefully we can see the reopening of 

some markets soon. And I will say to you, too, Mr. Briggs, 

Ambassador Schwab has been in Russia for the last couple of 

days, and a part of that has been dealing with the Russians relative to their accession into the WTO. Two major sticking points 

are intellectual property issues plus the sanitary—— bio-sanitary 

issues that are important to the poultry industry. 

And as you know, my state has been a big poultry producing 

state, as is Senator Lincoln’s and Senator Talent’s. And there’s 

been a lot of frustration. I had a conversation with her the other 

day before she left just to make sure that before any agreement 

was struck, that there had to be an awful lot of concessions by the 

Russians on that particular issue because we just can’t continue 

down that track of trying to improve our trade relationship with 

countries and yet at the same time for them to have the ability to 

arbitrarily cutoff that trade for—on the basis of non-scientific supported issues. So we’re working very hard to try to see if we can’t 

clean up that particular issue before we wind up those negotiations 

with the Russians. 

52

Senator TALENT. Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

just want to note that we haven’t had anybody from the Missouri 

Farm Bureau here and that’s because they have a board meeting 

that’s occupying all the top level people. Otherwise I’m certain that 

we would have had probably a witness and certainly someone in 

the audience. And they have been usually helpful to me and Kit as 

we think about the next farm bill, and I wanted to mention that. 

We covered, Mr. Chairman, a lot of the ground. Let me just ask 

Mike John about animal ID. It’s a voluntary program and I certainly support it as such. Tell me where you’re at in the process, 

how many producers have voluntarily enrolled and what you see as 

the potential benefits and what concerns, if anything, you have? 

Mr. JOHN. How much time do we have? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TALENT. Thirty seconds. No, take as much as you want. 

Mr. JOHN. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate all your help and 

support on this bill. I think it’s been a little bit frustrating over 

time to see the amount of money that’s been spent at APHIS and 

USDA on some kind of identification program, and we’re—we’re 

frustratingly behind on getting premises registered. So I’d say, on 

the first component of the animal ID system, the registered premises, and I don’t think we’re anywhere near where we should be on 

it. So what’s involved with that is probably more education and 

more support from the local and national associations to get people 

educated and move forward with that. As far as animal ID and 

participation, the people that are participating today are doing so 

because there is some market incentive to do so because there is 

a reason and some value, source of name verification, added value 

that they’re getting. And I think you’ll see that and continue the 

increase at the rate it’s been increasing. And I can’t—I don’t think 

anybody can give you a viable estimate or a reliable estimate on 

how many numbers that truly is. But I’d say in the state of Missouri, it could be as high as 10 or 15 percent of the producers who 

have actually participated in some identification program. And the 

other issue always comes down to voluntary or mandatory and, 

again, NCBA’s position would be that, at least initially, it needs to 

be a market driven, and to do so then it has to be voluntary. And 

we also believe that the data should be held in private hands so 

that it isn’t something that could be used against us in some manner. Confidentiality is an issue. 

And then you’ve got to weigh all that against whether it should 

be for just animal health disease surveillance or for more value 

added participation. And I think that’s the stage that we’re at right 

now. There are some private solutions that are available out there. 

USIO has a data base that’s capable of tracking animal movements. But until we get premises registered, until we have the 

ability to track animals through auction markets at the speed of 

commerce and actually capture those transactions at some reasonable rate of expense and effort, it’s going to be hard to go down the 

road where you have either mandatory or voluntary participation. 

We’re moving forward. We’re doing everything we can to get people 

interested and involved. And I think the retail food service and 

packing industry are putting quite a bit of pressure on the industry 

53

to start coming through on that. We’ll have those market opportunities. 

Senator TALENT. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, except to add 

that I’ve sure appreciated their comments about CIRCLA not having been intended to cover animal agriculture and I think we all 

feel that way and we’re going to work to try and get that resolved. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lincoln. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johns, just a 

follow up with your animal ID, we talked an awful lot with—— all 

across the gambit of producers and agricultural commodities and 

other things, the input costs that are soaring for all of our—all of 

agriculture. In the terms of the ID understanding that—I don’t 

know from my experience whether it’s with animal disease or 

whether it’s plant disease or what have you, if you don’t eradicate 

most of it, or all it, you’ve got a real problem out there. What 

does—since it’s a self-funded program, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator LINCOLN. You put—how much is—are there—— how 

much government dollars go into animal ID? Is there any Federal 

funding for it? 

Mr. JOHN. There was—there’s been about 84 million dollars 

spent up to the end of this budget year, and——

Senator LINCOLN. From the Federal Government? 

Mr. JOHN. Yes, ma’am. But——

Senator LINCOLN. I guess my question is, is what kind of handicap does that put on your smaller members, or your smaller producers, your smaller cattlemen, cattle operations. But, you know, 

are you seeing an increase cost of that ID program? Which it 

sounds right to me, was it—I guess it was started in January, is 

that right? From your testimony, you were saying? 

The animal identification? 

Mr. JOHN. Right. 

Senator LINCOLN. But, I mean, what—what kind of a disadvantage does that put on operators. 

Mr. JOHN. I actually don’t think it is a disadvantage. In a voluntary system, they—they—actually the smaller producers being—

being more than the large producers. There’s a net benefit that is 

probably greater for small producers who don’t have market access 

opportunity of the larger producers who have large truckload quantities and contract titles. Most of the ID process is on a per head 

basis, whether it’s ear tags or data base management, so if you’ve 

got—if the cost is $5.00 a head and you’ve got one animal, it’s $5. 

If you have 10 animals, it’s $50.00. It’s generally on a per head 

basis. So I don’t really see it being discriminatory. 

Senator LINCOLN. Unless it’s mandatory. 

Mr. JOHN. Exactly. 

Senator LINCOLN. OK. Mr. Hinkle, welcome. Thank you so much 

for being here and——

Mr. HINKLE. Thank you. 

Senator LINCOLN [continuing]. Representing the hunters of Arkansas. 

Particularly the turkey hunters. But as a conservationist, do we 

know—or, in most instances, are conservationists—our best conservationists are our Ag producers, Ag farmers who truly do have 

54

a tremendous insight about the land. Just a couple of questions. 

You mentioned the TSP, the technical service providers, you’re—

you referenced a need to do a better job of involving third party 

technical service providers, and I was wondering if you might 

elaborate on the specific concerns in that area? What are the main 

obstacles? How can we as a committee insure that the technical 

service providers are better utilized to help meet conservation 

goals, and can the NGO’s that you mentioned be a possible third 

party person? 

Mr. HINKLE. Possibly. I think I touched on it briefly just a 

minute ago, Senator. In many cases, we like the result. 

It’s a good program. We like the final answer. We just don’t like 

everything we have to do to get there. It’s—it takes a lot of time. 

It takes a lot of red tape. And when you’re—— when you’re working with a private landowner, when you’re working with a person 

out there who would like to try to get all the benefit that they can 

for the resource, the more you boggle them down with red tape, the 

more they’re going to get discouraged. I think that’s the point that 

we would like to make today, is that we’re not arguing that—at all 

that there’s anything wrong with the program. It’s just that it 

takes too long to put the dollar into the ground. 

Senator LINCOLN. Right. Well, I think that’s the practice of the 

forestry industry in the Arkansas that’s really done well in terms 

of including landowners and everybody there, so we’ll keep working 

at that. 

You also—I think you’re certainly well aware of the FSA and 

how it works closely with the NRCS to administer some of the conservation programs, the CRP and several others. To facilitate that, 

many of our NRCS officers are collocated with the county FSA offices, and you know, we keep talking about e- government and how 

easy it’s going to make people’s lives. That is, if they know how to 

use it or they have access to it. But most farmers, I think, appreciate and really depend on hands-on existence from these administrative agencies to implement what can often be very complex onfarm conservation practices, whether they’ve got to meet certain 

NRCS goals and other things like that. If—if that is the case, in 

your view, what would be the impact on our conservation goals if 

the FSA offices across the country are consolidated and closed as 

has been called for in the USDA’s FSA tomorrow proposal? Cutting 

it down. 

Mr. HINKLE. Well, of course it’s a—basically from the NWTS 

standpoint, it’s a convenience standpoint for us. We might have a 

regional biologist or a person out there in the field that might go 

to a field office that would be 50 miles away instead of 20 miles 

away. That’s some concern, but it’s not like all the different landowners having to go 50 miles away. So from our particular viewpoint, it probably doesn’t impact us near as much as it does the 

farmer and the landowner. 

Senator LINCOLN. But that’s the person we’ve got to get on 

board? 

Mr. HINKLE. Absolutely. 

Senator LINCOLN. If we’re going to see the product and the response out of conservation. 

55

Mr. HINKLE. I’m sure there’s probably some room for some 

marrying, some tightening of some of these offices, but the more 

you restrict the public’s accessibility to that process, the more red 

tape you have. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I know as—as—your position on game 

and fish, you referenced WRP, a number of wetlands reserve program is very popular in Arkansas. I think you’ve rated it first in 

enrolled acres nationwide. And but we also had the highest number 

of unfunded applications. I guess just maybe in your viewpoint, 

from a—you know, a Wabat Commission and others, is it merely 

a funding issue or do you think that there’s the same type of 

changes needed to address backlog. In other words, red tape 

and——

Mr. HINKLE. The same—same kind of problems. We do not believe it’s a funding issue. 

Senator LINCOLN [continuing]. Whistles for wetlands. We’d like 

to see a little more funding just because we—we don’t want to take 

it all in Arkansas, we want to share it with other states. 

But we appreciate you gentlemen being here and thank you so 

much for your input. 

Mr. HINKLE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, again let me just echo that. 

Thank you very much for your valuable testimony and taking 

your time to come be with us today, and we look forward to continuing to dialog with each of you as we move through this process. 

I want to encourage anyone who is interested in submitting a 

written statement for the record to visit the committee’s website at 

agriculture.senate.gov for details. We’ll accept written statements 

up to five business days after this hearing. 

With that, we thank you for your interest in agriculture policy 

and this field hearing will now be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 PM the hearing was adjourned] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 17, 2006

58


30130.001
59


30130.002
60


30130.003
61


30130.004
62


30130.005
63


30130.006
64


30130.007
65


30130.008
66


30130.009
67


30130.010
68


30130.011
69


30130.012
70


30130.013
71


30130.014
72


30130.015
73


30130.016
74


30130.017
75


30130.018
76


30130.019
77


30130.020
78


30130.021
79


30130.022
80


30130.023
81


30130.024
82


30130.025
83


30130.026
84


30130.027
85


30130.028
86


30130.029
87


30130.030
88


30130.031
89


30130.032
90


30130.033
91


30130.034
92


30130.035
93


30130.036
94


30130.037
95


30130.038
96


30130.039
97


30130.040
98


30130.041
99


30130.042
100


30130.043
101


30130.044
102


30130.045
103


30130.046
104


30130.047
105


30130.048
106


30130.049
107


30130.050
108


30130.051
109


30130.052
110


30130.053
111


30130.054
112


30130.055
113


30130.056
114


30130.057
115


30130.058
116


30130.059
117


30130.060
118


30130.061
119


30130.062
120


30130.063
121


30130.064
122


30130.065
123


30130.066
124


30130.067
125


30130.068
126


30130.069
127


30130.070
128


30130.071
129


30130.072
130


30130.073
131


30130.074
132


30130.075
133


30130.076
134


30130.077
135


30130.078
136


30130.079
137


30130.080
138


30130.081
139


30130.082
140


30130.083
141


30130.084
142


30130.085
143


30130.086
144


30130.087
(145)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JULY 17, 2006

146


30130.088
147


30130.089
148


30130.090
149


30130.091
150


30130.092
151


30130.093
152


30130.094
153


30130.095
154


30130.096
155


30130.097
156


30130.098
157


30130.099
158


30130.100
159


30130.101
160


30130.102
161


30130.103
162


30130.104
163


30130.105
164


30130.106
165


30130.107
166


30130.108
167


30130.109
168


30130.110
169


30130.111
170


30130.112
171


30130.113
172


30130.114
173

Æ


30130.115