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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–690 PDF 2011

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE 

FARM ECONOMY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

Serial No. 112–4

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 4

WITNESS

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J., Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 51

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE 

FARM ECONOMY 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:30 a.m., in Room 

1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Lucas, Johnson, King, 

Neugebauer, Conaway, Schmidt, Thompson, Gibbs, Austin Scott of 

Georgia, Fincher, Southerland, Crawford, Roby, Huelskamp, 

DesJarlais, Ellmers, Gibson, Hultgren, Hartzler, Schilling, Ribble, 

Peterson, Holden, McIntyre, Boswell, Baca, Cuellar, Costa, 

Schrader, Kissell, Owens, Pingree, Courtney, and McGovern. 

Staff present: Mike Dunlap, John Goldberg, John Konya, Josh 

Maxwell, Nicole Scott, Debbie Smith, Pelham Straughn, Richard G. 

Thomson, Nona Darrell, Nathan Fretz, Liz Friedlander, Craig 

Jagger, Keith Jones, Mary Knigge, Scott Kushmider, Clark Ogilvie, 

Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, and Jamie W. Mitchell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Agriculture hearing to review 

the state of the farm economy will come to order. 

This morning’s hearing focuses on the state of the farm economy. 

With all of the bad news out there today, it is nice to have something good to report. The state of the U.S. farm economy is strong. 

Our nation’s producers are generally experiencing good prices and 

solid production. The USDA is forecasting record-high income and 

exports. 

Importantly, despite the higher farm gate prices, last year’s rate 

of inflation for food costs that consumers pay at the grocery store, 

was the lowest on record since 1962. And it is expected to track 

with the same average rate of inflation this year. Yet despite the 

good news, those of us who have been around agriculture know all 

too well that things can change quickly. 

The agricultural economy is highly cyclical, and it changes like 

the weather in western Oklahoma: sharp, fast, and without notice. 

This reality helps explain why the mood in farm country today is 

both upbeat and apprehensive. After all, increasing production 

costs, lost equity, and fast-rising farm debt may be manageable for 

producers with strong prices and production, but they spell big 

trouble for those without. 

2

These facts, along with experience, offer a cautionary note to everyone who might be tempted to cite current economic conditions 

on the farm as the predicate for setting long-term farm policies. 

Some outside this room might even ask, why should anyone 

other than those directly involved in agriculture care about the 

state of the farm economy. I offer three reasons. First, as the Federal Reserve points out, thanks to production agriculture, rural 

America is leading the U.S. economic recovery, just as it did 

through the last recession. 

Second, food security remains important to national security. In 

fact, NPR made this point in a recent story entitled, Rising Food 

Prices Can Topple Governments, Too. Third, there will be nine billion people on this planet by the year 

2050. We will need to double production, using less water and land 

in order to feed all of them. These facts are a wake-up call to everyone who believes that agriculture no longer matters to our economy. But there is another eye-opener. 

Some of you may have seen the black bumper stickers with a 

blue line across them, with that thin blue line representing our police force. Well, today, there are just 210,000 Americans out there 

who are responsible for 80 percent of U.S. agricultural production. 

These Americans support our economy, help keep us secure, and in 

those 210,000 people lies the answer to the question of how we are 

going to feed nine billion people come the year 2050. In short, these 

American men and women form a very thin line that we better 

hold. 

So the question becomes: Are our Federal policies that we are 

pursuing today going to hold or break this line? Unfortunately, on 

a range of issues, new policies coming out of Washington are 

threatening to punch a hole clear through it. We know that the 

EPA has opened up at least ten assaults on agriculture, including 

the strange objectives of eliminating dust on farms and treating 

milk on farms as if it were oil. But to put it plainly, EPA is gambling with our economy and wasting taxpayer dollars while they 

are at it. 

Irrational environmental policy is also jeopardizing our energy 

production capacity that, even without the regulation of greenhouse 

gases, is fast approaching a crisis. And by imposing margin requirements on end-users under last year’s financial regulatory reform, Washington has actually managed to add fuel to the fire. 

I also feel a very subtle push from the Department that seems 

to take for granted these 210,000 Americans who are producing 80 

percent of our food. There seems to be a prioritization on a small 

subset of producers in order to satisfy certain constituencies. 

I think all of the Members of this Committee support marketing 

opportunities such as organic production, farmers markets, and 

local production, but organic production and these other seeming 

priorities of the Department will not feed the nine billion souls that 

will soon inhibit this planet. 

I do believe the Secretary has agriculture’s best interests at 

heart, and I want to work with him to be an advocate for farmers 

and ranchers both inside the Administration and here in Congress. 

The bottom line is Washington is being met with a critical choice 

that will have major consequences down the road: We can promote 

3

the one piece of good news out there today, or we can pour cold 

water on it. 

Fortunately, promoting American agriculture is simple. Washington can, first of all, support fiscally responsible policies that 

help level the international playing field; second, we can support 

risk management tools so that producers don’t go without something as basic as insurance; third, support policies that create a 

pro-growth, business-friendly environment that promotes U.S. competitiveness. And, of course, finally, the fourth, Washington can 

just simply get out of the way. I believe for most of us in this room, 

the choice is clear. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of Secretary Vilsack and 

the views of my colleagues on the state of the farm economy and 

on the direction of Federal farm policies that could make or break 

it. 

Now before I turn to yield to my good friend, Mr. Peterson, I 

would simply express a particular appreciation for the Secretary’s 

patience today. We started with a series of 15 votes this morning 

as we work our way through this open process on the continuing 

resolution to fund the rest of the government. I would serve notice 

to my colleagues here that the Secretary has to appear this afternoon before the Senate Agriculture Committee. He has a very hard 

deadline of being gone by or before 2 p.m., so we want to be respectful of his time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM OKLAHOMA

This morning’s hearing focuses on the state of the farm economy. 

With all the bad news out there today, it is nice to have something good to report: 

the state of the U.S. farm economy is strong. Our nation’s producers are generally 

experiencing good prices and solid production. USDA is forecasting record high income and exports. 

Importantly, despite the higher farm gate prices, last year’s rate of inflation for 

food costs that consumers pay at the grocery store was the lowest on record since 

1962, and it is expected to track with the average rate of inflation this year. 

Yet, despite the good news, those of us who have been around agriculture know 

all too well that things can turn quickly. 

The agriculture economy is highly cyclical and it changes like the weather in 

western Oklahoma: fast, sharp, and without notice. This reality helps explain why 

the mood in farm country today is both upbeat and apprehensive. After all, increasing production costs, lost equity, and fast rising farm debt may be manageable for 

producers with strong prices and production—but they spell big trouble for those 

without. 

These facts, along with experience, offer a cautionary note to anyone who might 

be tempted to cite current economic conditions on the farm as the predicate for setting long term farm policies. 

Some outside this room may even ask: why should anyone other than those directly involved in agriculture care about the state of the farm economy? 

I offer three reasons: 

First, as the Federal Reserve puts it, thanks to production agriculture, ‘‘rural 

America is leading the U.S. economic recovery,’’ just as it did through the last recession. 

Second, food security remains important to national security. In fact, NPR made 

this point in a recent story entitled, ‘‘Rising Food Prices Can Topple Governments, 

Too’’. 

And, third, there will be nine billion people on this planet by the year 2050 and 

we will need to double production, using less water and land, in order to feed them 

all. 

4

These facts are a wake-up call to anyone who believes that agriculture no longer 

matters to our economy. But there is another eye-opener. 

Some of you may have seen the black bumper stickers with a thin blue line across 

them, with that thin blue line representing our police force. Well, today, there are 

just 210,000 Americans out there who are responsible for 80% of U.S. agricultural 

production. 

These Americans support our economy, help keep us secure, and in these 210,000 

people lies the answer to the question of how we are going to feed nine billion people 

come the year 2050. In short, these American men and women form a very thin line 

that we had better hold. 

So, the question becomes, are the Federal policies that we are pursuing today 

going to hold or break this line? Unfortunately, on a range of issues, new policies 

coming out of Washington are threatening to punch a hole clear through it. 

We know that EPA has opened up at least ten assaults on agriculture, including 

the strange objectives of eliminating dust on farms and treating milk on farms as 

if it was oil. To put it plainly, EPA is gambling with our economy and wasting taxpayer dollars while it’s at it. 

Irrational environmental policy is also jeopardizing our energy production capacity 

that, even without the regulation of greenhouse gases, is fast approaching a crisis. 

And, by imposing margin requirements on end-users under last year’s financial regulatory reform, Washington has actually managed to add fuel to the fire. 

I also feel a very subtle push from the Department that seems to take for granted 

these 210,000 Americans that are producing 80% of our food. There seems to be a 

prioritization on a small subsection of producers in order to satisfy certain constituencies. I think all of the Members of this Committee support marketing opportunities such as organic production, farmers markets, and local production but organic 

production and these other seeming priorities of the Department will NOT FEED 

the NINE billion souls that will inhabit the planet. 

I do believe the Secretary has agriculture’s best interests at heart and I want to 

work with him to be an advocate for farmers and ranchers both inside the Administration and here in Congress. 

The bottom line is Washington is being met with a critical choice that will have 

major consequences down the road: we can promote the one piece of good news out 

there today or we can pour cold water on it. 

Fortunately, promoting American agriculture is simple. Washington can: (1) support fiscally responsible policies that help level the international playing field; (2) 

support risk management tools so producers don’t go without something as basic as 

insurance; (3) support policies that create a pro-growth, business-friendly environment that promotes U.S. competitiveness; and, finally, (4) Washington should just 

get out of the way. 

I believe for most of us in this room, the choice is clear. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of Secretary Vilsack and the views of my 

colleagues on the state of the farm economy and on the direction of Federal policies 

that could make or break it. 

And now I yield to my good friend, Mr. Peterson, for any remarks he may have.

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I turn to my colleague, Mr. Peterson, 

the Ranking Member, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Welcome, Secretary Vilsack, back to the Committee. I associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman. I will 

try to keep my remarks brief so we can get this done. 

The farm economy is in pretty good shape. Our farmers and 

ranchers have been having a good time due in large part to their 

own efforts; but I also believe that the strong farm bill that we 

passed in 2008 deserves some of the credit for having stability in 

the farm economy. Actually, the farm economy is probably the only 

part of the economy that is actually solid, and has been solid primarily through these last years here where we have been having 

trouble. 

We have had problems in dairy. It is not quite as bad now, but 

there are problems there. And there are people who are still not 

5

recovered, and we hopefully will be able to address that this year. 

It seems like they are coming together around a new policy. I agree 

with the Chairman when he says that part of what we have to do 

is just kind of get out of the way. 

Those of us on our side are also concerned about all of these regulations and rules that are being promoted by other agencies that 

are not in our jurisdiction. Some of them are, frankly, pretty ridiculous, and some of my farmers are getting pretty fed up with it. 

We look forward to working with our colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle to see what we can do. Unfortunately, a lot of it is not 

in our jurisdiction. I wish it was, so we could straighten it out. 

We are looking forward to working with the Majority to make 

sure that we continue to have a strong safety net, a strong farm 

bill to undergird agriculture. Today’s hearing is a good place to 

start. We have a lot of new Members. This will help their education 

process. 

I remember when I started on the Committee many years ago, 

I was way down in the front and I didn’t think I would ever see 

the top row. Some of you new guys are already on the top row so 

you are already ahead of the game. We have a lot of work to do, 

a lot of good Members, and I look forward to working with the 

Chairman and the other Members to make sure that we do the 

right thing for agriculture. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now turn to our panelist, the Honorable Tom 

Vilsack, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

Please begin when you are ready, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Secretary VILSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you as well for the opportunity and invitation to discuss recent developments in and prospects for the farm 

economy. 

As we enter 2011, the farm economy continues to remain strong 

with U.S. agricultural exports, farm cash receipts, and net farm income projected at or above previous record levels. Farm household 

debt levels appear to have stabilized despite increasing land values. And while prospects generally look bright, recent sharp increases in prices for major crops are generating a range of concerns. 

My written statement describes the prospects and recent developments in output and input markets and the challenges and opportunities they present for U.S. agriculture. In the short time I have 

this morning, I would like to touch on a few of the broader trends. 

As you may know, recent data tells us that U.S. farm exports 

reached an all-time high in calendar year 2010. We saw a rise in 

both the value and volume of U.S. agricultural exports worldwide. 

Supported by foreign economic growth, particularly in developing 

countries, U.S. agricultural exports are again expected to be a 

record high in this fiscal year, up nearly $18 billion from Fiscal 

6

Year 2010, with the agricultural trade balance forecasted to be a 

record $41 billion. 

While we are pleased with these record numbers, we remain focused on continuing to open and improve markets for our producers. We know that every $1 billion in agricultural exports helps 

to support 8,000 jobs, and we want agriculture to continue to play 

a leading role in the President’s National Export Initiative in helping to reach the goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years. 

The other big trend in exports is the increased importance of the 

Chinese market. The trade numbers just published show that for 

calendar year 2010, China was our number one export market, edging out Canada, and accounting for a little over 15 percent of exports. 

Cash receipts and cash production expenses for producers are forecast to reach record levels in 2011; $341 billion and $274 billion 

respectively. Importantly, receipts are rising faster than expenses, 

so net cash farm income is forecast at a nominal record of $99 billion this year, up $7 billion from last year and nearly $30 billion 

more from 2009. After adjusting for inflation, this year and last 

year should be 2 of the highest income years producers have seen 

since 1976. So these are good times for American agriculture. 

But while all of agriculture experienced a robust recovery in 2010 

and forecasted for 2011, expenses are also increasing, especially 

prices of farm origin inputs like livestock and feed, the price of energy, and operating costs. 

The livestock and dairy industries could face some financial pressure in 2011, and bear watching. 

At the same time, many small- and mid-sized operations have 

continued to struggle to earn substantial income from the farm. We 

need to be aware of this reality, and ensure that our work to expand domestic markets, in particular, helps them succeed. And as 

we discuss the safety net, we should make sure that we are maintaining a strong safety net for producers who need it most. 

On the whole, we are optimistic. The balance sheet of U.S. agriculture should continue to strengthen again in 2011. Consistent 

with recent trends, increases in debt are forecast to be offset by 

large increases in farm asset values. What is astonishing is that in 

2 years the farm economy has essentially rebuilt the equity lost in 

2009. And in 2011, the farm sector’s debt-to-asset ratio should drop 

even further below last year’s 11.3 percent. 

Our nation’s farmers and ranchers should be celebrated for this 

achievement. Their careful management of debt has played an important role in helping them make a strong and quick rebound 

from the financial crisis. 

Commercial banks across the country say loans are available, although standards are tight, and farmers are increasingly paying 

them back on time. Exceptions include regions dominated by livestock, milk, and poultry production. Last year, despite low interest 

rates, there was a lower demand for farm loans than in previous 

years. At the same time, capital spending was up, probably being 

financed with cash or non-bank credit. We hope to see this trend 

continue, especially as a result of the bipartisan tax deal reached 

in December which provides for 100 percent expensing of business 

investments like tractors and combines. 

7

Farm real estate values rose by an estimated three percent in 

2010 to a record $1.8 trillion. We expect this trend to continue. 

While this benefits existing landowners, high real estate values 

make it difficult for individuals who may wish to enter farming, 

and increases operating expenses for individuals who rent farmland. 

I hope that, moving forward, we can work to confront this issue 

and others as we look to grow the next generation of farmers and 

ranchers and producers. This may mean a solution based on sweat 

equity or another way to provide credit to those who wish to farm 

in this country. But for the good of our environment, the quality 

of life we all enjoy, the relatively low cost of food, and for the 

American economy as a whole, we must keep farmland as farmland 

and farmers on the farm. 

To conclude, as we enter 2011, the U.S. farm economy is coming 

off unprecedented increases in U.S. agricultural exports, farm cash 

receipts, farm income, and asset values for the past few years. 

American agriculture is helping lead the recovery from the worst 

economic collapse since the Great Depression, and prospects for the 

coming year are generally bright. 

More normal weather and production increases worldwide should 

lead to improved supply-demand balance in key markets such as 

wheat, corn, and soybeans. With biofuel demand expected to continue growing, although at a slower pace in the future, a big challenge will be responding to that demand by developing new feedstocks, producing on more acres, and producing more per acre 

while protecting the environment. 

I have the utmost confidence, as I am sure the Committee Members do as well, that our farmers and ranchers and producers, 

along with assistance from USDA, will be able to meet these challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to discuss 

recent developments in and prospects for the farm economy. As we enter 2011, the 

farm economy continues to remain strong with U.S. agricultural exports, farm cash 

receipts and net farm income projected at or above previous record levels. Farm 

household debt levels appear to have stabilized despite increasing land values. 

While prospects generally look bright, recent sharp increases in prices for major 

crops are generating a range of concerns. I will describe the prospects and recent 

developments in output and input markets and the challenges and opportunities 

they present for U.S. agriculture. 

Agricultural Export Developments 

Despite modest domestic economic growth, economic growth, especially in less developed countries, and the reduced value of the dollar are likely to support global 

commodity demand, keeping pressure on global supplies and prices for a wide range 

of agricultural products. 

U.S. agricultural exports setting records. Supported by foreign economic 

growth particularly in developing countries and crop production shortfalls around 

the world, U.S. agricultural exports are expected to be record high this fiscal year. 

USDA’s forecast for U.S. agricultural exports for FY 2011 is a record high $126.5 

billion, up from $108.7 billion in FY 2010, and the previous record of $114.9 billion 

in FY 2008. Imports, too, continue to grow and are expected to reach $85.5 billion 

8

this fiscal year compared with $79 billion last year. Nearly half of imports are horticultural products and another fifth are sugar and tropical products such as cocoa, 

coffee and rubber. This year, the agricultural trade balance is forecast to be a record 

$41 billion, up from $29.7 billion last year. 

Soybean and wheat exports are forecast to be up in volume and value because of 

less foreign competition due to adverse weather conditions in other countries. Corn 

exports are forecast up in value due to lower U.S. production and weather concerns 

in South America, while higher cotton export volume and value reflects tightening 

global stocks and strong Chinese demand. Livestock exports are forecast to rise as 

the volume and value of beef, pork and poultry exports increase. Horticultural exports are being helped by the decline in the value of the dollar. 

Canada is our number one agricultural export market, accounting for 14 percent 

of expected exports this year. China has moved up to number two, also with a 14 

percent share. Mexico is now number three with an expected 13 percent share followed by Japan at number four with a ten percent share and the European Union 

at number five with a seven percent share. 

Farm Income and Retail Food Price Developments 

U.S. farm income consistently strong. Cash receipts for producers are forecast 

at a record $341 billion in 2011, up $28 billion from 2010 and $57 billion from 2009. 

Cash production expenses are forecast to be a record $274 billion in 2011, up $20 

billion from 2010 and $25 billion from 2009. With receipts rising faster than expenses, net cash farm income is forecast at a nominal record of $99 billion this year, 

up $7 billion from last year and nearly $30 billion from 2009. After adjusting for 

inflation, 5 of the highest income years since 1976 have occurred during 2004–2011 

(2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2011). 

Cash receipts for both crops and livestock are forecast to reach new record highs 

in 2011. Crop cash receipts are forecast to reach $195 billion in 2011, exceeding the 

previous record set in 2008 by $18 billion. Cash receipts for corn, soybeans, cotton, 

and fruits and nuts are all expected to rise to all-time highs. Cash receipts for 

wheat will likely be up in 2011 but remain below the record level set in 2008. 

Cash receipts from all livestock species are forecast to reach $146 billion in 2011, 

exceeding the previous record by $4 billion. Receipts for cattle, hogs and poultry are 

all expected to set record highs. Dairy receipts are forecast to increase in 2011, but 

remain below 2007 and 2008 levels. Government payments to producers in 2011 are 

expected to total $10.6 billion, down $1.6 billion from 2010. In 2011, producers are 

forecast to receive $4.7 billion in direct payments, $3 billion in conservation payments, $1.9 billion in disaster payments, and $0.8 billion in tobacco transition program payments. With major crop prices forecast to be near or above previous record 

high levels in 2011, countercyclical payments and marketing loan benefits are projected to be only $20 million in the coming year. 

The $20 billion increase in cash production expenses since 2010 is mainly due to 

a $4 billion increase in farm origin inputs (livestock, feed), $6 billion more in energy-based input costs (fuel, fertilizer, electricity, and pesticides), and $6 billion 

more in other operating expenses. The year-over-year increase in feed expenses is 

projected to slightly exceed the increase in livestock cash receipts. If this occurs, 

livestock and dairy producers could be under added financial pressure in 2011. 

The balance sheet of U.S. agriculture is expected to strengthen again in 2011. 

Consistent with recent trends, increases in debt are forecast to be offset by larger 

increases in farm asset values. As a result, the farm sector’s debt-to-asset ratio 

should drop further below last year’s 11.3 percent in 2011. 

Retail food price inflation to remain modest. In 2010, the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI) for all food increased by 0.8 percent, the lowest annual food inflation 

rate since 1962. The CPI for food-at-home (grocery store) prices increased 0.3 percent, while food-away-from-home (restaurant) prices increased by 1.3 percent. Higher commodity and energy prices are expected to lead to a stronger increase in retail 

food prices in 2011. For 2011, the CPI for food is currently forecast to increase by 

two to three percent. During the previous spike in commodity and energy prices in 

2007 and 2008, the CPI for food rose by an average of 4.7 percent over the 2 years. 

The Economic Research Service will update its forecast for the CPI for food for 2011 

later this month. 

Developments in Farm Output Markets 

Major crops: global supplies tight. For the 2010/11 marketing year, global demand is forecast to exceed global production causing global stocks of grains and oilseeds as a percent of use to fall and crop prices to rise. Global wheat production 

is forecast to decline by 5.5 percent in 2010/11, due primarily to adverse weather 

and reduced output in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. For corn, increasing global 

9

use and lower production in the United States is forecast to lead to a 15.6 percent 

decline in global ending stocks. And, weather-reduced soybean production in Argentina is projected to reduce global soybean stocks. 

For the United States, strong export demand for crops has supported above average farm income in recent years. Market fundamentals continue to look strong as 

growth in demand, limited carryover and weather concerns have contributed to rising prices for most major crops. U.S. carryover of corn, wheat, soybeans and cotton 

could all decline in 2010/11 as total use is forecast to exceed production. 

Higher crop prices will likely lead to increased area seeded to major crops in the 

U.S. this spring and increased crop production this fall. Assuming normal rainfall 

over the spring and summer, production of major crops will likely be up in 2011, 

leading to some rebuilding of carryover and reduced pressure on crop prices. 

Corn carryover tight in 2010/11. Under nearly ideal planting conditions this 

past spring, corn producers planted 88.2 million acres, up from 86.4 million in 2009 

and the second largest area planted to corn in more than 60 years. Despite the higher acreage, corn production dropped by five percent from last year to 12.4 billion 

bushels. Total corn use is forecast to reach a record 13.5 billion bushels in 2010/

11, reflecting the expanding ethanol industry and continued strong global demand 

for corn. Stocks of corn at the end of 2010/11 marketing year are forecast to decline 

by 60 percent to 675 million bushels, resulting in the lowest stock-to-use ratio since 

1995/96. The farm price of corn is forecast to average a record $5.05–$5.75 per bushel during 2010/11, compared with $3.55 per bushel in 2009/10 and the previous 

record of $4.20 in 2007/08. 

Corn acreage likely up in 2011. Corn planted area for 2011 is expected to increase as prices and returns have improved considerably in recent months. December 2011 futures prices for corn are currently more than $2 per bushel above the 

peak of December 2010 futures last February. Current cash prices are more than 

$3 per bushel above February 2010 levels. Given the current outlook for the 2010-

crop corn and competing crop prices, corn planted area next spring could increase 

three to five percent from 2010. Higher plantings combined with a return to trend 

yields could lead to a record corn crop in 2011 and higher carryover stocks in 2011/

12. 

Ethanol growth expected to slow. U.S. ethanol production capacity is now estimated at 14 billion gallons. Production capacity is expected to increase modestly 

over the coming 18–24 months. New construction could add 560 million gallons of 

additional ethanol production capacity, bringing total capacity to about 14.6 billion 

gallons. 

Most ethanol production in the United States currently uses corn as the feedstock. 

In 2010/11, 4.95 billion bushels of corn are expected to be used to produce ethanol, 

with ethanol use accounting for 37 percent of total use and 40 percent of corn production. In comparison, 4.57 billion bushels of corn were converted into ethanol in 

2009/10 accounting for 35 percent of total use and 35 percent of corn production. 

In contrast to the increase in ethanol use of 382 million bushels between 2009/10 

and 2010/11, corn ending stocks are projected to fall by over 1 billion bushels between the 2 crop years. These figures indicate that declining corn production is the 

primary factor contributing to the drop in corn carryover this year and the primary 

factor contributing to the recent increase in corn prices. Furthermore, each bushel 

of ethanol produced from corn yields byproducts, such as distiller dried grains, 

which substitute for corn and other feed ingredients in livestock rations. 

The profitability of producing ethanol from corn depends on the price of corn, the 

price of gasoline and the cost of converting corn into ethanol. The returns from producing ethanol from corn increase as the price of gasoline increases providing an 

incentive to expand ethanol production capacity and to use additional corn for ethanol production. If petroleum and gasoline prices move higher over the next several 

months, this will increase the demand for ethanol leading to additional corn being 

used for ethanol production. 

Soybean production down slightly in 2010/11. Soybean planted area remained essentially unchanged in 2010 but the average yield per acre fell slightly, 

causing soybean production to fall to 3.33 billion bushels, down one percent from 

last year’s record production but still the second largest crop on record. U.S. soybean 

exports are expected to increase about six percent from last year’s record to 1.6 billion bushels, reflecting lower production and reduced competition from South America and increasing U.S. exports to China. Meanwhile, soybean crush is forecast to 

decline by 5.5 percent as increasing availability of distiller dried grains and stable 

livestock production lower the demand for soybean meal. With lower production and 

little change in total use, carryover levels are forecast to decline seven percent from 

last year. The farm price of soybeans is forecast to average a record $11.20–$12.20 

10

per bushel for the 2010/11 marketing year, compared with $9.59 last year and the 

previous record high of $10.10 in 2007/08. 

Soybean area forecast to increase slightly in 2011. U.S. soybean planted 

area is forecast to increase slightly in 2011. Current futures imply a soybean to corn 

price ratio of 2.2, slightly favoring corn over soybeans. However, rotational practices 

favor soybeans and strong soybean prices could encourage farmers to plant soybeans 

on cropland previously planted to rice, sorghum, barley and oats. 

Returns to biodiesel improve. Fifteen percent of 2010/11 soybean oil production is expected to be used to produce about 380 million gallons of biodiesel. Soybean 

oil is the feedstock for about 50 percent of domestically produced biodiesel. The 

amount of soybean oil used in biodiesel production fell by 17 percent in 2009/10 to 

1.7 billion pounds, but is expected to increase to 2.9 billion pounds in 2010/11. 

Wheat acreage down, prices up in 2010/11. For 2010/11, wheat acreage continued its long term decline falling by nearly 6 million acres to 53.6 million, the lowest 

since 1970. U.S. wheat production is estimated at 2.2 billion bushels, essentially unchanged from the previous year as lower harvested acreage was offset by improved 

yields per acre. In 2010/11, favorable weather pushed the average yield per harvested acre to a new record high of 46.4 bushels per acre, up 1.5 bushels from the 

previous record. 

Total wheat supplies for 2010/11 are estimated at 3.3 billion bushels, up from 3.0 

billion bushels in 2009/10, with higher beginning stocks accounting for all of the increase. Higher forecast exports, reflecting lower production in competitor countries, 

could increase total use from 2.0 billion bushels in 2009/10 to 2.5 billion in 2010/

11, causing U.S. ending stocks to decline 16 percent to 0.8 billion bushels. The average farm price of wheat is forecast to average $5.60–$5.80 per bushel in 2010/11, 

compared with $4.87 per bushel for the 2009/10 crop and the record high of $6.78 

in 2008/09. 

Wheat area to expand in 2011/12. Winter wheat seeded area this past fall totaled 41.0 million acres, up from 37.3 million acres the previous year. Despite the 

recovery in area, wheat production could be down in 2011 as yield per acre drops 

off from last year’s record high. Current winter wheat conditions on the Central and 

Southern Plains are not as favorable compared with this time a year ago, because 

of the lack of soil moisture. A much higher percentage of the winter wheat crops 

in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are currently rated poor to very poor than 1 year 

ago. 

Cotton area and production up as prices increase. In 2010/11, cotton producers responded to improved returns by increasing planted area by 20 percent. The 

area planted to cotton, 10.97 million acres, was the highest in 4 years. Cotton area 

increased across each region of the Cotton Belt in 2010. Higher plantings, reduced 

abandonment and improved yields are projected to increase cotton production to 

18.3 million bales in 2010/11, up 50 percent from the previous year and the highest 

in 3 years. 

U.S. cotton use for the 2010/11 season is forecast at 19.35 million bales, 25 percent above last season. U.S. mill use is forecast to increase slightly while U.S. exports are forecast to increase by nearly 1⁄3. With larger U.S. exportable supplies 

available this season and foreign import demand rising, U.S. cotton exports are forecast to increase to their second highest level on record. U.S. ending stocks are forecast to drop to 1.9 million bales in 2010/11, the lowest since 1924/25. Reflecting the 

low level of stocks, cotton prices have remained relatively high through the early 

months of the current season. The 2010/11 farm price is forecast to average 79––

84¢ per pound, up from last season’s price of 62.9¢ and the previous record high 

of 76.5¢ in 1995/96. 

More cotton area in 2011/12. Rising cotton prices will likely attract additional 

acreage back to cotton production in the United States, despite improved returns for 

corn and soybeans. Cotton planted area in the United States could increase as much 

as 10–15 percent in 2011. Improved returns could lead producers to plant cotton on 

cropland previously planted to sorghum, rice and other crops as well as producing 

cotton on cropland previously left unplanted due to low returns. 

Rice production up, prices moderate. For 2010/11, rice planted area increased 

to 3.64 million acres, up from 3.14 million acres the previous year, and the second 

highest on record. Total rice production is up about 11 percent from last year to a 

record 243 million cwt. Total use is forecast to increase by five percent in 2010/11, 

reflecting improvements in both domestic use and export prospects. However, the 

strong increase in production is expected to lead to a sharp increase in ending 

stocks, despite higher total use. U.S. ending stocks are projected at 52.8 million cwt. 

for 2010/11, up 44 percent from last year. The farm price of rice is forecast to average $12.15–$12.65 per cwt. in 2010/11, down from $14.40 per cwt. last season. 

11

Sugar market remains tight. World and U.S. sugar prices have remained high, 

as potentially tight global supplies continue to weigh on the market. In mid-December, Florida’s sugarcane producing region experienced a severe freeze. According to 

processor reports, this freeze resulted in widespread damage to existing sugarcane 

crops awaiting harvest and recently planted sugarcane meant for harvest next year. 

Nearly all of Australia’s sugarcane production is in the Northeast. That region received very heavy rainfall in November and December damaging that country’s sugarcane crop. 

U.S. sugar production for 2010/11 is currently estimated at 8.01 million short 

tons, up from last year’s crop of 7.97 million tons. With import quotas for sugar set 

at the minimum amount to which the United States is committed under the WTO 

for 2010/11, U.S. sugar imports are forecast to fall to 3.25 million tons, down from 

3.32 million tons last season. U.S. sugar ending stocks are projected to decline about 

ten percent to 1.35 million tons resulting in a stock-to-use ratio of 11.8 percent, 

down from 13.3 percent last year. 

Specialty crop sales stabilize. In 2011, specialty crops will continue to provide 

a significant source of cash revenues for U.S. producers. Cash receipts for fruits, 

nuts, vegetables and melons in 2011 are forecast at $41 billion, unchanged from 

2010. Higher cash receipts for fruits and nuts are expected to be more than offset 

by lower receipts for vegetables and melons. 

Livestock & livestock products: U.S. production and prices stable. Total 

U.S. production of meat and poultry is forecast to remain stable in calendar year 

2011, with slight growth forecast in supplies of pork and poultry but reduced supplies of beef. Stable production, increased exports and some recovery in domestic demand should help maintain livestock prices near last year’s historic highs. 

For livestock and poultry producers, increasing feed costs will be an important 

component of producer production decisions in the upcoming year. In January, the 

price-feed cost ratios for cattle, broilers, hogs and milk, as reported by NASS, were 

all well below year ago levels. While livestock prices are expected to remain strong 

and further improvement in milk prices is likely in the months ahead, higher feed 

costs could lead to below average margins for livestock and dairy producers in 2011. 

Cattle prices forecast record high. Commercial cow slaughter maintained a 

high pace during all of 2010. Cow slaughter was the largest in well over a decade, 

even though the U.S. cow herd on January 1, 2010 was the smallest since 1951. 

While cattle marketings for the last half of 2011 are expected to be lower year-overyear, net placements in feedlots during 2010 will likely maintain beef supplies during the first half of 2011 near previous year levels. For all of 2011, beef production 

is currently forecast to decrease 1.5 percent, following a 1.4 percent increase in 

2010. Steer prices are expected to average a record $102–$109 per cwt. this year, 

compared with $95 per cwt. in 2010. 

Total North American cattle inventories are at their lowest levels in decades. 

With smaller Canadian and Mexican inventories expected in 2011, U.S. cattle imports are forecast at 2.1 million head for the year, down from 2.3 million in 2010. 

Pork production to increase slightly. Pork production in 2011 is estimated to 

increase by 0.4 percent after falling by 2.4 percent in 2010. While hog prices were 

up 34 percent in 2010 and are expected to average higher in 2011, increases in feed 

costs are expected to temper expansion over the next several months. The Quarterly 

Hogs and Pigs report released by USDA on December 27, 2010, showed lower swine 

inventories and lower farrowing intentions for the first half of 2011. During the 

first-half of 2011, sow farrowings could be about 1.4 percent lower than in the same 

period last year. 

While smaller breeding animal inventories and lower farrowing intentions often 

translate into lower pig crops, continued gains in sow productivity are expected to 

largely offset lower farrowing numbers in 2011. Moreover, continually improving 

swine genetics and enhanced nutrition management practices are expected to continue to move average dressed weights slightly ahead of last year’s average, helping 

to push pork production slightly ahead of last year’s level. Hog prices are forecast 

to average $58–$61 per cwt. in 2011, up from $55 in 2010 and $41 in 2009. 

Broiler production to post modest increase in 2011. The outlook for growth 

in broiler meat production for the beginning of 2011 has changed considerably over 

the last several weeks, due to sharp changes in both the weekly number of broiler 

eggs placed in incubators and the number of chicks being placed for growout. At the 

end of November, the number of chicks being placed for growout was averaging 5.5 

percent higher than the previous year. By the first week of January, the average 

number of chicks placed for growout was only 0.8 percent higher than in the same 

period the previous year. This abrupt slowdown is likely the result of sharp increases in feed prices, especially coming at a time when wholesale prices for many 

broiler products have been declining. Reflecting this slowdown, broiler production is 

12

projected to increase by about one percent in 2011 following a four percent increase 

in 2010. The price of broilers is forecast to range from 80–85¢ per pound in 2011, 

compared with 83¢ in 2010 and 78¢ in 2009. 

Milk prices to move higher. Milk production is estimated to increase by 1.8 

percent in 2011 to 196.1 billion pounds. While feed costs are up considerably in recent months, a decline in cow numbers may not occur until later this year because 

of the large number of replacement heifers available. Milk per cow is forecast to increase again this year but at less than the pace for 2010. The gain in output per 

cow last year was due to good weather in addition to moderate feed prices. 

In recent weeks, both the domestic and international markets for dairy products 

have tightened considerably leading to a sharp increase in wholesale dairy product 

prices and futures prices for milk. Milk output has been affected by cold weather 

in the U.S. and Europe and heavy rains in New Zealand and Australia. Since early 

January, the wholesale prices of cheddar cheese, butter and nonfat dry milk have 

increased by 25–50 percent. 

The all-milk price is forecast to average $17.70–$18.40 per cwt. this year, compared with $16.29 in 2010 and $12.93 in 2009. While milk prices are forecast to be 

higher in 2011, increasing feed costs could continue to put financial pressure on 

dairy producers, especially those producers that purchase feed at current price levels. 

Developments in Farm Credit and Land Markets 

Credit conditions appear to be improving. Third quarter 2010 Federal Reserve Bank surveys indicate moderately improving farm credit conditions nationwide. Commercial banks across the country indicated ample availability of loan 

funds, increased loan repayment by farm borrowers, increased farm incomes, and 

fewer requests for renewals and extensions than in 2009. Exceptions include regions 

dominated by livestock, milk and poultry production which indicated slightly worsening farm credit conditions. 

Banks in all Federal Reserve Bank districts reported lower demand for farm loans 

in 2010, despite historical lows for farm interest rates. Capital spending was up, especially for larger items (100-HP tractors and combines). The increased capital 

spending and reduced loan demand suggests that these items were being financed 

with cash or non-bank credit. 

While farm incomes and credit conditions showed improvement in 2010, Federal 

Reserve Bank surveys indicate credit standards for banks remain tight. Bankers in 

all regions except the Kansas City Federal Reserve District reported increased collateral requirements on farm loans. 

Farmland costs move higher. The value of farm real estate rose by an estimated three percent in 2010, to a record $1.8 trillion. Strong prices for major crops 

and record farm income will likely cause the value of farm real estate to move higher in 2011. Farm real estate accounts for 84 percent of total U.S. farm assets and 

is the principal source of collateral for farm loans. While a benefit for existing landowners, high farm real estate values make it difficult for individuals who may wish 

to enter farming and increases operating expenses for individuals who rent farmland. 

Conclusion 

As we enter 2011, the U.S. farm economy is coming off unprecedented increases 

in U.S. agricultural exports, farm cash receipts, farm income, and asset values the 

past few years. Prospects for coming year generally look bright. More normal weather and production increases worldwide should lead to improved supply-demand balance in key markets, such as wheat, corn and soybeans. With biofuel demand expected to continue growing, although at a slower pace in the future, a big challenge 

will be responding to that demand by producing on more acres and producing more 

per acre while protecting the environment. I have the utmost confidence that our 

farmers and ranchers along with the assistance of USDA will be able to meet these 

challenges. 

Mr. Chairman that completes my statement.

13

ATTACHMENT

Farm Economic Indicators 

Ag. Trade (Bil. $) FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11F 

Total exports 56.0 62.4 62.5 68.6 82.2 114.9 96.3 108.7 126.5Asia 21.6 24.3 22.5 24.9 29.4 43.2 37.6 45.7 54.8Canada 9.1 9.5 10.4 11.6 13.3 16.3 15.5 16.6 18.0Mexico 7.7 8.4 9.3 10.4 12.3 15.2 13.3 13.9 16.0Total imports 45.7 52.7 57.7 64.0 70.1 79.3 73.4 79.0 85.5

Farm Income (Bil. $) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010F 2011F

Cash receipts 216.0 237.9 240.9 240.6 288.5 318.3 283.4 312.3 340.7Gov’t payments 16.5 13.0 24.4 15.8 11.9 12.2 12.3 12.2 10.6Gross cash income 246.8 266.5 279.7 273.2 318.0 352.0 317.6 345.6 372.5Cash expenses 174.7 182.9 193.1 204.8 240.3 261.6 248.5 254.2 273.9Net cash income 72.1 83.7 86.7 68.4 77.7 90.4 69.1 91.3 98.6

Commodity Prices 1 Unit 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11F 

Wheat $/bu 3.40 3.40 3.42 4.26 6.48 6.78 4.87 5.60–5.80Corn $/bu 2.42 2.06 2.00 3.04 4.20 4.06 3.55 5.05–5.75Soybeans $/bu 7.34 5.74 5.66 6.43 10.10 9.97 9.59 11.20–12.20Rice $/cwt 8.08 7.33 7.65 9.96 12.80 16.80 14.40 12.15–12.65Cotton (Upland) ¢/lb 61.8 41.6 47.7 46.5 59.3 47.8 62.9 79.0–84.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011F

Hogs $/cwt 52.51 50.05 47.26 47.09 47.84 41.24 55.06 58–61Steers $/cwt 84.75 87.28 85.41 91.82 92.27 83.25 95.38 102–109Broilers ¢/lb 74.1 70.8 64.4 76.4 79.7 77.6 82.9 80–85Milk $/cwt 16.13 15.19 12.96 19.21 18.45 12.93 16.30 17.70–18.40Gasoline $/gallon 1.85 2.27 2.58 2.81 3.26 2.35 2.78 3.15Diesel $/gallon 1.81 2.40 2.70 2.88 3.80 2.46 2.99 3.43Natural gas (wlhd) $/K cu. ft. 5.45 7.26 6.39 6.26 7.98 3.72 4.14 3.97

1 Agricultural commodity price forecasts are from USDA, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report, February 9, 2011. Energy prices are from Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, February 8, 2011. 

F=forecast. 

14

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, you rightly point out that the farm economy continues to remain strong. I am concerned about stability. Over the 

last 62 years, which is a little longer than both your and my personal frame of reference, the nominal monthly, average price for 

wheat in my home State of Oklahoma, has reached a historic high 

on 21 occasions; 21 months out of 62 years. In all but one of those 

instances, the price dropped back below that high within the following year. And the one exception was December of 1950 when it 

took 18 months to fall back below that high. Are you concerned 

about the price stability in the commodities? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, I think you always should be 

concerned about stability for the reasons that you have articulated 

in your question. Having said that, one of the things that is driving 

the current increases in prices is the growing global demand. And 

that in part is as a result of improving global economic conditions 

and the development of middle classes in a number of developing 

nations. 

So the combination of that, combined with our efforts and others, 

to try to increase agricultural productivity, not just in the United 

States but globally, to meet the demands that you again rightly indicated in terms of an increasing world population, the combination 

of those two things should help us encourage greater stability in 

the market. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I will admit that I am a little concerned about the effect that weather patterns in Russia and China 

and not enough moisture, and too much moisture in Australia, are 

having on the attitudes of the markets and current prices. 

My question is to follow up on basically what you have said: So 

you believe we have reached a new plateau based on this demand 

change? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, one thing that I know that is certain 

about agriculture, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a great deal of 

uncertainty. I think you always have to be wary. 

Another reason for my confidence generally is that I think there 

are extraordinary productivity gains that will continue to be developed from improved production processes and improved science. So 

while we have serious challenges, the challenge that I am most 

concerned about isn’t so much price stability as it is who is actually 

going to be on the farm to produce the crops that are necessary. 

You mentioned the small number of farmers; and in our lifetime, 

we have gone from 15 percent of our population being on the farm 

to now less than one percent. So that is a deep concern that I have 

in terms of who is actually going to be able to do the work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary, let’s visit for a moment about the Administration’s budget proposal for agriculture in justifying the 

lower AGI threshold and their proposal for reducing direct payments. There was a quote in, I believe it was Reuters News Service, referencing an Administration official who said direct payments, ‘‘distort production and drive up the value of farmland.’’

Do you agree with that statement, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary VILSACK. The proposal we made, Mr. Chairman, is one, 

that we have consistently made and we have discussed before, and 

that is the view that the safety net needs to be directed to the peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
15

ple who are in need of it most. What we are proposing impacts 

roughly two percent of farmers, roughly 30,000 of the 2.1 million 

producers in this country. It is really designed in response to the 

economic reality we face. When the farm bill was passed in 2008, 

the economy was in a much different place than it is today, and 

we all recognize that we have a responsibility to focus on deficits, 

and everyone is going to have to share in that responsibility. 

The CHAIRMAN. As the Committee crafts a 5 year farm bill policy 

which has to take into consideration not just the good times at this 

point in time, but where we may be 5 years down the road, and 

we have to factor in our international trade obligations under the 

WTO, I guess I come back just one more moment to this direct payment question. Do you believe that the direct payments actually 

distort production decisions in the way that they are crafted to be 

independent of the production process right now? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, given the size of the direct payments, 

I am not sure that I would necessarily suggest that it is marketdistorting. I am not quite sure who made that comment. It didn’t 

come from me, and I don’t believe it came from USDA. I think 

there are some very small programs within the farm bill that involve storage, that one could potentially argue have some capacity 

to alter market decisions, but I don’t believe that applies necessarily to direct payments. 

The CHAIRMAN. I can’t necessarily speak for all of the regions of 

the country, but in my home area, wheat country, on a $1,500 piece 

of land, the direct payment is something like $15, one percent. We 

have debated whether that is relevant or not. It seems like one percent——

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman——

The CHAIRMAN. Please. 

Secretary VILSACK. I thought this whole discussion was succinctly stated at a Farm Bureau meeting I attended in Atlanta. I 

think what we have to decide, and I mean ‘‘we’’ collectively, what 

we have to decide is whether or not we want a safety net process 

that provides a small amount of payments over each year, regardless of whether it is a great year, bad year, or middle year, or 

whether we really want to take a look at some other concept that 

would provide for much greater help when you absolutely need it. 

And I think there is an ongoing conversation about appropriate 

risk management tools, and I look forward to working with the 

Committee as you all craft a farm bill to try to hone in on that particular question. I think it is an important one. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are entirely right, Mr. Secretary. And as we 

craft those policy decisions, we have to craft decisions that will enable us to win fights in the WTO court. I may not have voted to 

join the GATT in 1995, but we are a part of it and we will have 

to live with it. 

I now turn to the Ranking Member for any questions he may 

have. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I think I read yesterday or the day before some 

kind of report out of your Dairy Industry Advisory Committee. Are 

they done with their report or was that—I don’t know where I read 

16

it, but there was a discussion about some consensus. Where is that 

process and when are they going to do a final report? 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, we anticipate a report the 

first week of March. They have finished their meetings, and they 

are in the process of finalizing the draft of the report. 

While the reality is that this committee and this council represented virtually every interest in dairy, and as you well know, 

those interests are quite varied, there was a great deal of agreement. I wouldn’t say there was unanimous consensus with the committee and council, but there was a good deal of agreement. 

I think this is a real opportunity for us this year to work with 

those who have been working on a variety of different ideas in 

dairy so that we can perhaps, in this part of agriculture, create far 

greater price stability and far less volatility than we have seen. We 

have lost roughly 45 percent of our dairy producers in just the last 

10 years, and part of it is the peaks and valleys are steeper, they 

come quicker, and it is much more difficult for people to rebound. 

Mr. PETERSON. I assume this group has been following the National Milk Producers Federation’s Foundation for the Future discussion, and that is part of their focus as they have gone through 

this? 

Secretary VILSACK. There has been an awareness of what National Milk Producers Federation has put together, the four-point 

plan that you are well aware of, and the discussions that took place 

in the council certainly tracked along the lines of what National 

Milk Producers Federation was looking at. Again, I am not going 

to suggest there was complete unanimity concerning what National 

Milk Producers Federation has proposed. But there is a basis, a 

strong foundation, and a consensus among dairy generally that this 

is the time to do something. Despite the fact that we are seeing rebounding prices, I think everyone knows that we can’t afford this 

continued volatility. 

Mr. PETERSON. I assume that group has come to the conclusion 

that most people who have looked at this think, and that is the 

current system is not working. It is just inadequate to address the 

problems. I feel like we really can’t afford to wait for the farm bill 

to address this, if it is possible. I am concerned about what could 

happen in the interim. 

What is your feeling on that? Do you think we should be moving 

sooner rather than later if we can get a consensus? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are certainly willing to work with whatever the wishes of the Committee are. I would answer it this way. 

Given the tremendous drop that occurred in a relatively short period of time since 2008, I think it behooves us to really look at a 

solution as quickly as possible so that we have the best chance of 

stabilizing and broadening the price band. Especially since there 

appears to be energy and focus in the industry on this, I don’t 

think you would necessarily want to lose that focus and that energy if it gets wrapped up into a much broader conversation involving the farm bill generally. 

Mr. PETERSON. You announced a new CRP sign-up, I believe, in 

Pheasants Forever; right? 

Secretary VILSACK. I did. 

Mr. PETERSON. That is going to take place when? 

17

Secretary VILSACK. I think it is next month. 

Mr. PETERSON. By the way, I have handed out to some of you, 

but this is the 25th anniversary of CRP, which I would argue is 

the most successful conservation program we have ever had, and 

I have pens here if anybody wants one. 

In the last sign-up do you have any tracking information—and 

my general sense is what is coming out is land that is probably 

more suitable to be farmed and what is going in is maybe stuff that 

shouldn’t be farmed. That seems to be what is going on. Do you 

have a way to track what came out last year, if that all went back 

into production? Is there a deal now at the Department where you 

are able to determine that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not sure that we can pin it down to the 

specific acre, but your observation is accurate, which is that a lot 

of the land that was put into the program a number of years ago 

perhaps is better suited for crop production. And what is going into 

the program, because of the nature of the program and the nature 

of the scoring system, is environmentally sensitive and land that 

actually probably ought not to be farmed. And our expectation/anticipation is that we will be very close to the cap that was established of 32 million acres. 

I have been told we don’t actually track specific production, so I 

am not sure that we can answer the specific question of what goes 

in and what goes out. But I can assure you that we are focused on 

land that is environmentally sensitive and not likely to be particularly productive—or as productive. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

your initiative in convening this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your attendance here. 

By the way, the Ranking Member has indicated to me, in light 

of the fact that we haven’t gotten a COLA increase for the last 2 

years, that these are on sale through the Peterson office for, what, 

$5 for ten. I am only kidding. They are nice pens, and a wonderful 

tribute to a great program. 

Let me say that some of my comments I am going to actually reserve. I realize you are not Lisa Jackson nor her surrogate. I think 

I speak for Members of this Committee, and I certainly speak for 

the people of the 15th District of Illinois when I would advocate 

very strongly that you, Mr. Secretary, as part of the Administration, convey to Ms. Jackson, the Administrator, that her actions as 

EPA director are causing literal havoc within the agricultural community and we need to get that raging bull by the horns before it 

destroys American agriculture. That is simply a preface, and I realize you are not responsible for her actions, but you are part of an 

Administration that shares a President. My hope is that you can 

play a role as our advocate in that regard. 

Let me say, I think you pointed out to begin with, an extraordinarily important point, and that is while we are seeing an increase in prices and that times are good, that doesn’t mean in 6 

months or 9 months or 2 years that we might not see the converse. 

And I am particularly concerned with some of the proposals in the 

18

President’s budget that might not reflect that we are locking permanent changes into the budget that might not anticipate those 

times that inevitably come within the ag community. 

Would you agree we always face a degree of instability, and before permanent changes are made, those should reflect the likelihood or lack of likelihood of that volatility? 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, agriculture is subject to 

change. There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not it is 

a good year or not. 

But at the same time, we have to be flexible enough in the 21st 

century to be able to respond to circumstances more quickly than 

perhaps we have in the past. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I guess my narrow question is: Do you think that 

the President’s proposal with respect to direct payments, crop insurance, conservation cuts, and restoring SNAP money in the 

President’s budget proposal reflects that volatility; or do you not? 

Secretary VILSACK. I believe it does. The direct payment——

Mr. JOHNSON. I only have 2 minutes. I just wanted a yes or no. 

I don’t agree with you. I don’t think it does reflect that. But I asked 

you the question, and you gave the answer. 

Let me focus on trade for a moment. We have three pending 

trade agreements: one, Korea signed in June of 2007; one with 

Panama in June of 2007; and one with Colombia in November of 

2006. This is from your own Department, Mr. Vilsack. 

The belief is that failure to ratify the Korea Free Trade Agreement would put our exporters at a tremendous competitive disadvantage, specifically with the EU, with respect to livestock and 

otherwise; that failure to execute the Panama agreement would 

erode from 51 percent to only a fraction of that given our competition from Costa Rica, Chili, El Salvador and other countries that 

have those agreements. And last, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement which Speaker Pelosi refused to bring before the Chamber, 

the U.S. has already paid a huge price for that. Our agricultural 

imports fell from 44 percent in 2007 to 27 percent in 2009. 

My question is: Are you willing to advocate on behalf of these 

three agreements, first, with the Administration to get them to get 

the paperwork to us; and then second, with the House and the Senate to see ratification of those three agreements? 

Secretary VILSACK. I look forward to making a strong effort in 

the Korea Free Trade Agreement which I hope will be before this 

body very soon. 

There are still a few details that have to be worked out on Colombia and Panama; and when they are, I will be more than happy 

to be supportive of them because of the positive impacts those 

agreements will have on agriculture. 

Mr. JOHNSON. My question is: Will you commit to a specific time 

frame by which the Administration will have those to the Congress 

and also lobbying on their behalf? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I am happy to advocate on behalf of the 

agreements; but I don’t know that it is necessarily my call to commit the Administration to a specific time frame. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you would agree that ratification of these 

three agreements which have been pending for up to 5 years are 

critically important to American agriculture as we try to meet the 

19

objective of meeting a double demand in the world food consumption by 2050. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think trade agreements, both bilateral and 

multilateral, are extremely important, as well as breaking down 

barriers. That is one of the reasons why we are seeing a record export year. We are focused on that, and we will continue to be focused on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I am taking that, and I assume other Members of this Committee are talking that to be—and we appreciate 

your commitment to advocate on behalf of these agreements, to 

lobby on their behalf, and make sure that they are ratified. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I turn to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, in the last farm bill, we established 

a conservation program for the producers in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. And I want to commend you and Chief White and the 

Department for the way you have implemented that program. You 

have done a great, outstanding job. But despite this record-setting 

investment, we are facing an Executive Order from the President 

that will put further regulations and rules on our producers. And 

in the last Congress, Mr. Goodlatte and I tried to work on legislation that would give USDA a larger say in implementing this Executive Order, and we continue to work on legislation in this Congress. We are just not ready to introduce it yet. 

But my question is: In the interim, lacking guidance from the 

Congress, have you and your Department had ongoing conversations with the EPA about how they intend to implement the Executive Order in the watershed? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have, Representative, and a couple of 

things. We are working closely with the EPA, as we did with the 

Department of the Interior, to see whether or not there is some 

process by which we can use the resources available to USDA to 

encourage conservation in exchange for producers embracing those 

conservation practices. They would receive some degree of regulatory certainty from the EPA and other agencies. 

I think this an exciting new opportunity for us. We have done 

this in the sage grouse issue out in the West, and we are looking 

at ways to figure out ways to build on that success. 

Mr. HOLDEN. I am glad to hear it. I think we need to get you 

some legislation, though, to give you some greater authority, and 

we intend to work on that in the very near future. 

Actually, Mr. Secretary, last year we passed the mandatory electronic price reporting for dairy. How is that process going? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, you passed it, but you 

didn’t provide any resources for it. So what we have done is we 

have attempted to figure out is there a way in which we can provide some degree of reporting. There are two functions here. There 

is the reporting function and then there is the auditing function. 

We think we will be able to do something this year on just basic 

information being provided on a weekly basis. I think what you 

really want ultimately is numbers that you are very confident in, 

and that requires the auditing function. That is a much more exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
20

pensive operation. If we receive the resources, we would be happy 

to follow through. 

Mr. HOLDEN. How much money are we talking about for full implementation? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think the projection was $2.5 million. That 

is my memory. I could be wrong, but it is somewhere in that neighborhood. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. 

And, Mr. Secretary, it is always good to see you. 

My first question has to do with forestry and just seeking to see 

what numbers are out there. My frame of reference, obviously, is 

the Allegheny National Forest. I was curious on a national level if 

what my experience has been in the ANF parallels forestry, our national forests across the country in terms of timber production. The 

plan in the Allegheny National Forest, the management plan calls 

for harvesting up to 90 million board feet. That is a pretty high 

number, a good number. Traditionally, we have been struggling 

with about 20 million, although this year the forest is up to 40 million board feet. Just about 40. It is a step in the right direction. 

We have a long ways to go to get up to good, full, healthy practices where we can harvest in a sustainable way, which is obviously 

good for the forest as well. In your opinion, do we have data to 

show, do other forests have similar experiences? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think it is fair to say that over time, the 

amount of board feet has been reduced. But we are in the process 

of putting together a new forest planning rule which we think is 

designed to balance appropriately all of the multiple uses that forests are now engaged in. There are the energy issues, the mineral 

extraction issues, the forest timber issue, the recreation, and the 

energy issue is one that I think holds a tremendous amount of opportunity to create new economic opportunity in rural communities. 

The forest plan rule was just released for comment. We are engaged in the most transparent process ever in an effort to try to 

gauge as much support for this concept as possible. It is a whole 

landscape approach where we are tying what we do with the forest, 

with what we do on private working lands. And we are also sort 

of changing the focus on this. We really want our forests to be resilient. 

As you probably know, in some parts of the country there are serious problems with bark beetle infestations and things of that nature. I think you are going to see a balanced approach and recognizing the enormous economic opportunities as well as recreational 

opportunities that our forests present. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Recognizing its multiple uses, although frankly 

when I look at the charters with the ANF, it really is about providing sustainable resources for the country, and so timber, oil, 

natural gas, and minerals. I know that bumping to that 40 million 

board feet, a small part of that was the clearing of timber for oil 

and natural gas drilling. Our forest was oil-filmed before it was 

ever a forest years ago, so that has helped get those numbers up. 

21

One of the things that I was surprised to find out, and this is 

something that I would like to follow up more on at another time, 

is that those timber sales, which are usually bid at market price—

if a timber sale is specific to oil or natural gas, those pad sites, 5 

to 10 acres if it is a horizontal well, and less than that obviously 

if it is vertical well, the Forest Service puts a 17 percent premium 

on. It is like a 17 percent tax on top of the market price, which I 

have to believe obviously suppresses the market for that timber, 

those who are bidding on it. One of the things I would like to find 

out, what is the rationale behind that, a 17 percent premium on 

top of the market bid? 

Secretary VILSACK. If you will give me an opportunity to ask that 

question myself, I will be glad to get you the answer. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That would be great. If you follow up with me, 

I would appreciate it. 

I want to thank you in my remaining time regarding the ruling 

with the Roundup Ready® alfalfa. I was pleased to see that. I think 

that has really provided some certainty at a proper time for our 

farmers as they are ordering their seed for this year. That Roundup Ready® alfalfa, I don’t think that it is a USDA figure, but a 

third party has shown that it is going to help increase profitability 

by about $100 an acre. When it comes to dairy farming, anything 

that we can do on that side of the column is a good thing. 

Are there other things that USDA is looking at in terms of helping to prevent the situation, to keep feed costs down? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is obviously in part a result of market 

forces and the demand, strong demand for all of our feed. There is 

not a tremendous amount we can do to focus on the cost side. We 

can create opportunities to either increase markets so the prices remain strong through exports and domestic use, or we can provide 

opportunities through our credit process. We are focused on increasing research and development in both livestock production 

and protection, so we expand significantly our opportunities to profit. And we are also working, as you probably know, on some of the 

impacts of ethanol production and the feed by-products that are 

produced as a result of that process and how they might be able 

to assist us in sort of stretching our feed dollar more effectively. 

But on that side of the equation, it is a little bit more difficult than 

it is on the demand side. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I now turn to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Kissell, 

for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

Mr. Secretary, I believe it was in December you announced in the 

GIPSA rule that you were going to have a cost-benefit analysis 

done. I am wondering what the timeline on that analysis might be. 

And also, once it is done, are you going to allow a time for public 

comment before the rule is imposed? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we extended the time for comment prior 

to that decision, and we received a substantial number of comments which are in the process of being categorized and reviewed. 

Those comments are going to help significantly inform what Joe 

22

Glauber and his team will do in terms of the analysis. You know, 

I would like to give you a specific time frame; but at the end of the 

day, my instructions to Joe and his team was to do it right and to 

take the time necessary to do it right and as complete as possible. 

We believe we have a pretty good idea of the concerns that people 

have raised from the comments, and we are obviously anxious to 

get this process completed as appropriately and as quickly as possible. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, sir. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back his time. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming in. 

I appreciate your remarks. Since I have been farming and involved in agriculture and agricultural policy in the mid-1970s, we 

always said farmers were going to get their income from the market. In recent years, as least on the grain side, that is happening. 

We are not getting it from LDPs and stuff like we did in years 

past, as you are aware. 

I think when we craft the next farm bill, I think there will be 

a lot of discussion about the safety net programs, and what falls 

into there is the Crop Insurance Program and base payments. So 

I just wanted to reflect now on that a little bit. 

When you talk about the sectors and regions and sectors that are 

having some challenges—livestock, dairy and poultry—I recently 

talked this week with one of my large hog producers in Ohio, and 

he is really concerned about the cost of feed and the ethanol relationship. 

Can you expand a little, because you haven’t really mentioned it, 

I have always been supportive of the ethanol industry and all that, 

but his comments were when you have the subsidy and the mandate of a certain amount, a certain percent of ethanol and all that, 

and the relationship, and now you see the usage of corn maybe exceeding the feed usage on a national basis, what would be the impact if some of the policy on ethanol, government policy, changes 

to the market and its effects? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think we got a slight indication of 

what would happen if you prematurely withdraw the support for 

a maturing industry when we allowed the biodiesel tax credit to 

lapse prematurely. It resulted in 50 percent of the production being 

cut and 12,000 jobs being lost. 

So what I have been saying is that I think there is an opportunity for us to discuss how those incentives are best used to 

produce a very stable and secure market for renewable fuel; the 

reason for it being that we know that when we reach the 36 billion 

gallon threshold that the Congress has set, we are going to have 

a million additional jobs, up to a million additional jobs in rural 

America, which are very much needed, and $100 billion of capital 

investment. So to me it is an opportunity for us to not only stabilize markets but also to make sure that we create jobs. 

I think two things: Number one, I think there needs to be some 

discussion about how we might be able to make the supply of ethanol more convenient, which is why there is a discussion about 

23

blender pumps and the ability to potentially incent the blender 

pumps as opposed to the way we are incenting the industry today. 

I think there is a discussion that could took place in terms of the 

number of flexible fuel vehicles that are actually produced by our 

automakers and how we might be able to encourage more automobiles that can use higher blends of ethanol. 

Finally, it is very important for us to expand significantly the 

feedstocks that are used to produce ethanol so that we are not as 

reliant on a single feedstock as we are today. That is the reason 

we announced recently three biorefineries, primarily in the South, 

taking a look at woody biomass and some other waste products. 

That is why we have 68 feasibility studies under our REAP program to take a look at everything from algae to crop residue to 

ways in which we can accelerate the cellulosic ethanol opportunities. 

Mr. GIBBS. I appreciate that, and look forward to working with 

you. In Ohio, we have a project that we have been working on 

through Ohio State University, a crop that produces natural rubber. And what is really exciting about that, when they extract the 

latex out of the roots, it is a stream ready to ferment for ethanol. 

So that is some of those other issues. I don’t know if you are aware 

of that. 

Secretary VILSACK. I have actually seen and spent time with the 

Ohio State folks, and have actually seen the production process 

that they have. That is the kind of thing that I think is exciting 

because there are multiple uses that can generate from those kinds 

of production processes. 

Mr. GIBBS. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now recognize the gentlelady from Maine for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I appreciate your 

testimony and your work on behalf of all of our farmers. I might 

have a slightly different perspective than a lot of Members on the 

Committee, but I was actually disappointed by the decision to fully 

regulate Roundup Ready® alfalfa without any conditions. I think I 

have a lot of colleagues and certainly a lot of constituents who have 

concerns about the continued deregulation of genetically engineered 

crops and the long-term consequences for the organic and non-GE 

conventional sectors, maintenance and expansion of lucrative export opportunities and consumer choice. I also think the issue of liability for organic and non-GE farmers remains unresolved. 

I was initially encouraged by your steps to address measures for 

much-needed contamination prevention practices and oversight. 

And given the significant economic impacts of continued deregulation for the organic and non-GE sectors, do you have steps you plan 

to take to address contamination in the farmer’s fields and liability 

needs? I know this is a complicated issue, but I appreciate your 

comment. 

Secretary VILSACK. I appreciate the question. I just simply point 

out that at USDA we think we are doing something right, but on 

alfalfa we are likely to get sued for the decision we made. And on 

sugarbeets, we are likely to get sued on the other side for the decision we made. So we must be doing something right. 

24

But specifically to your question, the conversation that we facilitated was an extraordinarily important one, and it was worth the 

difficulties that it created from a sense of the germ plasma concerns that were expressed, and the ability that we always would 

have access to nonconventional alfalfa seed. And we tried to address that specific concern outside of the rule by creating another 

opportunity within USDA in terms of its Germplasma Protection 

Program to use a more isolated site in Idaho to be able to guarantee that we would always have a supply of non-GE seed. 

Second, there is some interesting research being done in corn on 

cross-pollination, and whether or not you can create something 

within corn that would allow it to defend itself from a foreign gene 

or pollen that would be contrary to what you wanted to do. The 

question is: Is there a way in which that research could inform a 

similar type of opportunity within alfalfa? We are reconstituting 

two advisory groups, one on germplasms, one on just basic general 

discussion of biotechnology to go more deeply into these discussions. 

Our view at USDA is it is not either/or, as some would like to 

suggest. It really is about how can we have as diverse an agriculture as possible so everyone can do what they feel and they decide is best for their operation. The more the merrier because it 

creates domestic markets. And both types create opportunities from 

an export perspective. And it is the type of thing that will generate 

more farmers and more opportunities within agriculture. 

So we are trying to have that tough conversation. It is difficult 

to have it in the context of constant litigation, but that is where 

we find ourselves today. As I say, no matter what we do, there is 

always somebody that is dissatisfied with it. What we are trying 

to do is say rather than constantly litigating, maybe we can have 

a conversation and figure out ways in which we can at least find 

where the common ground exists. I think we did a lot of that in 

alfalfa. I know a lot of folks are not happy, but we certainly did 

more than we would have done had the conversation not taken 

place. 

Ms. PINGREE. I do appreciate your pursuing the conversation and 

looking for ways to resolve some of this. I am not sure that the suggestions you are working on now are going to be enough, but I look 

forward to being in the continuing dialogue with you. 

I have one last quick question. If I don’t have time to get your 

entire answer, I will ask it later. 

I see the Administration’s budget for the National Organic Pro- gram includes an increase of $3 million to strength enforcement capacity to protect the integrity of the USDA organic seal. I am just 

interested in knowing what the additional dollars will be used for; 

particularly in regard to foreign products, how they will be used? 

Secretary VILSACK. In the foreign area, we are most focused right 

now on negotiating equivalency agreements. We reached one with 

Canada last year, and we are in intense conversations with the EU 

right now. And our view is if we can develop a common understanding and a common agreement about what constitutes equivalence, it will be a way to protect the brand. I mean, at the end of 

the day, the value added to organic is basically that you can guarantee that it is indeed organic. And this resource is primarily deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
25

signed to make sure that folks who are alleging that they are producing organic are actually living up to the standards that have 

been set by the industry. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Fincher. 

Mr. FINCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a seven-generation farmer, the phrase ‘‘Some days you’re the 

windshield, some days you’re the bug,’’ that kind of goes with the 

farming industry. 

I think what we need to make sure that we do is we have a slow, 

steady approach. The consumer is who benefits or who is hurt by 

whatever happens here. Not only are commodity prices in a great 

place for the ag industry all over this country, but rising input 

costs, fertilizer costs, fuel prices, seed prices, land, rent, as far as 

the inflation of the prices, all factor into the decisions that are 

going to be made over the next couple of years with the new farm 

bill. 

As a farmer, as an active farmer, the amount of regulations that 

we are dealing with from EPA and other agencies are really becoming an issue. I think I hear you today saying that you are standing 

with the ag community to make sure, and again I think who is 

hurt here is the consumer in the end, because we don’t want to 

ever get to the place where there are no farmers left and we go to 

the grocery store and there are only a few loaves of bread or a few 

cartons of eggs or a few gallons of milk because we have regulated 

our farmers out of business. 

We can compete with the rest of the world as good as anyone. 

But the free market, it really works well when we let it do its job. 

No doubt we can agree that there is a certain amount of oversight 

and regulation that we comply with. But again, Washington bureaucrats printing or making a computer program, and then trying 

to implement that program on the farm, sometimes doesn’t always 

pan out. 

So your commitment to us today, again, Mr. Chairman and his 

commonsense approach and his remarks, and the Ranking Member 

as well, as we move forward, maybe in a deregulation process to 

make sure we can, as farmers and as this Committee, do our part 

to making sure that the ag community does prosper and stays intact a for long term, for our future generations. Nobody wants to 

see it anymore than I do for my children. 

But again, thank you for your service. The regulations are a big, 

big problem for us. 

Thank you. 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, I wonder if I can just respond 

to your comments in this way. One of the first things I did was to 

establish a good relationship with Administrator Jackson and encourage her to actually take time to visit farm country, which she 

has done. We also encouraged her to engage in regular conversations with commodity and livestock groups, which she has done. 

We continually work with her ag representative, Larry Ellsworth, 

in an effort to try to make sure that there is a complete underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
26

standing of the impact that certain proposed regulations or 

thoughts might have on production agriculture in particular. 

You know, I think there has been a willingness to listen, and 

there have been adjustments made as a result of that. And we are 

going to continue to do that. There is no question farmers, in my 

view, are the ones who are most concerned about stewardship, because at the end of the day they live or die based on the capacity 

of the soil to produce, and they are very interested in making sure 

that we have clean and healthy water for a multitude of reasons. 

So there is a good relationship. We are going to continue to work 

and do our job to make sure that there is an understanding of the 

impact of the regulations. 

Mr. FINCHER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The high prices of commodities now, they probably won’t always stay this high. So a safety net as we move forward is critical to ensuring that our farmers 

stay profitable in the long term. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome, and thank you for being here. 

Let me begin by saying that hunger and nutrition are the main 

reasons why I sought to get a seat on the Agriculture Committee 

because this Committee, not only domestically but internationally, 

is key to providing a safety net for those who are falling through 

the cracks. And internationally, it is a national security issue. 

And I appreciate the Department’s support for the McGovernDole school feeding program, and I appreciate your leadership here 

domestically. I appreciate the President’s commitment to end childhood hunger by 2015. I want to see him do that. I appreciate your 

commitment to making sure that the food stamp or the SNAP program is adequate to meet the needs of those who are experiencing 

difficult times during this difficult economy. 

During the 110th and 111th Congresses, we saw the greatest improvements in investments in SNAP in generations. Yet much of 

that funding was used to offset the FMAP bill and the child—the 

Nutrition Reauthorization bill, and I am pleased that the Administration has included the restoration of some of these cuts in their 

2012 budget request. And you know there are some who complain 

that a huge portion of agriculture’s budget goes to food and nutrition issues. I think that is a good thing from my perspective. 

But I also remind people that as the economy gets better, and 

people are more secure than the obligation to provide a helping 

hand, whether it is SNAP or other programs decreases. So the answer to that is to get the economy moving again. 

I also—you heard people in the context they will tell you about 

entitlement reform saying that well, we need to take a hard look 

at the SNAP program. It is my understanding, and I appreciate 

your comment when I am finished, that GAO did a recent study 

not too long ago that this is one of the most efficiently-run programs in the Federal Government, that if there is an error rated 

sometimes it is mostly that we don’t provide enough, not that we 

provide too much. 

27

The other thing I want to say is that I recognize that the battle 

to end hunger in this country and to meet your goal of ending 

childhood hunger in the United States by 2015 does not solely rest 

with USDA, there are other departments and other agencies that 

have a role in this. I urge the President, along with Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, that one of the things that might be useful to develop a holistic plan so that we get this right because we 

are investing an awful lot of money in these programs. There was 

a White House Conference on Food and Nutrition, one domestically 

and one internationally this way so that everybody who has a role 

in this can actually figure out what their assignment is. Make sure 

there is interagency and interdepartmental communication, which 

I am sure there were some, but to come up with the plan so we 

all know what to do, and it makes it easier here in Congress then 

to advocate, because it is not just the Agriculture Committee, there 

are other committees involved. I mean children and nutrition falls 

under the Education and Labor Committee. But I don’t see us kind 

of working in a coordinated way to actually come up with a plan. 

And so I would appreciate your comments on the SNAP program 

but also on maybe the prospects of trying to get some people together with the White House on a summit that would bring everybody together. 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, I appreciate your passion on 

this issue, and let me see if I can respond as quickly as I can in 

the time remaining. Number one, the reason why I think the Recovery Act included a commitment to the SNAP program was not 

just because there were going to be more people in need of that assistance, but because it was indeed perhaps the most effective stimulus in terms of immediate impact on the economy. Ninety-seven 

percent of SNAP benefits are spent within 30 days. 

And when people can produce and when people can purchase 

more at the grocery store, it obviously means that more has to be 

packed, and processed, and shipped, and transported and produced 

and so forth, those are all jobs. Every dollar spent in SNAP generates about $1.80 to $1.90 in economic activity, so it is a stimulus 

effect, number one 

Number two, there is a misunderstanding of who actually receives SNAP benefits. There are a lot of senior citizens who receive 

it and there are obviously a lot of children. Only ten percent of the 

SNAP recipients are cash welfare recipients so it is roughly the 

working poor, the folks who are struggling are helped out with this 

program. 

The error rate for the last several years, we have had an error 

rate that is less than six percent. Last year it was very close to 31⁄2

percent, which, given the amount of increase that has taken place 

in the program, another eight million people added to the program, 

the fact that we went down in the error rate does suggest and support your notion that we are doing a good job, but we can always 

do a better job and we are focused on that. 

In terms of the issue of a summit, I will say that there is very 

good coordination on the international side with Feed the Future 

Initiative, the State Department, USAID and USDA are working 

very collaboratively. And I think that represents a good model for 

us perhaps on the domestic side. I am certainly happy to talk to 

28

folks about your idea. Anything that can allow us to do a better job 

in a more coordinated, integrated fashion, I am all for it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And before we 

turn to the next individual, I would point out I share Mr. McGovern’s observations and points, and with projected 75 percent of all 

the farm bill spending in this 5 year cycle to go to it, we are trying. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott for 5 minutes. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today. And I would 

point out you have been a governor before and were reelected as 

governor, so you did some things right I would think, in your state. 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative King might disagree. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. You hit on a point with our economy, I want to come back to. Stable markets create jobs. Is that 

a fair statement, that the more stable the markets are the more 

job creation we can count on in this country? 

Secretary VILSACK. I would say that the more stable the markets 

are, the easier it is for people to be able to plan and therefore the 

more stable the job market is. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. So you would an agree then that 

regulatory uncertainty is bad for the economy? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not—well, I don’t want to be argumentative. Obviously if there is confusion about regulation, that is not 

a good thing. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I guess I go back to what you said 

when, I think it was Mr. Holden that asked the question, and you 

essentially indicated that the American farmer was going have to 

barter with the EPA for regulatory certainty. And——

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I don’t think that is—that is not what 

I intended. Let me give it another shot and perhaps maybe I need 

to do a better job explaining this. I think what is of concern to a 

lot of farmers is when they are asked to embrace conservation programs, which they are happy to do and they want to do. And then 

the rules change after they have basically taken certain steps, that 

it makes it difficult for them. And so what we are trying to do is 

give them a degree of certainty that when you take these steps, you 

won’t have to worry about the rules changing, and we think that 

is a good thing. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. And that also changes the value 

of the assets that they own. I mean, the bottom line is when the 

government changes the rules after the decision has been made, 

the individual should be allowed to go back and make a different 

decision based on the new rules, but the EPA doesn’t work that 

way. 

Let me tell you what the EPA did about a week ago in Tifton 

as far as working with them. They walked into a family man’s 

business, a little business in Tifton, Georgia, they asked him to 

show them their lead-based paint disclosure forms and he could not 

do it. And their idea of negotiating with him is that they moved 

him from $30,000 per house and $150,000 fine to $10,000 per house 

and a $50,000 fine. That is how the EPA operates in today’s day 

and time. 

29

So I say that to come back to this point, are you, as the Secretary 

and the head of USDA, willing to go to bat for the United States 

farmer, who I would remind you, you can’t end hunger without the 

United States farmer. And without the United States farmer, every 

SNAP dollar doesn’t go as far for the SNAP recipient. So are you, 

as the head of USDA, willing to go to bat on behalf of the United 

States farmer with the EPA? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think we are doing that, Congressman. I 

think we are doing it in terms of the relationship I have with the 

EPA Administrator, the advice and the counsel we provide, the letters we write on certain proposed regulations, the input that we 

have encouraged from livestock, a lot of groups to the EPA. This 

notion of regulatory certainty, which I think has enormous opportunities to give folks reassurance that as they take certain steps, they 

are not going to have to worry about the situation that you just 

outlined that occurred in your district. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. They are scared, Mr. Secretary. 

The bottom line is the American citizen is scared to death right 

now of the EPA, whether they are farming or any other industry. 

And I appreciate your statement that you are going to go to bat on 

behalf of the farmer and that you have been. I would ask you to 

use a bigger bat. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair now turns to the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good to see you, 

Mr. Secretary, and welcome to our Committee again. Just a little 

bit of dialogue, Mr. Chairman, you made a comment about the nine 

billion people, the population. And that just reminds me of some 

of the other conversation. There is a lot out—started out a lot of 

head bumping on organic and traditional, and I submit to you, 

again, to all of us that there is room for both, there is, and there 

still are going to be hungry people. 

I think these things can be worked out. And I would hope that 

we keep working in that direction because they can be. And I don’t 

think they are really in competition. As you know, Mr. Secretary, 

in our state, we have had a lot of discussion about the crop insurance and we are a big user as you well know. I am still having 

some concerns coming from our agents and I would remind you 

being that some of our colleagues, the Chairman included hands 

on, there are three things that I say we have to have in the community to be a farmer, and that is you have to have a farmer store, 

whether it is a co-op or whatever it is. You have to have a bank 

to work with you, and you have to have a good insurance agent 

these days with the high capitalization of trying to put in a crop 

or whatever do you in agriculture. So the agents are still concerned, and I would trust that you are probably still involved with 

that and hope you are. 

One thing that has kind of bothered me, and going back to some 

of our history and background, we have both been concerned, I 

think about, is advocates for arbitration and fairness in business 

contracts. And I am a little bit troubled about this covenant not to 

sue. I wonder if you would shed any light on why that covenant 

really should be there? 

30

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we made an effort to try to negotiate 

with the industry at the instruction of Congress to renegotiate 

every 5 years the Standard Reinsurance Agreement. And in order 

to stabilize the reinsurance agreement, in order to provider greater 

integrity within the program, and in order to provide a better deal 

for taxpayers, we negotiated a series of initiatives designed to save 

money, to make sure that the crop insurance program was stabilized in terms of its ability to provide coverage and it was solvent. 

I think the good news is that as a result of our efforts, we have 

actually sold 14,000 more policies as a result of the expansion that 

took place with rangeland and grasslands areas. And we have also 

instituted a good producer refund and rebate program as a result 

of steps taken to improve the product. 

I think you have to look at this thing on balance and it was a 

negotiated process. And that was one of the things that the industry was interested in having. And as a result of the magnitude of 

the deal we struck, it was included. 

Mr. BOSWELL. So you think the covenant not to sue is still necessary to be there? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I haven’t had a chance to talk to Administrator Murphy about that specific issue recently. But, on balance, we are pleased that there are more policies being sold, that 

we did effect a savings, and we were able to put together the refund. So the things we were focused on happening are, in fact, happening. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I am not questioning that and I appreciate that, 

but I just wanted to lay that out there as a concern. And this Committee, Mr. Chairman, I have become an advocate for, I guess the 

best way to put it is just fairness in business contracts, so that producer out there can have his say and not be forced out when necessary, but I won’t go back and rehash all that. 

So maybe we can talk about that some more, Mr. Secretary. I 

think I will just leave it there and thank you for your hard work. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for being here. I would echo the comments of the gentleman 

from Georgia in that I hear every day, day in and day out from 

farmers in my district, the single biggest threat that they face is 

the threat of the EPA that looms over them. And so, again, thank 

you for your commitment there. And I can’t ask you to comment 

or speak for the EPA so I won’t ask you to. But I will ask you to 

speak on behalf of the USDA and help us really understand what 

the relationship is on a day-to-day basis between the USDA and 

the EPA. And specifically, is there a protocol or liaison on a daily 

basis between USDA and the EPA? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t want to say on a daily basis. I would 

say this, EPA Administrator Jackson has appointed an ag liaison, 

and I know that that liaison is over in our office very frequently. 

I would say almost on a weekly basis. I know there is conversation 

between that liaison and individuals, under secretaries and folks 

within various mission areas of USDA. And I also know that the 

ag liaison speaks very frequently with Robert Bonnie and Sarah 

31

Bittleman, who are in my office, directly in my office on a variety 

of issues involving EPA’s decision-making process. I also know that 

we are writing letters, constantly in meetings in which we are addressing concerns, raising questions, asking for clarification and 

making suggests about appropriate modifications to what might be 

considered. I think there is, to my knowledge, there is a very robust effort between USDA and EPA to make sure they have all the 

information they need to make the right set of decisions. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Is the EPA, to your knowledge, are they implementing policy that may adversely affect farmers with or without 

your input or input from your agency? Or as I said before, do you 

get a fair opportunity to present data on behalf of farmers? 

Secretary VILSACK. To my knowledge we have gotten a very good 

opportunity, and I know a number of circumstances where we have 

made a difference in terms of the approach EPA has taken, whether it is definitions, whether it is the scope of particular regulations; 

it is one of the reasons why I encouraged the Administrator to take 

some time to visit and actually get on the farm and see what is 

going on in various operations. It is why I encouraged the ongoing 

conversation that she has with commodity groups and livestock 

groups. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. I now turn to the gentleman from Connecticut for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the 

last time I saw you I was on the Education and Labor Committee 

and we were working on the Child Nutrition Act, which I am 

pleased, in the lame duck session, we finally got done. Congratulations to you and your staff which was a lot of hard work. The 

House bill was still better than the final bill, but I won’t ask you 

to comment on that. 

We are now at the point where implementing regulations that 

are in place and I think there is probably almost universal noise 

out there in terms of boards of education that are trying to anticipate what the new rules are going to be for food service providers, 

in terms of their qualifications. I mean, obviously, one of the goals 

of this bill was to try and increase new nutritional standards and 

food. I mean, some of the finest chefs in the world could probably 

use some educating in terms of what is healthy food so we obviously need to make that effort out there. 

But on the other hand, I don’t have to tell you, local school budgets are still unbelievably stressed right now. So there is again 

worry that this is going to be a high cost to school boards. I just 

wondered if you could sort of comment on where the regulations 

are and whether or not you will be working with local and state 

government to try and make this workable for everyone? 

Secretary VILSACK. This is a document that I asked be prepared 

for me personally, which is an implementation plan for the 

Healthy, Hungry-Free Kids Act of 2010. It basically is a colorcoded—things are progressing, things are not progressing, or things 

are potentially delayed so that I am on the point in terms of the 

major provisions of that proposal. 

From what I can tell, everything that we promised that would be 

done up to this point is and has been done on a timely basis. There 

32

has been an effort to reach out and to work with the School Nutrition Association and others in a very collaborative way. We will 

continue that. And there is also an effort—at the same time you 

mention chefs, there is also an effort to actually encourage chefs to 

move into the schools, to work with school personnel. 

There are creative ways to stretch the dollar. We actually have 

a recipe contest now that will end very soon and we are going to 

put together a cookbook of recipes that can be used. Fruits and 

vegetables, and whole grains and low fat dairy on the reimbursement level so that folks learn how to be a little bit more creative 

than in the past. So to my knowledge, things are on track, and 

there is a collaborative and transparent process. 

Mr. COURTNEY. You know, I would actually encourage you to 

share that with Members and their offices because, again, I think 

that would be just a helpful thing for all of us to be able to let their 

constituents know that this isn’t some distant bureaucracy that is 

going to impose things, that there really is a process and that 

things are, again, being implemented in a balanced way. 

Secretary VILSACK. I will only say that there are some programs 

in which you have established statutory requirements in terms of 

when it becomes implemented, so some things may not happen in 

2011 because you dictated they happen in 2012. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. And just in a brief moment here, 

again, the conversation earlier about stable markets and regulation, I actually think in some areas, having some regulation will 

help stabilize markets. For dairy farmers in Connecticut that are 

getting killed with high energy costs, the lack of regulation in 

terms of the speculation on energy markets is a huge destabilizing 

factor, either oil delivery guys get wiped out because they didn’t 

hedge enough for swings in prices. And for the CFTC to get rules 

out there that limit the number of positions that some of these 

speculators can take on products like oil. Frankly, it would be of 

great benefit to farmers and small businesses who are, again, paying prices that are completely disconnected from real supply and 

demand forces. 

We had a hearing on this last week, and I would just say, again, 

it is hard to answer the question about input costs which I know 

you have been asked here today, but clearly getting the CFTC 

Dodd-Frank rules implemented will have the effect of stabilizing a 

lot of these input costs in helping people plan, which the swings in 

prices that are taking place right now make almost impossible. I 

would just leave it at that and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair turns to the gentleman from Tennessee for 5 minutes.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I 

really appreciate your time today. Recently I had the privilege of 

participating in the Tennessee Cattlemen’s Association’s annual 

meeting. And although they had many concerns, one that seemed 

in the front of their minds was the collapse of Eastern Livestock 

Company, that, as you know, left hundreds of livestock producers 

in dozens of states without payments, totaling the excess of $130 

million. More importantly, it has shaken the confidence in the market and rattled livestock producers across the country. 

33

Last year the Administration created and implemented the Poul- try Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program to provide $60 million 

in assistance to poultry growers whose poultry growing arrangements were terminated because of bankruptcy. What steps are you 

taking to help producers impacted by the failure of the Eastern 

Livestock Company? And how do you help restore their confidence 

moving forward? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, one of the things that has to take place, 

the difference between the poultry circumstance and the cattle circumstance that you have alluded to, is that we are really not quite 

finished with that process in terms of exactly how it is all going 

to shake out. Obviously, there are bankruptcy proceedings, there 

may very well be additional steps being taken to recover assets 

from individuals. And until we have a clear understanding of precisely what the extent of losses might be, it is difficult that we 

could develop a specific proposal. 

Having said that, there is always the opportunity depending 

upon the market to utilize some of the powers under section 32 if 

we find that there is a deep concern about farmers’ capacity to 

have their purchasing power compromised by virtue of this. That 

is one thing we can do. We can obviously take a look at our farm 

loan programs to try to help folks get through a difficult time. 

For non-producers who might be struggling because of what took 

place, we also have Business and Industry Loan programs, we also 

could work with the SBA to provide some assistance. And we are 

obviously collecting data and information concerning bond claims. 

We know that at this point, there is roughly almost $37 million of 

claims that have been filed. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair now turns to the gentleman from Oregon for 5 minutes.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Secretary, I want to start by thanking you 

for coming to Oregon last year and talking with a lot of my growers, a lot of my timber people and a bunch of my nursery men that 

had some very serious issues. 

I appreciate the accommodation in some of the APHIS rules on 

the whole pre-notification issue for Phytophthora ramorum.

I still remain a little concerned and so do my growers. I think 

there was conversation at that meeting and within APHIS about 

trying to get out of the bureaucratic regulatory framework of prenotification that puts a big burden on our growers and go to maybe 

some sort of system-wide approach that made more sense. 

I still remain a little concerned that my folks on the West Coast, 

particularly in the counties that are targeted, many of which are 

in my district, that they are actually really doing the right thing. 

They have a very rigorous standard that they are looking at. With 

all due respect to my colleagues from around the country, I think 

if they had the same rigorous standards that my folks do, they 

would find they also are a reservoir for this particular issue. 

So I am concerned, I am hoping that this won’t be used to impede the trade of our crops, if you will. I think just naturally in 

the marketing of crops, it automatically is going to do that to a cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
34

tain extent, so I am curious what steps the agency and what steps 

the Department is taking to make sure there is still free trade, if 

you will, with regard to the crops that we are concerned with, the 

Phytophthora. And whether or not the Department is still moving 

hopefully in an expeditious manner and in what time frame to get 

away from the pre-notification rule to something that makes a little more sense on a system-wide basis. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, I wish I could give you 

greater certainty on an area that I know is very important to your 

district and to the producers in your district because I heard them 

loudly and clearly. One of the things we did do was to provide more 

time so that they could make adjustments in the process. The problem is it is just doggone difficult to detect. And oftentimes, it can 

be present for a long period of time before the symptoms manifest 

themselves, which can potentially compromise other plants and 

other nurseries, that is the problem. And we are trying to restrict 

this to areas that have been quarantined in certain regulated counties in three states. And we are trying to do this in a way that 

doesn’t necessarily significantly inhibit trade. I know that you have 

a different view on this, but until we have a better sense about 

this, until we have better diagnostic tools, I don’t anticipate that 

we are going to see a significant change in the way we are approaching this in the foreseeable future. 

I would be happy to have our APHIS folks visit with you, again, 

to reassure you that they are doing everything they possibly can 

and in as reasonable a fashion and way as possible, not to compromise or jeopardize your producers. But, I don’t want to mislead 

you into thinking there is a quick fix here, because I don’t believe 

there is. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, I appreciate your honesty and the testimony here. Actually, I will take you up on your offer to at least 

meet with the APHIS folks on this, get some of my growers in. And 

ask that the same degree of testing be done with the same rigor 

across this country. If my folks are doing the type of testing that 

hopefully will help end this pest, at least in our neck of the woods, 

I want to make sure it is not, referring to your comments on it 

being a latent type of organism, causing it in some of the other 

areas too. So I would look for some assurances we are going to be 

treated with an equal hand. 

Secretary VILSACK. We will have Cindy Smith and her team visit 

with you. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Second question, if I may, is regarding the Forest Service, following up on the good Representative from Pennsylvania’s comments earlier. I am concerned about the situation in our forests in 

this country. Everyone talks about sustainable yields, and of 

course, that is in the eye of the beholder these days. But, it is unquestionable that our forests are burning up at an accelerated rate 

and our rural communities are unemployed right now. And that 

begs for a thoughtful solution with the Forest Service getting actively engaged. 

We also have severe budget deficits, so most every agency, particularly the last few days, is enjoying some degree of budgetary reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
35

lief, shall we say, of some of their dollars and struggling to make 

ends meet. 

We had talked at one point when you were out visiting, and I 

talked about this with Secretary Salazar at another meeting on 

county payments about having some of these sales or some of the 

work to clear out the biomass and forests help pay for the management of those sales, so that it would not be adding to increased economic burden on the part of the Department. Have you investigated that? Is there any reason why you would not want to investigate that? 

Secretary VILSACK. We are always willing to take a look at ways 

in which we can do our job better. I have one thing that we have 

suggested in the budget process is to take a number of smaller programs and provide the Department with greater flexibility to do a 

better job of managing our forests, which may lead to better and 

more extended opportunities. We are trying to make sure that folks 

understand by giving us that flexibility, doesn’t mean we are not 

going to focus on all of the needs of these small programs, but we 

get constrained by them and therefore can’t use the forests for the 

best and most appropriate use given a particular set of circumstances. 

I would also say that, again, to allude back to the forest planning 

rule, I think that the forest planning rule that we put in place and 

that we are suggesting we put in place begins to do a better job 

of explaining the multiple uses that forests can create and the economic opportunities that can arise from those multiple uses. 

And we need to have assurances that we are taking full advantage of those uses, because they are just as extraordinary. The 

President yesterday, with the Great American Outdoors announcement, pointed out that there is a huge economic opportunity here 

if we do it right. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would serve note to my colleagues for 

the following recognition that the custom of the Committee is that 

all Members present at the dropping of the gavel, recognized by the 

clerks, are called upon in order of seniority. And then from that 

moment on, after the hearing starts, you are called in the order 

with which you attend the hearing. Noting that, I would note for 

my colleagues next up will be Mr. Ribble, and then Mr. Costa, then 

Mr. Schilling, then Mr. King, then Mr. Southerland, Mr. Gibson 

and Ms. Hartzler. And with that, I turn now to the gentleman from 

Wisconsin for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary Vilsack. I have very much enjoyed the conversation this 

morning. And it was good to get your report because so much in 

your report was positive. And I want to talk a little bit about some 

of the good things that are going on, but I do I feel in light of some 

of the comments that were made today that you should also hear 

from northeast Wisconsin. There are very few things that are consistent across agriculture. When you talk to dairy farmers their 

issues are different than corn growers, and their issues are different than the guys producing cranberries or the timber folks. But 

I will tell you, Mr. Secretary, that there has been one consistent 

36

thing, and everywhere I went in the last year I have asked these 

members of agriculture, job producers in northeast Wisconsin, what 

is the number one threat? 

I expected to hear that the number one threat could have been 

energy costs, because they were rising feed prices or land rents. I 

felt they could have said stability of milk pricing. In other things, 

trade agreements that haven’t happened. The number one threat 

that virtually every single person has told me is the United States 

Government and a runaway EPA. 

And please, to the degree that you have any power at all, Wisconsin’s farmers are pleading with you, as their representative in 

the Obama Administration, for help, it is the number one threat. 

I wish you would take that back to them. 

Going on to a more pleasant topic, that is, the 2,000 dairy farmers in my district, we have a robust dairy industry in northeast 

Wisconsin, as you are aware, having lived so close to us. As you 

know the 2009 milk prices plummeted. What is it that we can do 

as Members of this Committee and Members of Congress, to help 

stabilize that and improve that for Wisconsin dairy industry and 

the United States dairy industry? How do we get around this whole 

deal of milk pricing and reducing some of the risk? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think we are going to give you a set of recommendations here very, very soon from the Dairy Council. As you 

probably know, representatives including representatives from Wisconsin dairy have been meeting for the last year and a half as a 

result of what occurred in 2009. And they are going to come up 

with a set of recommendations; National Milk Producers Federation has come up with a set of recommendations. I know Representative Costa has some ideas and thoughts on this. 

I guess the first thing I would suggest is that this is an opportunity this year to have a very extensive and appropriate conversation that we really can’t afford to wait any longer to provide greater stability, a broader price band, more distance between the peaks 

and valleys so that we can ensure that we keep our producers in 

business. 

You will look at issues involving supply and risk management, 

you will look at the Federal Marketing Order, you will look at a 

series of other aspects that make up this very complex system. It 

is really, really difficult to understand, but having said that, I 

think there are ways. I think there is a growing consensus within 

dairy that there needs to be attention. 

In the past, what you have had is each separate region basically 

saying we have the solution. And I think there is now a recognition 

that maybe it is not one part of the country that has the solution, 

it really does require all the dairymen and women to come together. 

Mr. RIBBLE. And I will speak on behalf of those farmers in my 

district, and from this Member of Congress, we are anxious to have 

that conversation. It is time to try to reduce the peaks and valleys 

and to protect our dairy farmers. I grew up milking 42 cows, and 

that farm is no longer there. And I am so proud of what our dairies 

are doing today in terms of production, conservation, energy production. It is a stunning act of leadership that I am seeing every 

single day when I meet with our dairymen. 

37

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is an interesting point you mentioned about energy. One of the things we try to do at USDA is to 

develop a partnership with our dairy producers with anaerobic digesters. We have helped to fund close to 50 of those digester programs. And we met with a number of representatives from the 

Dairy Council and others about how we can continue to promote 

that kind of partnership. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you for that. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the remainder of his 

time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this important timely hearing. It is always good to have the Secretary of Agriculture before the Committee. Mr. Ribble, I did not know until 

now that you and I both share a common bond. I suspect other 

Members of the Committee as well grew up on a dairy farm. And 

if we didn’t have this job, we could probably get a job milking cows, 

vaccinating, dehorning and pulling calves, some redeemable skills. 

On the timeline in the statement, Mr. Secretary, that you just 

made with regards to the dairy industry and the peaks and the valleys, and I think there is a common concern here because we have 

seen, certainly the worst times that I have ever witnessed in three 

generations of a dairy family from California. I mean, I heard my 

parents talk about the tough times early on before I was around, 

but I have never witnessed it this bad over a continuing period of 

time. 

Do you have timelines? You clearly said your commission, my 

legislation, National Milk Producers Federation, I think there is 

consensus, but I would like to be able for us to tell the dairymen 

in the United States that we are going try to come together with 

the response in the next 6 months that tries to do the things that 

you articulated that I think we all feel similarly about. 

Secretary VILSACK. Representative, we are happy to work with 

the Chairman in this Committee and the Senate side to do whatever is necessary. We are happy to roll up our sleeves and begin 

the work now. 

Mr. COSTA. I think we need milestones. I mean, if we don’t have 

them in place, things just kind of roll along. Your Commission’s 

been in place now for over a year. Do they have a concluding report 

to you——

Secretary VILSACK. It is coming out the first week of March.

Mr. COSTA. Okay, seems to me that is a milestone. So I know the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member have expressed concerns as 

many of us have. It just seems to me that we ought to try to, after 

this hearing, see if there is the will. And if we think we have a consensus approach to make the changes for the industry we ought to 

set some timelines. 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t know that it is my place to set the 

timelines. I am happy to work with you on the timelines. 

Mr. COSTA. No. I am not asking you to set it for the Committee, 

I am asking for us to sit down together in terms of talking about 

that if there is a consensus then we ought to try to—otherwise, the 

alternative is, it seems to me, that we are just going to lay off until 

the reauthorization of the 2012 Farm Bill. And if that is the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
38

sensus, then so be it, but I have dairymen and dairywomen asking 

me what is happening? Are you guys going to act on this, your bill, 

National Milk Producers Federation, what is USDA doing? I mean, 

we ought to tell them we are going to do something, or we are not 

going to do anything until the reauthorization of the 2012 Farm 

Bill. 

Secretary VILSACK. I think the risk that you run in to not doing 

something this year is that the momentum that has been built as 

a result of the concerns of 2009 which extended into 2010. I think 

you run the risk of potentially losing that momentum. And I think 

there is a real desire to get something done. 

Mr. COSTA. I know under the able leadership of our Chairman, 

we will sit down and talk and maybe see if there is something we 

can come together with. 

Let me move on here because time—I know GIPSA was visited 

earlier in the questions, and, but is not clear to me again on what 

your time frame is there as well. 

Secretary VILSACK. I want to make sure that the analysis that 

you all have requested and that is necessary get done properly. We 

are in the process of categorizing 60,000+ comments, 30,000 of 

which I believe were unique. Those have to be analyzed, read and 

analyzed and sort of characterized. And then that will, in turn, inform Joe and his team what needs to be done. You know, obviously 

we want to get this done as soon as possible, but we want to get 

it done right. 

Mr. COSTA. I understand. And I will single out the correspondence that I had. But there has been some constituent inquiries to 

the USDA that has not received a response, from some of the associations out West. And I would like to make sure that that is on 

your radar screen and you respond. I will bring that to your attention at a separate time. 

Finally, under the foreign agriculture efforts, I am on the Subcommittee and we are meeting with some of the our counterparts 

on market access programs and foreign market development programs in terms of our exports. Again, this relates to the 2012 Farm 

Bill, but how well do you think they have worked? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we have a record year in exports and 

we recently did a study that every dollar that has been invested 

from USDA, in our view, has generated $35 of activity. So I would 

say that is pretty good return for the investment. The President 

has proposed an increase in this area of the budget, notwithstanding the difficult fiscal times we face, because it is capable of 

generating more activity and more investment. 

Mr. COSTA. You expect the South Korea Free Trade Agreement 

to further boost exports? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, absolutely. Sixty percent of our ag trade 

with Korea will have tariffs reduced immediately. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. My time has expired. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would extend the gentleman’s time by 

1 minute. And would the gentleman yield for kind of a question, 

or comment? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

39

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman brings up the issue of GIPSA, 

and we were all part of the effort of 115 Members of Congress back 

in October when we wrote asking for an economic analysis of the 

proposed GIPSA rule. Those few rules, the gentleman will agree, 

will have more impact on livestock agriculture than this GIPSA 

rule. Thinking about that letter and the discussions among the various Members, I turned to the Secretary and I asked about the economic impact analysis that will be done is critically important. One 

of the things we ask for and that you set the motion in the process, 

is it possible or could we have an assurance that that economic impact analysis can be subjected—that cost-benefit analysis, I should 

say, can be subjected to independent peer review and perhaps a notice in the comment process? Because there are very few things we 

will do that are more important than the GIPSA rule. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman I will—I want to take an opportunity to visit with my team about that request, especially as 

it relates to a peer review. We do want to get this done. And we 

have received thousands of comments. And we have received a lot 

of direction in terms of what ought to be included or not included 

in the analysis. It is fairly extensive what has been proposed. And 

I have a lot of faith and confidence in Joe Glauber to be able to 

do this properly. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are absolutely right, Mr. Secretary, and getting it right is the most important thing. You demonstrated the 

willingness to add extra time to analyze the process over the course 

of recent months. You obviously care and I appreciate that fully, 

but the ability to have an independent peer review, and to have notice and comment time on that cost-benefit analysis seems to me, 

and I would yield to the gentleman from California, seems to be a 

very important part of getting this right. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t agree with you more. And 

I appreciate the time to further extend the comments on this for 

the new Members of the Agriculture Committee who haven’t been 

a part of our effort in the last Congress. We spent a great deal of 

time in a bipartisan effort to ensure that we got this right. And I 

concur with the Chairman, we appreciate the fact that the Secretary extended the time period. But the peer review is going to be 

critical because this is an issue that clearly not only affects the 

livestock industry throughout the United States, but it has implications in a ripple effect on our ability to export U.S. beef products 

abroad. 

We have seen Japan and we have seen other countries use what 

I would refer to as justifications that I don’t think hold merit to 

prevent export, importation of American beef to their countries. We 

had a similar situation in South Korea that we had to deal with. 

So getting this right, and getting it right in a way that has the 

consensus of this Committee, as well as those in the industry is 

going to be critical to the long-term well-being of the U.S. livestock 

industry. And I am sure you will continue, Mr. Secretary, to find 

a consensus among the Members of this Committee on that point. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we will put our request in writing, Mr. Secretary. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now turns to 

the gentleman from Illinois for his 5 minutes, Mr. Schilling.

40

Mr. SCHILLING. Hello, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you again. Unlike many in the room, I never worked a farm, but I can make a 

mean pizza. What I would like to talk a little bit about, and it is 

kind of an echo here, is the EPA. I gave you the scenario that we 

have dealt with here in the 17th District of Illinois, we are number 

48 out of 50 in job creation across the United States. 

I have a family-run business that the EPA came in and these 

folks have 35 people employed, they have been open for 33 years, 

never had anyone die, no major accidents and they ended up getting penalized by the EPA hundreds of thousands of dollars. They 

are in the process right now—they spent over $50,000 fighting this 

thing. I think that I am just going to reiterate that we have got 

to get those folks under control and that was just kind of a statement, not a question. 

The other thing that I would like to talk about is for 8 years I 

did what I called estate planning. One of the things that was very 

difficult is the family farmer who literally work their finger to the 

bone. What would happen is I would have to come out and sell 

them what we call the last to die policy in the event that the last 

owner died, then they would be able to pass the farm down to the 

kids. And I always had a problem with that. I struggle with it because I have yet to ever figure out how the government can spend 

the money better than the children of the farmer or the small business. 

As you know, I know President Obama had come out last year, 

and I think it was 35 percent is what they had—I have some 

notes—yes, 35 percent in lame duck and then they just came out 

and they increased it to 45 percent with the cap at $31⁄2 million. 

Where do you stand on the death tax, as I call it, because that is 

basically what it is, it is a double tax to the farmer. Where do you 

stand on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think there are a couple of things. I think, 

certainly, what was done in the tax relief bill that was passed last 

December certainly is extraordinarily helpful. I have been told, I 

have not actually studied this myself, but I have been told that 

roughly 95 percent of farmers and ranchers would be covered by 

that. You constantly have to be looking at that because of land 

prices fluctuating. 

There are also a number of other steps within the estate tax laws 

that basically mitigate the impact and effect of the estate tax to the 

point where you may not have to pay it, or if you are required to 

pay it because you have a very large estate, you have a significant 

amount of time to do it. There are also valuation mechanisms that 

can reduce the overall value. It may not necessarily be what the 

market is on that particular day. It may be that alternative use 

valuations can be used. I think there are a lot of ways in which 

you can address the issue of the estate tax, but certainly what was 

done in December was helpful. 

Mr. SCHILLING. With that I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the Secretary 

for his testimony. I would like to start this out with the type of govVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-04\64690.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
41

ernor you had been. I applauded you for assigning the increase in 

the speed limit on our interstates up to 70. It saved me untold 

hours of productivity that I can use for other endeavors. And I appreciate that. 

I would take us back, however, to something, I think, is a disagreement, and we have had this discussion in my office with regard to the Pigford issue. And in that discussion, I related to you 

that then-Chairman of this Committee, Collin Peterson, whom I 

wish were here at this moment. He and I had a discussion of a disagreement where I had pointed out that a placeholder in the 2008 

Farm Bill would result in $1.3 billion additional money going into 

the Pigford claims, which I have been very clear on my judgment 

that many of them are fraudulent. And we had that disagreement. 

The Chairman of this Committee established his opinion to me 

very clearly that he said that the language in the 2008 Farm Bill 

was a hard cap, $100 million and that would resolve all of the 

Pigford claims and put an end to it. I went back after our discussion when he told me that I had voted to authorize you to negotiate 

with the farmers to open up and resolve Pigford II. As I read the 

language which I have asked be handed to you, and it is section 

14–012. I see the $100 million there, I see the language there and 

it reads to me that it is to shall be made exclusively from funds 

made available, and that it shall be the complete debt relief to resolve all the issues before Pigford. Now often I am the non-lawyer in the room, but I have some lawyers around me that read this that concur with me on that. And 

I think, Mr. Secretary, it probably would be better not to ask you 

to render a legal judgment on the language here on short notice, 

but I would ask you if you would respond to that inquiry in writing 

and have you had some time to evaluate the language here unless 

you are prepared today? 

Secretary VILSACK. I just want to make sure I understand the 

question. 

Mr. KING. Okay. The question is, do you agree with the Ranking 

Member of this Committee, Collin Peterson, then-Chairman, that 

the $100 million that is in the 2008 Farm Bill as to put an end—

to take care of all outstanding, unresolved Pigford claims? And if 

so, then where did you and Attorney General Eric Holder get the 

authority to negotiate with John Boyd to open up this $1.25 billion 

claim which was attached to the Cobell settlement, and passed by 

the 112th Congress? That is one of my questions. 

Secretary VILSACK. Let me just see if I can respond and would 

be happy to amplify on it as well in writing. The reality is—the 

view was that this amount was not sufficient and adequate to actually provide the relief that folks needed, given the number of potential claims that were not yet fully resolved, that this wasn’t sufficient. 

Mr. KING. And so even though the statute, as I read it, says that 

$100 million shall be all of the money spent to resolve all the cases. 

And it shall be construed so as to effectuate its remedial purpose 

of giving a full determination on all the merits for each Pigford

claim previously denied that determination. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the problem is it doesn’t actually give 

a full determination because there wasn’t sufficient resources in 

42

this. Plus again, with due respect to the drafting of this, it wasn’t 

clear whether any of this money could be used to actually process 

the claims, which is to say putting the information together. And 

when I came into the office, I was advised that there was probably 

insufficient resources to both satisfy the claims and also pay the 

administrative expenses associated with it. 

Mr. KING. And then so you and Attorney General Holder, I presume, with direction from the White House, opened the negotiation 

with John Boyd, the President of the Black Farmers Association. 

And came to a number which I believe was $1.15 billion, which was 

the number that was in the CR that passed in the 111th Congress 

that we are operating under now, and that is the authority. 

And I am curious to a second question into that as I watch my 

clock tick, is there now a consent decree or is there any kind of 

legal document that binds any of the parties involved in Pigford II?

Secretary VILSACK. First of all, we didn’t negotiate with Mr. 

Boyd. There really wasn’t a negotiation with Mr. Boyd. Second, the 

court is in the process of reviewing this and will essentially—because class action will essentially have to bless this, we anticipate 

that will take place relatively soon. 

Mr. KING. And so your authority to reach this conclusion that 

you recommended to the Congress that we appropriate the $115—

$1.15 billion, what was the source of that authority? 

Secretary VILSACK. The authority was that it was not a sufficient 

amount to resolve the class action that was pending. 

Mr. KING. If we have an authorization statute here that caps it 

at $100 million to resolve all of it and—it doesn’t seem to me that 

there is any authority beyond that $100 million the way I read the 

section. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary can respond. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressmen, you all obviously can change 

your mind at any point in time, and I think it is only fair to say 

that Congress does, from time to time, change its mind about 

things. And I think that is essentially what you did. It was not sufficient to resolve the case, that is the problem. And this was a relatively arbitrary number that was not necessarily tied directly to 

a number of claims and the amount it would take to settle the case. 

Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. 

The CHAIRMAN. Seeing no objection. One additional minute. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a news report in 

front of me regarding Pearlie Reed, USDA Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, individual that does work on your team. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And it is reported that he was in Brinkley, Arkansas 

in late January where he told a crowd that Pigford I is under review and that those trying to defraud the government in Pigford 

II will go to the penitentiary. I like that last part of this phrase. 

Is Pigford I under review? And is there an IG investigation to look 

at Pigford I?

Secretary VILSACK. I am not sure what Pearlie is referring to 

there, Congressman. If you give me an opportunity to visit with 

him about what he meant. I am not aware of that, but that doesn’t 

mean that it is not happening. 

43

Mr. KING. And are you an aware that there is an investigation 

of Pigford I under review? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not aware of that. It could very well be. 

Oftentimes, the Inspector General doesn’t let us know of all the investigations underway. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Owens, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vilsack, thank you 

for coming today. You reported that we have seen a rather significant rise in exports of a wide variety of products, which is clearly 

a good thing for us. Is there a point in time where the level of exports would create an increase in prices within the United States 

as the result of the export, or do we have excess capacity which will 

allow us to continue to export at these levels? 

Secretary VILSACK. I recently saw a study and I have not had a 

chance to determine whether it is appropriate or scientifically 

valid. It suggested there is still a lot of untapped potential in terms 

of our capacity to produce agricultural products in this country. 

That there are probably some lands that could be, for example, 

double-cropped that are not being double-cropped and could be 

done in an environmentally appropriate way. So if that report is 

correct, I think there are still opportunities for us to meet the domestic needs as well as a growing export market. 

Mr. OWENS. And would that also be true in terms of returning 

lands that previously might have been dairy farms into crop production in order to meet that demand? 

Secretary VILSACK. Each individual operator is obviously going to 

try to make the decision that is best for their operation. And we 

have lost relatively almost half of our dairy producers, so it 

wouldn’t surprise me if that is happening. 

Mr. OWENS. Is that something that the Department would encourage? 

Secretary VILSACK. I wouldn’t say we are encouraging it, actually 

what we are trying to do is try to figure out if there is a way in 

which we can stabilize the dairy industry so that we don’t continue 

to lose producers. 

Mr. OWENS. And I understand and certainly that is of great importance, particularly in my district as in many others, but those 

farms that have gone out of the dairy business, is there some type 

of a plan that the Department has which would encourage them to 

move into crop production, solely for the purpose of export that 

would allow them to be profitable? 

Secretary VILSACK. I wouldn’t say there is a specific plan, but 

there are a number of programs that could be available to operators that would encourage them to do that, in terms of loan grant 

programs that we have. 

Mr. OWENS. Is there someone that can I contact in the Department that could assist my office in gathering that information? 

Secretary VILSACK. We would be happy to reach out to you, our 

Office of Congressional Relations will do that very soon. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

44

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair turns to the gentleman from Florida Mr. 

Southerland. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

thank you for being with us today. I have a question regarding citrus greening. Being from Florida, the citrus industry is very critical 

to our state. Citrus greening is one of the most devastating diseases affecting any commercial crop as recognized by the National 

Academy of Sciences. In addition, citrus ranks nearly first in the 

nation in crop value among fruit and vegetable specialty crops according to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Timely research on citrus greening and its vector, the Asian citrus psyllid, is absolutely essential to ensuring the future of citrus 

production in this country. I am curious if you would go into a little 

explanation as far as what the Department is doing with the SCRI 

initiative and just to help give me an understanding, if you don’t 

mind, of what tools you are utilizing that you have at your disposal 

to address this? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, first of all, a recognition that this is a 

serious problem and it impacts certainly two areas of the country, 

both in terms of where you are from as well as concerns we have 

in the Arizona, California area. Additional research opportunities 

have been directed to try to assist in developing a process by which 

this could be abated. There are obviously—quarantine is probably 

not the right word, but there is a way in which we are identifying 

where this is and we are attempting to work with folks in these 

areas where we have seen this to try to contain it as best we can. 

I don’t know that we have all the answers in terms of how to eradicate it, but I think it is primarily putting additional resources behind containment and research to try to figure out how to get rid 

of this. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I think some of the things that I know, the 

citrus crops are $12.2 billion in the U.S. economy. And a lot of people don’t realize that this disease has never been cured in any 

other country in the world. It is critical. This is a dire challenge 

we have. I am just interested periodically in hearing when you testified as to be able to kind of give us an overview. 

Secretary VILSACK. I will have our Congressional Relations Office 

provide you with additional specific information on precisely what 

we are doing. I met with the citrus growers, and we are very aware 

of this concern. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. It is incredible, too, when you realize that the 

citrus growers have self-funded almost $40 million of research, and 

I think they need to be applauded. This is not an industry that is 

waiting for government to fly in and save the day. So I think they 

recognize how critical it is. I want to make sure, as representing 

many in my state, but as you mentioned, this deals with several 

regions of our country, that the Department is doing everything 

within its ability, utilizing the tools and the staff and the budget, 

to make sure that this is a priority. It is widely unknown to our 

nation at large, but we love orange juice and we love oranges and 

what they mean to us. 

I have to mention, it is a comment in regard to something I know 

that you are getting tired of hearing. And you know where I am 

45

going. When you hear that statement, you know the precursor of 

how damaging the reach of the EPA is. It would be unfair of me, 

having met with so many of the farmers in north Florida, and I am 

in District 2 of Florida, so I represent the largest Congressional 

district in Florida. A lot of people don’t realize, we have almost 70 

dairy farmers just in Florida. A lot of people don’t realize that 

about Florida. We have 250 specialty crops in Florida. It is amazing, the fear that they are hearing about the EPA and the overreach, especially with the nutrient requirements that the EPA is 

pushing down on the State of Florida. 

I will tell you, we are talking about destroying perhaps 14,500 

jobs in Florida in just what it would cost our local government in 

Florida; $21 billion, it is estimated, in new water treatment facilities. This has to be a tremendous concern. I am concerned that the 

Administration, which you are a part of, every time it hears that 

you have to come and testify—and thank you for coming—that you 

hear the concern of every district because the EPA imposes an incredible threat to jobs in this economy recovering. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Gibson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you 

for being here today. I appreciate it. 

I represent upstate New York. I have ten counties, 137 towns. 

Agriculture is key to our area. I have a panel that advises me. 

They represent all across the ten counties. What I thought I would 

do is take the opportunity to share with you the results of a meeting we recently had. 

First of all, you are held in high regard. You have made two trips 

to my district in the last 6 months, and it is very much appreciated. You conduct yourself in a very professional way, you clearly 

advocate for farmers, and I want to express my appreciation. 

My number one concern, although really there are two. The first 

has actually been hit by leadership and Mr. Costa as well, and it 

has to do with what we are going to do, going forward, on price discovery and stability for the dairy market. Our farmers, in a perfect 

world, they would want to have more free market forces. They have 

been listening very carefully for the last 18 to 24 months about 

what National Milk Producers Federation has been talking about. 

The biggest issue our farmers have, because we are primarily almost entirely family farms, is the stability. The wild oscillation in 

prices is very Darwinian on our farmers. 

What I was impressed with, inasmuch as there is such an incredible group with a diversity of opinion, that they care very deeply 

about one another and are ready to pull together. So to the extent 

that we can bring a more rapid conclusion to that effort, that would 

be tremendously appreciated. 

Along with it, and I really don’t want to beat a dead horse here, 

but the EPA comes up all of the time. Our farmers up there, they 

are tremendous environmentalists. They believe deeply in conservation, but they are exasperated by what they view as an overreach. I know that is not your domain, but I wanted to share that 

with you. The spilled milk thing is an example. It looks like that 

46

is going to come out okay. I had a meeting yesterday with EPA, 

but for farmers who can be skeptical, it added more fuel to the fire 

in terms of why don’t they come out with that exemption. So to the 

extent that you can advocate for them as well, I think that that 

would be helpful. 

The other piece of this, the Chesapeake watershed also has our 

farmers concerned. In New York State, they are looking at potentially going down to countywide standards. There have been some 

estimates in terms of what that cost implementation would be, but 

it is concerning. I know that the budget came forward and I think 

there is $17 million in there now to address this, but we think we 

are going to be on the end of that pipeline and our farmers are very 

concerned of the impact that this potential regulation is going to 

do to their profitability. 

There is some concern about the implementation of Dodd-Frank 

for our farmers, using instruments to hedge against risk. I know 

it was not the intent of Congress to use that bill to really adversely 

impact farmers, but of course farmers pull together in co-ops, and 

there is concern about how that is going to impact them going forward. 

Finally, this has been a particularly tough winter in upstate New 

York, and of course we love the four seasons and that is why we 

live there. But the heavy snow and the ice has impacted as of last 

count, yesterday, we had 42 farmers who had roofs collapse attendant to the snow and ice. Your Department has been helpful, and 

we thank you for that. But anything that you can do to help the 

Administration to declare that a disaster area, that would be greatly appreciated. At this point, I will pause for your response. 

Secretary VILSACK. The disaster debt declarations, Governor 

Cuomo would have to request it, and we would try to turn those 

around relatively quickly. Once we do, it does create opportunities 

that, absent such a declaration. I would encourage you to encourage the Governor to do it on a timely basis. We have had, unfortunately, circumstances when the Governors have let the time period 

go by, and there isn’t any authority I have to waive that time period. It is important to do it in a timely basis. 

On the Chesapeake Bay, one of the things that we are doing, 

USDA is attempting to quantify the degree to which producers are 

embracing conservation and stewardship in a way to try to allay 

concerns or fears that folks may have that farmers aren’t sensitive 

to the environment. We did one recently in the Chesapeake Bay 

and we did one in the upper Mississippi River Basin, and it does 

reflect, as I indicated earlier, that farmers are indeed focused on 

conservation. The more we can be specific about that, I think the 

easier it is to make that case. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now turns to the Subcommittee Chairman from Texas, 

Mr. Conaway, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Last year your Department authorized or started an ad hoc disaster relief program that 

went to certain states, certain producers. Some crops were in and 

some crops were out, even though the producer was on the same 

farm, same disaster. I hope in your answer you will be able to look 

47

us in the eye and unequivocally state that politics and who might 

vote for whom absolutely had nothing to do with the way that the 

money was distributed. 

That leads me to the question of can you give us an accounting 

of where the money went and who got it so we can see a regional 

distribution of those moneys. 

And my final question is: With previous ad hoc disaster payments, the producers had been required to sign up for crop insurance the next year as a condition to get into the program. So you 

waived that or just didn’t put that in this time. Can you walk us 

through the criteria used for picking winners and losers in that 

program? 

Secretary VILSACK. I will make an effort to do that. There was 

an effort to try to respond to the fact that when we put together 

the SURE program and other disaster programs, the idea in the 

2008 Farm Bill was that we would sort of move away from what 

had been the case in previous disasters where you had ad hoc disaster relief. 

When we put SURE together, it didn’t really do as good a job for 

some producers as others. Cotton and rice producers did not fare 

very well under SURE, and there were circumstances where there 

was a substantial amount of moisture that impacted and affected 

those crops. And in doing so, we tried to designate it based on 

where that condition, the oversupply of water, if you will, created 

difficulties. That allowed us to identify roughly a thousand counties 

where farmers could potentially request this assistance. 

We can give you an indication of where the farmers who signed 

up for this, where they come from. There were two other components. One was a poultry component which was very specifically 

designated and designed to try to provide assistance to poultry producers who were treated very unfairly, unfortunately, as a result 

of the bankruptcy of Pilgrim’s Pride and other poultry processing 

facilities. And then there was an issue involving aquaculture that 

had some very difficult times with high feed costs. 

So those were the sort of three groups of people that were attempted to be assisted. 

We got $20 million out to the aquaculture farmers. That is primarily in the South. We have gotten money out, roughly $60 million, to the poultry producers. That was a handful of states. And 

then the balance, about $170 million as of today, but it may very 

well be closer to $200 million, a little over $200 million when it is 

all said and done, to producers, where there were significant 

rainfalls, involving cotton, rice. And because of the nature of the 

counties, soybeans were also included. 

If any of those individuals are in fact going to receive SURE payments as a result of SURE basically taking care of their crop, then 

there will be a deduction from their SURE payment for anything 

that they received under this particular program. So it sort of addresses the issue of soybeans. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, is this an indication that the SURE program 

has failed? And also, look us in the eye and tell us that your new 

team used political reason—there was absolutely, unequivocally, no 

political considerations given to how you came up with the winners 

and losers under this plan? 

48

Secretary VILSACK. From my perspective—I am answering your 

question, sir. From my perspective, we did the best job we could 

to handle the difficulties that farmers who were not treated fairly 

or as well as other farmers were under the SURE program. I think 

it is important. 

I wouldn’t say the SURE program failed because it certainly was 

beneficial to a lot of producers, and it certainly is the right direction. Can it be improved? I think that is part of the discussion that 

will hopefully take place in the 2012 Farm Bill. Are there ways of 

improving that kind of approach, because I think there is some 

merit to the approach. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And the answer to my question that I have asked 

twice? 

Secretary VILSACK. I thought I answered it, sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Can you look us in the eye and unequivocally 

state that political considerations bore no—had nothing whatsoever 

to do with picking winners and losers under this plan? 

Secretary VILSACK. From my perspective, what we did at USDA, 

that is correct. I honestly can’t speak for anyone else in this process. I can just tell you what we did and why we did it. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Didn’t you do it all? Was this a program that was 

done in the White House? Where did this get done, if not in your 

shop? 

Secretary VILSACK. It was done in our shop, and I am speaking 

for our shop. Basically what we did was we took a look at where 

SURE——

Mr. CONAWAY. So when we get the map—and I assume you will 

give us the map of where the money went, and overlay that against 

political maps—there won’t be any correlation there that looks 

weird by region? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t think so. It has to do with where there 

was a significant amount of rainfall that made it difficult for plants 

either to be planted or to be harvested. And specifically, the crops 

that were negatively impacted were rice and cotton. So you are 

going to see states in the South—Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama—

that were obviously impacted and affected by this. You will see 

some counties in Illinois that were impacted by this. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Let me ask you on the record, you didn’t consider 

anything from a political standpoint in the way you orchestrated 

this program? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, sir. I asked our staff to put together a 

program that would respond to the concerns that were being expressed to us by farmers and producers who felt that they were not 

being treated fairly because SURE didn’t address their particular 

crop. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now turns to the gentlelady from Missouri for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would concur with a lot of my other colleagues here. Of course 

EPA is a huge concern. But I wanted to focus on GIPSA, and I 

know it has been discussed before. But in Missouri, there was a 

law passed a few years ago, a Missouri livestock marketing law, 

that went into effect that had basically some of the same impact 

49

of this proposed rule. It ended up being rescinded in a special session of the legislature just a few months after it was implemented 

because of its very onerous impact on the livestock industry. 

Swine, they say that based on what happened in Missouri with 

the dropped prices, the impact, that it cost roughly $2.7 million in 

a 5 month period. If you were to extrapolate that across the United 

States, if this rule were to be implemented, U.S. swine producers 

would see about a $279 million a year impact; cattle, $728 million 

a year. All together, the hog and fed cattle producers would be over 

a billion dollars. 

So I was wondering, first of all, are you familiar with what happened in Missouri as it relates to this proposed rule? 

Secretary VILSACK. I am not specifically familiar with what you 

are talking about. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. What impact does your Department believe it will have on the livestock industry dollar-wise if this should 

go into effect? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is the reason we are doing an economic 

analysis. That has not yet been done. We wanted to get all of the 

comments and all the suggestions and concerns on the part of folks 

before we conducted an economic analyses. And we are taking all 

of that into consideration in formulating that analysis. 

I would say there was an overarching concern, and there may be 

multiple reasons and explanations for this, but we have lost roughly a third of our cattle producers in my lifetime, and 90 percent of 

our hog producers. We felt that there is a need to ask questions. 

When we did the anti-competition hearings around the country, 

we had a lot of people converse about the need for a packers and 

stockyards review and greater enforcement of packers and stockyards. So there was a good-faith effort to try to respond to the concerns that we have heard about the fairness or the lack of fairness 

in certain markets. 

We put a rule together, obviously, which generated an awful lot 

of controversy and concern. A lot of people opined about it. We 

have taken all of that information into account, and we are going 

to try to put the best rule possible together. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. This is a question as a new person here. So if 

it comes back that everybody’s opinion is that it is going to be detrimental, will you withdraw the rule? Do you have that option, or 

are you going to move forward regardless? 

Secretary VILSACK. Obviously, if it comes back and there is no 

benefit to the rule at all, obviously there is a problem with the way 

that we have structured the rule. And we would obviously have to 

rethink the position. 

I will tell you that I would like to think that there will be consensus on some aspects of agriculture. But what I find in this job 

is that there is almost never consensus. There are always at least 

two sides, and oftentimes multiple sides, depending on where you 

are from and how small, medium-sized or large your operation is, 

and what you are producing. 

And the challenge is to try to make sure that we have a fair market. That is what we are trying to do, is just establish a fair market. I think we can have a consensus on that, but how you get to 

50

a fair market, there is a lot of difference of opinion on that. There 

is no question about that. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Well, I just hope you will take into account what 

happened in Missouri to us and why the legislature had to rescind 

it. And hopefully you won’t do anything to negatively impact the 

livestock industry. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 

time. 

That concludes this round of question. This is the point where I 

would customarily, before I adjourn, turn to my Ranking Member 

and ask for closing comments. Instead, I will offer my own comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here and for demonstrating 

your patience with the schedule we are working on, on the floor. 

I note that whether it is rules or regulations, policy, there are a 

variety of things that this very diverse Committee has a lot of 

questions about, and you serve a pivotal role for rural American 

production ag. Thank you. 

With that, under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from the witness to any question posed by a Member of the Committee. 

This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

51

* There was no response from the witness by the time this hearing went to press. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Hon. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture * 

Question Submitted by Hon. Timothy V. Johnson, a Representative in Congress from 

Illinois 

Question. Last October, you announced a biofuels infrastructure plan that included assistance through Rural Development to install 10,000 blender pumps and 

storage systems over the next five years. Given the cost of blender pumps this could 

be a very expensive commitment. Would you further discuss this infrastructure plan 

and how these projects would be funded? Do you envision using grants, loans, or 

loan guarantees? If your intent is to target urban areas where blender pumps are 

not currently deployed, does this mean you intend to utilize scarce rural development funds in urban areas, and which Rural Development program would be utilized for the deployment of blender pumps? 

Question Submitted by Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress from Wisconsin 

Question. Mr. Secretary, I was encouraged to hear the Administration announce 

steps last month to begin to resolve one of the largest trade disputes we have that 

has hampered our agricultural exports, particularly of cheeses, to Mexico, a major 

market. Exports help our farm economy to thrive and it has been disconcerting to 

see Mexico impose retaliatory tariffs on cheeses and other agricultural products due 

to our noncompliance with NAFTA. American agriculture constantly faces this very 

same dilemma, as our trading partners often try to evade their agreements with us, 

so it is critical that we ‘‘walk our talk’’ by abiding by our own commitments. Given 

the impact this dispute has had on one of our largest agricultural markets, can you 

tell me where efforts stand to settle this matter as swiftly as possible, and what 

USDA is doing to continue to impress upon the other agencies involved that a resolution is urgent? 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in Congress from 

Minnesota 

Question 1. What steps is USDA/FNS taking to build on the Education and Administrative Reporting System (EARS) that will evaluate the outcomes and impacts 

of successful programs, over and above the simple process measurements? 

Question 2. In implementing SNAP Nutrition Education provisions, what steps is 

USDA/FNS taking to allow states and communities to propose and implement demonstration projects prior to FY 2013, using existing SNAP Ed resources included in 

Section 241 of the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010. How might such demonstration projects be helpful to states in national planning and preparation during 

the transition period? 

Question 3. Healthy Incentive Pilot—please provide an update of the status and 

scope of work, including how EBT coding, the timeline, potential for establishing 

baseline data for participants. 

Question 4. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program—what will be the allotments for the upcoming school year? Is there unspent money from last year? What 

percentage of those schools funded are high-need schools? 

Question 5. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Evaluation—what is the status of 

this report? Are there results that can be shared? 

Question Submitted by Hon. William L. Owens, a Representative in Congress from 

New York 

Question. Last year I was joined by many colleagues from the upstate NY delegation, as well as many from the Dairy Farmer Caucus, in expressing to the Administration my grave concerns about the prospect of expanding U.S.-New Zealand dairy 

trade through the TPP and the billions of dollars in losses that could impose on the 

U.S. dairy economy. I know the state of the U.S. dairy economy has been an issue 

of particular interest to you, as it is to me. What is USDA doing to help ensure the 

Administration is fully aware of the negative impact that expanding U.S.-New Zealand dairy trade could have on our dairy sector?

Æ