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

30–430 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–641

REGIONAL FARM BILL FIELD HEARING:

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 21, 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: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ............................ 01

Friday, July 21, 2006

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

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

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

WITNESSES 

Wolff, Danny, Secretary of Agriculture, State of Pennsylvania ........................... 02

Panel I 

Eckel, Keith W., Representing Specialty Crop Industry ...................................... 10

Martin, Klaas ‘Klaus-Martins’, Representing Organic Farming Reserach 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 11

Shaffer, Carl T., Representing the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau ......................... 08

Wilkins, Richard, Representing the Mid-Atlantic Soybean Association ............. 09

Panel II 

Cotner, Don, Representing Cotner Farms ............................................................. 24

Phillips, Christine, Hetz, Representing Fairview Evergreen Nurseries and 

PA Landscape and Nursery Association ............................................................ 23

Shirk, James, Representing the Shirk Farm and Penn State University .......... 22

Panel III 

Bower, Logan, Representing the Professional Dairy Managers Pennsylvania ... 29

Hackenberg, David, Representing the American Beekeeping Federation .......... 33

Jurgielewicz, Joe ‘Jurgawicks’, Representing PennAg Industried Association ... 31

Ruth, Robert M., Representing the National Pork Producers Council ................ 32

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bower, Logan .................................................................................................... 68

Cotner, Don ....................................................................................................... 64

Eckel, Keith W .................................................................................................. 50

Hackenberg, David ........................................................................................... 85

Jurgielewicz, Joe ‘Jurgawicks’ ......................................................................... 75

Martin, Klaas ‘Klaus-Martins’ ......................................................................... 55

Phillips, Christine, Hetz .................................................................................. 62

Ruth, Robert M ................................................................................................. 77

Shaffer, Carl T .................................................................................................. 42

Shirk, James ..................................................................................................... 59

Wilkins, Richard ............................................................................................... 47

Page

IV

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania ............................... 90

Statemet of the American Mushroom Institute and the U.S. Apple Association ............................................................................................................ 94

Statemet of Burleign Anderson on behalf of the R-CALF USA .................... 97

Statemet of Dennis McGrath, President, Western Pennsylvania Conservation ................................................................................................................. 107

Statemet of Gerald Carlon, American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association ............................................................................................................ 110

Statemet of the Heritage Conservancy ........................................................... 113

Statemet of Mike Waugh, Chairman, Pennsylvania Delegation of the 

Chesapeake Bay Commission ...................................................................... 116

Statemet of the Pennsylvania Dietetic Association ....................................... 119

(1)

REGIONAL FARM BILL HEARING: 

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2006

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Harrisburg, PA 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 PM at the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex. The Honorable Saxby Chambliss, 

chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Chambliss and Santorum. 

Also present U.S. Representative Don Sherwood. 

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

SENATOR FROM GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

CHAIRMAN. This field hearing will now come to order. Good afternoon. 

I would first like to ask the officers of the Pennsylvania Future 

Farmers of America to come forward and lead us in the Pledge of 

Allegiance. 

[Pledge.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The future of agriculture is in the 

hands of these young men and women, and it is, indeed, a privilege 

to have them come out today to help us get started this afternoon. 

I always get excited when the blue jackets come to Washington, 

and it seems like it is always in July and August when they come. 

Somehow, I feel a little bit sorry for them, but I am so proud of 

them that they don’t mind walking around in 95–degree weather 

with their jackets on. But they are great young men and women. 

And let me tell you what a privilege it is for me to be here today. 

I have had the opportunity on only one other occasion to spend 

much time in Pennsylvania to take a look at your agriculture, 

which, obviously, is significantly different from the way we grow 

crops in the southwest part of Georgia. But at the end of the day, 

all of us in agriculture have so much in common that we share not 

only agriculture in common but we share values in common. So it 

is, indeed, a privilege for me to have a chance to come up here and 

visit with you and of course to visit with my good friends Don Sherwood and Rick Santorum. We had President Shaffer in Washington, DC last week. I had a chance to speak to him and the other 

50 presidents of the Farm Bureau from around the country. So Mr. 

President, it is good to see you again this week. 

I am, indeed, privileged to have my good friend, Don Sherwood, 

here. Don and I served together in the House of Representatives. 

2

He has not only been a close friend from an agriculture perspective, 

but he is a good personal friend, also. So Don, we are sure glad to 

have you here, and any comments you want to make at this time, 

we would be happy to hear from you. 

Mr. SHERWOOD. Well, thank you, Senator. And thank you so 

much for being here. 

And Senator Santorum, I appreciate you holding this field hearing today and everything the committee has done to make this 

event quite a success. 

The focus today, of course, is on the future of farming and on 

what the 2007 Farm Bill and its programs should look like. I think 

it is great that the witnesses came to share their insight and ideas 

as we work with our colleagues in Congress and Secretary Johannes and his folks at USDA to shape the nation’s farm policy. We 

need to know what is working and what may need some improvement. 

We are very fortunate to have with us today some of my constituents who are leaders in Pennsylvania’s agricultural community, 

Keith Eckel of Clarks Summit representing the Specialty Crop Industry. Keith is a green tomato producer, among other things. Mr. 

Don Cotner of Danville is representing the Poultry Industry. And 

David Hackenberg of Lewisburg represents the American Beekeeping Federation. And of course, as the Senator said, we have 

Carl Shaffer, the President of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau representing all their members. 

Agriculture is Pennsylvania’s No. 1 industry, and we sometimes 

forget how important it is to the economy of the whole state. And 

I can speak for my own congressional district. Dairy, in particular, 

is so important in the northern part of the state. It is very important in Lancaster County, also. My congressional district is number 

30 out of 435 in the country in the number of cows. And I take a 

personal interest in keeping dairy and agriculture in the northeast 

successful and competitive. We are close to the markets. We have 

the water. And we do it in an economically and an environmentally 

sustainable way. The huge farms in the San Joaquin Valley have 

now replaced some pretty big cities in producing smog. What we do 

in Pennsylvania, where we have our agriculture spread out and our 

cattle spread out over a large area, is very environmentally friendly. And it is important that we keep northeastern agriculture viable so that we have a fresh, wholesome supply of milk that will be 

able to take care of the consumers in the eastern part of the country for a long time to come. 

So with saying that, I would like to introduce the Secretary of 

Agriculture from Pennsylvania, Danny Wolff. We are very, very fortunate to have a Secretary of Agriculture that was a great dairy 

farmer and knows what we do in Pennsylvania probably better 

than anybody. 

So Secretary Wolff, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DANNY WOLFF, SECRETARY OF 

AGRICULTURE, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. WOLFF. Congressman, thank you very much. 

I know that you are very familiar with the Farm Show Complex, 

because you have exhibited here many times over the years. And 

3

I know Senator Santorum has been here many times in visiting agriculture events, but I would like to welcome Chairman Chambliss 

to the Farm Show Complex. It is during January farm show season 

here, and the farm show has the distinction of being the largest indoor agriculture exposition in the United States. So it is something 

we are very proud of. And every September, we host the all-American dairy show, and it is the largest dairy show in the world that 

is held right here in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania has some very unique statistics. We are 32nd in 

size, so we are, obviously, not the largest state in the United 

States. And we are sixth in population. So we are near the top in 

terms of population. When you add into that the strong agriculture 

economy that we have here, therein lies some of the challenges 

that agriculture is facing today and faces in the future. The focus 

of this current administration here in Pennsylvania for the last 3 

‡ years has been the profitability of the farms in Pennsylvania, because we know that the number-one reason that farmers go out of 

business and the number-one reason that our next generation 

chooses not to come to the farm is because of profitability. So we 

have focused on a few initiatives like the Acre Initiative that allows 

farmers to challenge local ordinances that restrict normal agriculture operations, the Dairy Task Force that is working on developing a strategic plan for the future of the dairy industry in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Preferred Campaign that allows consumers to see a label and know they are supporting local agriculture by purchasing that, the First Industries Fund that offers 

low capital to our farmers and keeping their cost of capital low, the 

Center for Farm Transition and making sure that we have all of 

the information available to transfer one farm to the next generation, and when that transition happens, making sure that we have 

everything in place to try to encourage the top soil in topsoil. And 

last but not least, the Ag Renewable Energy Council to see where 

that fits into the future of the farmers here in Pennsylvania. 

We would also like to thank USDA for your continued support 

in programs like Animal ID where Pennsylvania has been part of 

that and is one of the leading states and the program developed as 

well as the Avian Influenza Pandemic Initiatives that we have 

been able to use for surveillance of our poultry flocks. And in fact, 

we have about 250,000 to 300,000 surveillance samples we do every 

year. So we could not do those types of surveillance initiatives and/

or look at new programs without the support of USDA. 

The 2007 Farm Bill is going to be critical to the future of the 

farmers in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania farms are smaller. They are 

only about 137 acres. And they are very diverse. And we hope that 

one thing that we have learned from previous Farm Bills is that 

one size doesn’t fit all, that agriculture is different in different 

parts of the United States, and it is different here in Pennsylvania. 

And in closing, I would just like to leave with one special note. 

I just returned from northeastern Pennsylvania, up in Congressman Sherwood’s district, and the devastation of the June 2006 

flooding was very, very damaging to the farmers in the northeast. 

We are asking for consideration of additional ECP funds to help 

those farmers up there as well as to be considered as part of the 

4

$4 billion line item in the Senate Ag Appropriations bill to qualify 

these farmers for some disaster assistance. 

So with that, once again, welcome to Pennsylvania. We are 

thrilled you are here. And thank you for choosing Pennsylvania. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much, and 

thank you for coming out today from what I know is a very busy 

schedule to be with us. I marvel at your facility here. What a great 

physical complex you have. And obviously, folks around the country 

have an appreciation for it, and that is why they come here and 

why it makes you the largest indoor show. My hometown is 

Moultrie, Georgia, which is down at the very southwest part of our 

state. We have the Sunbelt Expo in the middle of October every 

year. We are the largest outdoor farm exhibition show east of the 

Mississippi River, and we are very proud of that, and I can understand why you are so proud of your facility here. I understand Pat 

Kerwin is out of town today, but Pat and his staff really are to be 

commended for working with us to help coordinate this today along 

with Senator Santorum’s office. I appreciate Pat as well as his entire staff, and we thank you for being such great hosts today. 

I was elected to Congress in 1994, and probably the best thing 

about having the opportunity to represent the people of your respective congressional districts is to have the opportunity to come 

to Washington and meet what you find out very quickly are some 

of the brightest minds in our country as well as some of the hardest working people in our country and just some of the best people 

in our country. One of the first folks I met, even though I was on 

the House side of the Capitol, was a brand-new freshman Senator 

from Pennsylvania named Rick Santorum. Rick was good friends 

with a lot of my close friends in the House, so we were thrown together quite often, and we developed a very fast friendship. I had 

no idea that 8 years later I would have the privilege of serving 

with him in the U.S. Senate. 

Indeed, it has been a true privilege to have the opportunity, first 

of all, to work with Rick, I won’t have to tell you folks in Pennsylvania, there is not a harder working Senator for any group of constituents anywhere in America than Rick Santorum. He develops 

a lot of parochial interest. You all will notice we have got some 

Georgia peanuts up here. We are pretty proud of the peanuts we 

grow in Georgia, and after I got elected, I was very forceful in my 

advocacy for the peanut program. Well, it just so happened that 

Rick had a parochial interest that was on the other side of that 

issue, and we had a lot of fun with it, and we had a lot of battles 

with it. At the end of the day, we sure were glad in 2002 when the 

peanut growers and peanut shellers and food processors, like Hershey Foods, were able to get together, and we developed a peanut 

program that was good for all sectors of the industry. And Rick and 

I worked very closely during that Farm Bill process to make sure 

that happened. 

I want to tell you just a quick anecdote, because, Mr. Secretary, 

you made it very plain about how important dairy is here, and Don 

has certainly emphasized this to me over the years. We had a very 

difficult decisions to make during the budget reconciliation process 

last year, and one of the truly difficult decisions we had to make 

had to do with the MILC contract program. The President had 

5

made a commitment, during the campaign, to extend this program. 

He had no idea what it was going to cost, and like a lot of politicians, he said what was convenient at the time. But when we got 

down to the budget reconciliation process, we found out that the 

MILC program was going to cost $1 billion. Well, here they were 

asking agriculture for a contribution of about $9 billion out of our 

farm programs, and on top of that, they were asking us to spend 

$1 billion for the MILC program, and it just didn’t work. So we 

began to negotiate with the budget committee, and at the end of 

the day, folks, we were able to get that number of $9 billion down 

to a reasonable figure. But were it not for Rick Santorum, the dairy 

producers around the country would not have the MILC program 

today. He is the one that was primarily responsible for the inclusion of that in the U.S. Senate bill that came out from a budget 

reconciliation standpoint. And again, as always, it was a pleasure 

to work with Rick. To see Rick in action and to see how committed 

and how passionate he is about an issue is one of the things that 

truly makes serving in the U.S. Congress a pleasure. 

So Rick, I am glad you could join us today. Thanks for inviting 

the Ag Committee up to Harrisburg and to Pennsylvania, and we 

are very pleased to be in your state. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

coming here. Thank you, obviously, for those very kind remarks. 

And thank you, more importantly, for making those changes in the 

budget last year to preserve this vitally important program. And 

Don Sherwood, my colleague, deserves a lot of credit for the work 

that he did in working the House side on this. It was a great team 

effort from our entire delegation in Washington to keep this program. 

But being on the Ag Committee, which I happen to be on, is a 

good position to be in to try to make some of the changes. And we 

have been working, as many of you know, if you have ever been 

to any hearings where I have talked about agriculture in the past, 

I always like to say the truth, which is I am the first Senator from 

Pennsylvania on the Senate Ag Committee in over 100 years. And 

I think it is obvious from the kind of farm legislation that was 

passed over the past 100 years, we haven’t had much representation. 

And what we have been trying to work on, and one of the reasons I am so happy that Senator Chambliss agreed to have the 

hearing for the northeastern part of the country, he is doing a series of hearings around the country to try to get input from producers about the next Farm Bill. And it was very kind of him to 

select Pennsylvania. I think it makes a lot of sense to select Pennsylvania, because I think we are pretty reflective of northeastern 

agriculture. We have just about everything that is grown up in the 

northeastern part of the United States. It is grown here in Pennsylvania, and we have a lot of issues in common, and so it is a good 

place to get a snapshot of the problems that we confront. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, dairy is a big business here, and 

obviously, we are going to have to battle through what dairy policy 

is. And of all of the things I have worked on in the U.S. Senate, 

I can not think of anything that is more difficult than dairy policy, 

but we are going to continue to struggle through that and make 

6

sure that we have a program that works for all of the United 

States, which that is what makes dairy policy so difficult is because 

it is so different from region to region of the country. 

Another area that is of very important concern is to understand 

that we are different here in the northeastern part of the United 

States than in Pennsylvania when it comes to the mix of crops that 

we grow. We are not a big program crop state, although, yes, we 

have row crops here, obviously, but specialty crops is really what 

Pennsylvania is most known for. And when you look at the fact, 

Mr. Chairman, that specialty crops now, in market value, produce 

as much, or get as much, at the marketplace as row crops do in 

America, we sort of come into our own here. And yet it is not reflected in the laws dealing with agriculture policy. And we are not 

looking to have our strawberries in a program crop, but we are 

looking for things that make the Federal Government programs 

work better for our fruit and vegetable growers. And that is what 

we are going to hopefully hear from some of our witnesses here 

today. And certainly you will be hearing from me and those of us 

from the northeastern part of the United States in the future. And 

I was with one of our guests here earlier who Don introduced, 

Keith Eckel, who unfortunately was a victim of the flood a few 

weeks ago. And just to understand how crop insurance doesn’t particularly work well because of the way it is structured and the difference in the topography and the climate as you go from one set 

of acreage to another that may be in the same farm. You don’t have 

those differences out in Iowa, but you have those differences when 

you have bottom land and you have hillside land. But the specialty 

crop program doesn’t take that into account, doesn’t understand 

the differences in farming in places like Pennsylvania and farming 

in places where we tend to think of big Ag states. So those are the 

kinds of things that hopefully you will hear today and understand 

that we do have some unique challenges here in this section of the 

country. And I really do appreciate you taking the time to come. 

The last time I was in this room was for a meeting of USDA. And 

Mr. Secretary you were a co-sponsor of this along with us to talk 

about renewable energy. That is another very promising area, obviously, for agriculture and something that there is great interest 

here in Pennsylvania. We want to encourage and we need to encourage, not just for farm income, but, frankly, for national security, as we see in the Middle East today. And the time before I was 

in this room was for an Ag Committee hearing, which you permitted me to chair of our subcommittee where we talked about insecurity, and the Secretary testified and mentioned briefly how important those issues of terrorism and protecting our food supply. 

So we have got a lot of issues on our plate here. It is very important to the producers here in Pennsylvania, and it has been very 

important to the people of Pennsylvania. And I just want to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time to come. 

And my final comment, I just want to introduce a good friend of 

mine and outstanding State Senator from the farm belt in Pennsylvania, Noah Wenger. Noah, thank you for being here. And Noah 

is in the leadership of the Senate Republicans in the State Senate. 

And I see Representative Art Hershey back there from Chester 

County. If there are any other Representatives or Senators here I 

7

haven’t spotted yet, please make yourself known, but I wanted to 

introduce my two colleagues and thank them for being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Rick. I want to make sure, too, that 

we don’t leave out a very prominent group that participated in the 

pledge of allegiance a minute ago, and that is our 4–H students. 

We are very pleased to see you two folks here. The first public 

speech I ever gave was when I was 8 years old as a 4–H member 

in a high school cafeteria in Tracy City, Tennessee. I was absolutely scared to death. So you never know where you two folks may 

go one of these days. Thank you all for your help this afternoon. 

Agriculture in the United States is very diverse, and we are here 

today to gain a better understanding of the unique nature of the 

agricultural industry in the northeastern part of the United States. 

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

hold in preparation for the writing of the next Farm Bill. The next 

scheduled hearing will take place next Monday in Ankeny, Iowa 

and we will also hold other hearings in Nebraska, Oregon, Montana, and Texas. These hearings are intended to provide American 

producers an opportunity to explain how Farm Bill programs have 

worked and what changes to these programs should be considered 

as we look to write the Farm Bill next year. 

As many of you know, American agriculture will face tremendous 

challenges in the coming year. In 2002, Congress wrote a Farm Bill 

with the belief that our programs were compliant with our international obligations. Unfortunately, the Brazilians successfully 

brought a case against the United States, which has forced us to 

examine many of these preconceptions. The current Doha round of 

negotiations within the World Trade Organization provides additional uncertainty about future agricultural programs. While I can 

unequivocally say that we will not unilaterally disarm in anticipation of any international trade agreement, we must ultimately create future policies and programs that can stand the scrutiny of our 

international trading partners. 

In addition, the 2002 Farm Bill was written during a time of 

budget surplus. The current budget deficit places a tremendous 

amount of pressure on all spending programs, including agriculture. It will be important for us to balance any changes or additions to the current Farm Bill with the need to remain fiscally responsible. Developing the next Farm Bill is a tremendous responsibility, and as chairman of the committee, I understand the importance of leaving the halls of Washington, DC to meet with actual 

producers who work the fields, milk the cows, and help provide this 

country with the most abundant, affordable, and safest supply of 

food this planet has ever known. 

I commend all of you for your hard work on behalf of all Americans, and I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today. 

I would remind our witnesses that we would like for you to keep 

your opening remarks to 3 minutes. We will be happy to take any 

full statement that you want to put into the record. 

And at this time, we will move to our first panel, which consists 

of: Mr. Carl T. Shaffer of Mifflinville, Pennsylvania, representing 

the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau; Mr. Richard Wilkins from Greenwood, Delaware, representing the Mid-Atlantic Soybean AssociaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY21.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
8

tion; Mr. Keith Eckel, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, representing 

the Specialty Crop Industry; and Mr. Klaas Martens from Penn 

Yan, New York, representing the Organic Farming Research Foundation. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. We look forward 

to your comments. Carl, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CARL T. SHAFFER, PENNSYLVANIA FARM 

BUREAU, MIFFLINVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. SHAFFER. OK. Thank you. 

If I can, Mr. Chairman, I would just, once again, like to repeat 

the expression of thankfulness for you to come to Pennsylvania. On 

behalf of Pennsylvania farmers, we are glad to have you here. Senator Santorum, thank you for your effort and help setting this up. 

And to the other two friends of agriculture, Congressman Sherwood 

and Secretary Wolff, thank you for your effort in this. 

I would just like to start out in saying a little bit about my operation. As you said, my name is Carl Shaffer, and I am fortunate 

enough to be President of Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, which is the 

largest Pennsylvania farm organization. We have over 40,000 members we represent. But I am also a full-time farmer. I make my 

full-time living off farming. My operation this year consists of 

about 1,200 acres of corn for cash sales, about 400 acres of green 

beans that go to a processor, and about 200 acres of wheat that is 

marketed for cash sales and ground into flour. 

I was very happy to hear you say about the differences between 

Georgia and Pennsylvania farming and Senator Santorum expounded on that a little bit. It is not only the market. It is the diversity of crops. It is the topography. As a matter of fact, we have 

something that we jokingly refer to as vertical set-aside [ph] in 

Pennsylvania that is some land that is a little too steep, even for 

the cows to stand on sometimes. 

But I would like you to consider in the next Farm Bill a new approach, maybe a regional approach. A little more regional consideration in crafting the next Farm Bill, I think, would be a big benefit. 

I know it is a daunting task, but we have to. 

The flood was mentioned, and I want to just expound on that. In 

1980 and 1994, Pennsylvania agriculture and the whole Ag community made a deal with Congress that we would trade ad hoc disaster programs for a workable crop insurance. Thus far, in Pennsylvania, 43 percent of our producers take advantage of crop insurance. Because of the regional differences, it just doesn’t work as 

well as it does maybe in Illinois or Indiana. Also, last Farm Bill, 

conservation programs were just the top priority. But as I told Secretary Johannes last year in a meeting, this is a Farm Bill, not a 

conservation bill. Some of the concentration of money that went to 

conservation programs never got down really to the production Ag 

side, and that is something I think you really need to look at in 

the next Farm Bill. 

Also, in closing, one thing I would just like to say, something expounding on what you said, when we go into the next Doha rounds 

or trying to finish them, we can’t disarm ourselves with a Farm 

Bill that has no teeth. If it is giving away the store, we really have 

no bargaining chip, and I think, Mr. Chairman, hearing you before, 

9

you agree with that, that we need to have something to bargain 

with. 

So just in conclusion, it would be helpful for a Farm Bill that 

takes consideration of different areas of the country in trying to 

craft that to come up with some common sense risk management 

tools that is going to work in the northeast here. And once again, 

the global trading issue is going to be a very, very high issue. 

So thank you very much for coming, again, and thank you for 

your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer can be found in the appendix on page 42.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilkins. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD WILKINS, MID-ATLANTIC 

SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION, GREENWOOD, DELAWARE 

Mr. WILKINS. Yes, I appreciate the opportunity and the invitation 

to come and give testimony today. Senator Chambliss, you may appreciate this. As I traveled north today, as soon as I crossed the 

Mason Dixon line, we ran into bottlenecks, and Senator Santorum, 

that Route 41 and Route 30 could sure use some help down there. 

The only blessing was I think the two heavy trucks that were in 

front of me were burning a soybean biodiesel blend, and that made 

it tolerable. 

But I have the pleasure of serving as the President of the MidAtlantic Soybean Association. That association makes up four 

states: the state of Pennsylvania; Delaware, formally known as the 

three lower counties of Pennsylvania; Maryland; and New Jersey. 

We won our independence from William Penn a long time ago. 

Soybean producers in the mid-Atlantic region are not only producers of soybeans but also huge consumers of soybeans. Over 10 

percent of the nation’s soybean production is consumed in the midAtlantic region by mostly the meat and poultry industries. We look 

forward to the writing of the new Farm Bill, having a chance to 

provide input into that. Overall, soybean producers are satisfied 

with the program, the way it has been working. The direct payment along with the counter- cyclical payments have been helpful. 

I understand that we are currently about $18 billion below what 

had been the projected expenditures for the term of this Farm Bill. 

It has provided a safety net, a way of helping crop producers at 

times when market conditions were low. We would much rather 

take our profits from the market rather than through loan deficiency payments, but until the rest of the world will give us the 

market access that we deserve, we need some type of safety net underneath of us. 

Again, I would like to point out that we are huge supporters and 

appreciate the support that you have been giving to soybean biodiesel. We have worked really hard in pushing for soybean biodiesel and the renewable fuels in the Jobs Creation Act. We were 

dismayed that when the Jobs Creation Act went to the Internal 

Revenue Service for rule writing that they allowed Malaysian and 

Ecuadorian palm oil to also receive the same excise tax credit as 

domestic production. We wish that something could be done to alleviate those problems. 

10

To tell a little bit more about myself, I am, like most other farmers in the mid-Atlantic regions, working two full- time jobs. I am 

a full-time farmer, and I also run a full- time farm equipment and 

farm supply business. And I think that is something that is unique 

to the region is that many of the farms have to have a source of 

income off the farm, also, in order to be able to sustain that lifestyle. 

Again, the regional approach, I think, is something that we need 

to look at. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkins can be found in the appendix on page 47.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eckel. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KEITH W. ECKEL, SPECIALTY CROP 

INDUSTRY, CLARKS SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. ECKEL. Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum, again, I would reiterate we really appreciate you coming here to Pennsylvania, the 

largest agricultural state in the northeast, and I think the one with 

the most positive future, and we appreciate your interest in us. 

I want to visit with you a few moments about specialty crops and 

some of our concerns. 

No. 1, I think it is extremely important to reflect on the fact that 

specialty crops account for approximately ‡ of the total crop sales 

in this country. They are specialty crops, but they are not minor 

crops. In Pennsylvania, the production amounts to $609 million. 

The mushroom industry is the largest single cash crop in Pennsylvania. Just a few miles from here, in Adams County, we visit a 

county where it is the fifth largest county in the Nation with orchards. We are a state that has tremendous specialty production. 

And that comes from someone who has also been a dairy producer 

and is still a green producer. 

I want to highlight a few concerns. 

One, I think it is important that when we look at the Farm Bill 

that we make it, as our goal, a safe, adequate, affordable, dependable supply of food and fiber. And in fact, if that is our goal, risk 

management becomes an important tool for specialty producers. 

The recent flood underlined the problems that we have. I have 

friends and neighbors who only grow crops along the river, never 

participated in a program, but they do not grow crops that are insurable by Federal crop insurance. And as a result, they have lost 

their total income for the year, but worse than that, their total expenditures. I can not, in good conscience, go to them and say, ‘‘Because we have a crop insurance program, we can’t support disaster 

assistance.’’ These people need help. Risk management needs to be 

reworked to help us do that. 

In the area of conservation, I have a concern that many of those 

dollars are not finding their way to producers as they used to. I 

would emphasize that sometimes here in Pennsylvania the CREP 

program becomes a program that competes with private farmers 

trying to rent that land. We are enrolling whole farms in that land. 

That was not the intent. We need to look at that. 

Research and extension funding are critically important. The 

Federal Government has not been making those investments in the 

11

past. In my operation over the last 20 years, I have reduced by fertilizer applications by 50 percent as a result of banding fertilizers 

rather than broadcasting, a result of research and extension work. 

The same can be said for pesticide application. The need for us to 

maintain our competitiveness is clear: research and extension is an 

important part of that. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention one program that I am 

very concerned about, and that is immigration reform, not tied to 

the Farm Bill, but very much tied to specialty crops. We must have 

a workable, accessible program to supply labor to the specialty 

crops in this country or we will export the production of fruits, 

vegetables, and mushrooms around the world. I don’t think we 

want to depend on foreign nations for that production. 

Gentlemen, I appreciate your interest and look forward to working with you on these important issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eckel can be found in the appendix on page 50.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MARTENS. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KLAAS MARTENS, ORGANIC FARMING 

RESEARCH FOUNDATION, PENN YAN, NEW YORK 

Mr. MARTENS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for this chance to testify. 

My name is Klaas Martens, and I represent the Organic Farming 

Research Foundation. I went through the land grant system and 

was a conventional farmer. I started farming 31 years ago, and I 

did things pretty much like everybody else in our community that 

was growing corn, soybeans, and other crops, and dairy cattle. 

About 14 years ago, we converted our farm to organic management. We were surprised, actually, to learn that our yields did not 

go down. Our cost of production did. Organic farming has been very 

good for our family and our farm and our community. At this point, 

there are nine other farms bordering us who are farming organically, and they are a major stimulus to the local economy. 

In the past, we have talked about subsidies. I am not proud to 

say it, but when we were farming conventionally, I was growing 

crops to trade dollars and getting my profits by farming the programs. Today, that is not true. Markets for organic foods have 

grown at the rate of over 20 percent per year for the past decade. 

This rate doesn’t show any signs of slowing down. Consumer demand is currently outpacing supply. 

I am personally very concerned about our share in the market. 

As companies like Wal-Mart that need a very large stable supply 

of organic foods enter the marketplace, they need to have a reliable 

supply, they need to get what they want when they want, and I 

am afraid they are going to go overseas and start buying the organic foods elsewhere. 

The key to increasing organic production is research, extension, 

and good information. The reason we have a sell in Penn Yan and 

a lot of organic farms is that we have been learning from each 

other. We are very close to Cornell University. We have had terrific 

support from our researchers. And we have been able to institute 

changes on our farms that have made organic farming extremely 

12

successful. One thing I would like to quip is that organic farming 

and conventional farming are 95 percent the same. It is best management practices. 

There are a few things that I would like to ask for that I think 

would help make organic farming more competitive and help us 

hang on to our market share. I think we need to prioritize support 

for organic farming. We need to increase the amount of money 

available for research into organic farming and disseminating that 

research to the farms that need it. I think we need to continue the 

program for cost sharing. A lot of farms, and even businesses, that 

go into organic see that cost of certification is a big upfront cost, 

and they are starting out with a small portion of their business 

doing that. By having this cost share available, they are able to offset part of that cost until their market grows. And we have seen 

business after business in our area do that and watch their markets explode and then be on their own. So this program has been 

very effective and a big help in us meeting the demand for organic 

food. 

I would like to thank you for the chance to testify before this 

committee and for the support that the USDA has shown to organic 

farming. 

One last thing I would like to point out is that when you look 

at the size of the organic market, 2.5 percent of organic food, we 

could increase the amount of money put into research by fivefold 

and only be bringing it up to the fair share, if look at it as a proportion of the industry. And if you look at the growth we have, this 

fivefold increase would still be behind. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martens can be found in the appendix on page 55.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

I have a series of questions, which I need to direct to you, Mr. 

Shaffer, and you, Mr. Wilkins, that we are going to ask at every 

field hearing we do so that we can make sure that we have the 

right information from the different sections of the country. 

First of all, how would you prioritize the programs of the Farm 

Bill generally and the commodity titles specifically? How would you 

rank the relative importance of the direct payment program, the 

marketing loan program, and the counter- cyclical payment program? 

Mr. Shaffer? 

Mr. SHAFFER. Of those three, the first question I would have is, 

as you have talked about, how are they going to be interacted once 

we have a new trade agreement settled. That is going to determine 

a lot of where we need to go, and that is why, as I mentioned before, we are kind of at a critical period as far as lack of direction, 

because once we develop our trade agreement, then the direction 

might be different than what we are prioritizing now. 

I am a very big supporter of counter-cyclical payments. I am a 

very big supporter or safety nets. And I think they would be needed just because it puts a floor under it. It is something that is not 

going to be utilized all of the time. And incidentally, you discussed 

something that was interesting about the amount of cost to the 

Farm Bill. and I look back at the last Farm Bill, and it is a shame 

13

that the Congressional Budget Office doesn’t realize money not 

spent as a savings, because I think on a lot of programs in the last 

Farm Bill, whether it be the MILC program or whatever, if that 

money is not all spent, it is still considered allocated, and we can’t 

show that as a savings. So I guess I just bring that up, because 

when we look at budget cutbacks, once you have cut it back, we 

aren’t taking into account that the Ag community didn’t utilize all 

of the money that was allocated in the first place. 

But I think the direct payments and counter-cyclical payments, 

as far as the crop program, have worked well. But to some of the 

side rules of those payments, for instance with the vegetable industry, if you infringe on the base with vegetables, you run the risk 

of a penalty. So therefore, we need some more flexibility when we 

are rotating specialty crops around with program crops. That is 

what I was referring to as some of the different challenges of the 

northeast. 

I hope that answers some of your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilkins. 

Mr. WILKINS. Mr. Shaffer made a very, very good point, that it 

is difficult to talk about the 2007 Farm Bill not knowing what is 

going to come out of the Doha round, if an agreement will be 

reached or not. But to answer your question, looking at the three 

programs that you specifically relate to, the direct payment program, marketing loan, and counter-cyclical, I believe that we would 

want the marketing loan program and the loan deficiency payment. 

We would prioritize that as, out of those three, being the No. 1 program that we would want to see continue. At times when commodity prices are below cost of production, we need some type of 

a safety net there to ensure that we are at least going to break 

even and be alive to farm the next year. Second, I would rank the 

direct payment program as number two. And third, the counter-cyclical payment program. 

One flaw that I see with the counter-cyclical payment program 

is it is not based on amount of money that the producer received. 

It is based on the average market price. The formula has not taken 

into account the number of bushels of production that was sold at 

that price. So many producers that don’t have an adequate amount 

of storage space to store a year’s worth of commodity, they could 

be penalized, because if they are forced to sell their commodity at 

harvest time out of the field and market price rises, they didn’t 

capture that increased market price. But then the counter-cyclical 

payment is based on the average market price for the year, and 

that takes some of that counter-cyclical payment back away from 

them, which we have seen that happen several times in the last 

3 to 4 years. 

Other programs of the Farm Bill, the Conservation Security Program, excellent program. We really feel that that program will reward producers that are good stewards of the soil, that have been 

and have already put into practice good conservation practices. In 

some of the conservation programs that we have had in the past, 

you had to be harming the environment before you would qualify 

for the program. The Conservation Security Program takes a different approach. It says you are already doing this, we are going 

to reward you for doing that. I think there are some other parts 

14

of the Farm Bill, the assistance for marketing co-ops. That was an 

excellent part of the Farm Bill. We would like to see that continued, also. 

The CHAIRMAN. We can expect an effort to further reduce payment limits in the next Farm Bill. Do payment limits need to be 

modified in this Farm Bill? If so, why? 

Mr. SHAFFER. We have, as you said, a limited supply of money. 

We would like to see the payment limits removed on there. It goes 

back to the amount of money that you said is going to be available 

as far as that goes. In Pennsylvania, payment limits might not 

mean as much as they do in other parts of the country. So I guess 

for me to comment from Pennsylvania as far as payment limits, 

other parts of the country might have a different view on it. I 

would just say, as far as our Pennsylvania farmers, if there is 

enough money to adequately help the greater number of farmers is 

what I am looking for, if that includes payment limits or whatever, 

but I am looking for that there be a safety net able to be provided 

to the greatest number of farmers. 

Mr. Chairman, it is so important that we keep, not artificially, 

but valuable the number of farmers in business as possible. If we 

don’t, in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country, I am afraid 

if we start losing our infrastructure, our agricultural infrastructure, we already see there are fewer and fewer machinery dealers, 

fewer and fewer processing plants, we won’t get those back, and 

that is why I think it is so vitally important to develop a program 

that is going to keep the maximum amount of farmers in business 

as possible. And like I said, not artificially prop them up, but actually make it so they can stay in business. 

Mr. WILKINS. Mr. Chairman, the issue of payment limits is probably one of the issues that divides the agricultural community. 

Looking at the blue jackets, when I had the pleasure of wearing 

the blue jacket, I visited Washington, DC for Leadership Week, met 

with then-Secretary of Agriculture Butts, who told us plant fencerow to fencerow. The world is hungry. We can get rid of everything 

that you produce. And as young agriculturalists, we went home and 

we listened to those words, and we became very efficient producers 

of food. But then market prices went down, cost of production continued to spiral upwards. What were we forced to do? Outbid our 

neighbor for the next farm. And it is really sickening in my region 

at how values of being good neighbors and helping each other have, 

in many cases, been squashed by the need to get bigger in order 

to remain competitive. This is why the agricultural camp is so adamant about protecting payment limits, keeping them large, protecting the three entity rule. And I have really mixed feelings on 

this, because on one side, I understand the need that you must get 

larger and larger and larger in order for efficiencies of production, 

but at the same time, I look back and see that when we were only 

farming 500 and 600 acres we still had time to spend in our community. We still had time to belong to community organizations, to 

do things recreationally with our families. And now that we are 

pushed to be bigger and bigger producers to survive, a lot of those 

things we don’t have time for today. We have to work 16–hour 

days, 6 and 7 days a week. And I wish there was something that 

15

we could do to reward the small farm producers, but not at the expense of taking too much money away from the large operations. 

Mr. MARTENS. Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARTENS. I think there has been an unintended consequence 

from raising the payment limits and having these payments, that 

they have become an entitlement that goes with the land. And I 

have got a personal interest. My son is sitting here. He is 17 years 

old, and he would like to farm. And he regularly asks me, ‘‘Dad, 

how am I going to be able to afford to get a piece of land so that 

I can become a farmer? And I think we are seeing greatly inflated 

land prices partly as a result of the way, not intended, the program 

is working. And I think payment limits could possibly help rectify 

that situation. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The Doha round of negotiations seeks 

to provide additional market access for U.S. agriculture goods in 

exchange for cuts in domestic farm payments. How important are 

exports to the future of farmers? 

Mr. SHAFFER. I think they are vital. We are already producing 

over 30 percent more than what we use in this country. If we don’t 

have an export program, we are just going to basically put probably 

close to 30 percent of our farmers eventually out of business. So 

this is so vital. As far as the Doha rounds, we need, and it was 

very gratifying to hear from Susan Schwab the other day when I 

was in Washington, that her philosophy is that she is intending on 

standing firm, that a bad deal is worse than no deal. And personally, I agree with that, and I think you are on the same program 

as that. But I think the people in the United States have to understand, as far as exports and imports, how vital it is to keep the 

United States’ agriculture healthy. We are hearing every day, that 

is all you hear in the news, about the price of fuel and depending 

on foreign oil. I think if the people had to depend on foreign food, 

between biosecurity issues, availability, and price, there would be 

more dissatisfied voters, I think, in this country than anyone has 

ever seen. So I think the whole ability for exports is getting back 

the ability to keep our farmers in business. We have to have that 

export market to utilize our overproduction. 

The CHAIRMAN. I didn’t intend to skip you guys down there. I 

was primarily asking this to the commodity growers, but any time 

you all want to jump in, feel free to do so. 

Mr. ECKEL. Senator: 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. ECKEL. Your previous question, I agree totally with Carl. 

And for the specialty crop industry, it is extremely important that 

we have access to those markets. And I would just make one observation from having been involved in the previous round of negotiations, and that is that this is a work in progress. And one of the 

additional things, if we do get an agreement, is to insist on a continuity clause so that we continue down this path. We won’t 

achieve all of our goals, in my opinion, in this round. It will take 

more rounds. Continuity, a commitment to future negotiations, will 

be key and something that I don’t hear many people mentioning 

about. 

16

The one comment I would make about payment limitations, and 

this is coming from a specialty crop producer, but I have had experience with many of your colleagues from other production crops, 

there is a philosophical argument that you have to deal with. I had 

indicated in my testimony that it was important that we be geared 

to a farm program that assures an adequate supply of food and 

fiber. Once we set any payment limitation, I believe we have modified that goal, because now we are talking about income support 

rather than production encouragement. And I think that that is a 

philosophical discussion that absolutely needs to be in the minds 

of those of you who deal with the next Farm Bill. What is the real 

goal? If the real goal is just financial support of a certain group of 

individuals, there are probably better ways to do that than a farm 

program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eckel, I want to direct this question to you, 

but before I do, my part of the country has primarily been, historically, row crop production. Peanuts, cotton, and tobacco have been 

our staple crops for decades. My home county is one of the more 

diversified counties in the country. In fact, we pride ourselves on 

being the most diversified agricultural county east of the Mississippi River. If you can eat it, wear it, or smoke it, chances are, 

it could have come from my home county. But my son-in-law is a 

produce farmer. Joe grows cabbage, cucumbers, squash, all kinds 

of greens, bell peppers, and eggplants. He and I have talked about 

this question many number of times that I am going to direct to 

you. Do you have any thoughts about relaxing or eliminating the 

planting restriction in order to comply with our WTO obligations? 

What would the impact of relaxing or eliminating that provision be 

on specialty crop growers? 

Mr. ECKEL. The one concern that I have is that when we relax 

that provision, what we ultimately do is cause the traditional vegetable producer who has never established a base to have to compete 

against those program crop producers who are now entering vegetable production but armed with a payment, if direct payments are 

kept in that proposal. In fact, in the current structure, could actually receive direct payments and counter-cyclical payments. That is 

unfair competition to that individual who has been a traditional 

vegetable producer and never built a base. I understand the need 

for flexibility, but if, in fact, we have to do that, we may well have 

to look at some other way to level that playing field, otherwise, he 

will be competing against someone who has an economic advantage 

that he does not have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Martens, as an organic producer, how have 

you been able to utilize the conservation provisions in the 2002 

Farm Bill? 

Mr. MARTENS. We have participated in all of the Federal programs. We have gotten EQIP funds for putting in contour farming, 

diversion ditches. Our farm, I am proud to say, is farming well 

below the erosion factor. I do have a concern. I hope this is not totally off topic, but we have gotten terrific support from the very 

well trained NRCS staff that has worked with us. And I am very 

concerned that we have got five senior district conservationists in 

our area who are retiring this year, and there have not been sufficient people trained to replace them. And we are going to sorely 

17

miss the contribution that NRCS gives if we don’t put resources 

into training new people that can continue doing that. So to kind 

of sum it up, we have participated in all of the programs. Our farm 

has definitely benefited, but I am very concerned for the future, not 

just organic farmers, but all farmers having the support from 

NRCS technical people that we need. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Santorum. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask Carl. I think you made the quote that this is a Farm 

Bill, not a conservation bill. Obviously, there are substantial conservation programs in the Farm Bill. Do you have suggestions of 

how we could alter those conservation programs, and anybody else 

who would like to comment, also, but I wanted Carl to start, alter 

those conservation programs to be more beneficial to production? 

Mr. SHAFFER. Well, I don’t want to be flip, but the first thing 

sounds like we ought to move to Penn Yan, New York with the 

farm. It sounds like it is working better there. It is not in Pennsylvania. EQIP used to be called the ACP program years ago. It was 

a vital tool for cost shares that a producer, an operator, could apply 

for cost share money to do conservation practice. And back then, 

to be honest with you, NRCS, that used to be the Conservation 

Service then, would receive from zero to 5 percent money of the 

total budget for technical training. Now that is up to 19, almost 20 

percent, that they get for technical training. And also, my concern 

is there is an advisory committee made up of approximately 40 people in Pennsylvania. And one, maybe two, out of that 40 has ties 

to production agriculture. And those are the people that are advising where the EQIP money should be spent. So I think we need to 

relook at things, because we need programs that are going to provide help, especially with our WTO agreements where the green 

box would allow for some more conservation money to get to producers. Somehow, we need workable programs where that conservation money actually gets to production agriculture and isn’t 

tied up with some sort of middle person or something. We need 

technical advice. We don’t need water police. And some of this 

money is sort of geared toward enforcement rather than money to 

actually go to a farmer to implement practices to better our environment. And I think we need to do that. We need to concentrate 

on that. 

Mr. MARTENS. I think the conservation money, especially the 

EQIP program, maybe we have benefited better than other parts 

of New York, but we have had some very good people working with 

us. But they are a win-win situation. The farmer wins, because we 

improve our land, we protect our soil from erosion, and we increase 

our production. But the public that pays the taxes also wins, because their water is cleaner and their air is cleaner and their environment is a better place. So I think there is a fairness in these 

conservation payments where we can go to the taxpayer and say, 

‘‘Yes, we are taking your money and using it on farms, but we are 

doing things that are going to benefit you.’’ And just, for example, 

the big project that our farm just completed is a farm that is uphill 

above the village of Penn Yan. We had a flood in the year 2000 

when eight inches of rain fell overnight, and there were two kids 

with a rowboat out in the middle of my kidney bean field. That 

18

flood just narrowly missed flooding the entire village. Now what 

this project has done, by putting in terraces, contour strips, and 

better water management, is protected the village. And I think 

there is hardly anybody in Penn Yan downstream from that farm 

who doesn’t feel that their tax money was well used. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. Keith and then Carl, if you want. 

Mr. ECKEL. Senator, this is more of an administrative observation. NRCS has been extremely important to agriculture and to the 

environment, I think, in providing technical service over the years, 

as my colleague has indicated. One of the concerns that I see in 

the operation is that with the advent of some of the new conservation programs, they have become the administrator of funds as well 

as the technical advisor provider. It seems to me that perhaps 

within USDA we are creating two agencies. We already have the 

Farm Service Agency who historically has administered those programs, and I think it is better equipped to do that. And I am concerned that we are taking away time from that critical technical 

advice in doing that where FSA could do that. Again, I would indicate it is an administrative concern, but perhaps something that 

should be looked at as you work on the bill. 

Mr. SHAFFER. Just a little more follow up. There are other programs. And it was ironic he just talked about the flood, and we just 

had a flood. You were there. You saw it. There is a program called 

the Emergency Conservation Program, which is a conservation program. Wonderful. It is just geared for what we have had. It is to 

help clean out waterways, diversions, and straighten things up. It 

would really help with a lot of this flood damage so if we have more 

rain, we are not going to have more erosion down in the streams 

and creeks and rivers. The problem is, there is zero money allocated in the program. So we do have some programs that work 

really well where there are no dollars in there, so it is not available. In the CREP program, I have utilized some of that money to 

do some conservation practices. Great program. The only thing, it 

will only pay, for some reason, for projects that run up and down 

the hill. It won’t pay for projects that run across the hill. And to 

try to stop erosion, projects that you can apply across the hill to 

collect the water and channel into that project that up and down 

the hill. But we can talk until we are blue in the face, but there 

needs to be some common-sense approaches to the conservation 

program. I am not saying, and please don’t take this wrong, that 

it is not good. It is good, but it just needs to be tailored that it does 

what it is intentioned to do. When you vote for it, I know you have 

in mind it is to go to production Ag to do conservation practices or 

reward people that are good stewards of the land. But when it is 

getting lost some place in the middle, that is what we need to address. 

Thank you. 

Senator SANTORUM. Just one final question. I talked about the 

issue of crop insurance, and I think it would be helpful to the committee if you could explain, any of you, Keith, maybe since you 

have gone through this, some of the problems that we are having 

here in Pennsylvania with the crop insurance program and some 

suggestive changes that we could make in the program that could 

19

help improve our coverage here and take care of some of our farmers. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ECKEL. No. 1, from the specialty crop perspective, we absolutely need to develop a program that offers coverage for all producers. We don’t have that now. Some of our small family farms 

located along the Susquehanna River and all of the other creek 

bank areas in Pennsylvania, those operations are small. They are 

retail. They may grow 30 different crops. We talked about vegetables. It happens that I grow two that are insurable: sweet corn and 

tomatoes.That is not by accident. That is by plan for myself. But 

those who grow those others have no protection at all. That is a 

serious problem, so we need to broaden the protection to all crops, 

number one. 

No. 2, the program is administered differently in different parts 

of the country. If we living in the Midwest, sectional equivalence 

would allow us to break up our operations. I will use my operation 

as an example. My operation is composed of nine separate farms, 

some as far as seven miles away that we own. The FSA offices had 

encouraged us to group them under one FSA number, which we 

did. If we lived in the Midwest, for crop insurance purposes, we 

could separate them by sectional equivalence. In the northeast, we 

can’t. You were in the northeast 2 weeks ago. We had tomatoes, for 

instance, that were flooded along the Susquehanna River. Because 

I have tomatoes that are also grown on a different farm five miles 

away, there will be no coverage for them. So it is critically important, in my opinion, that sectional equivalence or insurance by 

tract rather than by FSA number would be very, very important. 

We have to increase the expertise of FCIC at all levels in order 

that we can adequately provide that coverage. Until we do, we absolutely have to have the consideration of a disaster program, because, gentlemen, while this disaster was narrow in scope, it was 

devastating to the producers that are involved. They deserve assistance. There is no one in this country that, seeing that, would say 

that they did not. So we have got to work in that Farm Bill to correct that, but I personally believe something needs to be done for 

those producers now that didn’t have that protection. 

Mr. SHAFFER. I stated in my opening comments that in 1980, the 

Ag community made an agreement with Congress to forego the 

large ad hoc disaster payments. And I am 100 percent supportive 

of crop insurance. It is a voluntary way where I feel a farmer can 

self-help himself. He is paying a portion of the premium, and he 

is making that decision whether he wants to provide a safety net 

for himself, and he is contributing to it with money out of his farming operation. But having said that, in Pennsylvania, when 43 percent of the farmers are taking advantage of this program, it is not 

because they just don’t like crop insurance, because if it doesn’t 

work for them, they are not going to take advantage of it. We are 

classified as an underserved state, and I told the administrator of 

risk management I would love to get off that list. I would love for 

us to be off that list that Pennsylvania is an underserved state, because that means more of our producers are able to take advantage 

of crop insurance. 

20

Mr. Eckel mentioned the specialty crop, and we have mentioned 

that. We have mentioned the green crops. At worst, the agricultural community is so dependent on one sector or another that if 

one sector is getting a better deal from the Federal government and 

the other sector isn’t, that puts them at a disadvantage. I know we 

are on a global market, but we are also competing within the 

United States. So I really feel that crop insurance can’t be one 

cookie-cutter policy for the whole country. 

And something you can relate to, Mr. Chairman, I was told, I 

said, ‘‘Well, we can’t make it different for northeast,’’ as the southeast said. ‘‘That is all the same.’’ I said, ‘‘Well, I beg to differ, because if you can find a cotton or a rice policy written in Pennsylvania, I would love to know about it.’’ So there already are some 

differences in amongst the different parts of the country. 

Thanks. 

Mr. MARTENS. I think all of the things that Mr. Eckel shared 

about crop insurance applied to most organic farms, too, with one 

important difference. Crop insurance seems to work fairly well for 

corn and soybean farmers. Those are easy crops to insure. Maybe 

wheat. That program works for the farmers in my area, too. As an 

organic farmer, though, when I sell my soybeans that go to Japan, 

I am getting $22 a bushel compared to a ready soybean that might 

bring less than $5. And I can’t insure my $22 soybean for more 

than the going price for the cheapest soybeans in the community. 

So I am really not getting meaningful coverage on the grains because of the difference in value, and I think we need to have a way 

that a farmer can actually insure their exposure to us in an equitable way. And I think this could be fairly easily done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Don, did we cover everything you wanted to ask 

about? 

Mr. SHERWOOD. They pretty well got through the specialty crop 

insurance, which I wanted to talk about. And we talked about conservation a little bit. And to go back to the CREP program, I think 

it needs to be reemphasized that the way the CREP program was 

set up in Pennsylvania, not only did it take a lot of marginal farmland out of production, which is a good thing, it also took a lot of 

good farmland out of production, because in Pennsylvania, land 

rents are not as high as the CREP program, anywhere near as high 

in most parts of the state. And so it has been counterproductive for 

agriculture in that regard. 

The other thing, we have all talked about the flood. And we all 

know that we need money for disaster relief, but we also need to 

change our policies in this country a little bit. In this part of the 

world, we went in the creeks in 1972 and sort of straightened them 

up, and nobody has been allowed to do it since. So the creeks were 

ready for a disaster, because when we had a hard rain, they all 

blocked up and split into three channels and go out through the agricultural ground or go out through a residential neighborhood because they hadn’t had any work done on them in years and years 

because that is out of favor right now. And really, there was more 

mud in the creeks and mud in the river and mud in the Chesapeake Bay by this natural rainstorm than there could have been 

many times over in all of the projects that might have been done 

21

in the last 30 years and weren’t done. So I think we have to relook 

at those policies a little bit. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and your input very much. 

Yes, sir. Mr. Wilkins? 

Mr. WILKINS. Mr. Chairman, if I could, please, on the Doha 

round of negotiations. And we were talking about Mr. Shaffer mentioning that 30 percent of current farm production is being exported. Historically, that is ever since the 1970’s that we have been 

very dependent upon exports to keep our production utilized. We 

are on the verge, though, in this nation that if we continue to increase the production of ethanol, if we continue to increase the production of soybean biodiesel, and we are just starting to look at biomass energy production, we could sustain a vibrant farm economy 

in this country with hardly any exports, but with programs that 

would help to utilize the production as renewable fuel. I mean, that 

is what I am looking forward to, working over the next few years 

to continue to get renewable fuels encouraged and production 

ramped up. And I think it is very important that these incentives 

for renewable fuels end up to the consumer, either the producer or 

the consumer. 

In my county, I purchased 100 percent soybean biodiesel prior to the excise tax credit, and I paid $3.20 a gallon for it. After the excise tax went into effect, I paid $3.30 a gallon for it. I asked my 

supplier how I could possibly be paying more after he is receiving 

$1 a gallon excise tax credit, and his simple answer was: supply 

and demand. Supply and demand. I could stick an extra dollar of 

profit in my pocket. And what I want to see is when a consumer 

pulls up to a fuel pump island that they don’t have to pay extra 

for renewable fuel. And the polls have shown that consumers are 

willing to pay a small amount extra for renewable fuels if it means 

reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me assure you, as we write the Farm Bill 

next year, the energy title that we put in the 2002 Farm Bill, for 

the first time I would add, is going to be greatly expanded, because 

this is a key issue all across America. We have never used ethanol 

in the southeast, because we have not had a supply, but the demand is there. The supply is going to now come, just like it is everywhere. So whether it is biodiesel or ethanol, we are going to see 

an awful lot more in the way of manufacturing of those products 

and utilization of those products across the country. 

Let me again thank all of you for coming out today. We appreciate very much your input and your testimony. We look forward 

to continuing the dialog with you as we approach the writing of 

this bill next year. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHAFFER. Thank you. 

Mr. ECKEL. Thank you. 

Mr. MARTENS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call our next panel forward at this 

time: Mr. James Shirk of East Earl, Pennsylvania, representing the 

Shirk Family Farm and Pennsylvania State University; Ms. ChrisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Nov 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\JULY21.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
22

tine Hetz Phillips of Fairview, Pennsylvania, representing the Fairview Evergreen Nurseries and Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association; Mr. Don Cotner of Danville, Pennsylvania, representing Cotner Farms. 

Mr. Shirk, Ms. Phillips, Mr. Cotner, welcome to our panel today. 

Thank you very much for taking your time to come here with us, 

and we look forward to hearing your testimony. We are happy to 

submit your entire statement for the record. 

We would ask that you hold your comments brief. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHIRK. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES A. SHIRK, SHIRK FAMILY FARM, 

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST EARL, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. SHIRK. Chairman Chambliss, Senator Santorum, and everyone else, thank you very much for coming to Pennsylvania and 

being here to hold this hearing. 

My wife and I are the ninth generation to live on our family’s 

farm and are committed to continuing to be a part of agriculture 

like our family has for the last 248 years. It is my belief that the 

purpose of the Farm Bill is to provide the framework for ensuring 

the long-term viability of agriculture in the United States in the interest of national security and quality of life for all Americans. My 

comments will focus on three general areas: the critical need for 

full funding of Ag research and extension at land grant universities, farmland preservation, and the distribution of farm program 

dollars. 

Penn State and the land grant institutions continue to have a 

critical role in the generation and distribution of relevant knowledge in providing an educated workforce for generations to come. 

One specific area in Pennsylvania that land grants have played a 

significant role is their assistance in combating avian influenza. 

Twenty-five years ago, we faced an outbreak of avian influenza 

that virtually destroyed our industry, and 5 years ago, we faced an 

outbreak again, but through partnerships with universities and the 

Department of Agriculture, the impact was significantly and greatly reduced. 

Two components of that success came directly from the universities through the development of a faster test for the presence of 

the virus and a better understanding of composting techniques 

which minimized the spread of the disease. Unfortunately, the Federal component of research extension funding that allows for these 

success stories has been flat for some time, and it is now time to 

initiate change in the system. The next Farm Bill should establish 

a new institute under USDA reporting directly to the Secretary of 

Agriculture that would consolidate agencies, programs, and activities. 

The second area I would like to address is the value of farmland 

preservation programs. These are an economic stimulus and provide a background for expansion and profitability in our industry. 

In 2000, my father entered into an agreement to sell the development rights from our farm. One of the primary reasons for participating was to purchase the farm and to keep it in our family. Generation transfer is a very common reason for preserving land, thus 

23

providing the opportunity for farms to remain in the same family 

for multiple generations. In Lancaster County, we are fortunate to 

have a non-profit land trust that can also provide this service. The 

Lancaster Farmland Trust is a very active, nimble, and effective 

organization that has preserved almost 15,000 acres through donated easements or low-cost purchases, with many farms using the 

Trust as part of their estate planning. The Trust estimates they 

have saved taxpayers around $35 million using their organization 

to preserve this land. Federal policy should encourage the use of 

non-profit land trusts as a cost-effective model for preserving farms 

and consider expanding tax incentives for easement donations. 

My final comments revolve around distribution of Federal Farm 

Bills and the regional equity. The advantage we do have in production is our proximity to major populations and thus consumers. The 

next Farm Bill can invest in our advantages by providing incentives for value-added production and expanding our regional supply 

chains. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shirk can be found in the appendix on page 59.] 

Chairman Chambliss, I thank you for the opportunity to share 

my thoughts and look forward to any questions you would have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CHRISTINE HETZ PHILLIPS, FAIRVIEW EVERGREEN NURSERIES, PA LANDSCAPE AND NURSERY ASSOCIATION, FAIRVIEW, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman and distinguished gentlemen, thank 

you for coming today and for your interest in the concerns of Pennsylvania agriculture. Thank you. 

My name is Christine Hetz Phillips, and I am the CEO of Fairview Evergreen Nurseries, a 3,500 acre agricultural operation located near Erie, Pennsylvania. I also serve on the Penn State Erie 

County Cooperative Extension Board and on the Board of the 

Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association, or the PLNA. 

PLNA represents predominantly family owned businesses in 

Pennsylvania’s $5.6 billion landscape nursery and retail garden 

center industry, known as the ‘‘green industry’’. The green industry 

employs over 100,000 Pennsylvanians, is Pennsylvania’s largest 

cash crop, and the fastest growing segment of agriculture in Pennsylvania. Nationally, nursery and greenhouse production represents 11 percent of the commodity agriculture. 

Our green industry has not played a major role in previous Farm 

Bills because we are a non-subsidized component of agriculture. 

The green industry is not seeking subsidies, but stands in need of 

research and development funding. Pennsylvania State’s College of 

Agricultural Sciences has provided such research and development 

supported by Farm Bill grant funding. And PLNA simply asks that 

this funding continues as the partnership between the college and 

the green industry has been immensely beneficial to the nurseries 

and landscape contractors and garden centers of Pennsylvania. 

With new challenges, such as the Asian Longhorn Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, and Phytophthera Ramorum, or Sudden Oak Death, 

the green industry must be equipped to respond to these diseases 

24

and/or pest crisis. Farm Bill funding can help bridge the widening 

gap between current resources and these needs. Historically, the 

Commodity Credit Corporation has been a strong funding source 

for quarantine and eradication efforts, but this has been scaled 

back. More funding is needed to ensure the short and long-term 

safety and stability of our nursery and greenhouse crops. 

The challenge of invasive species is another area in our industry 

that suffers for lack of strong scientific research. Research in this 

relatively new field is desperately needed, but funding is scarce 

and difficult to find. The 2007 Farm Bill could provide additional 

grant dollars for the issue of invasive species so the industry can 

better understand the implications of certain plants in both our 

landscapes and forest lands. 

Finally, I want to direct your attention to the most vexing problem in the green industry. Our industry’s greatest need is access 

to sufficient labor. Pennsylvania’s own Senator Arlen Specter has 

helped to author excellent legislation, and the Senate has passed 

this good bill, which will begin to solve our nation’s labor and immigration crisis. 

I want to thank the Senators here today for their hard work to 

achieve a bipartisan and balanced bill that will achieve a real solution for our farms, communities, and agribusinesses. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips can be found in the appendix on page 62.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. COTNER. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD COTNER, COTNER FARMS, 

DANVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. COTNER. Yes. Senator Chambliss, welcome to the beautiful 

rolling hills and valleys of Pennsylvania. Thanks for coming here. 

Senator Santorum, thanks for hosting this program. 

And Secretary Wolff, thanks for sharing your house with us. 

It is a pleasure to speak with you today, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about the status of Pennsylvania agriculture and the potential implications of the upcoming Farm Bill. 

First off, I would like to provide a very brief background of myself. We are a third-generation family farm involved in the production and marketing of eggs. We raised 1,300 acres of corn and soybeans annually, and we recently began a commodity trading and 

soybean processing business serving northeastern United States 

feed industry and the emerging biofuels industry. Additionally, I 

serve as Director of AgChoice Farm Credit and for PennAg Industries Association. AgChoice, as part of the Farm Credit System, 

provides financing and financial services to rural Pennsylvania. 

And PennAg is a trade association, which provides lobbying and 

operational services in support of agriculture and related industries. My comments are not meant to reflect positions of these entities. 

I was pleased that Congressman Sherwood recognized the fact 

that I was involved in poultry and egg production, however, I was 

asked to participate with an emphasis on biofuels, so that is where 

I will emphasize. 

25

The emerging bioenergy markets present a tremendous opportunity to reverse the current conditions of agriculture in our region. 

In order to energize our local Ag economy, we must stimulate local 

corn and soybean prices. Rather than reduce supply to achieve this 

goal, we need to spark corn and soybean demand. The present and 

ongoing fuel crisis presents a great opportunity to do just that. 

Ethanol and biodiesel production within our region would eliminate 

any locally produced surplus, would create buyer competition for 

our corn and soybeans, and put profits into the farmers’ pockets. 

Without question, government assistance will be required to 

overcome the establishment and startup costs inherent to the 

biofuels industry. The programs put into place in the new Farm 

Bill must promote growth and increased market competition. The 

new Farm Bill needs to promote the agricultural community to get 

involved in ethanol and biodiesel from the beginning to the end of 

the cycle: from farmers to consumers. Agriculture needs to see incentives that encourage farmers to plant more acres of beans for 

biodiesel plants and more acres of corn for ethanol plants. I would 

encourage programs for farmers that commit to produce for the 

biofuel industry. 

Agriculture needs government support for ethanol and biodiesel 

startups. I would encourage continuing grant programs and tax 

credit programs for bio-based fuel producers and blenders. Agriculture needs a Farm Bill that encourages the community to use 

biofuels. Actively promote it. Reward the farm community to use it. 

Consider reducing taxes on bio- based fuels. Set reasonable, yet 

progressive, biofuel usage mandates in public transportation and 

the railroad industry.Possibly tag funding for public awareness programs on the merits of ethanol and biodiesel fuels. 

And thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cotner can be found in the appendix on page 64.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Phillips, you talked about research, as did some of our other 

witnesses earlier, and unfortunately, we are not likely to have additional funding for any new research programs in the next Farm 

Bill. Are there any existing programs, from a research standpoint, 

that you think we are not fully utilizing or that we are, in effect, 

not getting the benefit from that we ought to shift to other areas? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I don’t know, really, about shifting any of the resources. I am on the Penn State Cooperative Extension Board. I do 

know that funding to them overall has dropped 2 percent, I think 

every year for the last three or four years. That was one main area 

where a lot of research was taking place. Also, as a new member 

on the PLNA, I know they look at research. As a member on the 

HRI Board of the ANLA, which is a trust for research into horticultural concerns they have tried to be a significant resource. But 

there are so many different invasive plants, invasive bugs, just everything that concerns our industry. I know the Avian flu was even 

talked about. I think our government could do a lot of good by 

granting money in the form of research with this Farm Bill. 

Mr. SHIRK. Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

26

Mr. SHIRK. If I could add on to that as well. That is kind of the 

genesis for one of the comments I made about consolidating agencies into an institute so that some of those research lines could not 

only be enhanced, but they could be better coordinated to increase 

deliverables from those programs effectively. Individual and national programs in CSREES, AMS, ERS, could be maintained and 

grown through a better integration of how they are coordinated. 

The funding could be competitive. It could be based on priority 

areas and problem issues and require extension and research on a 

multi- institutional basis across county lines to leverage those activities across state so that you can expand on those benefits. An 

important part of that, though, is that there not be an elimination 

of local priorities and that they would still have funds to be able 

to reach issues that are site- specific to individual states. Pennsylvania’s prime example is the mushroom industry, as already 

mentioned. This is a high-value crop, a specialty crop here in Pennsylvania, that benefits greatly from the base funds that universities 

have, but their individual needs would never rise to the level to 

compete for a national competitive funding. So maintaining the 

level of base formula funds is a very important part of where those 

research dollars go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shirk, should we shift funding from land retirement programs to working lands programs like farmland protection to achieve a better balance, or vice versa? 

Mr. SHIRK. I think that it is a perfect marriage to have both of 

them working in together. Farmers are considered to be the first 

environmentalists, and whenever times get tough, there can be a 

temptation to bring in marginal production land and try and utilize 

that in order to put more monies into your pockets. When a farmer 

accepts Federal dollars or state dollars or benefits from preserving 

farmlands, they have a fiduciary and an environmental responsibility to maintain the long-term production of that farmland. The 

conservation and the stewardship and the fiscal responsibility must 

be a part of any type of conservation programs and farmland preservation programs are enacted through the Farm Bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cotner, you talk about the utilization of alternative crops for production of alternative fuels, which I agree 

with you. I know they are doing a lot of research, just like we are 

at the University of Georgia, particularly on cellulosic crops. In 

fact, we grow something in Georgia that is a cellulosic crop that is 

called kudzu. If we could ever figure out a way to manufacture alternative fuels out of kudzu, I tell you, we are going to put everybody else out of business, because we certainly have an abundance 

of it. 

But what is your thought on utilization of crops like switch grass 

or other cellulosic crops? Where do you think we are headed in that 

direction? 

Mr. COTNER. I understand that the levels of yield from some of 

those product is greater than the yield from soybeans, and it would 

be a valuable source of biofuel. I think we should further explore 

those. And I am not sure what the byproducts would be for switch 

grass and so forth, and that needs to be studied further. 

The CHAIRMAN. Being in the poultry business yourself, we are 

number one in broiler production down our way, and I am sure 

27

your folks are doing the same thing from a research standpoint 

when it comes to looking at trying to capture methane and other 

energy sources out of the poultry industry. An issue that we have 

relative to the utilization of corn, particularly in the manufacturing 

of ethanol, is that we have got to be careful that we don’t use all 

of our resources which are necessary for feedstocks for folks in the 

poultry industry. How can we balance agriculture’s potential in renewable energy production with wildlife, environmental, and feedstock concerns? 

Mr. COTNER. That is a very good question, and something that 

I have considered. But the bottom line is, the amount of money 

back to the producer has to increase if the government subsidy is 

decreased. And we will have the byproduct from corn-based ethanol 

is a product that is well suited for dairies and maybe probably decrease the cost of that byproduct. But the initial commodity, corn, 

that should increase and go back to the farmers. However, I do understand that the corn distiller is not a prime feed for poultry, but 

the dairy industry is a very good user of that product. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very difficult and sensitive issue. Rick 

was just telling me that Pennsylvania is a corn- deficient state. As 

we expand on this particular ethanol production from corn as a resource, we are going to have to be careful that we don’t use all of 

the corn to make ethanol, and that we make sure our dairy folks, 

our cattle folks, and our chicken folks have plenty of resources also. 

Rick? 

Mr. SHIRK. Mr. Chairman? I am sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHIRK. If I could add something into that as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. SHIRK. One of the best results of all of this attention being 

paid to biofuels is that it creates windows for educating consumers 

about the value of agriculture. And it is amazing to see how suddenly people see value in farming when it is going to affect their 

gas tank when they have been fed by the livestock industry and 

the food industry in the country for all of these years, but you have 

got to make hay when the sun shines. Our region would benefit 

most by having investment in energy production that utilizes resources that we have in excess. In Pennsylvania, we have a lot of 

excess manure. If we can guide our energy production and investments towards places where we have challenges like manure. We 

have excess soybeans. This is a perfect place to do that. We have 

cellulosic opportunities because of the hardwoods industry. If we 

can guide energy production to where we have excess and opportunity, I think that is the best way to wisely use those resources. 

Mr. COTNER. I think, too, that you need to recognize the fact that 

we have been producing soybeans in excess in Pennsylvania, and 

the farmers in Pennsylvania have been paying high transportation 

costs, either to the southern part of the country or to the Midwest 

where they process soybeans into to soybean meal. It is something 

that we ourselves don’t use. We use mechanical pressure and heat, 

and then we press the oil out. But without transporting that out, 

without paying the freight costs and the demand increasing in 

Pennsylvania, would cause the basis to move in favor of the farmer, 

28

therefore getting a better price to him, which is critical if we are 

going to do away with subsidies. 

The CHAIRMAN. Rick? 

Senator SANTORUM. Yes, I just want to follow up on this same 

line. 

You talked a lot in your testimony, Mr. Cotner, about incentives. 

You mentioned repeatedly about incentives for the development of 

alternative energy sources. I am sitting here, step away from this 

being an Ag hearing, as a consumer saying, why do we need to provide incentives for this production when you are sitting here with 

oil at $75 a barrel?’’ I mean, what additional incentives need to be 

given when you have got a marketplace where it would appear that 

you can probably make a fair amount of money at oil prices? What 

sort of program does the government have to do in addition to the 

fact that you have got a market that makes about anything profitable when you are producing at this point? Why do we need incentives? 

Mr. COTNER. Well, that is the current market. And right now, oil 

is at its highest level it has been forever. If you incentivize and extent grants to produce more biodiesel and ethanol use, there will 

have to be some sort of mandate for the public to use it and some 

reason for the consumer to use it. So when oil, if it ever does, drops 

below $40 again and the price of soybean oil and ethanol——

Senator SANTORUM. You are suggesting that we have to provide 

a mandate to use this, the biodiesel? 

Mr. COTNER. Yes. 

Senator SANTORUM. Why do we have to provide a mandate? 

Mr. COTNER. Well, currently, I believe that you wouldn’t have to, but when, as I said, crude oil prices drop below the $40 level, then 

you will have all of these ethanol plants and all of these biodiesel 

plants going broke. You will have the production of soybeans and 

corn maybe fencerow to fencerow to supply these plants. So if there 

is not a mandate involved, then there will be a surplus again. The 

companies will go broke. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. So what you are suggesting is we need 

an incentive to build it and a mandate to use it? 

Mr. COTNER. Yes. Yes. As opposed to subsidizing. 

Senator SANTORUM. An incentive is a subsidy, isn’t it? 

Mr. COTNER. Pardon me? 

Senator SANTORUM. An incentive is a subsidy. 

Mr. COTNER. Yes, in a way, how ever you develop it. But a mandate is not. A mandate would not cost the taxpayer any money. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. And you would want this. I am just trying to understand. You would want this at this point, even though 

we have very high prices, or you would want this at a trigger level 

that if oil drops below a certain level, that you get some sort of 

mandate? Or how would you envision that? 

Mr. COTNER. Well, I envision it as a trigger level, yes, but also, 

have a reasonable mandate, not something that is preposterous. 

For example, Minnesota has a mandate to use a certain percentage 

of B–20, which is 20 percent biofuels mixed in with the diesel fuel. 

And I think something reasonable would work. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. Just back to you, Mr. Shirk. You made 

a point in your testimony about regional supply chains. Can you 

29

get into that from the standpoint of specialty crops? I think you 

were talking about that. 

Mr. SHIRK. I think what I am really talking about is how could 

farmers increase their returns per acre, and the specialty crops are 

a way to do that. If we could grow toasters in corn crops, we would 

figure it out and how to harvest it with a combine, we would do 

that. We are looking for opportunities to get a return on our investments in that farmland. Not every farm has the ability to direct 

market what they can grow to their neighbors, but many farmers 

certainly have the ability to produce them. What could be developed is additional infrastructure to link producers to markets. 

When you came in today, you saw the farmers’ market sitting out 

in the parking lot outside. That is a great opportunity to interact 

there, but it is a limited number of people that have the time to 

take a day out of their week to come up there and sell their wares, 

and it is only 1 day a week. So there are things that are limited 

on there. If there is a way to look at value-added grant programs, 

rural business and enterprise reforms to increase the ability to access processing, packaging, and shipping for cooperatives, they 

would be much better positioned to serve a regional marketplace 

with their specialty crops. It doesn’t have to be a crop. It can be 

a specialty product, but as long as it increases the return per acre 

that a farmer has on his land, that is the bottom line. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, anytime you want to jump in 

here, don’t hesitate if there is anything you would like to cover. 

These are your experts. 

Well, thank you all very much for being here today. Now I can’t 

let three Penn State graduates be here without reminding you if 

it were not for Penn State, the University of Georgia would possess 

our second national football championship. So you all tell Coach 

Paterno he is the class of college football coaches, but we will fund 

his retirement, if he is ready. He is a terrific guy. 

Thank you all very much for being here. And again, we look forward to staying in touch with you. 

Our third panel today consists of: Mr. Logan Bower of Blain, 

Pennsylvania, representing the Professional Dairy Managers of 

Pennsylvania; Dr. Joe Jurgielewicz of Hamburg, Pennsylvania, representing PennAg Industries Association; Mr. Robert M. Ruth of 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, representing the National Pork Producers Council; Mr. David Hackenberg of Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 

representing the American Beekeeping Federation. If you gentlemen would come forward. Thank you all for being here today. You 

all have seen the routine. We are going to follow that again. We 

will be happy to submit your entire statement for the record. 

Mr. Bower, we will start with you and go right down the row 

there. We look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LOGAN BOWER, PROFESSIONAL DAIRY 

MANAGERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, BLAIN, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. BOWER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum, and members of 

the committee, I appreciate the committee’s invitation for me to 

come here today and present my views on dairy in regards to the 

2007 Farm Bill. 

30

I am Logan Bower. We currently milk 600 cows and farm 650 

acres in the western end of Perry County located in south- central 

Pennsylvania. I have been in business for the past 13 years, and 

I am the third generation to own and operate the farm our dairy 

is currently located on. 

I will address very briefly each of the following issues: No. 1, a 

safety net for the U.S. dairy industry; number two, Farm Bill funding; No. 3, trade; and No. 4, regulations. 

No. 1, safety net. Reform farm safety net by preserving and expanding the best features of the existing farm safety net, including 

a trade-compliant income stabilization program for dairy producers. 

The safety net should not discriminate between farmers of differing 

sizes, nor should the safety net discriminate between farmers in 

different regions of the country. The safety net should not result 

in price enhancement, meaning that it should not be an inducement to produce additional milk. The government safety net should 

be just that: a device that prevents a collapse of producer prices 

without stimulating milk output or sending inappropriate signals 

to the marketplace. 

No. 2, funding inequities. Historically, many Farm Bill programs 

have not effectively addressed the needs of Pennsylvania producers. 

Current farm programs and policies are needed to correct inequities in farm spending, half of which now flows to just 8 states and 

22 congressional districts. Although Pennsylvania has significant 

farm sales, our state receives a disproportionately small share of 

Federal farm spending that is primarily based on production of a 

few commodities, including corn, wheat, rice, and cotton. According 

to the tributary strategies developed under the Chesapeake 2000 

agreement by Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, New York, West 

Virginia, and Delaware, the Chesapeake Bay watershed needs an 

additional $200 million per year in Federal assistance to agriculture conservation as well as a similar amount of state funding 

in order to bring nitrogen and phosphorus loads back to an acceptable level. The funds are needed to support farmers in designing 

and implementing nitrogen and phosphorus reducing conservation 

practices in their farming operations. 

No. 3, trade. I support a successful, multilateral round of trade 

talks if it helps level the very uneven playing field in dairy export 

subsidies, tariff protections, and domestic support programs, but I 

can’t support any final agreement that doesn’t represent a net increase in our opportunity to better compete against our more heavily subsidized and protected competitors in the European Union, 

Canada, and Japan as well as more balanced trading opportunities 

with key developing countries. 

And finally, regulations. The PA dairy producers desire sciencebased environmental regulations that focus on encouraging compliance rather than stressing harsh penalties. Given the chance to 

adopt new technology that yield improved environmental performance, the PA dairy leaders will exceed expectations, given the right 

climate and science-based strategies. 

In closing, I want to thank you for holding these hearings, and 

we welcome you to our state and hope you enjoy your stay. 

I will be happy to answer any questions or provide you with any 

additional information that you request. 

31

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bower can be found in the appendix on page 68.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. JURGIELEWICZ. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOE JURGIELEWICZ, PENNAG 

INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, HAMBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Dr. JURGIELEWICZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Chambliss, and a 

special welcome to our own senator, Senator Santorum. 

My name is Dr. Joe Jurgielewicz. I am a poultry producer and 

veterinarian specializing in the production of duck from 

Shartlesville, Pennsylvania in Berks County. We at Joe 

Jurgielewicz & Son are fully integrated Pekin Duck producer, producing more than three million ducks annually. Our operation includes 6 company-owned farms and 20 contract producers located 

throughout Pennsylvania. 

I am here today representing not only the poultry industry but 

also the member companies of PennAg Industries. PennAg Industries represents more than 650 agribusinesses in the state of Pennsylvania. 

Let me first speak as a poultry producer. 

As you are well aware, the threat of AI is a high priority in 

Pennsylvania. The media and public have focused much attention 

on the Asian strain of highly pathogenic AI, or bird flu, and the 

Federal Government has extended major resources to prepare for 

potential human pandemic. I would like to commend Congress and 

the USDA for their efforts to use sound science to educate the public and calm the fears associated with the avian flu. Please know 

that the poultry industry in Pennsylvania is doing its part as well. 

Pennsylvania has traditionally led the industry in surveillance 

testing with more than 240,000 AI samples being tested every year. 

Because of Pennsylvania’s diverse industry and contribution to 

the live bird markets, we have dealt often with low-path AI. Lowpath AI can be present in a flock without clinical signs. This lowpathogenic form presents no risk to human health. However, it is 

very important to control this so it does not have the ability to circulate and mutate to high AI. We support and encourage the proposed regulation from USDA that would provide indemnities at 100 

percent of the value of any birds that would be destroyed due to 

low pathogenic AI. 

For more than 10 years, Pennsylvania has maintained a closely 

held data base of industry information that has been extremely 

useful in situations involving the diseases of poultry. To maintain 

the confidentiality of this information, we have kept the information at the University of Pennsylvania’s New Bolton Center. When 

needed for quick action, relevant portions of this data base are 

accessed and provided to state and Federal officials. 

With the development of the National Animal Identification System, a system similar to the one that had been in place here in 

Pennsylvania, we understand the value of this resource. We would 

like to encourage the inclusion of privacy protection in the Farm 

Bill for information submitted by producers. Confidentiality must 

be a top priority in this system. 

32

I would like to offer some comments on behalf of PennAg. 

PennAg membership is comprised of various sectors of Pennsylvania’s agriculture. Pennsylvania’s agriculture industry is unique and 

diverse in its makeup, and we appreciate you recognizing that. In 

the northeast, we have the unique opportunity and advantage to 

market to urban and suburban populations that are in close proximity to our production areas. This also presents great challenges. 

The general public is becoming further and further removed from 

food production, which creates an education and communication 

gap between producers and their neighbors, particularly when discussing environmental issues. Because of this, we wish to stress 

the importance that all components of the Farm Bill be science 

based, consistent, and realistic for producers. In saying that, funding that will help producers to implement best management practices will be crucial. 

I would like to thank you for your time and efforts. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jurgielewicz can be found in the 

appendix on page 75.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. RUTH. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT M. RUTH, NATIONAL PORK 

PRODUCERS COUNCIL, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. RUTH. Good afternoon, Chairman Chambliss and Senator 

Santorum. 

I am Robert Ruth, a pork producer from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I am President of Country View Family Farms. Country 

View Family Farms is a division of Hatfield Quality Meats, a family owned pork processing facility, which has been in business since 

1895. Hatfield is owned by the Clemens family, which is still actively involved in the business. Country View Family Farms is furrow-to-finish operation that markets 750,000 hogs per year. I am 

also responsible for the procurement of animals for Hatfield. We 

purchase an additional 1.2 million hogs per year from farmers in 

the five- state area around Pennsylvania. I am grateful to you for 

holding this field hearing and the opportunity to provide you with 

my views on what is working and what we need to improve upon 

as we consider that reauthorization of the 2002 Farm Bill. 

I would like to submit my written testimony and request that it 

be included in the record. 

Pork producers make an investment in the industry to maintain 

a competitive edge, both domestically and globally. The 2007 Farm 

Bill should also make an investment in competitiveness by opening 

access to new markets, enhancing conservation efforts, and rewarding producers for good practices. Taking these important steps will 

maintain a vibrant agricultural sector that provides a safe and secure food supply and innovative fuel options. 

Pork producers, along with other livestock and poultry producers, 

are the single biggest customers for U.S. grain producers. Our single largest expense, by far, is the feed we purchase for our animals. 

Pork producers are strong and vital contributors to the value-added 

agriculture in the United States, and we are deeply committed to 

33

the economic health and vitality of our businesses in the communities that our livelihoods help support. 

Pork production has changed dramatically in this country since 

the early and mid–1990’s. Technology advances and new business 

models changed operation sizes, production systems, geographic 

distributions, and marketing practices. The demand for meat protein is on the rise in much of the world. Global competitiveness is 

a function of production economics, environmental regulations, 

labor costs, and productivity. The United States must continue to 

be a leader in food production to meet the needs of increased consumer demands. 

As the U.S. pork industry evaluates the reauthorization of the 

2002 Farm Bill, I would like to point out three key initiatives that 

I would like for you to consider. One, to be a world leader, we must 

maintain our competitive advantage. Two, to compete in a world 

market, we must strengthen our competitive position. And three, 

we must not let outside activist groups harm our industry. 

The next Farm Bill should help the United States pork industry 

maintain its current points of competitive advantage. These include: low-cost production, unparalleled food safety, and consumerdriven further processing. In addition to maintaining our competitive advantage, the next Farm Bill should strengthen that position 

by expanding and including such elements as trade assistance, 

science-based conservation, and environmental programs. 

Finally, the next Farm Bill should not harm the competitive position of the U.S. pork industry by imposing costs on or restricting 

the industry from meeting consumer demands in an economical 

manner. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we must be cautious about allowing activists groups, which do not represent the 

best interests for the livestock sector to push their particular agenda by adding regulations to our business practices. This will severely alter the intent of the Farm Bill, a piece of legislation that, 

for the last 50 years, has been aimed at maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture and the U.S. livestock sectors. 

I would like to thank you, once again, for holding this hearing. 

I respectfully request your continued focus and attention to the 

matters I have brought to you today. 

Thank you. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HACKENBERG. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID E. HACKENBERG, AMERICAN 

BEEKEEPING FEDERATION, LEWISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. HACKENBERG. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on 

issues important to the beekeepers in the Farm Bill. My name is 

David Hackenberg. 

From my headquarters in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, my family 

and I operate 3,000 colonies of honeybees. We operate in Pennsylvania, Florida, California, New York, and Maine. We produce 

honey and beeswax, and provide pollination services for growers of 

a wide variety of crops. I have been a beekeeper for 44 years. 

34

Over the years, I have worked with beekeeper associations in 

several states and allowed Federal university bee researchers to 

use my colonies for field trials in several projects. I am also well 

acquainted with beekeeping issues across the country; I have been 

active in the American Beekeeping Federation for over 30 years, 

serving as President in 1998 and 1999, and have served two stints 

on the National Honey Board. 

My family beekeeping operation, and all of the American beekeeping industry, are facing many challenges. We are continuing to 

deal with three exotic pests: varroa mites, the honey bee tracheal 

mite, and small hive beetles. USDA and university scientists are 

working on a solution to these pests, but they develop a resistance 

to these treatments as fast as they come on line. All of these treatments are expensive, costly to purchase, and labor-intensive to 

apply. 

Modern commercial beekeeping is a highly mobile operation. We 

beekeepers move our colonies from honey crop to pollination to winter nursery grounds in an attempt to maximize our efforts. Mobile 

means fuel-consuming, which these days can cost more every time 

we fill the tanks. 

Honey prices have strengthened recently, but have been severely 

depressed for several years. Drought has taken a toll on the honey 

crops, as with other crops. But poor honey crops do not always 

mean an expected bump in the price, since honey is a world crop 

and is freely imported into the United States. Frequently, this imported honey is sold at prices below United States cost of production. It gives the producers in developing countries like China clear 

economic advantage since they are not required to adhere to our 

many costly requirements and realities of doing business in the 

United States. Relatively low labor costs for foreign producers and 

the lack of disincentives for adulteration or production of low-quality product are among some of the most problematic realities. 

We are facing erosion in our markets from what we call the 

honey pretenders: products that purport to be honey but are blends 

of cheaper syrups labeled to confuse consumers into thinking they 

are buying 100 percent pure honey. I see these fraudulent products 

on sale everywhere I go. The honey processors who buy my honey 

have to compete with them, resulting in lower prices paid to me. 

Many of these ‘‘honey pretenders’’ contain little or no honey. 

Sometimes their labels are legal, confusing the most acute of shoppers. Others are outright fraud that are clearly labeled as pure 

honey, even though they are not. We continue to seek the assistance from the Food and Drug Administration to combat fraud, but 

in the light of the tight budget, Food and Drug assistance is very 

limited. The U.S. honey industry has petitioned Food and Drug to 

establish a standard of identity. We ask that Congress promulgate 

a standard of identity of honey as soon as possible. 

During the early period of honey price downturn, the honey marketing loan program of the 2001 Farm Bill served as a true safety 

net. It worked as intended and allowed honey producers to borrow 

funds while holding our honey crop for a better market. The program has been operating at a minimal cost. In periods of low 

prices, it is critical that beekeepers have this program available. 

35

The industry is also working with the USDA Risk Management 

Agency to make affordable and effective crop insurance available. 

I look forward to such a crop insurance program to help stabilize 

my honey production during times of disaster- diminished honey 

crops. However, so far, RMA has not approved or piloted a crop or 

revenue insurance product for beekeepers. We urge the committee 

to encourage RMA to move forward in this area. Honey bees are 

known for their honey, but their value as pollinators of plants vastly exceeds the value of honey produced: about $200 million in the 

farm gate last year. Their pollination is a unique and irreplaceable 

service to the rest of agriculture, a service that enables growers to 

be more profitable and effective. A Cornell University study has determined that pollination by the honey bees adds $14.6 billion in 

value to major agriculture crops. This is not even in consideration 

of backyard gardens and other ornamental and environmental 

crops. 

I have some other things in there, and we will talk about them 

in the questioning period, but I appreciate you coming today. And 

I look forward to your questions. 

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

appendix on page 85.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hackenberg. I am 

generally familiar with a lot of the issues involved in your industry. 

One thing you heard me talk earlier about in our part of the world, 

we are a large vegetable-producing area, and a lot of our farmers 

are concerned about the decreasing number of honey bee colonies. 

What is the situation in this part of the country? How does your 

industry invest in that? 

Mr. HACKENBERG. Well, it is the same thing all across the whole 

country. And actually, when you talk about the bee business, we 

are talking about the whole United States, because it is mobile. As 

I said before, our operation moves up and down the east coast and 

even on to California to pollinate almonds in the wintertime. And 

it has gotten so severe in the past year that the almond crop in 

California right now is using over a million hives of bees in February, which is the off season. That is when the bee numbers are 

down. And with the Almond Board’s projections of where their 

numbers of acres are going, by the year 2012, they are going to 

need two million colonies of bees. That is more bees than are commercially managed in the United States. And we have already 

started importing package bees from Australia this past year, during the winter, which is bringing in some more exotic pests that we 

really don’t need. We already have our share of them. But what we 

need is research and a way to keep these things alive. The mites 

came here in the 1980’s from other parts of the world, and it has 

just devastated the bee industry. And one out of every three bites 

of food that the American people eat is dependent on the honey bee 

to be put on that table, along with a lot of other things, cotton and 

so on. Without the pollination of cotton, your crops aren’t what 

they need to be. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are we doing a good enough job, from an inspection standpoint, on making sure that bees that come into this country are pure and free of harmful insects? 

36

Mr. HACKENBERG. Do you want my opinion or do you want 

APHIS opinion? No, in reality, what has happened is, We have left 

some things slip by. I mean, APHIS has left some things slip by. 

There has been pressure put on by the almond industry to open up 

the borders for Australia. And they got in here in a last-minute, 

spur-of-the-moment thing last winter. The almond people, they are 

part of agriculture, too, don’t get me wrong, but they would like to 

open the Mexican border and let the Mexican bees come north. And 

down there we are dealing with the Africanized bee situation. 

The CHAIRMAN. You raised an interesting issue on the labeling 

of some honey that may not be pure honey. We have a food labeling 

bill that I am a strong supporter of. I am going to be testifying, as 

a matter of fact, on that bill next week, and we are going to make 

sure we have honey included in there. 

Mr. HACKENBERG. I just came from a National Honey Board 

meeting in Denver about two weeks ago, and we had people there 

from Food and Drug. The problem is they just don’t have resources. 

They have been cut way back. And what we are talking about here 

is economic adulteration. And it is not killing anybody, except me 

and Bill Gamber, who is sitting in the audience some place as a 

honey packer. His business is going downhill because he has got to 

compete with these pretenders. And I can buy high fructose corn 

syrup for 18 cents a pound, while the price of honey right now is 

running about 90 cents, so you have got the bad guys making a 

good living. 

Senator SANTORUM. Is this a matter of just prosecution, investigation? What is the——

Mr. HACKENBERG. There is just nobody going after anybody, basically. We have been fighting this thing for a number of years, and 

it continues to get worse, because one guy gets away with it. Several years ago, there was a case in Michigan where they put some 

young attorneys on this case, and they didn’t really know what 

they were doing, and they lost it on some technicalities. And from 

that point forward, these bad actors have just kind of laughed at 

the industry and said, ‘‘Look, we got away with it.’’ And even legitimate companies have gotten into this blending situation of blending corn syrup and other cheap sweeteners with honey. Sixty percent of the honey in the United States is consumed in food products. And then you pick up a box of Cheerios that says Honey Nut 

Cheerios. I don’t go to the supermarket very often, but when I walk 

through the supermarket and I look at 39 cereals on that store 

shelf and 19 of them had the word ‘‘honey’’ on the label, that is 

what they are using to sell the product. But when you pick that 

up and look at it, out of the 19, I think it was eight of them that 

didn’t even have honey on the label. And if honey is there, it is way 

down the list below sugar and corn syrup and all of that. So this 

is the problem we have with the labeling situation. And it is really 

a severe and unique situation. I ran a honey packing business for 

25 years until 1994 when we had a major catastrophe and the 

place burnt down, and so we changed, with a lot of things that 

were happening in the industry with consolidations and stuff, we 

decided to become better beekeepers and devote our time toward 

pollination. But with mislabeling and stuff, we go to Food and Drug 

37

here in Philadelphia and don’t get any help, because it is not one 

of their priorities. It doesn’t make headlines. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bower, we had a hearing yesterday in the 

Ag Committee, an oversight hearing on the dairy program. Obviously, one of the major issues that we discussed in 2002 is going 

to be front and center again in 2007, the issue of forward contracting. What is your thought about whether or not forward contracting ought to be available to producers rather than just through 

the cooperative measures? 

Mr. BOWER. Currently, it is available to producers. I have used 

forward contracting in the past. I am currently not using any. Forward contracting has not been a popular issue among dairymen. A 

few years ago, when it became available, a lot of dairymen did, and 

I think today they are a little bit skeptical, because the milk market is controlled by very few people and very few businesses. And 

I personally am a little skeptical of forward contracting. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you must have been part of the pilot program. 

Mr. Ruth, during the last Farm Bill debate, there was considerable discussion on the competition in the livestock marketplace. 

What effect would bans on packer ownership, forward contracting 

in your industry, and mandatory country of origin labeling have on 

livestock producers? Should Congress reauthorize the livestock 

mandatory price reporting program? 

Mr. RUTH. Well, the issue of mandatory contracts, we think that 

it would basically hurt the industry. One of the areas that we look 

at is that it seems that as we progress in the livestock arena to 

offer more contracts to producers that are beneficial to both parties, 

there are groups that are against that and would like to revert 

back to the way that we priced hogs 25 or 50 years ago. And we 

think that that would be a backwards movement for the hog industry. We are in favor of mandatory price reporting. We think that 

is good for the transparency of the market between the processors 

and the producers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Jurgielewicz, what is your most pressing environmental or conservation concern? Do existing conservation programs help address those concerns? 

Dr. JURGIELEWICZ. Our most pressing conservation concern right 

now is waste management in all of the poultry industry. The constant changing of regulations and then trying to adapt to those regulations. the new regulations have hurt a lot of the smaller producers, especially since ducks were clumped together as a more 

waste-producing animal, which it wasn’t, and that is why, in my 

testimony, I said we have to use more science-based facts when we 

are making our rules and regulations. Since the duck industry is 

a relatively small part of the poultry industry, we weren’t represented specifically, and we got the lower end of the deal on that. 

More research on what to do with waste products. That could be 

one of our concerns for the future. 

Mr. RUTH. Mr. Chairman, if I may add to that, from a waste 

standpoint, we are very concerned about manure being considered 

a hazardous waste under the super funds. And we would like your 

support to stop that movement. Manure has been used for fertilizer 

for thousands of years, and it is a very organic type of material. 

And to classify it as a chemical with a million half-lives, I think, 

38

would be a great detriment, especially when you look at the cost 

of fuel and the cost of nitrogen, manure is gaining value back as 

a fertilizer in the eyes of a lot of grain farmers. So we need to be 

careful about how we classify it and remember that it is a resource, 

not a waste product. 

The CHAIRMAN. Rick. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just ask Mr. Bower, you laid out how you would like to 

see a dairy program work, and I think you said you want a program that doesn’t create an advantage of big versus small, doesn’t 

have regional impact, is a true price support when the price goes 

down, and does not encourage production. Wouldn’t we all like to 

have a program like that? We have been trying to get a program 

like that for 50 years in dairy. My question is what is that program, because if you have that answer, you can accomplish a great 

many things in Washington, DC. 

Mr. BOWER. That is a good question. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. Thank you. I just want to know. I 

thought, ‘‘Boy, that is great. He has the answer to my question I 

have been searching for for 15 years.’’

Mr. BOWER. Just to add to that, I think the way I have always 

looked at the situation is that this country was built on capitalism, 

which is free enterprise. And with free enterprise, you have winners and losers, just like in the 1983 Sugar Bowl. 

Senator SANTORUM. Well put. Very well put. 

The CHAIRMAN. A Penn State graduate. 

Mr. BOWER. And unfortunately, I think that our society has become a society where we don’t want to see losers anymore. And I 

believe that low milk prices will cure low milk prices. And I am a 

dairyman, and if I have a cow that is not pulling her weight, she 

goes down the road, because she is not making me money. And I 

think whenever you have a price support program, as we have in 

place right now, that you keep businesses in that hurt the industry 

in the long run. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. Thank you. 

You mentioned that you were involved on the forward contracting pilot program, which I was the author of, and you said it 

didn’t work for you very well. 

Mr. BOWER. Well, I wasn’t involved in that pilot program, but I 

had done some contracting. I haven’t contracted in the past year, 

but 3 years prior to that, I had contracted. 

Senator SANTORUM. And you said——

Mr. BOWER. Some years it worked, some years it didn’t work. 

And I kind of got disgusted with the situation and decided to take 

the free market. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. And in talking to other producers, is 

that the general consensus that that program didn’t work? 

Mr. BOWER. There are some winners, some losers. 

Senator SANTORUM. That is sort of the way the market works, 

right? 

Mr. BOWER. That is right. I have talked to producers that have 

experience on both sides of the fence. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. 

39

Mr. BOWER. I mean, I am not quite sure where you were going 

with that question, because I was under the assumption that contracting was always available, the tools were there. And it was just 

a matter of the producer educating himself or taking advantage of 

the opportunities to initiate the contracts. 

Senator SANTORUM. Well, the staff can probably correct me if I 

am wrong, but we provided some support. If you are a co-op member, that is my understanding that it is available through the coop. The question is whether it is available to independent producers, is that correct? 

Mr. BOWER. Right. No, I can do forward contracting and hedging 

without going through my co-op. 

Senator SANTORUM. OK. Well, I will check with the folks. Maybe 

I need to understand the program a little better. 

The only other question I had, I wanted to talk to Mr. 

Hackenberg. And I am just curious, because I know the import 

issue is still a very big issue. Does that continue to be a problem 

in the industry or has that abated at all? 

Mr. HACKENBERG. Well, that depends who you talk to in the industry. I believe in free trade. I believe it will level itself out, but 

when we come to Washington, we have got different segments of 

the industry that are still fighting Argentina and China over tariffs. If I had my way, to make the whole thing a politically level 

playing field, we would have a tariff on everybody that was coming 

in, whether it was Canada or whoever, but that is not going to 

work under the trade laws. And unfortunately, the way the world 

honey trading works, we put tariffs against Argentina and China, 

and you are talking about regulating or looking at stuff coming in. 

Well, Chinese honey that is under these rules still comes in here, 

but when it is on a ship, the paperwork changes hands many times 

over, and Chinese honey may come from some other country. The 

same way with Argentina. And it still gets here. We have been to 

customs. We have been to everybody in Washington that is handling this and they just blow us off. We are a small industry, and 

if this was happening to the dairy industry or the corn or soybeans, 

you know, somebody would get to the bottom of it. It is just like 

the chemicals and products we need to treat the mites. When there 

are only, probably 1,600 commercial beekeepers left in the United 

States, if there even is that many, a chemical company can’t afford 

to spend a lot of money to make chemicals to take care of a mite 

problem, because it takes millions of dollars to develop this stuff. 

And it is the same way with the import situation. We just don’t 

have big enough clout down there. Yes, we get the, ‘‘Oh, sure. We 

will look into it.’’ And then somebody makes a couple of phone calls 

and that is the end of it. The same way with the adulteration and 

the pretender situation. If this was happening in the milk industry, 

everybody would step up to the plate and take care of it. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, as with the other panelists, thank 

you very much for being here. I know all of you are very busy. We 

appreciate you taking the time out of your schedules to come and 

share these thoughts with us. Also, we look forward to dialoguing 

with you as we go through this process over the next several 

months. 

40

To all of our audience today, we thank you for coming out and 

sharing with us and listening in on what is being heard. I encourage anyone interested in submitting a written statement for the 

record to visit the committee’s website at Agriculture.Senate.gov 

for details. We can accept written statements up to five business 

days after this hearing. 

I want to again thank the folks here in Harrisburg for hosting 

us, the Secretary and all of the folks here, at this facility. What a 

great place to have this hearing, and Rick, you have been a very 

gracious host. We appreciate you and your interest in agriculture 

for America, not just for Pennsylvania. You have been a great asset 

to the committee, and thanks for being here today and having us 

here. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you, again, and all of the members of your staff 

for their cooperation in holding this hearing here. And you have 

done an outstanding job, as a freshman member or a freshman in 

the sense it is your first term in the United States Senate to become a chairman of the full committee and to be able to go through 

the difficult process that you just went through with the budget 

reconciliation in the first year as chairman is really testament to 

your skills and your work ethic. And I really appreciate you coming 

to Pennsylvania and taking the trips around the country to listen 

to producers about this upcoming Farm Bill. And hopefully, you 

have got a little better insight on agriculture here in northeastern 

United States as a result of this hearing here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

With that, this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 21, 2006

42


30430.005
43


30430.006
44


30430.007
45


30430.008
46


30430.009
47


30430.010
48


30430.011
49


30430.012
50


30430.013
51


30430.014
52


30430.015
53


30430.016
54


30430.017
55


30430.018
56


30430.019
57


30430.020
58


30430.021
59


30430.022
60


30430.023
61


30430.024
62


30430.025
63


30430.026
64


30430.027
65


30430.028
66


30430.029
67


30430.030
68


30430.031
69


30430.032
70


30430.033
71


30430.034
72


30430.035
73


30430.036
74


30430.037
75


30430.038
76


30430.039
77


30430.040
78


30430.041
79


30430.042
80


30430.043
81


30430.044
82


30430.045
83


30430.046
84


30430.047
85


30430.048
86


30430.049
87


30430.050
88


30430.051
(89)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JULY 21, 2006

90


30430.001
91


30430.002
92


30430.003
93


30430.004
94


30430.052
95


30430.053
96


30430.054
97


30430.055
98


30430.056
99


30430.057
100


30430.058
101


30430.059
102


30430.060
103


30430.061
104


30430.062
105


30430.063
106


30430.064
107


30430.065
108


30430.066
109


30430.067
110


30430.068
111


30430.069
112


30430.070
113


30430.071
114


30430.072
115


30430.073
116


30430.074
117


30430.075
118


30430.076
119


30430.077
120


30430.078
121


30430.079
122


30430.080
123


30430.081
124

Æ


30430.082