U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–331 PS 2001

S. HRG. 107–137

CONFIRMATION OF ANN M. VENEMAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JANUARY 18, 2001

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

ZELL MILLER, Georgia

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana,

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director

ALISON FOX, Counsel

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk

KEITH LUSE, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

HEARING:

Thursday, January 18, 2001 ................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX:

Thursday, January 18, 2001 ................................................................................... 55

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Thursday, January 18, 2001 ................................................................................... 81

Question(s) and answers submitted for the record:

Thursday, January 18, 2001 ................................................................................... 111

Thursday, January 18, 2001

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 1

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

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ......................................... 4

Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from Mississippi ......................................... 19

Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from Kansas ................................................... 24

Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter G., a U.S. Senator from Illinois ....................................... 33

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................. 30

Conrad, Hon. Kent, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota ...................................... 16

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., a U.S. Senator from Arkansas .................................... 27

Miller, Hon. Zell, a U.S. Senator from Georgia ..................................................... 31

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, a U.S. Senator from Michigan ....................................... 35

Dayton, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota ........................................... 40

Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska .................................. 38

Johnson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from south Dakota ....................................... 22

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from Iowa .......................................... 44

INTRODUCTION OF ANN M. VENEMAN

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from California ...................................... 6

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from California .......................................... 7

Dreier, Hon. David, a U.S. Senator from California ............................................. 5

WITNESSES

Veneman, Ann M., Designee for Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture .... 10

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 56

Boxer, Hon. Barbara ........................................................................................ 58

Craig, Hon. Larry E. ........................................................................................ 62

McConnell, Hon. Mitch .................................................................................... 63

Baucus, Hon. Max ............................................................................................ 65

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—CONTINUED

Johnson, Hon. Tim ........................................................................................... 60

Leahy, Hon. Patrick ......................................................................................... 67

Santorum, Hon Rick ......................................................................................... 73

Grassley, Chuck ................................................................................................ 76

Veneman, Ann M. ............................................................................................. 78

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Biographical information of Ann M. Veneman .............................................. 82

Letter of Opposition submitted by Marcia Merry Baker, Executive Intelligence Review ............................................................................................... 104

Letter of Support submitted by National Federation of Federal Employees .................................................................................................................. 109

QUESTION(S) AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche ...................................................................................... 112

Johnson, Hon. Tim ........................................................................................... 119

Conrad, Hon. Kent ........................................................................................... 122

Harkin, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 126

Leahy, Hon. Patrick ......................................................................................... 130

Roberts, Hon. Pat ............................................................................................. 134

Baucus, Hon. Max ............................................................................................ 138

Smith, Hon. Gordon .......................................................................................... 141

Lugar, Hon. Richard G. .................................................................................... 143

(1)

CONFIRMATION OF ANN M. VENEMAN AS

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2001

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. in room

538, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Tom Harkin (Chairman of the

Committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Harkin, Lugar, Grassley, Roberts, Cochran,

Craig, Fitzgerald, Miller, Conrad, Nelson, Johnson, Dayton, Lincoln, and Stabenow.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Agriculture Committee will come to

order. And I will at this time recognize our distinguished Senator

from Indiana, Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Harkin.

It’s my privilege to pass the gavel over to Chairman Harkin, who

has already used it to commence this meeting.

[Laughter.]

But nevertheless, I advised him a few days ago, it’s well to get

loosened up, he may need this. This is a 50–50 Senate, there is

every attempt always made in this committee to work in a bipartisan and collegial fashion. And I’m grateful that, that has been so.

And Tom Harkin is a major reason why that is so.

So it’s a privilege to pass the gavel over to you for this very, very

important meeting. And I just have the admonition, make sure that

you do well.

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

FROM IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. I will be

returning it shortly.

[Laughter.]

I must at the outset first of all thank Senator Lugar for his many

kindnesses and generosities during our tenure together here on the

Senate Ag Committee. It truly has been a bipartisan effort. We’ve

had a great working relationship and I believe that will continue

to be so during this session of the Senate also.

And so I look forward to working with you, Senator Lugar, and

addressing the many problems that we have in agriculture and

moving our agenda forward with our new Secretary of Agriculture.

I also have said at the outset that this is again a singular honor

for me to chair the Ag Committee for a couple of days. The last

2

Iowan to chair the Senate Agriculture Committee was Jonathan P.

Doliver from Fort Dodge. He served as chairman of this committee

from March 15th, 1909 to June 25th, 1910, a little over a year. So

that was a short time.

Well, I’m going to beat him.

[Laughter.]

I will go down now in history as being the second Iowan to ever

chair this committee. And I will also go down in history as having

the shortest tenure as chairman of this committee.

[Laughter.]

So it is an honor for me.

And it’s an honor to be here today to welcome our Secretary of

Agriculture designee, who is here today. Here is the procedure that

we’ll follow. I will make my opening statement, I will recognize

Senator Lugar for his opening statement. I know that Senator

Feinstein and Senator Boxer, and I assume Congressman Dreier,

will also have other things they have to go to, other hearings.

I will recognize you for introducing Ms. Veneman and then you

can be excused. Then we’ll come back to the Committee and each

Senator will be recognized for up to 10-minutes, both to make an

opening statement and to propound questions to the Secretary of

Agriculture designee.

So with that, let me just open by again welcoming you here, Ms.

Veneman. We look forward to a good hearing and one in which we

can exchange some thoughts about agriculture and the future of

agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture has one of the toughest

and too often under appreciated jobs in our Government. In any

number of ways, the programs and activities of the Department of

Agriculture touch upon and improve all Americans, in every walk

of life. And particularly, if I might be a little bit home bound, in

a great agriculture State like Iowa, it’s tremendously important

who serves as Secretary and how well he or she carries out those

responsibilities.

I must tell you, I was encouraged by the nomination of Ann

Veneman to serve as Secretary of Agriculture. I’ve known her for

a number of years, worked with her in previous posts at USDA.

Ms. Veneman is an intelligent and capable person, with solid experience in administering food and agriculture programs, both here

in Washington and in her own State of California.

Her credentials include service as Deputy Secretary of USDA,

and Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

I believe we can work together and we have to work together

across party lines to do the work that must be done for farm families and rural communities and consumers. As we have both said

here, we have a strong record on this committee of bipartisan cooperation. And again, I want to thank Senator Lugar for that cooperative attitude.

As I mentioned, the Department of Agriculture has far reaching

responsibilities, from farm programs to food safety to conservation

to nutrition assistance. I hope today’s hearing will be the start of

a productive discussion and working relationship on the many critical issues that fall under USDA’s jurisdiction.

3

Starting with farm policy, I believe it is essential that we rework

the Freedom to Farm bill, and we should make every effort to do

that this year. We should keep what is working, mainly planting

flexibility and conservation, and improve that which is not working. Mainly that involves improving the farm income features of

the bill, so that our Nation’s farm families do not have to depend

on the uncertain prospect of emergency assistance packages year

after year.

This year, we will also begin the process, I’ve already discussed

this with Senator Lugar, of having hearings and beginning the

process for the next Farm Bill, the present one, which expires next

year. Again, I feel the next Farm Bill should include a much

stronger emphasis on conservation.

I and Senator Smith of Oregon have proposed a new voluntary

program to provide financial incentives for maintaining and installing conservation practices. It’s a proposal that will both improve

farm income and bring about far greater dividends to farmers and

our Nation as a whole in the form of improved conservation of our

natural resources for future generations.

Building markets and demand for agricultural products is a critical need in agriculture. We have a number of pressing issues in the

area of agricultural trade. And I expect that Ms. Veneman’s experience here will be valuable in working to expand our export markets.

We have a lot to do on the domestic side through creating and

developing new uses and markets for our commodities, along with

much greater use of ethanol, biodiesel and biomass fuels. Biotechnology offers a lot of promise in this regard, although we have

some knotty issues that will have to be resolved if agricultural biotechnology is really to succeed.

We also can and must do more to help rural communities share

in the prosperity that the rest of the country is enjoying. Our rural

communities are falling far behind. That includes jobs and economic growth and a higher quality of life in our rural communities.

And USDA has a critically important role in rural utilities, electricity, telecommunications, sewer and water services, assisting

rural cooperatives and businesses, improving community facilities,

channeling investment capital to rural areas.

I think our strategy for rural revitalization must include promoting the success of farmer owned cooperatives and businesses that

process and market farm commodities. An overriding concern is the

future of the independent family farm producer in American agriculture. We’ve seen a dramatic change in the structure and landscape of farming as a result of rapid and sweeping consolidation,

vertical integration and economic concentration.

A key responsibility of the next Secretary of Agriculture will be

to enforce the laws in USDA’s jurisdiction aggressively, to work

with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission,

to enforce the antitrust laws fully and to work with us on needed

new legislation.

From the consumer perspective, USDA has no role more important than protecting the safety of our Nation’s food supply. We are

blessed with an abundant supply of safe and wholesome food. But

there’s more that can and should be done to improve the safety of

4

our food. And as a Nation, we cannot fail to meet our responsibilities to combat hunger and malnutrition here and abroad.

We Americans enjoy a level of wealth and abundance unprecedented in history. We simply cannot tolerate or condone hunger or

malnutrition in our own country. We can do more to help people

in developing countries, especially children. I strongly support the

initiative proposed by former Senators Dole and McGovern, and as

begun by President Clinton, to provide food assistance in ways that

both combat hunger and promote education in developing countries. The proposal for an international school lunch and school

breakfast program is one that we need to pursue vigorously.

So again, I welcome you, Ms. Veneman, to the Committee. I look

forward to today’s hearing and to working with you in the coming

months and years.

And with that, I would recognize Senator Lugar from Indiana.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Harkin can be found in

the appendix on page 56.]

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

FROM INDIANA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I join you and our colleagues,

Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer and Congressman Dreier, in

welcoming this distinguished nominee to our committee this morning. I was pleased a few days ago to visit again with Ann Veneman.

I have appreciated her leadership over the years at the State and

local level and at the Federal level in a previous administration.

She demonstrated then the wisdom and the diligence that are required for the job that is at hand. Her combined knowledge of domestic affairs and international experience make her an ideal candidate.

As she knows, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is a very difficult department to manage. One of my suggestions throughout my

tenure on this committee has been that the Secretary manage it,

as opposed to accepting a stovepipe mentality of 41 duchies, or reduced, as this committee has helped, to 35, by my count. It is important that the Secretary be the Secretary, and that she manage

ably and comprehensively in behalf of all of the interests that

somehow come together in USDA.

And that will encompass a wide, diverse set of issues, that you

have illustrated in your presentation, Mr. Chairman. And I agree

with the agenda that you have. Each of these are very, very important subjects, which I’m certain will have the attention of all of us.

For the moment, I have confidence in Ann Veneman. And I look

forward to her testimony. And I appreciate very much your leadership in expediting both the hearing and the possibilities for her

early confirmation. I thank the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lugar.

As I said, then, I would recognize our distinguished colleagues

from the Senate and the House for purposes of introduction of Ms.

Veneman. Then we’ll return back to the Committee for opening

statements and questions.

And in that regard, I would again exercise the right of, I will recognize our member from the House. We like to be our generous to

5

our people who take the time and effort to come across all the way

from the House side over here, as many of us have done in the

past. So we welcome you here, Congressman Dreier, and please

proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM CALIFORNIA

Congressman DREIER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me join my friend Dick Lugar in congratulating you on

the fine job that you’re doing chairing this committee. We appreciate the fact that you’ve expedited this so well.

I want to say that it’s a special privilege for me to be here with

the distinguished former Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, my friend Pat Roberts, and also to join with my colleagues,

Senators Boxer and Feinstein, in this very important introduction.

Both you and Senator Lugar, Mr. Chairman, have just spoken

about the bipartisanship that goes on here in the Agriculture Committee. And bipartisanship is very clearly the flavor of the month

now. Virtually everyone is talking about it with a great deal of enthusiasm.

And I congratulate this committee for the approach that you’ve

taken. I think it’s very important that we note that Ann Veneman

is in fact one of the greatest models for bipartisanship and has

been throughout her entire life. Her father was a very prominent

State assemblyman in California.

In fact, a column that was just written by a great, a very famous

columnist with the L.A. Times, George Skelton, said that Ann’s father was in fact clearly among the top 10 most respected State assemblymen in the last 40 years in California. He came to that position in large part because of the bipartisan approach that he took

to dealing with public policy questions. And his daughter has clearly emulated that.

You’ve gone through already the distinguished positions that she

has held. She’s clearly extremely qualified, extremely talented, and

I believe will do a great job as Secretary of Agriculture.

Not many people know that the number one industry in California is agriculture. People think it’s technology, the entertainment

industry, tourism. But agriculture continues to be number one. In

fact, the San Joaquin valley, from which Ann Veneman hails, I was

told when I was up there a few months ago, if they had enough

water, could feed the entire world for 100 years. And it seems to

me that when you look at, if you look at the very great importance

that agriculture has for the world from a California perspective,

and having had Ann Veneman as the leader of that effort in California, she is well trained now to serve as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

The issue of trade is for me one of the top priorities. I spend most

of my time, my focus on the Rules Committee, which I chair, we

talk and focus on trade issues. I was very privileged to have

worked with Ann on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

She was very involved in the U.S.Canada Trade Agreement, the

very important granting which Senator Lugar and I worked on, the

granting of permanent normal trade relations with the People’s Republic of China.

6

These are all very key issues for agriculture. And Ann’s expertise

in these areas will, I believe, serve her very well when she becomes

the first woman ever to serve as Secretary of Agriculture.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Dreier, thank you very much for

that great statement, and thank you for being here this morning.

I now recognize our senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein.

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM CALIFORNIA

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

It’s a great pleasure for me to be here with my colleagues, Senator Boxer, Mr. Dreier from California, to really indicate in my introduction also my personal support for this nominee. Ann

Veneman has really built a very distinguished career. She has supported farmers by opening new markets for California’s agricultural products. She brings 20 years of experience, a truly global

perspective, and I think this will serve the American farmer well.

Interestingly enough, her father also was a distinguished Modesto peach farmer. And all through the course of her career, she

has been a strong advocate for agricultural products. I think an interesting aside that also demonstrates the support she has is that

a delegation from the California Farm Bureau has traveled here for

this nomination hearing, headed by the President of the Farm Bureau, Mr. Bill Pauli. I’d like to ask him to stand, if he would, and

just welcome him and the delegation to Washington.

Ann Veneman first joined the United States Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service in 1986. She rose to Deputy

Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs in 1989.

Two years later, she was appointed as the Deputy Secretary of

Agriculture by President Bush. In that capacity, she was a leader

in the fight to open world markets to American agricultural products. And as Mr. Dreier said, she helped to negotiate both the

NAFTA agreement and the Uruguay Round of talks for the GATT

Agreement.

In 1995, she was named California Secretary of Food and Agriculture by Governor Pete Wilson. As California’s Agriculture Secretary, Ms. Veneman successfully ran an agency of 1,800 employees

with a $200 million budget. She emphasized biotechnology and food

safety. She expanded overseas trade, especially in Asia and South

America, and she tightened border controls to protect California’s

crops against pest infestation, which has become a major problem.

Under her watch, the value of California’s agricultural commodities grew by some $4 billion, from $22 billion to $26 billion. In addition to her work in State and Federal Government, she has extensive experience in the private sector, giving her insights into the

needs and challenges facing this key industry.

As a board member for the biotechnology company, Calgene, she

gained a deep understanding of the possibilities and the real and

the perceived dangers of genetically modified crops, which I think

we all believe is going to become a much more important and also

7

deeply concerning area in the future. So this experience should

serve her well, as questions about the safety of these crops continue to arise.

The next Secretary of Agriculture is going to have to confront the

global and technological changes facing the agricultural industry.

And I think with her experience in both the public and private sector, Ann is really well suited to deal with these issues. Based on

her record, we can assume that she will take a lead in opening new

markets for our country’s agricultural products, while developing

policies to ensure both traditional and genetically modified crops

are safe for the American consumer.

So I’m really delighted. For California, and I think my colleague

and friend will agree with this, this is a very important appointment. And I’m just very proud to see Ann here, her family here,

and to wholeheartedly introduce, recommend and support her appointment as Agricultural Secretary.

So thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. If I might be excused,

there’s a certain hearing in Judiciary which I’m involved in.

[Laughter.]

So I’ll go back there. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. Thank you very much, Senator

Feinstein.

Senator Boxer.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

CALIFORNIA

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. Senator Feinstein, your

words were just right on the mark, and I endorse everything you

said. I endorse the comments of David Dreier, as well.

Mr. Chairman, congratulations, Mr. soon to be chairman, congratulations. And to all my friends on this committee, you’re all my

friends, you’re my good friends—it’s nice to be here.

I also wanted to note your two new members, Senators Nelson

and Dayton. And I wanted to tell them, since I’ve been around a

little longer than they have, enjoy this day. This is a good day. In

the future, there will be more contentious hearings. This one I

think you will enjoy.

I wanted to say how pleased I am to be here, and that my schedule worked out so that I could be, Ann. I also want to welcome the

members of your family who happen to be sitting behind me. And

I know they are as proud as they can be.

Clearly, Ms. Veneman has a long list of firsts associated with her

career: the first woman to head California’s Department of Food

and Agriculture, the first woman to hold the post of Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; she sits before you

as the first woman ever nominated to be the Secretary of Agriculture. It’s a very proud moment, I think, for women and for men

as well, who care about women and care about equal opportunity,

and I know it’s all of you.

I also think there’s another first. I think she’s the first peach

grower to be nominated to be Secretary of Agriculture.

[Laughter.]

So we have a number of firsts here, Mr. Chairman, in addition

to yours.

8

And this of course makes our peach growers very happy, and

frankly, all of our growers, from almonds to avocadoes and all of

the things that we grow in our State.

I am not going to go into everything she’s ever done in her life

because I think most people have touched on it, other than to say,

far longer than the list of firsts is the list of praise and kind words

that her nomination has received. My friend Leon Panetta has said

that President elect Bush could not have picked a more moderate,

hard working and intelligent candidate. The California Farm Bureau praised her nomination, saying she understands agriculture

and knows where it needs to go.

As the members of this committee know well, and I know well,

even though I’m not on this committee because I am often involved

in what you do. Agriculture often breaks down along regional rather than party lines. Ann Veneman brings substantial California experience to this job, but she has drawn praise nationwide. The Des

Moines Register, for example, praised her nomination, calling her

‘‘talented, energetic, knowledgeable and personable.’’ And I know

that you will find all those things to be true and more.

She has been broadly praised for her knowledge and her hard

work in the areas of trade, food safety—which matters so much to

all of us—and of course, the high tech developments in the ag industry. We have a $27 billion per year agricultural industry in California. And it’s not shocking to know how pleased they all are with

this nomination. Some of them are here Senator Feinstein introduced a couple of folks. And I really know that she will serve all

of our Nation’s farmers well.

In closing, I trust that her confirmation will be smooth and that

she will follow her colleague, mentor and fellow Modesto native,

Richard Lyng, to be the second Californian to assume the post of

Secretary of Agriculture. And again, my friends on the Committee,

I think you’re going to be very pleased.

And with that, I will take my leave, Chairmen both. And of

course, if you ever need to talk to me about Ann in the future, I’ll

be right here, johnny on the spot. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer can be found in the

appendix on page 58.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.

Senator Boxer, Congressman Dreier, you’re excused. I know you

have other business to attend to.

Again, before I administer the oath to Ms. Veneman, I would like

to welcome our two new members. I think we may have at least

one new member on that side, but we don’t know who that person

is right now. But I would like to welcome our two new members,

both neighbors of mine, one to the north and one to the west.

Senator Nelson, of course, former Governor of the State of Nebraska, who takes the seat of our former colleague, Senator Bob

Kerrey, who served with distinction on this committee. I have

known Senator Nelson for many, many years. We’ve done a lot of

work together. I can assure all of you that you will find no one with

a broader and more intense interest in all of the aspects of agriculture than Senator Nelson. And we welcome you to this committee, Senator Nelson.

9

And my neighbor to the north, Senator Dayton, again, I have to

tell you this, I first campaigned for him for the Senate in 1982. So

if there’s a guy that never gives up, it’s Mark Dayton. And he has

served with distinction in his State as State Auditor of the State

of Minnesota, has distinguished himself also in the private sector.

But again, someone I’ve known for many years and again, someone

who has a very deep knowledge and appreciation for all aspects of

agriculture. We certainly welcome Senator Dayton to the Committee also. And we look forward to the new member on the Republican side as soon as we can whenever they come up.

[Laughter.]

Ms. Veneman, if you’ll rise, I’ll administer the oath and we can

get on with this.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony

you are about to present is the truth, the whole truth and nothing

but the truth, so help you, God?

Ms. VENEMAN. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Ms. Veneman, do you agree that if confirmed, you will appear before any duly constituted committee of Congress if asked?

Ms. VENEMAN. Yes, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I should also mention for the record that a number of letters of support for Ms. Veneman’s confirmation have been

received, and without objection, they’ll be placed in the record.

[The information referred to can be found in the appendix on

page 81].

Members are asked to submit any written questions by the close

of business today, Thursday. In submitting questions, members

may want to keep in mind that because Ms. Veneman does not

have full access to all of the resources of USDA, she may have

some difficulty in answering questions that are especially technical,

and that may take some time to get back.

So Ms. Veneman, again, welcome to the Committee. This truly

is an historic occasion for a number of reasons, not the least of

which is you will be the first woman Secretary of Agriculture. And

I say it’s about time.

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The history of agriculture in America has mostly

been about the men who have farmed and who have led certain

farm issues. But basically I think for too long we’ve forgotten the

intense role that women have played in all of the aspects of our

frontier, the development of agriculture, new products, many of the

scientists or plant geneticists and many of the people involved in

genetics and livestock, these have been women.

And I think for too long they’ve been forgotten and shoved by the

wayside. And so I think your being Secretary of Agriculture will

send a very positive message to young women around the country

that they, too, can have a great future in agriculture, in all aspects

of agriculture.

So I think this is truly historic. And I want to congratulate President elect Bush for picking you as his nominee to be our Secretary

of Agriculture.

I had a couple of housekeeping questions. I asked two. The third

one is that the Committee has your committee questionnaire and

10

the financial disclosure report and analysis from the Office of Government Ethics. For the record and for the benefit also of any

members of the public who may have any questions, will you briefly describe for us the process you have followed and the steps taken

to make sure there will be no conflicts of interest for you relative

to any clients you may have represented, boards you may have

been on or any investments you have or may have had? And will

you assure the Committee that if there ever is any question that

arises, you will consult closely with the experts on ethics in USDA’s

Office of General Counsel to guide your actions?

Ms. VENEMAN. Yes, Sir, and I have been continuing to consult

with the Office of the General Counsel at USDA and the Ethics Office to ensure that everything that I’ve been involved in the past

will appropriately be dealt with as I assume if confirmed assume

the position.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Ms. Veneman, I would recognize you for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF ANN M. VENEMAN, DESIGNEE FOR

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and almost

Mr. Chairman Lugar, and members of the Committee. I truly am

honored and humbled to be here as the President elect’s choice for

Secretary of Agriculture.

I would like to thank the Committee members for your gracious

reception that I’ve received from most of you that I’ve been able to

meet with over the past couple of weeks. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and discuss the areas of interest to each

of you.

I also want to thank the staff for their assistance and cooperation

in preparing for this hearing.

The issues facing our farmers and ranchers today are complex

and challenging. The hard working men and women who provide

our food and fiber have been tested by low prices, bad weather and

other adversities. Government has appropriately lent a hand during these trying times, and it is important that we continue to

focus our attention on trying to solve the challenges that face producers throughout the country.

In addition to assisting our farmers and ranchers in difficult

times, we must also work together to help them seize market opportunities, both at home and abroad. With 96-percent of the

world’s population living outside of the United States, we need to

expand trade and eliminate barriers to access for our products in

what is an ever-expanding global market.

As we seek market growth, we should continue to search for new

and alternative uses for our farm products and find ways to

strengthen the competitive position of our producers. Our producers also need help in adapting to changing environmental standards. Regulations should be based on sound scientific principles

and Government policy should help, not hinder, the ability of farmers to be good stewards of the land.

Working with Congress, the Department needs to be vigilant in

protecting the safety of our food supply and in protecting agriVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:19 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 074331 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74331.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
11

culture from unwanted pests and diseases. Our research programs

should assist us in achieving these goals.

Technology is driving change in every part of the economy, including the food chain. Advances in technology are leading to new

products, increased productivity and more environmentally friendly

farming. Research should enhance such technologies and the programs should help farmers take advantage of the new opportunities.

The mission of the Department of Agriculture extends beyond

production agriculture. From feeding hungry families and children

to assisting rural communities to managing our majestic forests to

consumer protection, the Department’s responsibility reaches the

lives of nearly every American.

If confirmed, I intend to promote cooperative working relationships with other agencies of Government to ensure that the concerns of farmers and ranchers are understood and advocated

throughout the Government. Because as you all know, many of the

areas of the Department’s responsibility overlap with other parts of

Government.

If confirmed, I will work to foster an atmosphere of teamwork,

innovation, mutual respect and common sense within the Department and focus our delivery systems on quality service to our customers.

Those of you who know me also know that I believe in working

cooperatively with Congress. If confirmed, I will look forward to renewing old friendships, and building new ones, particularly as we

work together to craft farm policy in the new century.

As President elect Bush has said, ‘‘The spirit of the American

farmer is emblematic of the spirit of America, signifying the values

of hard work, faith and entrepreneurship.’’ This is the spirit I hope

to bring to the Department of Agriculture and the position of Secretary.

I look forward to working with you toward our common objective

of helping America’s farmers and ranchers continue to be the most

productive, innovative and profitable in the world. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Veneman can be found in the appendix on page 78].

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Veneman.

And I understand that you have relatives, and I want to mention

them for the record. If they would please stand and be recognized,

we welcome them here. I understand your sister, Jane Veneman,

is here, and your sister in law, Heidi Veneman, is here. And your

niece Allison Hughes, please stand. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you for being here today. It’s a great day today.

Well, I would introduce again another distinguished new member

of our Committee, who just arrived, Congressman Debbie

Stabenow, Senator Debbie Stabenow now, of Michigan. That minor

slip means that she has served distinguished in the House, on the

House Agriculture Committee. So we welcome her to the Senate

Agriculture Committee. Senator Stabenow also served in the State

legislature in Michigan on that agriculture committee.

So this may be a record, three agriculture committees in a row.

So we welcome Senator Stabenow to our committee.

12

Ms. Veneman, I will start off the questions. As I said, we will

take up to 10-minutes, then I will recognize Senator Lugar, then

we’ll just go back and forth with questions. As I said in the beginning, we’ll just each take 10-minutes, you can make your opening

statements and ask questions. If we have another round, we’ll come

back to that.

I just have a couple of questions. I do not intend to take the full

10-minutes.

Ms. Veneman, just a couple of things that we had discussed earlier. The 1994 USDA Reorganization Act consolidated food safety

activities within the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and created the Under Secretary for Food Safety position. This Under Secretary position was created by Congress to elevate the importance

of food safety at USDA and to ensure that USDA’s food safety programs would be kept separate from its market promotion programs, to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

The reorganization recognized that Food Safety and Inspection

Service [FSIS] was a public health regulatory agency and a vital

part of this country’s public health. The Under Secretary for Food

Safety is one of the country’s top public health and scientific appointments, and the country’s highest ranking food safety official.

Will you pledge to continue to build on this public health foundation that we have established at USDA, seeking a candidate for

Under Secretary for Food Safety who has solid public health credentials? And will you maintain the public health focus at the Food

Safety and Inspection Service, including the FSIS Office of Public

Health and Science?

Ms. VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that my record speaks for

itself with regard to my commitment for food safety. And I would

certainly continue that commitment, and to ensure the safest food

supply that we can possibly have in this country.

As you know, consumers in this country do enjoy the safest food

supply anywhere in the world. And I think we should do everything

we can to continue the record that this country has with regard to

food safety.

I also believe with regard to food safety that we ought to continue to work with the other agencies of Government that have responsibility for food safety and the research organizations that are

looking at some of the challenging issues with regard to food safety.

So I would certainly continue the commitment of the aspects in

the Department of Agriculture that deal with food safety and commit to you that we will work closely with other agencies of Government to make sure our food safety policies are coordinated as effectively and efficiently and in the public interest.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, Ms. Veneman. Again, I want

to point out that when we created that position here, and I remember the debates very well on that, it was a strong bipartisan effort

to create this Under Secretary for Food Safety. Again, we envisioned it as one of the top public health and scientific appointments. I emphasize that as the kind of credentials that we hope

that you would look for in appointing and finding a person to fill

this position: public health, scientific, it’s the highest ranking food

safety official in our country, and someone who has solid public

health credentials in that regard.

13

Second, in 1996, USDA issued its hazard analysis critical control

points and pathogen protection rule. Let’s call it HACCPP, we all

know it by that. As you know, the pathogen reduction portion of

the rule was partially struck down in the Supreme Beef case recently in Texas.

One of the next Secretary’s first tasks will be to work with the

Attorney General to decide whether to continue the appeal in that

case, and to decide how to approach revision and updating of the

salmonella performance standard.

We need to have the most effective and scientifically sound

microbiological performance standards possible. But at the end of

the day, those standards have to be enforceable. For some of us,

there’s a lot of bills that are pending in Congress to ensure the enforceability of performance standards. A majority of the members

of this Committee voted to support enforceable performance standards. And I think the majority of the public would support that,

also.

So my question is, do you support having enforceable microbiological performance standards, where at some point, the Secretary of Agriculture would have the power to withdraw inspection

for failure to meet them?

Ms. VENEMAN. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s an important aspect of any food safety regulatory authority to have enforceable standards, and to have scientifically based standards for enforcement purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Veneman. I appreciate your candor in that.

I would recognize Senator Lugar.

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

Ms. Veneman, in your experience, both in Washington and in

California, one of the highlights has been your negotiating ability

with regard to foreign trade possibilities with farmers. And this

Committee has dealt with the export issues almost every week of

our existence, because this is so critical. And there has been disappointment on the part of most of us that we have not progressed

more.

As you take a look at the horizon, from your experience as an

attorney, as well as one involved in the administration of agriculture, what are the prospects for exports? Are the EU people so

intransigent? Are others so tied up in protection of their own agriculture that we can anticipate very slow going? Or do you have

some ray of optimism to share with us this morning? And give us

that flavor, if you can, from your current experience.

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, I think that, as you have indicated,

some of these trade issues have gotten more and more difficult.

They’ve gone on for many years in the case of some of these cases

that have been brought both before the WTO and ones that we’re

still trying to work out, not having brought a case yet.

We also want to continue to look toward opening up markets further. I think that the agreement with China on MFN and joining

the WTO has been an important opportunity for agricultural products, and hopefully we can get that agreement finished and get it

effectively enforced in accordance with what has been negotiated.

14

We need to continue to work on the bilateral issues, so many of

which we have with the European Union now.

And I’ve had several conversations already with Mr. Zoellick and

intend to work very closely with USTR. I think that we certainly

heard in his announcement the other day the word agricultural

mentioned several times during that announcement, emphasizing

both the President elect’s recognition and Mr. Zoellick’s recognition

of the importance of looking at agricultural trade issues as we

move forward with our trade agenda.

I might also add that the President elect has been very forceful

in his statement that he wants to pursue with the Congress the

granting of additional Fast Track authority to negotiate additional

trade agreements.

Senator LUGAR. Well, I hope that you’ll be a teammate with Bob

Zoellick, because that would be a good team, and a very, very important mission, which you understand and which this Committee,

I think unanimously, would like to work with you, would like to inquire of you really with some frequency as to how it is going and

how we can be helpful.

I want to take up a complex subject. Chairman Harkin has mentioned in our pursuit of new farm legislation, most of us are in

favor of the flexibility, the so-called Freedom to Farm. Most of us

likewise are in favor of more income for farmers. And the question

is how to do both. We must find better formulas for that.

I’m intrigued by Sparks Company, Inc. analysis using the 1997

Census for agriculture. And there’s no need for you to worry about

these facts, per se, because we’ll deal with them more in detail. But

they point out that commercial farms, as they define them in this

country, that is with sales of over $250,000, now comprise only 8-

percent of our farms, but 72-percent of our production. Almost

three quarters coming from just these 157,000 farms.

A second group, called transition farms, 189,000 of them, have

sales of $100,000 to $250,000. My farm is one of those. I hope not

in transition, but nevertheless, it is not a commercial farm by this

definition. And finally, there are 1.57 million farms that, and this

is 82-percent of all the farms, and these have sales of less than

$100,000.

Now, that group, the 1.57 million, produce only 13-percent of everything we now produce. The transition farms, my crowd, do 15-

percent and 72-percent of this 157,000, just 8-percent.

Even more startling is that 72-percent of the income from the

families that operate the commercial farms come from the farms.

Seventy-two percent they get from the farm, 28-percent comes from

off the farm. When you come down to my group, the transition

farmers, we get only 43-percent of our income from our farming

and 57-percent from somewhere else.

And when you come to the 1.57 million, the 82-percent, 100-percent of the income comes from off the farm, net. Now, that doesn’t

mean that some people don’t make some money on those farms.

But they lose more in that process than they make.

Now, this is, I think, a pretty startling fact. So we want to pursue that with the Sparks people and the Census people. If 82-percent of our farms in our net basis are losing money, and 100-perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:19 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 074331 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74331.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
15

cent of their income comes from somewhere else, that is a very,

very tough farm policy to fashion.

Now, you’ve dealt with this in California. This is a microcosm

across the board of just what I’ve suggested. Ten-percent of the Nation lives in California, and probably 10-percent of the farmers,

maybe more. How have you dealt with this? You clearly have seen

this coming, either a consolidation or the larger situation or the

production. Because when we have our payments, our AMTA payments, the criticism is made that these monies are going to the

large farms. Well, of course, they are, 72-percent of all the production is with this group. Only 13-percent with the 1.57 million.

And so it goes, round and round, however, we try to supplement

farm income. And maybe that’s the way that it should be.

But can you give us, once again, any flavor of how you begin to

approach this, or how you have approached it, as Commissioner of

Agriculture in California?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, I think it is important to look at

the changing structure of agriculture as we enter into any discussion about farm policy. And I think these statistics are very enlightening. In California, of course, we weren’t dealing with farm

policy in the sense of farm income programs and so forth. Those

were dealt with primarily at the Federal level.

I did often get the question, though, about consolidation of farms

and the declining number of farms and so forth. I looked carefully

at the statistics and what we saw happening out there was actually

an increase in the number of farms. And part of that was because

people were taking advantage of niche markets and being able to

produce, as a very small acreage farmer, to a very niche market,

whether it was the strong system of farmers markets that we had

that was regulated by the State government, or it was roadside

stands, or it was new products that were tailored to specific markets or specific high quality restaurants.

But I think that one of the things that, the lessons learned from

all of that is that we do have to help our farmers learn how to market up the food chain, so that they can get more value for what

they are producing. And I think that’s a role that we can play together with Congress in working and looking at farm policy for the

future.

Senator LUGAR. That’s a very important consideration. I’ll not go

through the rest of this, but the farmers in the commercial markets

got as much as 20 or 30 cents a bushel more for corn or beans or

wheat than did others. Because their marketing skills, their ability

to use futures markets, the crop insurance products, all of these.

And this is a big educational question. How do we all come up to

the table with some degree of equality in terms of skills of marketing, the education of how you might do this sort of thing.

But these are issues that you’re well aware of. This is why we

have confidence in you. I simply raise them because I think they

are fundamental to the farm income problem, finally, and the ability to actually take revenue from the farm.

I thank the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.

Senator CONRAD.

16

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

NORTH DAKOTA

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Designate Veneman, for being here. Thank you very much

for coming by my office the other day and giving us a chance to

talk about issues that are important, certainly to my State, but I

think agriculture writ large as well.

I’d like to just put up a couple of charts to frame the discussion.

This first one shows what’s happened over the last decade. The

green line is the prices farmers paid for input, the red line is the

prices farmers received. And we can see why there’s a crisis in agriculture, and why we’ve had to write four disaster packages in the

last 3 years.

The arrow points to the 1996 Farm Bill passage point. And we

can see the gap has dramatically widened since the passage of that

legislation. Many of us believe it’s been a disaster in terms of farm

policy, and certainly in terms of the income to the farm producers

that we represent.

Let’s go to the next. This chart shows the level of support that

the EU is providing domestically to their producers versus what we

do for our producers. This is on a per acreage basis. You can see

roughly that the Europeans are providing ten times as much support to their producers as do we. And I think they’ve clearly got

a strategy and a plan to dominate world agriculture, and part of

that strategy and plan is, go out and buy markets.

We can see in the next chart how they’re doing that with respect

to export subsidy. The blue part of this chart shows the European

share of world agricultural export subsidy. It’s about 84-percent of

all world agricultural export subsidy is accounted for by the Europeans. We’re 1.4-percent.

So this creates an unlevel playing field for our producers. The

deck is fundamentally stacked against our producers.

So my first question to you would be, what would you do to

change this?

Ms. VENEMAN. Senator, I think that it’s important to recognize,

as you say, it’s both competition within the country as well as outside the country, and that agriculture has become more and more

competitive as time has progressed.

I think that with regard to the future of farm policy in this country, there are a number of proposals that have been advanced.

There’s a number of regional differences that we’ve seen. As I’ve

talked with many of you on the Committee, there are many differing interests, depending on the region, depending on the commodity.

And I think that what we need to do is work together to find as

much consensus as we can on the future of farm policy and the future of programs in this country.

With regard to the European Union and the subsidies you’ve

talked about, this has been an issue that has been plaguing producers in this country, the Government for many years, and in fact

was part of the background of what created the proposals that were

negotiated in the Uruguay Round, beginning to bring down export

subsidies and domestic support, particularly targeted at that which

the European Union has. And I think that needs to continue to be

17

negotiated, to continue to bring down the levels of support in trade

negotiations, as was begun in the Uruguay Round.

But I think that a combination of trade negotiations, of future

farm policy, we need to together work to address the kinds of

issues you’re bringing up.

Senator CONRAD. Let me just say that I think the Uruguay

Round in many ways is part of the problem. Because there, we

agreed to equal percentage reductions from these very unequal

bases. I can tell you, the Europeans in my talks with them have

told me, that’s exactly what they want to do. They want to continue

to get equal percentage reductions from these unequal bases, always leaving them on top. And I hope very much that we will not

go back to any other round and agree to equal percentage reductions when they start out in this incredibly dominant position.

Let me ask you specifically, yesterday President elect Bush’s

spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted to President Clinton’s final budget

report. In that final budget report by the President, he advocated

an additional $74 billion over the next 10 years to agriculture to

in part change this dynamic, to level the playing field.

Mr. Fleischer reacted in an interesting way to a question. The

question was, it’s becoming a pretty regular thing each year for

Congress to pass bipartisan support for aid to farmers. Are you

saying that President Bush might want to stop that? Mr. Fleischer,

in response, ‘‘That’s not aid to farmers. That’s an assumed bail out

above and beyond all existing levels of spending. And the history

is that legislation of that order comes about when there are dire

straits in the agricultural community. For President Clinton to assume that there will be dire straits for 10 years in a row, either

he’s a very good weather man or he’s inflated the spending.’’ Do you believe that President Clinton has inflated the spending

in the budget report that he put out?

Ms. VENEMAN. Senator, to be perfectly honest, I have not reviewed President Clinton’s budget report. I am not familiar with

the specifics of it. But if confirmed, it would be my plan to quickly

review the budget that has been presented, and have input into the

supplemental budget or the addition to the budget that would then

be submitted by the new Administration.

Senator CONRAD. Let me just be more clear. Without respect to

the specifics of his budget proposal, do you believe more resources

need to be put into agriculture to help level the playing field here

between the U.S. and the EU, and to provide leverage for the negotiation with the Europeans?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, I think that that’s an issue that we

need to look seriously at. But until I see all of the numbers and

all of the basis of the current budget, I’m not able to tell you specifically what the current needs are going to be for the coming year

and beyond.

Senator CONRAD. Well, I would just hope that as the Secretary

Designate, that you would have a sense of this now. I really do. I

mean, to me, this is right at the heart of what’s happening to us.

And unless we help level the playing field, we’re going to consign

our people to failure.

I don’t know what other conclusion one could come to. It reminds

me a little of the Cold War, when we built up to build down. We

18

built up in part to get leverage for a negotiation. And for some reason, we haven’t figured that out with respect to agriculture. I can

tell you, the Europeans have told me, look, we believe we’re in a

trade war with you. We believe at some point there will be a

ceasefire. And we believe it will be a ceasefire in place, and we

want to occupy the high ground. And the high ground is market

share.

And so they’ve had this strategy and plan of spending a lot of

money to get market share, so that they’re able to dominate in

these trade talks. And we don’t seem to be able to figure this out.

To me it’s not complicated, it’s really very simple. They occupy the

high ground, and we can either go out and try to match them or

be consigning our people to failure.

I’ve got a bit more time. I’d like to go to a trade question if I

could. In North Dakota, we’ve been very adversely affected by the

Canadian Free Trade Agreement. I call it the so-called free trade

agreement, because with respect to agriculture, it wasn’t so much

free trade as negotiated trade. And on many terms, we lost that negotiation.

We saw in durum, which is the type of wheat that makes pasta,

very popular all across America, certainly popular in California,

North Dakota is the major producer, the Canadians went from zero

percent of our market to 20-percent, not because of any competitive

advantage, not because they’re better farmers, but because of loopholes in that agreement. Incredibly damaging to the producers that

I represent.

The USTR has started an investigation as to the question of

whether the Canadians are selling below their cost in our market.

Would you support that investigation?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, certainly, Senator, I would support a very

strong enforcement of the trade laws that we have on the books.

If in fact there is a violation of trade agreements, or if there is any

kind of indication of dumping, we ought to investigate and we

should enforce our trade agreements. That’s part of what makes

trade agreements effective, is the enforcement mechanisms in our

trade laws that allow us to make sure that they are being complied

with.

And so certainly, if investigation shows that there’s a basis for

a violation, I believe we should proceed to take action as appropriate.

Senator CONRAD. Final question. Will you come to North Dakota

to meet with the farmers there at some point if it fits into your

schedule?

Ms. VENEMAN. I would be happy to come to North Dakota, hopefully when it’s not too cold.

[Laughter.]

Senator CONRAD. You know, our weather is not reported accurately.

[Laughter.]

Ms. VENEMAN. I was there once.

Senator CONRAD. It’s very mild, especially in February.

[Laughter.]

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Compared to the Arctic Circle, yes.

19

Senator Cochran.

STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

MISSISSIPPI

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I was considering this hearing today, Ms. Veneman, it occurred to me that you’re probably the best qualified nominee who

has been suggested for this job of Secretary of Agriculture since

your fellow Californian and former Secretary Richard Lyng. The

background you had at the Department of Agriculture and Foreign

Agriculture Service and in California as head of the Food and Agriculture Department there, and your service as Deputy Secretary

truly do make you the best qualified nominee who’s been before

this Committee in some time. I congratulate you on your nomination and look forward to working with you in your capacity as Secretary of Agriculture.

I have a few observations I’m going to make, and I don’t really

have a long list of questions. First of all, Senator Helms told me

to tell you that he hopes to be able to get here for the hearing, to

congratulate you and to tell you that he is certain you will make

a great Secretary of Agriculture. He appreciated your visit to his

office the other day. He has other obligations that may keep him

from the meeting. But he has asked me to advise the Committee

that he will submit a statement for the record in due course.

Let me say that there are a number of things that I think are

major concerns in agriculture right now, one of which is the fact

that last year, we passed disaster assistance legislation, and unfortunately not all the benefits of that legislation have been made

available to agriculture producers who are eligible for these benefits. Some have told me that as much as half the benefits have not

yet been paid out.

I hope that you will take a quick look at what can be done by

the Department to accelerate the action that’s needed to carry out

the provisions of our disaster assistance legislation. Farmers are

having more than a tough time with the cost of inputs, particularly

energy costs now, that are making it very, very difficult for them

to continue to stay in business.

On another subject, I hope that you will consider our research

program, which consists of a balance, I think, between cooperative

research programs with colleges and universities and laboratories

around the country, along with the Agriculture Research Service

programs, as a very finely balanced effort to identify ways to make

farming more efficient, to make food more safe, to in many ways

strengthen the agriculture economy in our country. And so I hope

that you will support Congressionally-directed research activities

and respect the views of Congress on these subjects.

We also had in our last Farm Bill a very aggressive and comprehensive conservation program, including a number of initiatives,

such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, all of which are

proving to be very important incentives for private landowners to

use their lands in ways that conserve water and soil resources and

conducting farming operations that are consistent with environmental interests that we all share.

20

I hope you will be able to support additional acreage being put

into these programs and being designated for us. And one other

thing that’s come to my attention recently on this subject, is that

many of those who work in the county offices throughout the country are not as familiar as they should be with the details of these

programs. I’ve had farmers tell me, they’ve gone in and asked

about some of the programs, and the person in the local office will

have to get out a book, or a regulation, directives, and start reading

along with the farmer to try to figure out whether there is eligibility for the program, how you apply, what are the criteria, what

do they mean.

I hope that this can be a part of this Administration’s policy, and

that is to help ensure that those who are administering the programs and advising farmers know what they’re talking about, and

are aware that these are priorities of this Administration.

I didn’t know I was going to make such a long speech, here, Mr.

Chairman. I’m sorry about this.

On foreign trade, your background particularly equips you with

knowledge about our foreign trade programs, opening up new markets, making sure that our exporters are treated fairly in other

countries when they’re trying to sell what they produce in overseas

markets. We’ve adopted a number of legislative initiatives over the

last several years, the middle income training program, to try to

acquaint emerging economies through exchange programs with our

economic system and our agricultural products, in ways in which

we can work together with some of the countries that are developing their economies. These lead to better trade relations, better opportunities on both sides of those programs.

The market access program occasionally gets criticized. But it

has proven to be very effective in breaking down barriers to trade

and making sure that trading practices in foreign countries are fair

to us.

Passage of normal trade relations legislation with China and

other countries is also an enormous step in the right direction, in

my opinion. But some are concerned that the Chinese may seek

designation in the World Trade Organization that would place

them at an advantage over other developed countries in WTO. I

hope you will take a look at that and work to ensure that China’s

accession to WTO is monitored and ensure that it meets market access, subsidy reduction and other targets that are consistent with

other developed countries.

Finally, I’m going to close with this. I think you need someone

at the highest level of the Department who is acquainted with

southern agriculture who is able to make sure that the interests of

those in the South are expressed during debates on policy and programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I know you are

aware of these interests and these concerns, but there are some

special problems that exist in our part of the country. And I think

having a southerner in a high ranking position at USDA would be

a very good thing.

Also in that connection, I got a call from Kenneth Hood, who is

President of the Delta Council, which meets annually at Cleveland,

Mississippi, to invite you, in his behalf, to be their speaker. This

21

is kind of like Senator Conrad’s question. I’m not going to ask you

to come to Mississippi in July or August.

[Laughter.]

But this is the last Friday in May, which is kind of nice.

[Laughter.]

And they’re having their annual meeting. This is a very important meeting for the mid South, for agriculture and economic development proponents. The Delta Council really is a prime mover in

the economic development effort for the Mississippi Delta. And

they’ve had a distinguished line of visitors and speakers at that

meeting. The first, I guess, that got national and international attention, was Dean Acheson, when he was Under Secretary of State.

He unveiled the Marshall Plan at that meeting, and then he got

credit for doing it at Harvard or Yale or some other more fancy

venue.

But he tried out the speech at Delta Council in 1947. Well, anyway, there have been governors and Secretaries of Agriculture,

Vice President Bush came and spoke. So I’m inviting you to come

down and speak. I hope you can work it into your schedule.

If you have any reaction to any of my comments or suggestions,

I’ll be glad to hear your thoughts on any of these.

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, you gave me quite a list. With regard to the

administration of programs, particularly disaster assistance, I have

heard this from several members of the Senate and the House

about the, and people in agriculture as well, about the concern

about getting the programs, once they are passed by the Congress,

implemented as quickly as possible. And I will pledge to you that

we will do everything we can, if confirmed, to do that.

I share your interest in research. I think that research is very

important in agriculture. One of the initial missions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture when it was created by President Lincoln

was to conduct research. It was to help agriculture in this country

through research. And I certainly have a strong commitment to research and believe that our research ought to continue to work not

only in the traditional areas of production enhancement, but also

be focused on helping us solve the issues that agriculture faces

today, whether it’s food safety issues, environmental issues that we

need to focus research in areas that will help farmers.

I also share your interest in conservation programs and the fact

that they should be voluntary, incentive-based, and we should give

our farmers the opportunity for additional conservation programs

and opportunity to participate in those programs. Because as you

know, farmers often get criticized for the manner in which they

farm. But farmers are truly the environmentalists. They have to

have the land, the air and the water in order to be farmers. They

are the best stewards of the land, and we need to help them find

ways to do that.

You mentioned the county offices not being familiar with the regulations. As you might recall, I was very involved when working

with Secretary Madigan in looking at this whole issue of reorganization and bringing the offices together. One of the ideas at that

point, and one of the things I would hope to continue to pursue,

is bringing cross training to these agencies of the USDA, so that

we can provide, as I said in my opening statement, the best posVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:19 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 074331 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74331.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
22

sible service to our customers. I believe that it’s important that the

different parts of the Department not just be looked at for their

separate programs, but they understand each other’s programs because they’re serving the same and similar constituencies.

Finally, on trade, I think it is important to continue the trade

programs that have been effective in helping us open up markets.

And I will pledge to continuing to do that.

And I understand your concerns about the South. One of the

things I said before, there are regional differences in agriculture in

this country. I understand that fully. We want to make sure that

we bring balance, regional balance, to the appointments that we

make at USDA. And we plan to do that.

Finally, I will check my schedule.

[Laughter.]

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cochran. I might just say,

in the interest of good time management, if other Senators have requests for Ms. Veneman to appear in their State that they submit

it to Chairman Lugar. We’ll get it to you en bloc, and that way you

can just map out your whole schedule for the year.

Senator Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Harkin. I would ask

unanimous consent to submit a full statement for the record, as

well as some additional questions for Ms. Veneman.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Senator JOHNSON. But I welcome Ms. Veneman to the Committee, you and your family. I want to thank you again for taking

some time out to meet with me in my office earlier, to discuss some

of these key issues, particularly Northern Plains and Great Plains

issues.

Of course, we in South Dakota are proud that Ms. Veneman has

some South Dakota ties. In fact, her Dutch ancestors homesteaded

in Charles Mix County near Platte, South Dakota in 1892. That

was a long time ago, and there’s not much peach growing in

Charles Mix County, South Dakota. But nonetheless, we’re proud

of your connections to our State. And as you evaluate the visits

that you’re going to be making, I’ll join in inviting you back to your

ancestral State, keeping in mind that South Dakota is the balmy

part of the Dakotas.

[Laughter.]

It is on the south coast of the Dakotas. And also, I join in, in expressing some concern that there be that regional balance that

you’ve alluded to in terms of staffing. I think there is a real concern that the northern plains agriculture has its regional, unique

qualities to it. And I’m certain that you will take that into consideration as you develop your staff and your offices at USDA.

I look forward to additional discussions with you in a less formal

setting on the farm program, on trade, on concentration, antitrust

and vertical integration, both in the grain and the livestock sector,

in particular. I have concerns about where we’re going with value

added agriculture, conservation programs. And we did have an opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:19 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 074331 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74331.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
23

portunity to discuss very briefly the conservation reserve program

[CRP] wetlands pilot project that we currently have in South Dakota and across our region.

Of course, our research in Genetically Modified Organisms

[GMO] issues as well, that we can spend some time talking about.

These are matters of enormous importance to the State of South

Dakota.

A point that I wanted to raise with you is one that is fundamental in our part of the country. Over the past three years, Congress

has enacted disaster legislation to augment the farm program transition payments, and in fact, our financial assistance to farmers in

fiscal 2000 was a record $28 billion. There’s no particular rebound

on the grain side in terms of price anticipated in the near future.

If we are to head off a fiscal 2001 price crisis for family agriculture

in this country, I wonder if you’d share a couple of thoughts with

us about whether you think additional ad hoc disaster legislation

is the best vehicle for addressing that problem on the near term,

or whether you believe some modification in the context of the existing farm program makes more sense and would be more efficient

in that way.

If we are to do disaster legislation, do you believe that we should

continue down the road that we have in the past, essentially, of

bonus AMTA market loss payments, or are there other mechanisms

and more efficient mechanisms for providing badly needed financial

resources during times of record bull prices, particularly on the

grain side? I’d be interested in any insights you might have to

share with us, Ms. Veneman.

Ms. VENEMAN. Senator, I’m fully aware of what the Government

has done in terms of stepping up to the plate to help farmers in

these times of low prices, primarily low prices, but also we’ve had

some disastrous weather and other things in the past several years

that have created the need to continue to provide additional safety

nets for farmers. And certainly, I believe that it’s important that

we continue to provide safety nets.

I’m not prepared today to say what form that ought to take. I understand what you’re saying in terms of, should it be additional ad

hoc or should we have something a little more structured and a

modification to the existing farm programs. I think we need to look

at all those options and determine what will best serve agriculture,

not only for the short term difficulties they’re having, but also for

the long term.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, I appreciate your observations on this,

and look forward to working with you. As I have shared with you

earlier, there’s a time and a place for disaster legislation, when

unique, unforeseeable circumstances occur. But it troubles me that

this is a relatively inefficient way of providing resources. It is not

the kind of predictable, manageable kind of plan that allows farmers to go to the bank, allows them to plan long term. And I would

hope that we could come up with a more institutionalized, more reliable and hopefully more cost efficient, hopefully utilizing market

forces, that would complement what we’re doing, to see to it that

we survive these low price swings that we have under the current

program.

24

So I look forward to working with you on that. I know we have

several members of the panel, and I want them to have opportunities to discuss these matters with you as well. I have a simultaneous confirmation hearing going on in the Energy Committee, and

I’m going to have to excuse myself for that purpose. But thank you

again, and congratulations on this nomination.

[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson can be found in the

appendix on page 60.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.

Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. I slid in under the cover of darkness, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Roberts was here first.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, do you defer to Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

KANSAS

Senator ROBERTS. I thank my distinguished friend.

Madam Secretary to be, you’re going to be a busy person. I have

it down here that you’re obviously going to go back to California.

And in order to be confirmed, it looks like to me you’re going to

Minnesota, Nebraska, Michigan, Georgia, also Arkansas.

Senator CRAIG. Am I on the list?

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, we have Idaho down here.

[Laughter.]

South and North Dakota, Iowa, and Indiana, Mississippi and

now Illinois. However, not one of those places can make you an

honorary marshal, so come to Dodge City, Kansas.

[Laughter.]

I am extremely pleased to be here today for the confirmation of

a good friend as Secretary of Agriculture. I have had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman, to work with Ann many

times down through the years. So I am pleased to join the Ann

Veneman marching band. I don’t know if I should play the bass

drum, the trumpet, or the trombone or the piccolo, but I’ll pick an

instrument.

You bring a wealth of experience to the job, not only in regards

to your previous service as the Deputy in regards to the previous

Bush Administration, but as Secretary of Agriculture for California. I have been to California many times. They have unique problems in agriculture. And Mr. Chairman, Ann Veneman has always

brought sound science and common sense to reach some satisfactory conclusions to the challenges we face in regards to agriculture

and the environment.

I’m particularly pleased with your previous experience in the ag

trade policy arena. I’m extremely happy that you’ll be working with

Bob Zoellick in that respect. I might add, you mentioned, I think

it was the cross-trainer tour, I think we needed some cross-training

shoes to do that. That was back during the days when there were

amendments to the Farm Bill and ag legislation by Charlie Stenholm of Texas, and some fellow named Pat Roberts of Kansas.

There were more Stenholm amendments at one time and more

Roberts amendments during another time, but that’s another story.

25

And the Assistant Secretary joined us. Mr. Chairman, we went

to South Carolina, we went to Kansas, we went to Kansas, those

are the obligatory stops. We went to California, went up in the

northeast to try to streamline the paperwork and the information

between Farmers Home and at that time it was SCS and ASCS.

Ann Veneman sat in the back of the plane, by the way, it was

coach, because I know we were back there talking about her dad,

my dad and politics. She comes by this very naturally. And I don’t

know of anybody who persevered more to try to bring that crosstraining expertise to the Department.

If Senator Conrad is upset with the amount of payments and

how they’re being paid and all that, and I think all of us are,

whether we need either more or less, and I’m concerned about the

trade picture. I think we always need an aggressive and consistent

and comprehensive trade program. So as we enter the WTO negotiations, we need somebody who will use the bully pulpit. And I

know you plan to do that in behalf of American agriculture on the

international scene.

Now, we visited about this issue at length when you came up

and paid us a courtesy call. I would remind every member that

Ann Veneman was in Seattle, most of us were in Seattle, the distinguished Chairman and the Secretary of Agriculture at that time

says we cannot fail. I somewhat affectionately call the Seattle

Round the Tear Gas Round. I’m not sure we failed, but we sure

didn’t make much progress.

And so as we go into the next round, as you have indicated, we

really need a bully pulpit champion that will stand firm. And it has

been mentioned that we’re going to be undertaking a major debate

on the Farm Bill in the not too distant future. And I’ll just say this,

I hope you and the Administration will play an activist role in

helping us reach some logical conclusion.

I want to turn to another issue. And it is sort of reflective of the

question that I’ll have for you, and I will try to make this fairly

quickly. We have an energy crisis that is now looming all across

farm country. Natural gas prices increased from $2.30 per unit as

of this time last year to $8.10 today. We just checked on it today.

Last year, it cost $100 to produce a ton of ammonia for fertilizer.

The cost of natural gas now makes up 72-percent of the cost of production. At today’s prices, it would cost nearly $400 to produce that

same ton of ammonia. And that makes fertilizer production economically impossible today. We had people from the Fertilizer Institute in my office yesterday saying, we’re shutting down.

If that’s the case, a shortage of fertilizer is really looming, and

it will be very quickly. Additionally, in Kansas, many producers, as

in other parts of farm country, use the natural gas to simply run

their irrigation pumps. So already, our farmers in America’s breadbasket are planning to shut down their wells this spring.

So now you enter the small town banker. He has a big stake in

all of this and the bankers are telling me that their farmers are

having a very difficult time, make that our farmers, making their

crop operations cash flow, even without the added costs of fertilizer

and natural gas. And we’ve heard these comments by my colleagues. No water plus no fertilizer equals huge production drops.

And that spells disaster.

26

Now, I won’t go into it any more than that, except to say that

I think that is looming. We’re sitting on an economic and energy

powder keg in regards to rural America.

Now, these issues remain largely outside the USDA. My question

to you is, and we have talked about this, I remember when Senator

Kerrey held an emergency meeting of all members of the Ag Committee, all the farm groups, all the commodity organizations, urging the Secretary of Agriculture to get more involved in behalf of

farmers and ranchers in regards to global climate change.

So much of this that deals with the farmer’s daily life and pocketbook and his future comes from other agencies. So my question

to you is, do you plan to form some kind of, I don’t want to call

it a task force, but it would be certainly a coordinated effort with

the Interior Department, with Gayle Norton, with EPA, with Secretary Whitman and with the FDA, we have the Starlink issue and

all of that. And it seems to me as I recall it during the previous

Bush Administration, when we would have a food safety scare or

something like that, that there was a task force, and the Secretaries would meet. And they would be able to allay the public fears

within maybe 24 hours and deal with the State departments of agriculture all throughout the country.

What kinds of plans do you have for that kind of coordination so

that we can really get at these problems that sometimes are beyond the purview of the USDA?

Ms. VENEMAN. Senator, as I said in my opening remarks, Ithink

it’s very important that USDA play a key role in the interagency

process. I’m a strong believer that interagency processes need to be

well coordinated, that we need to seek out our sister agencies and

look at commonalities of issues, look at whether it’s the trade

issues where we’ll be working with USTR, State Department, Commerce and a host of other agencies, environmental issues with the

Environmental Protection Agency, Interior and so forth.

In fact, President-elect Bush held an initial meeting with Agriculture the Friday before Christmas. And not only was I in attendance with producer group representatives, but Christine Todd

Whitman was also in attendance. I thought that was a very important sign that we are going to work together. She made a commitment to work together to understand the issues of agriculture.

I think certainly with the Interior Department there are a number of issues, whether it’s our resource management programs with

regard to our forests and public lands, or our use of water. And the

FDA and other food safety agencies, we intend to work very closely

with them. I’ve already had a conversation with Tommy Thompson

about the overlapping responsibilities we’re going to have in that

area.

I have talked with Mr. Abraham about the importance of energy

and the energy issues to agriculture. I think it goes beyond inputs

that you’re talking about and the production agriculture impacts.

But also, we’re seeing the impacts on the ability, the potential ability of farmers to sell their products to food processing firms because

they’re being squeezed by the energy crisis as well.

So at every end of the food chain, the energy crisis is a serious

issue. I would agree with you.

27

I have also talked with the Attorney General designate, and he

got asked in his hearing, about the issues of antitrust and concentration. So I think this issue of overlapping jurisdictions and

overlapping areas of interest is an extremely important one. And

I’m committed to working with other departments and agencies of

Government to make sure that agriculture is well represented and

that the interests are well understood at the table.

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you for that response. I have one very quick observation. We spent $8.2 billion last year in what’s called

the Roberts-Kerrey Crop Insurance bill, along with the help of

every person on this committee. Actually, if it works, it’s going to

be the Roberts-Kerrey bill. If it doesn’t, we’ll call it the Kerrey-Roberts bill. And we have a staff member over here against the wall

who had a lot to do with that, and a staff member back behind me

as well.

But we spent $8.2 billion to give the farmer some real help in

that regard that could help allay the problem of the expenditures

that everybody is talking about. And as far as I’m concerned, we

need, I won’t say a new broom, but we need some real help on that.

I understand in our conversations in the past that we will really

try to make sure that that program works. It’s just extremely important with that kind of investment.

And I thank you, and I look forward to your speedy confirmation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

Senator Lincoln.

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM ARKANSAS

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to Ms. Veneman. We are delighted that you are here.

I would like to take a few seconds and thank the Chairman,

Chairman Harkin and Chairman Lugar, for their incredible leadership in this committee. It is one that I thoroughly enjoy serving on

because of my roots, and certainly because of where Arkansas

stands in the agricultural realm of things. I’d also like to welcome

the new members to the Senate Ag Committee. Senator Miller

joined us last year, but it’s certainly good to have him back right

here by my side. As you have noticed, it’s really nice to have those

from your region. And I’m delighted to have another southerner

over here, as well as Senators Nelson and Dayton and Stabenow.

We’re delighted to have you here, and looking forward to working

with all of you, as we are with you, Madam Secretary.

I represent a State that relies on agriculture as its largest industry, and I shudder to think of what my State’s economy would look

like without the poultry farms in the north and the west or the cotton and rice fields of the Mississippi Delta region of our State, or

the timber forests in the South. Our Nation’s agriculture policy is

at a critical juncture, and we will, I hope, develop and implement

a new Farm Bill during our work here, and certainly your tenure

at USDA. It will be very easy for you to visit Arkansas when you’re

in Mississippi for Senator Cochran, because I’m right across the

river.

[Laughter.]

It won’t take you long to jump across the river.

28

But I certainly look forward to working with you and hearing

your vision for the Department of Agriculture. And I appreciate

your taking time to come by my office to introduce yourself and for

us to get better acquainted, for that working relationship I certainly look forward to.

As I do often, I will identify with some of the other members.

When you get to this end of the table, you realize that much has

been said, you just haven’t had your opportunity to say it. But I’d

like to echo, as I often do, some of Senator Cochran’s comments,

especially about the conservation programs, as well as the disaster

assistance. The sign-up for the yield loss portion of the program begins today, actually, January 18. And FSA still has yet to develop

rules for covering the quality of losses there.

So I think it’s very important, his question, and certainly your

response, that we are looking for a dedication from you when we

complete those programs and that disaster assistance, to implement the required regulations that are necessary to get those programs implemented and out there to those agricultural producers.

So I can’t emphasize that enough, of how important that is, and I

appreciate my colleagues for bringing it up.

Also, as you well know, Arkansas is the Nation’s number one rice

producing State. You know that because California is the second.

But nearly half of the U.S. rice crop is exported each year, and our

farmers are suffering from low prices, in many cases due to the

lack of fair competition around the world and the barriers to our

exports. I’d like to at that point associate myself with the comments from Senator Conrad. I think that having someone on our

behalf in terms of agriculture who is at the table fighting in regard

to trade, I certainly appreciate your emphasis and your willingness

to work with the new representative from USTR, who I met with

yesterday. How absolutely vital it is going to be for you to be bold

and aggressive in that, in standing up for agriculture. I think that’s

going to be absolutely essential for us to regain those market

shares that we do need, and to ensure that we’re going to change

the face of that pie chart that Senator Conrad shared with us.

But just specifically, Japan has, to my knowledge, recently announced its agricultural proposal for the WTO negotiations, which

calls for reduced market access for U.S. rice. Its current important

policies do little to facilitate selling competitive U.S. rice to Japanese customers. A second entity to that question is Cuba, which

was an enormous market for our rice in Arkansas, and southern

rice, and how important it is that whatever law we may have

passed in the 106th Congress, and I have to say my expectations

are low in what it’s going to be able to accomplish.

But I’m really looking to you for what it is you anticipate you’ll

be able to do and what you’re going to be willing to do in moving

Japan and our other trading partners to eliminating trade distorting import barriers as well as helping us to open up those very,

very important markets to us.

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, as you know, Senator, Japan, before the

Uruguay Round, had a complete ban on any imports of rice. One

of the outcomes of the Agriculture Agreement in the Uruguay

Round was a concept called tariffication, which converted non-tariff

barriers into their tariff equivalents and gave a minimal but inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:19 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 074331 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74331.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
29

creasing level of market access for certain products, particularly in

the cases of things like rice to Japan, where there was a complete

ban on the productpreviously.

That gave us certainly the ability to enter into that market. The

concept that was negotiated in the Uruguay Roundwas that that

access amount should continue to increase, theminimal level of access should continue to increase, and theamount of overall high

tariffs should continue to come down. The concept of tariffication

I think is still a workable one. It’s certainly not something I think

the U.S. would want to backtrack from in terms of the agreement

in the next WTO round. And I would certainly commit to you that

we should work strongly and very hard to make sure that Japan

and other countries that have allowed product to come in continue

their commitments that they made in the Uruguay Round and

allow access to continue to increase on a gradual basis, to all them

to adjust but allow competitive product to come into the market.

I think with regard to other trade agreements, we need to be, as

I’ve said before, vigilant in our enforcement but continue to find

openings for new markets for our agricultural products.

Senator LINCOLN. I hope that all goes to say that you will stand

firm. We oftentimes find out that agricultural products in those negotiations tend to be the last negotiated, and they also seem to be

the most susceptible. Also in light of your comments about looking

for those markets, I hope that does include Cuba and a strong support of being able to try and open up those markets for our producers.

Just in closing, I’d like to also touch on something you’ve already

talked about and apparently have begun in some detail, and that

is the interagency cooperation. I think many of us have been frustrated from the agricultural standpoint of the interagency cooperation and really communication. Time and time again, new regulations are put forth by one agency, with little more than a peep out

of USDA. And we truly, as producers, can be affected more so than

absolutely anybody.

Looking in retrospect from the 106th Congress, the TMDL issue,

which we would really hope that there’s going to be significant

input from USDA on many of these particular issues. The Kyoto

Protocol negotiations, Fish and Wildlife issues which you and I

have discussed, and I hope I’ve introduced you to a few new species

out there that tend to devastate our fish crops down there in Mississippi and Arkansas.

The FQPA certainly is another example where I think farmers

definitely and producers feel that USDA should take a leadership

role in working with EPA and others. So I’m pleased to hear your

comments that you’ve already made contact with those other agencies, and I hope that we won’t lose the overall impact of what that

has on producers, your capability to communicate and certainly be

very proactive and aggressive on behalf of producers with the other

agencies.

So welcome, we’re delighted you’re here, and I’d also like to echo

Chairman Harkin’s comments that women have had a great deal

to do in agriculture, and we’re delighted to have a woman now at

the head. Thank you.

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you very much.

30

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln.

Now Senator Craig.

STATEMENT OF LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

INDIANA

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank

you for being here this morning and congratulations. We look forward to your confirmation and your active role with this committee

in the coming years as we shape all those things that all of these

members have suggested are critical and important. And I will only

echo that they are and that for the sake of American agriculture

and America’s consumers, that we remain an abundant, productive

country.

Let me stop talking about agriculture at that point. I’ll only mention potato wart once. I’ll only mention the 40 million hundredweight overhang of potatoes in the market once. And the need to

deal with those critical situations that are plaguing a very large

segment of Idaho’s agricultural economy as we speak.

Last year, while this committee worried and fretted about the

farm situation in our country, and while this marvelous chairman

right here worked with all of us to produce that abundance of resource to help American agriculture, and Thad Cochran did a marvelous job as Chairman of the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations,

something else was going on across America that is on your watch

and that you will have a major role to play in. The smoke clouds

over Idaho and Montana were blinding to the average citizen. The

community of Salmon, Idaho, was shut down for 3 weeks, people

walking around with masks over their face, people with respiratory

problems evacuated from the town, because the Nation’s forests

were ablaze.

Over 6.8 million acres of public and private land burned in our

Nation this past year. This Government will spend, when the bills

are all totaled, well over $2 billion putting out fire. And in my

State of Idaho, where you are the steward over nearly half the public domain that makes up my State, the Forest Service is in a desperate need of leadership and direction. It has been politicized and

effectively destroyed as it relates to esprit de corps and a responsibility of leadership, as to a balanced use of our public lands.

And as a result of that, the chaos that reigned supreme this summer was something that many had predicted years in advance. In

1981, a team of forest experts gathered, just happened to gather in

Idaho, but from across the world, to examine the forests of the inland west. And they determined at that time that those forests

were sick and dying and some already dead. And that report was

issued in 1982, and they said at that time, if active management

is not the word of the day, then we can expect massive forest fires

that will change the ecosystems of the west and the public lands

and the forests.

And they began. They started in 1984. We went into a wet cycle,

we came out of that wet cycle a year and a half ago, and they

began again last year.

Idaho at this time is only at about 50-percent of its snowfall and

its snow pack, as is true of Utah, parts of Montana, parts of Wyoming, eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. The inland west, by

31

all appearances, is dry and getting dryer. And what we experienced

last summer could well be something we experience again in the

coming year.

And you are the steward over a very large portion of that land.

Who you select as your deputy secretary in charge of the Forest

Service is critical. How you reestablish command and control and

esprit de corps to our Forest Service is going to be ever so important as we work to implement public policy.

In another committee, I happen to chair the Forestry Committee,

and have developed a knowledge there that I’m anxious to work

with you in seeing if we cannot develop a collaborative process at

the local and State level and involve our State governments to assure the kind of environmental integrity we want of our forested

lands. But not to sit idly by and suggest that sweeping, massive

forest fires are just mother nature at her worst best. It is not.

These fires are abnormal, they are extremely hot as a result of the

fuel buildup on our forest floors. And the Nation is reaping the

whirlwind of that kind of man-caused destruction.

That’s just another agenda that I suspect would not get discussed

very thoroughly in this committee today because we’re all so focused on our farmers and their needs and on production agriculture. But as you know, you have the responsibility of a rather

massive agency. And a part of that agency is the U.S. Forest Service, which has the responsibility of stewardship over America’s

treasures, America’s public lands.

I will not ask you questions, but only to suggest to you that let’s

de-politicize the U.S. Forest Service. Let’s bring it back on-line as

a construction conservation corps, responsible for the management

of these public lands in a way that shares the benefits of those

lands both environmentally and for productive resource purposes

with the American people.

You will be confirmed. We are anxiously awaiting the opportunity to vote for you and to begin to work with you in the shaping

of not only agricultural policy for our Nation, but public land resource and forest policy for the years to come. Congratulations.

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig can be found in the

appendix on page 62.]

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Craig. And now Senator Miller.

STATEMENT OF HON. ZELL MILLER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

GEORGIA

Senator MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it’s good to see

you again.

Ms. VENEMAN. Nice to see you.

Senator MILLER. I do not think that the importance of this Cabinet position can be overstated. We are headed toward a new Farm

Bill, while in the midst of an agricultural crisis. Our rural economies are suffering, and this has tremendous impact in States like

Georgia, where one out of every six residents is engaged directly

or indirectly in agriculture.

With emerging farm technology, with competitive trade realities,

with labor shortages, I don’t think it’s any exaggeration to say that

32

American agriculture is at a crossroads. We met earlier, and it was

a good meeting. While we may differ on the quality of Georgia

peaches compared to California peaches, I know you’re going to be

a very strong advocate for all regions of U.S. agriculture.

My State has great agricultural diversity, poultry and peanuts

and cotton and tobacco and timber and many specialty crops. This

diversity creates unique needs, and you know that because of California’s agricultural diversity.

I’m also very pleased, as has already been said, that you have

great experience in foreign trade. I think this is an extremely important credential. American agriculture is becoming more and

more dependent on trade. And I encourage the Department to work

with other departments and other pertinent Federal agencies to

find new markets for our producers, as Senator Lincoln has already

said.

I also believe that the Department of Agriculture and Labor

must work quickly to develop a guest worker program that is economically viable and is fair to both producers and laborers. And

this will take leadership by you and the Secretary of Labor and the

Labor Department.

I want to close with just one question, albeit a complicated and

controversial one. We have all heard the old adage that all politics

is local. Well, so are foreign interests. And if you will indulge me,

you can see where I think I’m headed, towards peanuts. Peanut

growers right now are facing very difficult decisions. With diminishing import tariff rates, imports will continue to offset U.S.

grown peanuts, pushing Government costs to new levels. At

present, the program is no net cost. So we will either have to accept increased program costs under the current system or change

the program to a more market oriented structure, which if other

commodity programs are any example, will cost a lot of money.

So my question is twofold. Will you support a peanut program

that does have some reasonable cost for the Government? Or if we

move to a more market oriented program, would you consider supporting compensating those individuals who have invested in the

peanut quota?

Ms. VENEMAN. Senator, I haven’t looked closely enough at this

issue to tell you where I would come out on what kind of solution

to the peanut issue is appropriate. I know that the program has

been under increasing pressure, that there are difficulties with the

program that’s operated, as you say, as a no net cost program for

many years.

But I would hope to bring together the interests of the producer

groups and work with them and members of the Senate and the

House to find acceptable solutions to particularly these programs

that are beginning to feel the stress of not working the way they

have in the past. But I think we should bring all interested parties

together to find the most appropriate solutions and I would look

forward to working with you in that regard.

Senator MILLER. I do also. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Miller.

Senator Fitzgerald.

33

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM ILLINOIS

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Veneman, congratulations. I think you’ll do a wonderful job

as Agriculture Secretary. And I would add Illinois to your long list.

I take some comfort that you worked under Ed Madigan, who is of

course a native of Illinois. I think that the town of Lincoln, Illinois,

actually, in the land of Lincoln. And I look forward to working with

you over the next 4 years.

I noted that in your opening statement you said that if confirmed, I intend to promote cooperative working relationships with

other agencies of Government to ensure that the concerns of farmers and ranchers are understood and advocated throughout the

Government. I think that’s a very good statement, it was a very encouraging statement that you had made.

And I did want to bring up one such issue, which would have

cross-departmental implications. And that is the issue of ethanol.

Last year, the USDA released a study that concluded that if MTBE

were phased out and replaced with ethanol over 3 years, it would

create approximately 13,000 new jobs in rural America, increase

farm income by more than $1 billion annually over the next 10

years, and reduce farm program costs and loan deficiency payments

through an expanded value added market for grain.

The study also concluded that within 3 years, ethanol could be

used as a substitute oxygenate for MTBE in nationwide markets

without price increases or supply disruptions. And I guess my request from you would be to work across departmental lines. This

committee has always had pretty bipartisan support for ethanol.

And I think you will probably be having some contact, particularly

with EPA, over this issue. And I guess I’d ask for your commitment

that you will promote ethanol as an environmentally friendlier alternative to MTBE, and that you would work closely with your

counterpart at EPA to ensure a strong future for ethanol.

Can you give this commitment to this committee?

Ms. VENEMAN. Senator, I think throughout the past several

months during this campaign, President-elect Bush has made it

very clear that he is committed to promoting ethanol and other renewable fuels and other alternative uses for agriculture products.

So yes, I can commit to working with the Administration and particularly with EPA on these issues. And as I said, we’ve had conversations with Christine Todd Whitman about the importance of

agriculture and working with her on agriculture issues. She has

committed to working in close working relationships to understand

the issues of agriculture, and I would intend to continue to do that.

Senator FITZGERALD. If I could just ask a little bit of a followup. Would you be willing to advise Ms. Whitman to reject your

home State’s waiver request from the oxygenate requirement in the

Clean Air Act?

Ms. VENEMAN. I’m certainly familiar with that. It’s obviously not

in the jurisdiction of USDA, but I’m certainly willing to have conversations with her about it to discuss the pros and cons of such

a waiver request, and also to express the strong interest of production agriculture in this request.

34

Senator FITZGERALD. Well, I appreciate that. And I do have, in

the interest of time, I’m going to just give you one other question.

I think this is a question that’s being asked, I’ve noticed in watching the other hearings, a lot of Cabinet nominees are being asked

the same question. Since 1990, all the agencies of the Federal Government have had to undergo audits. And I guess prior to 1990, we

did no audits of all the different Government agencies, all the

money the Federal Government spent, they didn’t do any audits,

which always struck me, coming as I did from a banking background, where if a teller line was $10 off, no teller could go home

until they found that $10.

With respect to our Federal Government spending $1.8 trillion,

almost $2 trillion a year, they are now doing audits. But over the

last 10 years, while this requirement has been in place, only a

handful of the departments and agencies have gotten clean audits.

And most of them have gotten adverse audits.

And some of them, like the USDA, have had a disgraceful record

in terms of their books and records. Their auditors have repeatedly

refused to give any opinion whatsoever. They’ve issued what’s

called a disclaimer of opinion on the USDA’s books, I believe for 10

years in a row now. The disclaimer of opinion means the books are

in such bad shape auditors can’t make heads or tails of them. You

can’t tell what money is coming in or what money is going out.

Last year, I chaired a subcommittee hearing where the Inspector

General of the USDA testified. I was much chagrined to find that

the USDA’s fund balance disagreed with the Treasury Department’s fund balance for the USDA by $5 billion. Now, they were

thrilled, because they worked that difference down to $230 million.

They were uncorking the champagne at the USDA that they were

only out $230 million. That is an awful lot of taxpayer money.

And they had a car listed on their books for $98 million. Now,

I don’t know what kind of car it was, maybe it was a Batmobile

or something. It certainly must have had all the options.

But this is really a disgrace. They had found that money was

taken from a soil erosion fund and used to paint wall murals in

urban areas. They found that checks for day care homes were being

sent to empty lots. And the list went on and on.

When you come back, when I in subsequent years, after you’ve

been in there, do those hearings to hear from the Inspector General, will we find that the USDA’s books and records still aren’t in

order, and that you still can’t get a clean opinion?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, I would certainly hope that we can

improve the record of the USDA in that regard. I am a strong believer in accountability in Government programs. I think that one

of the difficulties in an organization that is as huge as USDA and

has so many different missions is that it has not in the past had

accounting systems that are consistent with each other. That is

something I would hope to improve upon so that we can have more

consistent accounting systems and better accountability. So hopefully we’re not getting the unqualified audits that you’re referring

to.

Senator FITZGERALD. Will you make it a top priority of yours to

clean up the books and records over there?

35

Ms. VENEMAN. I will commit to you that we will work very hard

to address this issue.

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you very much, and good luck to

you.

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Fitzgerald. I just want to

add my support for what Senator Fitzgerald just said on both those

issues, but especially on the ethanol issue. We hope that you will

be a strong advocate for ethanol.

Senator Stabenow.

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM MICHIGAN

Senator STABENOW. Good morning, and Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much having the opportunity to serve on this Committee

with you and with our incoming Chairman, Senator Lugar. It’s a

pleasure to be with both of you.

And I do apologize for coming in in the middle of your statement.

I had the opportunity to introduce the incoming Energy Secretary

to the Committee on Energy this morning. So I was a few minutes

late. It is a pleasure to see you again. I appreciated the opportunity

to have you come visit in my office. I know we share many common

interests, both from California and Michigan being the top States

in terms of diversity of crops, Michigan second only to California.

I think that’s very important. Many people don’t realize that about

Michigan.

On a personal note, I would just indicate that it’s been a very

long time since a Michigan Senator has served on this committee.

Of interest to me is that the last time our State was represented

was in 1959 to 1963 with Senator Phil Hart, who I know is certainly someone, represented by the Hart Building and held in high

esteem by this body. So it’s my pleasure to be once again serving

Michigan on this committee.

Let me indicate that while most people associate Michigan with

automobiles, and I would start by saying that as you visit the other

States, I’ve invited others, you can start in Michigan, purchase a

vehicle, I promise you it will not cost $98 million in order to purchase the vehicle.

[Laughter.]

And then you could drive to each of the other States. We would

be happy to start your visits that way.

I would associate myself with many of the comments made by

colleagues in terms of so many of the issues raised that affect

Michigan. But let me juste add that we all have a very large task

ahead of us with the reauthorization of the Freedom to Farm bill.

I’m extremely concerned about strengthening the current farm

safety net and look forward to working you as we sort through

those issues.

I’m very interested in the opportunities for agricultural research.

Of course, having a premier land grant institution, Michigan State

University, in my hometown, as well as my alma mater, and developing new demand for commodities, bio-based fuels. I would also

like to associate myself with the comments regarding ethanol and

support for continuing and expanding that focus.

36

Food safety is a growing concern that’s been a priority for me,

particularly in light of the fact that we all remember the contaminated strawberries that were consumed by school children. Some of

those were in my Congressional district, so I have been focused on

food safety and working for a balanced approach, focused on research and consumer involvement. I think that’s very important.

The rural programs through USDA are also critical to my State.

Between 60- and 70-percent of the benefit goes to the upper peninsula in Michigan, which is a very important part of my State. And

I’m very committed to expanding the opportunities to rural communities, economic development as well as supporting agriculture

through the USDA.

Let me just mention that like California, Michigan is a salad

bowl State. We have traditional crops, wheat and soy and corn and

as well a diversity of specialty crops, which we have discussed. So

those issues regarding specialty crops, whether it be pesticides,

whether it be crop insurance, a variety of issues are important to

us. We have tart cherries and apples and asparagus and blueberries and peaches and lettuce and sugar beets, and I could go on

and on with the diversity of crops.

So it is important, and I have been particularly focused on crop

insurance to expand that opportunity to specialty crops. When we

look at the issue of pesticides, there are some of our crops that

have only one or two pesticides available. So what happens becomes very important in the decisions of the USDA regarding pesticides. And I look forward to working with you on those issues.

I would have two questions for you today specifically that relate

to Michigan I would appreciate your comments on. One we discussed briefly in my office, but I want to reiterate because it’s so

important to Michigan today. And that is the question of bovine

TB. While we produce a broad range of agricultural products, as

I’ve mentioned, dairy has the highest amount of cash receipts and

is a very important component of our agricultural economy in

Michigan. Last year, Michigan lost its TB-free status granted by

the USDA, due to the presence of bovine TB in our cattle. And

while Texas and New Mexico also have bovine TB in cattle, we’re

the only State with the presence of bovine TB in non-captive animals, namely, free roaming deer, which is a tremendous issue as

we try to wrestle with this.

The deer transfer the disease to the cattle which consequently

must be euthanized at a severe hardship to our farmers. The State

of Michigan, along with Michigan State University, has developed

a State plan to combat this disease and it’s expected to take at

least 20 years to totally eliminate this problem. Last year, the

Michigan delegation worked closely with the USDA to inform the

Department about the problem. The USDA declared an emergency

in Michigan and provided funds through the Commodity Credit

Corporation to help combat the disease, to increase research, implement tests and compensate our farmers.

Combatting this disease in our State is one of my top priorities.

And I would ask that you continue to focus resources from the

USDA on this issue, and would ask for any comments that you

would have regarding this particular issue that we discussed.

37

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you, Senator. I was pleased to be able to

talk with you about this issue, because as you know, until we were

in your office, I was unaware of this issue and its severity in your

State. I will commit to work hard to combat diseases in animals

that impact our agriculture. I think this leads to a much bigger

issue, an important mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

and Government and agriculture, and that is, the importance of

programs that combat not only animal diseases, but pests and diseases that affect plants as well.

As you know, agriculture, both USDA and State agriculture departments have a very important role in this regard. And I think

we cannot underestimate it. It’s not just with animals, and it’s not

just Med flies and specialty crops. We saw a very, very serious impact on our wheat production a few years back when we dealt with

carnal bunt. Again, we had to find a way to control the disease so

that it did not impact our ability to market that product abroad,

so that we were able to control it and contain it and eliminate it

as quickly as possible.

I also agree that as we see new and emerging kinds of issues

come up with regard to pests and diseases that we have to focus

research continually on these types of problems to find better ways

to deal with them.

Senator STABENOW. Let me ask one just follow-up. First of all,

I am aware as well of the issues related to wheat. In fact, the first

bill I introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives dealt with

the question of wheat and barley scab, which is a wonderful name

of a bill to be introducing, your first bill, on wheat and barley scab.

But a critical issue, and I was very pleased to help lead an effort

to bring the land grant universities together to form a consortium

regarding research.

And that would lead to my final question, which relates to research through our land grant universities. I would welcome your

thoughts and perspectives. As we have talked before, and I know

that you are a friend and associate of our president at Michigan

State University, and we are very proud of what happens through

that land grant institution. It’s critical to Michigan’s agricultural

base, and the work that’s done there. We have formed a National

Food Safety and Toxicology Center, bringing in multiple disciplines.

But I’m very concerned that cooperative extension and that our

land grant universities continue to receive the support that I believe they deserve, as they are critical to us. And I would welcome

your thoughts regarding those institutions.

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, as I said, I believe that research

is a very, very important part and component of what USDA is involved in, and that research has been critical to the success of agriculture in this country. The land grants have played a major role

in that and I believe need to continue to do so.

As we discussed in your office, one of the things that the land

grant universities are now able to do and are beginning to do is

work with other parts of their universities, whether it’s medical

schools or environmental sections of the university, to begin to find

common solutions to issues that impact agriculture. And I would

certainly want to encourage that through our land grants and find

models like you have at Michigan State to encourage cooperative

38

research that addresses the kind of issues that we’re dealing with

today in the food and agricultural system and the health related

issues that are so tied in today with food and agriculture.

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Well, welcome. It’s wonderful to

see such a well qualified person being nominated. And I’m pleased

to support your confirmation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.

Senator Nelson.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEBRASKA

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m unofficially a

member of this committee today, and I appreciate the opportunity

to be here. Thank you for the invitation. And it’s a pleasure for me

to continue the Nebraska tradition of having a representative on

this Agriculture Committee.

Congratulations, Ms. Veneman. I want to thank you for your opportunity to come to Nebraska, and I want to welcome you back.

Ms. Veneman came to Nebraska for my Governors Agriculture Conference in the early 1990s, when we shared the opportunity to talk

about agricultural issues at that time.

Nebraska is also a diverse State when it comes to agriculture.

I’m not going to start listing the levels of agriculture for fear of

leaving one out, and I don’t want to do that. Also, the University

of Nebraska in Lincoln is a land grant institution, very much interested in, very deeply involved in ag research. And I’m encouraged

by your comments about the necessity and support of agriculture

research to the future of agriculture in the country and certainly

in the world.

One of the things that has been suggested, I think it was Senator

Cochran who made reference to having someone from the South involved in your agricultural, Department of Agriculture hierarchy,

because of the differences in agriculture as it relates to the South.

And we talk about agriculture as though it’s unitary, and we know

that it’s very diverse. And the diversity is not only dependent upon

region, although it’s much affected by region. But there are certain

areas.

And I would hope, without being parochial or regional in my request, probably being supported by my midwestern and Great

Plains colleagues, that you would have a person involved that

would understand the unique problems and the diverse problems

that we have in the Midwest, recognizing not only the difference

in agriculture products, but the difference in weather and where

the most recent disasters occurred in terms of weather due to the

drought, largely across a good part of the Midwest.

I am concerned about the Freedom to Farm Act, and what we

might do to develop a new farm program that will in fact deliver

the kind of support safety net that you referred to in a way that

will work for agriculture where those needs exist today. Risk management, the Federal Crop Insurance Program certainly have a lot

to do with it. And if you take a look at the payments that have

been spread out over the last several years, maybe in some respects

39

the Freedom to Farm Act has been the most expensive non-farm

program that we’ve entertained in this modern time.

I was hopeful that you might give us a little bit of a preview or

some peek about what you might have in mind about modifications

to the Freedom to Farm Act, but I guess we’ll have to stay tuned

to see what you develop and what you come back and provide in

the way of leadership.

I’d like to think about agriculture as it relates not only to production agriculture but as it relates to energy, to world security and

in so many different areas, a comprehensive approach. The trade

agreements not only involve, they involve food safety, biotechnology, they involve trade barriers, they involve opportunities

for free and fair trade. And they’re in many respects all interrelated.

I certainly encourage the cooperation that you’re referring to

under the EPA, Energy and Agriculture, but also as it might relate

to Foreign Affairs and other areas to see that we can have a comprehensive approach. Because I think agriculture, when we’ve come

to the trade agreements, has always been a stepchild. It is the last

thing that seems to get included.

And if I had one criticism to level at the trade agreements as it

relates to agriculture, not as to other products from the United

States, but as it relates to agriculture, it is that we didn’t spell

NAFTA right. It needs two Fs, Free and Fair Trade. I think that’s

the point that I would like to make to you and leave with you on

trade agreements, that we spend the kind of time necessary to be

sure that these trade agreements are not only open opportunities,

but they level the playing field.

And I was taken by Senator Conrad’s charts, because I think

that’s exactly what I have in mind. I’m not opposed to free trade,

as long as it’s fair, and as long as we work toward making it fair

where it isn’t.

Therefore, much of the hoopla today about GMOs and biotechnology from other parts of the world, I would put not only in

the category of food safety, because that’s the question that’s

raised, but I would put it also into the category of trade of trade

barriers, another way of protecting local production, local industries. I’m not a protectionist, on the one hand. On the other hand,

I am very concerned about the lack of protection we have very

often for our own producers here at home when we open up the

agreements and we don’t provide for the level playing field at the

very outset.

Now, we have all kinds of mechanisms to go in when we encounter unfair trade practices, but that’s the equivalent of having a referee, not having a referee on a basketball court, but having a committee, years after the infraction, decide whether it was foul. I’m

not going to suggest to you that it would make sense to have an

actual referee with a black and white striped shirt standing there

making every decision that’s brought before that individual.

But we need something that is prompt, not time consuming,

something that is also accurate in dealing with these issues. Otherwise, dumping or other violations can go on for a long period of

time and be ruinous to many producers, whether it’s in the sugar

industry, North Dakota, Nebraska or Michigan, wherever it may

40

be. We have to be sure that we work diligently to be certain that

every effort is made that these trade agreements and the actual encounters under the trade agreements are free and fair.

I also hope that as you look at market assistance programs and

export enhancement programs that you’ll work to make these part

of the leveling of the playing field. If we can’t get out competitors

around the world to bring down their level of support, I’m not one

that likes to move away from market conditions, but I have to

admit that part of the market conditions include the level of support in other countries. So we have to join or we have to get them

to join us by reducing their levels of support.

And I don’t like to get involved in other countries’ business. But

when it affects what we’re doing, we can’t ignore it.

I’m very encouraged by what you said about ethanol. As a Governor, I was pleased to have the opportunity to start the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition. Today I believe there are 22 States that are now

members of the Ethanol Coalition. I’m not going to tout all the

things we’ve done in Nebraska, except to say that we went from

nowhere up to third in terms of ethanol production during my 8-

years. I want to continue to work with Senator Lugar and Chairman Harkin and other members of this committee to be sure that

we push forward for more ethanol production, more biofuels, biodiesel, more renewable resources soybeans, other biomass energy

sources because I think we can put an energy policy for our Nation

together that will include a large portion of renewable resources

that will go into energy production.

But I’m not sure we have it working in the right direction. I

would never suggest that we don’t trust people out in the field;

they are, after all, your employees. But I think there has been a

system of bringing that back into Washington for command and

control, and I for one would like to urge you to look very carefully

and seriously and get back to this committee, or at least to me, on

your recommendations regarding this. I think it would facilitate

and would better, I think, streamline the whole process so that it

can be done in a very timely manner, because when it is delayed

it certainly doesn’t serve the public in this case, the producer very

well.

So I thank you very much and it is good to see you again, and

I do welcome you back to Nebraska.

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you.

Senator NELSON. What you can do is buy your car in Michigan,

and all across the midwest you can fill your tank with ethanol.

[Laughter.]

Ms. VENEMAN. There you go. I like that.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.

Senator Dayton.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK DAYTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

MINNESOTA

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to

serving with you, and also you, Senator Lugar, when you become

the Chairman. Thank you for your gracious words about my perseverance. I would only point out that the difference between your

41

electoral success in the last 18 years and my lack thereof is reflected in the relative positions on this table here. But I am glad

to be here.

Ms. Veneman, historically I’ve had great affinity for California;

I think we associate it with Disneyland and the Rose Bowl. But

now that those experiences have become distant memories for most

Minnesotans, perhaps less so; and in the area of agriculture, the

State of California represents fairly or unfairly, at least in the common perception of Minnesota’s farmers and producers many of the

economic and production dynamics over the last years that have

driven thousands of Minnesota farmers into bankruptcy and have

threatened our rural way of life and are harming every business

on Main Street in Minnesota.

These conditions we saw most of them in Minnesota have been

exacerbated by the effects of the 1996 Farm Bill. Without supply

management and increased production under our basic economic

law of supply and demand, market prices have fallen precipitously

in our key commodity sectors. When I ran this summer, the price

of corn in southern Minnesota was $1.25 a bushel; it was $1.85 a

bushel when I ran for the Senate in 1982. Wheat, $2.60 a bushel

in northwestern Minnesota compared to $3.50 a bushel in 1982.

Dairy, $9.90 a hundredweight, compared to $12.50.

So contrary to the intent of the 1996 Farm Bill, the survival of

the remaining Minnesota farmers has become increasingly and in

some cases, totally dependent on these Federal payments.

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that you were with me last fall

in southern Minnesota, and a number of farmers there were asking

you, ‘‘What will the emergency assistance payments be next year?

Not even the regular program payments; what would the emergency assistance be next year?’’ because they needed those dollars

committed to go to their banks for financing for this year.

So I guess my first question is, what do you propose to do to put

the marketplace back into American agriculture, to help get prices

in the domestic marketplace to levels where farmers can make a

profit and we won’t need these kinds of huge Government payments?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, as I indicated, Senator, in my opening statement, I think the Congress has appropriately responded in these

difficult times of low prices, bad weather in many cases, and other

adversities.

At the same time we are looking at opportunities for farmers,

and I think we need to look at opportunities for farmers, to expand

markets for products, as you said, both at home and abroad. As

we’ve had a lot of discussion today, we need to find ways to not

only open new markets for our products, expand markets, but also

tear down trade barriers that exist.

At home, I think we need to continue to find ways to have additional marketing opportunities for our farm products, whether it’s

new and renewable fuels, as we’ve had some discussion about,

whether it’s new products out of agriculture which our research

will help us find, or whether it’s helping farmers understand the

realities of the marketplace so that they can participate in marketing further up the food chain and therefore get more value for their

products.

42

All these are difficult, but I think that if we work together we

can find ways to strengthen the competitive position of our farmers, and hopefully strengthen prices over the long run.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you. I wanted to just put on the record

my concern. I don’t disagree with anything you said, and it’s been

said for the last number of years. In fact, I think the increased

marketing and foreign trade opportunities for American farmers

has been set forth as the ‘‘Holy Grail’’ to be achieved if we’re going

to and I think in fact, while it is certainly important, it has been

demonstrated so far, and this last Administration has certainly

been aggressive in these areas and hopefully the next Administration will be doing more but the result has not been higher prices.

In fact, even with some of the value added, I support what the Senator said about ethanol. But the reality is, we have levels of production in corn the second highest in the Nation’s history last year;

soybeans, the highest and again, the basic law of supply and demand is that the prices are going to be down, not only through the

floor but into the subbasement, and the alternatives are either

massive subsidies and record high costs to American taxpayers, or

letting farmers literally fall into increasing bankruptcy.

So I think we have a fundamental problem. We have a program,

with whatever good intentions it was designed, that has had a contrary effect, and I think it is really causing a systemic crisis in

many of our commodities. We now have, we are told by the USDA,

over a year’s inventory of corn in this country. Well, it’s just given

then that the economics, barring some climactic disaster, are going

to continue.

So I would urge you to look at these areas and come forward

with your recommendations in ways that are really going to fundamentally address the scope and degree of the problem. We are

talking about the same kind of euphemisms that we’ve kind of

hung on before.

I would say of all the regional inequities in the U.S. programs,

none for Minnesota is more inequitable and unfair than current

Federal law as it relates to dairy producers. A combination of the

price support levels being set lower and lower, and the regional

marketing order system which disadvantages Minnesota, means

that, again, our price support not only has the floor dropped, it’s

really down into a level where we lost from 1982, when we had

32,000 dairy producers in the State, and now it’s less than 7,000.

I ended up with close to 1,000 of them in two meetings just 2

weeks ago with Congressman Collin Peterson of northwestern Minnesota, and I was struck by the size of the turnout meaning, the

desperation that many of them are experiencing now.

And California, by contrast, is a different situation. It has its

own price support system and has ever-increasing production and

expansion in the size of its operations.

What faith should Minnesota dairy farmers have that you would

understand and be concerned about, the circumstances in which

they find themselves, given that California’s experience seems to be

so different from it?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, certainly I’ve been involved with

much more than just California in looking at agriculture policy.

But we’ve talked a lot today about the regional differences. There

43

is probably no better example of regional differences in terms of

what people think ought to be done about agricultural policy than

dairy. It’s going to be a very challenging subject as we go forward

in the future because people do have such differing opinions about

what the dairy policy ought to be for the future.

I would hope that all the different dairy interests could work together to find and recommend programs that would be of benefit

to dairy producers nationwide, so that we can not have to arbitrate

the regional differences, but find something that is good for dairy

around the country.

As I said, this is very contentious. And it is one of the issues that

creates, probably, the most regional divisions of any commodity

that we have.

Senator DAYTON. Well, we are quite confident that we have all

the answers in Minnesota. If you could just get the California dairy

producers to go along.

[Laughter.]

Ms. VENEMAN. I don’t think this is a California versus Minnesota

issue, though.

Senator DAYTON. No. I agree with what you said. And I echo

what others have said today about the concern about imports,

about inequities in the way that our policies have not only shaped

these, but also permitted exports, dairy being an example. According to the figures I have had cited for me from some of our producers, this last year some 14-percent of the foreign imports of dairy

products were 14-percent of our total production, where the law

calls for 5-percent. And I am appalled that there has not been better enforcement of these agreed-upon restrictions, and I was

pleased to hear you say today that you will do so. I think that is

very, very important.

As part of that, I wonder if you have taken a position or what

your views are on labeling of food products, of imported products,

as such.

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, as you know, many of our imported

food products are labeled. The question is, should we have additional labeling? And there is truly a split among producer groups,

among various other groups up the food chain, about what ought

to be done with labeling.

I think for the most part, consumers do have labels that are explicit. And if there is a need for additional labeling, we certainly

will look forward to working with the groups to determine what

needs to be done.

Senator DAYTON. Would you support in principle the notion that

consumers ought to have a right to know what is in the food products they purchase, including where those products come from, particularly since some of the environmental pesticide measures in

other countries don’t even come close to our own? Is that something

you would support in principle?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, most food that comes into this country is

country-of-origin-labeled already. I think that’s important.

The second thing that I think is very important to point out is

that food cannot be imported into this country unless it meets U.S.

standards.

Senator DAYTON. In theory, yes.

44

Ms. VENEMAN. And I think that it is very important that we

have the necessary resources to make sure that we enforce those

standards on food that is coming into this country.

Senator DAYTON. Well, I support you strongly, Madam Secretary.

I think that enforcing those is, again, part of it.

One final question if I may, Mr. Chairman, quickly?

I just want to commend you, as you mentioned, for asking Administrator Whitman to work with you. I would urge the same reciprocity in areas like the ever-increasing size of our feedlots

throughout Minnesota and much of the country. I don’t know what

your experience in California has been, but I am concerned that we

are putting our citizens more and more at risk with the kind of ecological consequences of these ever larger operations, the lagoons,

the lack of place to put that waste, and the like.

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, those kinds of regulations, as you know,

have been an increasing focus of the Environmental Protection

Agency, and I think certainly, if confirmed, I would have the intent

to work closely with Ms. Whitman to make sure that there is a

clear understanding of agricultural operations so that they have

that input in the process of making regulations that regulate those

industries.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Dayton.

My colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM IOWA

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to

chairmanship, and also for the history about Iowa having once before had a person in your position. Maybe you could research for

me if anyone from Iowa has been Chairman of the Finance Committee before

[Laughter.]

Since you have all that information. I’ll just let you do that for

me.

Congratulations, Ms. Veneman, on your nomination and what it

does for American agriculture. I’m only going to have two questions: one on value added, and one on concentration, but I wasn’t

here to give an opening statement and I’d like to do that.

I believe that you already know a great deal about the economic

and cultural ramifications of Federal agricultural policy, and these

are very important to me, as well. You probably know that maybe

I brag too much about being a farmer, and my father before me

was. I think I understand agriculture and how policy decisions

from Washington impact hardworking farmers, including my son,

Robin, who operates our family farm.

Before I ran for office and after I leave, God willing I would still

plan on being in farming. There is little that I feel more strongly

about than providing the agriculture community with the potential

not only to survive, but more importantly, to thrive, and that

means profitability. An area where you’re so strong is in international trade, and if there’s going to be profitability in American

45

agriculture, obviously such a strong suit that you have will help us

along in that direction.

I know, Ms. Veneman, that you recognize the complexity of the

issues facing our farmers and ranchers, and due to your previous

experience as Secretary of the California Department of Food and

Agriculture and before that as Deputy Secretary of the USDA, I

know that you understand many aspects of agriculture and what

a strong agricultural economy means to my friends and neighbors

in Iowa.

Your past service and knowledge of international trade policy is

outstanding. Trade is one issue that California and Iowa do have

in common. Iowa ranks second only to California in farm exports,

and I believe by increasing our world market share we will improve

the plight of the family farmer, and you are the right person for

that task.

Agriculture is always very broad, and it’s a very diverse field.

For instance, in the State of California and I don’t pretend to know

all about agriculture in California, but I believe you are a leading

producers of vegetables harvested for sale, and tomatoes and

grapes and strawberries, and you probably have hundreds of crops

that you raise. In my home State of Iowa, we lead the Nation in

the production of corn, soybeans, and hogs. There are significant

differences between agriculture production in California and Iowa.

While it has been a number of years since the Secretary of Agriculture has hailed from Iowa that was Henry Wallace, 1933 to 1940

my home State and the midwest have historically had strong representation within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

I would also like to see working farmers end up in one or more

of the top slots at the USDA. I believe it is very important for the

Bush Administration to seek farmers, not Washington insiders, to

best represent the interests of our agricultural community. I have

been saying for a while now that I would like to have individuals

with ‘‘dirt under their fingernails’’ for the top spots. But let me

clarify this point.

I want someone who uses Schedule F to report the majority of

their income. I would like to see top-level decisions deliberated by

people who have friends and neighbors on the farm. I want judgments made by people who understand what it means to be a midwestern farmer in the 1980s when things were so tough. This is

very important to me.

I have faith that if you will address my concerns, you will do an

outstanding job leading the Department of Agriculture. In addition

to developing new and improved trade prospects, I look forward to

working with you to provide new rural development opportunities

through value added ventures.

I hope that we also move quickly to address issues of agribusiness concentrations, through legislation like my bill to provide

USDA authority to challenge mergers, in a similar fashion as the

Department of Justice, and a bill that I am going to introduce with

Senator Johnson next Monday limiting packer ownership of livestock for slaughter. And of course, one of the biggest tasks in front

of us all is shaping our next Farm Bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that today’s discussion that we have

had with the President elect’s choice for Secretary of Agriculture

46

will result in better understanding by both sides of what we feel

needs to be addressed to make the 107th Congress a success for

family farmers in our rural communities.

In regard to agribusiness concentration, as I follow-up on my

statement, I want to outline my question. During the 106th Congress I introduced the legislation already referred to. The legislation in a very short statement, without doing justice to it gives

USDA the same authority to challenge a proposed merger as the

Department of Justice currently possesses.

I also sponsored legislation that will give your Department responsibility to implement, and this legislation codifies a recent

General Accounting Office report outlining suggestions for improved investigations of competitive practices within packers and

stockyards.

Then I already referred to the bill that Senator Johnson and I

are going to introduce. In a very general statement, but one that

I hope you can be fairly precise in answering, is this: how does the

issue of agribusiness concentration fall on your priority list? And

are you interested in moving quickly on the issue?

Ms. VENEMAN. Senator, you and I have discussed this issue in

our meetings. There is probably no other issue that came up so

consistently as concentration, in my meetings with various members of the Committee and various people not on the committee. In

fact, I understand that Senator Ashcroft or I should say, Attorney

General designate Ashcroft was asked a question about this as well

in his hearing. So I know that it’s on people’s minds, and I know

how important it is.

As you know and as you have indicated, the Packers and Stockyards Act in USDA is an important authority and we would intend

to use that authority to its maximum degree. In addition, I would

intend to, and I’ve had conversations already with Mr. Ashcroft

about the Justice Department’s role in these concerns, and he has

pledged to me that we will work closely together to address these

issues.

But I also think that while we find ways to make sure that our

laws are appropriately enforced in this regard, we also should look

at alternative opportunities for our producers, whether it is helping

producers take advantage of niche markets so that they have an

alternative market for their products, so that they can have the opportunity to participate up the food chain by different kinds of

‘‘agri organizations,’’ new cooperatives, etc. And we provide the

kind of education to allow them to understand how to take advantage of such opportunities.

So I think it is both an issue of enforcement and an issue of assistance in terms of helping them find new opportunities.

Senator GRASSLEY. I welcome those new opportunities that you

seek, and I think that you have spoken strongly about how you will

approach concentration. Just don’t let somebody get you off course

on the enforcement aspect at the same time that you are trying to

do the other things that that leadership requires you to do, and I’m

glad to hear that you are interested in doing those.

Along the lines of, and this is not something that you have to respond to, but along the lines of making maximum use of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the General Accounting Office report sugVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:19 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 074331 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74331.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
47

gested more than suggested, flatly stated that in many respects,

the Packers and Stockyards Act, to make sure that we have adequate competition in agriculture, is stronger than the anti trust

laws in a lot of other areas. And so it is an opportunity to do a lot.

We talk about anti trust laws so much; we have not given proper

attention to the Packers and Stockyards Act, and we are starting

to do that now. So we would be backing you up in your strong enforcement of that.

Now, for my second question, taking off on what you said about

alternative opportunities, and this would involve not just agriculture but rural development, et al., while it is important for us

to guarantee an environment free of unfair trade practices, it is

just as important and this is exactly what I think you just said for

us to assist farmerswith alternative opportunities. I would bring up

the value added opportunity ventures so that they may capture

more of the cents of every dollar spent at the retail level for commodities from the farm.

Last year I sponsored legislation creating a value added opportunity fund for producers to draw grants and for the development

of value added enterprises. Would you support the continuation of

this program? And can we work together to provide new opportunities for producers and producers’ groups seeking working capital?

Ms. VENEMAN. Well, Senator, I have to admit that I’m not actually familiar with the fund that you proposed in detail, but I think

that based on my previous answer, I am committed to the kinds

of programs that you’re talking about, and that is opportunities for

producers to participate in partnerships, cooperatives, and so forth

that allow them to share in the value up the food chain. I think

there are many examples we have seen of producers coming together to do just that, all throughout the country, and hopefully we

can find and seek those out and use them as models to show producers how they can get more value up the food chain and more

value for their product.

Senator GRASSLEY. I accept that answer, and I hope you will

have a chance to study it.

In the process of studying it, because some special interest fought

our legislation so hard, wanting Congressmen and Senators to

think it was unfair brick and mortar type competition to existing

business in agricultural processing, I want to make it clear that it

is to facilitate this process, not to build businesses and competition.

It is to empower family farmers to accomplish the goals that you

have stated well, and those interests may come to you and try to

convince you that this is just a subterfuge for doing what I say it

is not intended to do.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley can be found in the

appendix on page 76.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Grassley.

I have just a couple of follow-up questions. In fact, I wanted to

just follow-up a little bit on what Senator Grassley just raised on

this whole issue of concentration and consolidation, vertical integration.

Last August, August of 1999 the Department of Agriculture, the

FTC, and the Department of Justice entered into a memorandum

48

of understanding to work cooperatively to monitor competitive conditions in the agricultural marketplace. They agreed to confer regularly to discuss and review law enforcement and regulatory matters, etc. I bring this to your attention and ask if you plan on continuing to abide by this memorandum of understanding, or if you

would at least take a look at it and respond back to me, if you

haven’t been briefed on it by now.

Ms. VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the memorandum per se, but I think I have made it clear today that I would

intend to work very closely with counterparts throughout Government on issues that are related to agriculture, whether it is

through this memorandum of understanding or other kinds of cooperative working relationships. I am committed to working inter

agency for the best interests of agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

It has been brought up a couple of times here as you know, Senator Lugar and I introduced legislation to establish in the Anti

Trust Division, Department of Justice, a position with responsibility just for agricultural anti trust matters. So in response to this,

the Department promised to appoint a special counsel in the Anti

Trust Division to focus on agriculture and agri business matters.

They did that; Mr. Doug Ross, I believe, is that person who is down

there now. But there is no requirement. They sort of preempted our

legislation and we never got it through, so there is no real requirement for the Department of Justice to continue that practice.

Again, I think you mentioned it earlier, but I just wanted to reemphasize that I hope you work with the incoming Attorney General to make sure that we keep that position, and I hope you will

be an advocate for that, to keep that position there. If not, I assume that Senator Lugar and I will work again to try to get the

legislation through. But if we don’t have to, if they keep the position, that would be the best way to proceed.

Again, picking up on what Senator Grassley said, the GAO

issued this report last September on the Packers and Stockyards

programs, entitled ‘‘Packers and Stockyards Programs: Actions

Needed to Improve Investigation of Competitive Practices.’’ Again,

as Senator Grassley said, they did say that basically Agriculture

has a lot of authority under Packers and Stockyards in this area.

They made two major recommendations: one, that USDA should

develop a ‘‘teamwork’’ approach with economists in GPSA in the

crane inspection in the Packers and Stockyards Administration, a

teamwork with them, and with attorneys in your Office of General

Counsel, so it should be a teamwork approach between OGC and

Justice, with the attorneys there; and second, that USDA should

determine the number of attorneys needed to participate in investigations. That’s one of the things we kept hearing back from Secretary Glickman and others, that well, they just didn’t have the

wherewithal to do that. So after this GAO report was released I

wrote to the Secretary and asked him for a timeframe to implement the recommendations. Well, he wrote me back on October

19th andhe said, ‘‘GPSA is now taking steps that are expected to

implement the GAO recommendations by April 1st, 2001, except

that GPSA will only be able to do so fully if the Office of General

49

Counsel receives from Congress an additional $500,000 for additional attorneys in the Trade Practices Division.’’ So we worked with Senator Cochran I am on the Ag Appropriations Committee we worked with him and we got the additional

money. So in the final appropriations package there was $500,000

for the Office of General Counsel to assign lawyers specifically for

enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. So the funding is

no longer an issue, and I hope you can assure me that these recommendations will be implemented by April 1st, as your predecessor has promised.

Ms. VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the details

of what you have expressed here, but certainly I will do everything

I can to make sure these recommendations are implemented.

I wanted to say one word about the recommendation on teamwork approach. That is something I truly believe in. We have to

use the resources of Government in a way that maximizes the expertise of all areas and creates opportunities to work together so

that we can utilize the resources in the best way to implement the

programs that we are administering and the rules and regulations

that we are required to enforce.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me kind of sum up a little bit on where they

cycle has come now.

We had this memorandum of understanding that all of us

worked hard to get them to implement or to agree on: the FTC, Department of Justice, and USDA. At the same time, a number of us

I don’t know who all was on the letter asked the GAO to do this

study on the Packers and Stockyards Act on anticompetitive activities in agriculture, vertical integration, the whole panoply of things

in terms of concentration. As I said, they came back with this report last September.

We then moved ahead and tried to get the Department of Agriculture to implement it. They said, ‘‘Look, we would like to, but we

don’t have enough attorneys to do that.’’ So we got them the

money. We are now at the point where we hope we can implement

the GAO recommendations as early as possible, April 1st or something like that, and then move ahead to, hopefully, this year see

the Department of Agriculture taking a more aggressive position in

really looking at some of these practices in agriculture. We are at

the point now where we have just a few I forget now; I had the

data here but now I can’t find it I think we have four firms handling about 80-percent of the meat right now. I don’t know what

the other figures were on that. But these have to be looked at yes,

80-percent of the beef is four firms, and 54-percent of the pork is

done by four firms in the United States.

The one thing that I constantly hear from my farmers is that

they just have no markets left. They get one bid. That’s all they

get; take it or leave it. That’s not much of an open marketplace for

agriculture when that happens.

So one of the things that I hope to be focusing on this year with

you is the utilization of your division, GPSA, and the attorneys and

the additional money that we got so that we can begin to really be

more aggressive in this area.

The next thing I wanted to ask you about before we finish here

is in the area of conservation, specifically, the CRP program, the

50

WRP that’s Wetlands Reserve Program and the WHIP program,

the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program.

Let’s start with the WRP and the WHIP program. Both of those,

Senator Cochran has been very helpful in funding, but they are basically running out of money and acreage. I hope that we can have

some input from you early on regarding both the WRP and the

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program in terms of more acreage

and how much more money we need to enroll more acres in that

program.

The third part of that stool is the CRP. We now have the limit

in law is 36.4 million acres right now, that is allowed by law to be

put into the CRP. I think we’re now at around 33 million acres in

the CRP. There is a push by many in the sports area, a number

of wildlife organizations, asking that we increase the CRP level actually, they want 45 million acres, which sounds high, but I personally believe that we could raise the ceiling on the CRP to somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 million acres from 36.4 million,

and by raising that ceiling, hopefully get more enrolled than the 33

million that we have now.

Many of the farmers who had land in the CRP initially did not

get back in the second round. Again, this committee, and I think

the Committee in the House, rightly so, said that because of budgetary concerns we were going to try to really enroll the most fragile

lands first in the CRP. When they finally got down to some of the

farms that had been in the CRP before, farmers found they couldn’t

bid it in.

So I am wondering if we might look at different ways that we

might expand the CRP in a way that will allow some of the people

who had land in the CRP to bid it back in once more.

So again, my question to you is just your feelings about how you

feel about increasing the number of acres that we have in CRP, the

Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Program. I just want to get your general philosophy on that.

Ms. VENEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that these programs are

very important. I think we have model programs in terms of voluntary, incentive-based programs that are usable in our country.

I have not seen any studies yet on the pros and cons of increasing the acreage, but it is something I certainly would want to look

at carefully and work with you on. I understand that the money

has been used up in these programs fairly quickly each year, which

would indicate that there is a demand for these kinds of programs.

So I would certainly want to work with you to look at what kinds

of proposals we may want to make for the future.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I really want to work with you on that, because, again, working with Chairman Lugar, I hope we can have

some hearings this spring on conservation and what we can do to

maybe even move an agenda on that this year, even though the

Farm Bill doesn’t expire until next year.

I have introduced legislation that I’ve worked on for some time

now; it has been introduced in the House, it has bipartisan support

on the House and Senator Smith and I have introduced it in the

Senate, which we have dubbed the ‘‘Conservation Security Act,’’ but

names are not important. It is basically a voluntary-based conservation program. Now, you are right, there are programs out

51

there that farmers can use, and in your opening statement you said

that farmers are the best stewards of the land. But a lot of times,

in doing conservation work, it may cost them in terms of production, or it costs them in terms of time, fuel, equipment usage it

costs them one way or the other a lot of times to engage in what

they already do.

I hear a lot from farmers, ‘‘I’ve been a good conservationist, I’m

doing these things, but I’m not getting anything for it.’’ And so I

have worked with many of these conservationists to develop a voluntary program where farmers could come in and sort of ‘‘pick from

the menu.’’ At one level, they could do so much conservation, then

a higher level and a higher level. Depending on how much they do,

they would get a payment for it. And as we look at it, I think what

we’re facing is a phased-back cutdown and things like that. Perhaps one of the things we can do is begin to help give incentives

to farmers and to help pay them for the good conservation work

that many of them are already doing, and to give them an incentive to even do more. Again, it would be voluntary. If they want

to do it, fine; if they don’t, they don’t have to. But it has gotten

a lot of support from different farm groups, and I hope that you

would take a look at that. I welcome any thoughts you have on it

or changes or modifications, any input that you might have, but I

would hope that we could perhaps move some kind of a conservation agenda even this year.

Now, just a couple more items I want to cover. One is Food

Stamps and the Food Stamp Program. I’ve had the unusual experience in Iowa of finding that our Food Stamp usage is down, but the

number of people going to food banks is up. I said, how could that

be? Why is that happening? Why is the usage of food banks going

up? What has happened is that because of the change in our welfare laws, many people who are working now can get some Food

Stamps. They qualify for some Food Stamps, but they run out before the end of the month. They are working, but they are not making enough money to really afford to continue to feed their families,

so what they do is, toward the end of the month they go to food

banks. I can give you the data on that, on how much more and I

checked with other States, and I find that that is true in a lot of

areas around the country. Food banks, the demand has gone up,

even though we have a Food Stamp Program.

So I am hopeful that we can take a look at the Food Stamp Program and see what we can do to increase its usage. My opinion is

that it’s better for people to have the Food Stamps than it is for

them to go to the food banks. We’re always going to need food

banks, but that ought to be sort of the ‘‘last bastion,’’ the last safety

net. But Food Stamps is an important program. It’s a Federal program.

Again, I guess my question to you, if I had one, would be just

your thoughts on the Food Stamp Program. Do you agree that it’s

an economic stabilizer, a safety net? Do you agree that it should

be a Federal program and that it ought to be linked to food, and

not just some kind of income assistance? See, the one thing we

have always tried to do with Food Stamps is keep the link to food.

And now we hear things like, well, maybe that ought to be a cash

assistance type of program.

52

At the outset I would like to ask for your thoughts on how you

view the Food Stamp Program and how you feel about it being a

food program rather than just a cash assistance program.

Ms. VENEMAN. As I recall the history, Mr. Chairman, this has

been a debate that has entered into the food assistance and Food

Stamp Program since its inception. A lot of people are surprised

that the Food Stamp Program is housed at USDA. Part of the reason that it is housed at USDA is because of that link between providing a food benefit, not just an additional payment benefit.

I think that a lot of the other food programs that have been administered by USDA are just as important. The WIC program has

been very important in helping with nutrition assistance for pregnant and lactating mothers and small children.

The CHAIRMAN. A great program.

Ms. VENEMAN. A very good program. And I think that these are

programs that we want to continue for the future, but also find

ways to make them operate better.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the WIC program is a great one.

Again, we have to look at the Food Stamp Program in terms of

eligibility, especially for children, that type of thing, and again I

hope we could take a look at that. My strong feeling is that it has

to remain a part of the food program. I have had a lot of people

come up to me time and time again in all my years on the House

Agriculture Committee and say, ‘‘Well, all this money goes out for

Food Stamps, and it makes it look like an agricultural program. It

makes it look like we’re spending all this money on farmers. We’re

spending it on Food Stamps.’’ My response is, well, it is a food program.

But quite frankly, it is one of the things that keeps that linkage

with all of our farm programs and with the fact that people need

food to eat, and it’s that one strong link that we need to keep there.

So I feel very strongly about keeping it as that, and not just as a

cash assistance type of program.

I had some other questions, but time is getting late, but quite

frankly, it’s one of the things that keeps that linkage with all of

our farm programs and with the fact that people need food to eat,

and it’s that one strong link that we need to keep here. So I feel

strongly about keeping it as that, and not just as a cash assistance

type of program.

I had some other questions on trade and different things like

that, but time is getting late. Like I said earlier, I would like to

submit some questions to you in writing, and I look forward to your

responses to those on some trade issues and on some rural development issues. I really did want to get into that, but it’s getting too

late rural utility services, the infrastructure of rural America. The

rural utility services and the Department of Agriculture, I’ve seen

them do some great things out there. We have need for clean

water, we have need for waste disposal in rural areas. We need

some economic incentives also, rural water we’ve done some great

things out there, but I just think we need some more if we’re going

to have a healthy rural America.

I will submit some of these questions to you in writing. If you

could get back to me, I would appreciate it.

Senator Lugar.

53

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I would just commend you on an

excellent hearing.

And likewise, I look forward to working with you as Secretary of

Agriculture. Thank you for your forthcoming responses.

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Leahy apologizes. He is unable to be

here because he is chairing the Judiciary Committee, and I have

a statement of his which will be made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy can be found in the

appendix on page 67.]

Senator McConnell also has a statement which will be made a

part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator McConnell can be found in

the appendix on page 63.]

Again, thank you very much, Ms. Veneman. We congratulate you

on your selecting. We look forward to your swearing-in and we look

forward to your appearance here as the first woman Secretary of

Agriculture. Thank you very much.

Ms. VENEMAN. Thank you, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is adjourned until the call of the

new chair.

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

(55)

A P P E N D I X

JANUARY 18, 2001

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

(81)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JANUARY 18, 2001

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

(111)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

JANUARY 18, 20001

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

Æ