U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–636 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–287 

LOOKING AHEAD: 

KANSAS AND THE 2012 FARM BILL 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 25, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, Majority Staff Director 

JONATHAN W. COPPESS, Majority Chief Counsel 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

MICHAEL J. SEYFERT, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FIELD HEARING(S): 

Looking Ahead: Kansas and the 2012 Farm Bill .................................................. 1 

Thursday, August 25, 2011 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry ............................ 1 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas .................................. 1 

Panel I 

Brownback, Hon. Sam, Governor, State of Kansas, Topeka, KS ......................... 6 

Schulz, Kirk, Ph.D., President, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS ........ 8 

Panel II 

Baccus, Steve, Kansas Farm Bureau, Minneapolis, KS ....................................... 13 

Esping, Karl, Kansas Sunflower Commission, Lindsborg, KS ............................. 14 

Goyen, Kent, Kansas Cotton Association, Cunningham, KS ............................... 15 

Grecian, Ken, Kansas Livestock Association, Palco, KS ...................................... 17 

Henry, Bob, Kansas Soybean Association, Robinson, KS ..................................... 18 

McCauley, Kenneth, Kansas Corn Growers, White Cloud, KS ............................ 19 

Schemm, David, Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, Sharon Springs, KS .. 21 

Shelor, Gregory, Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers, Minneola, KS ................... 22 

Panel III 

Bach, Ron, Director, High Plains Farm Credit, Jetmore, KS .............................. 32 

Brinker, Kathleen, General Manager, Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative 

Association, Inc., Axtell, KS ................................................................................ 33 

Brown, Ron, President, Kansas Association of Conservation Districts, Fort 

Scott, KS ............................................................................................................... 35 

Crouch, Barth, Conservation Policy Director, Playa Lakes Joint Venture, Salina, KS ................................................................................................................. 36 

Tempel, Robert, General Manager, Windriver Grain LLC, Garden City, KS .... 38 

Whitham, Jeff, Chairman and CEO, Western State Bank, Garden City, KS .... 39 

Wilder, Karen, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Director, The Schwan Food 

Company, Salina, KS ........................................................................................... 40 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Baccus, Steve .................................................................................................... 56 

Bach, Ron .......................................................................................................... 62 

Brinker, Kathleen ............................................................................................. 66 

Brown, Ron ........................................................................................................ 81 

Brownback, Hon. Sam ...................................................................................... 85 

Crouch, Barth ................................................................................................... 89 

Esping, Karl ...................................................................................................... 97 

Goyen, Kent ...................................................................................................... 100 

Page

IV 

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued 

Grecian, Ken ..................................................................................................... 103 

Henry, Bob ........................................................................................................ 111 

McCauley, Kenneth .......................................................................................... 116 

Schemm, David ................................................................................................. 120 

Schulz, Kirk ...................................................................................................... 123 

Shelor, Gregory ................................................................................................. 131 

Tempel, Robert .................................................................................................. 134 

Whitham, Jeff ................................................................................................... 138 

Wilder, Karen ................................................................................................... 141 

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Brownback, Hon. Sam: 

Change in Water Levels, Predevelopment to Averag 2009-2011, Kansas 

High Plains Aquifer ...................................................................................... 154 

Crouch, Barth: 

Farm Bill Biologists in Playa Lakes Joint Venture ....................................... 155 

Playas and the Ogallala Aquifer-What’s the Connection? ............................ 156 

Tempel, Robert: 

Company profile containing various figures and photographs, Windriver 

Grain LLC ..................................................................................................... 158 

U.S. Corn Production Pie Grows ..................................................................... 162 

Kansas Planted Acres ...................................................................................... 163 

(1) 

LOOKING AHEAD: 

KANSAS AND THE 2012 FARM BILL 

Thursday, August 25, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, Wichita, KS 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:17 a.m., at the Hilton Wichita Airport, 2098 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas, Hon. 

Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Stabenow, Roberts 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, good morning and we will call the 

Committee to order, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. It is my great pleasure to be here in Kansas 

with all of you. I have been very much looking forward to the opportunity to hear from you about what we can do to support agriculture in Kansas and rural communities, our great universities, 

and all those that help to strengthen agriculture for our country. 

It was my pleasure a while back to have the opportunity to host 

Senator Roberts in Michigan at Michigan State University, and I 

returned the favor today by wearing purple for Kansas State. 

[Applause.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I said, do not tell my friend at Michigan 

State, though. But it really is wonderful to be here, and I think before going farther in an opening statement, I will turn it over to 

Senator Roberts. I do want to say a special hello to the Governor, 

though, who we worked together on many things and, Sam, it is 

wonderful to see you, Governor Brownback, and, of course, Dr. 

Schulz, it is wonderful to have you here as well. 

But I am going to turn it over first to Senator Roberts. 

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

STATE OF KANSAS 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for calling this field hearing today. Welcome to Kansas and welcome to 

Wichita. We are delighted to have you. I would just simply say that 

when I was in Lansing, Michigan, home of the Fighting Spartans, 

their colors are green and white. And I got this lovely green and 

white tie that I wear a lot. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. But I promised her—— 

2 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Another one. 

Senator ROBERTS. I promised her, I promised her I would wear 

that green and white Spartan tie when Michigan State plays Nebraska, that is for sure. 

[Applause.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Before I begin my statement, I want to thank 

the 46th Governor of Kansas, my dear friend and colleague, Sam 

Brownback. We served together in the Senate for 12 years and had 

a very unique and close relationship. Thank you for joining us, 

Sam. I know your schedule is very, very busy. We had served 

alongside the Governor, as I say, in the Senate. 

As a former State Secretary of Agriculture, why we are fortunate 

to have Sam’s perspective on Federal farm policy. Seated next to 

the Governor is the 13th President of Kansas State University, 

home of the ever optimistic and fighting Wildcats, Kirk Schulz, 

Madam Chairwoman. You will be happy to know that President 

Schulz spent some time teaching in Michigan earlier in his career. 

Kansas State, like many of our Nation’s land grant institutions, 

is vital to development and well-being of America’s agriculture sector. The Research and Extension Services that are provided by 

these institutions, more particularly Kansas State, lay the foundation for our farmers and our ranchers and our agribusinesses. 

Thank you, President Schulz, for being here this morning. 

We are here to talk about the next farm bill and how Kansas 

farmers and ranchers, agribusiness, and rural communities are impacted by policies that are created in Washington, for better or for 

worse. Agriculture is the backbone of our state’s economy. It provides roughly $15 billion worth of sales, according to the most recent census by the Department of Agriculture. 

Each year, each year Kansas has planted nearly 23 million acres 

to a variety of crops like wheat, grain, sorghum, corn, sunflowers, 

cotton, and potatoes. I do not know if we have anybody growing 

cherries here in Kansas, but if you do, raise your hand and you will 

get a big welcome from the Chairwoman. 

Well, Kansas is home to 2.8 million people. It is also home to 

over 6 million cattle, 1.8 million hogs and pigs, 120,000 dairy cows, 

and usually they are in a better mood today than some of our producers. 

As we prepare for the reauthorization of the Farm Bill, it is important for us to begin by listening to these producers, those with 

the dirt under their fingernails, to provide the best perspective on 

the effectiveness of Government regulations and programs. 

Let me just say at the outset that we have, because of the time 

restraints, witnesses who I think will speak for all of agriculture, 

but if any individual producer out there wants to submit a statement for the record, it will be made part of the record. Simply give 

it to me or one of my staff and you can either email it, you can 

Twitter it, you can tweet it. Do not put in on Facebook. Or you can 

simply write it out on a yellow tablet—I still use that—and give 

it to us. 

Farm bills are not designed with one state in mind. They are national in scope because all that they must protect producers from 

all states at a base level. This year in Kansas is a case in point 

3 

of a need for a strong safety net. Boy, did we find that out yesterday and what we have found out this year. 

I do not know what it is about Mother Nature. Here we are going 

from an earthquake yesterday to a drought today and some people 

are going back to Washington to a hurricane. This is a very unusual year. 

But anyway, our Kansas producers have experienced floods 

where they are still putting up sandbags on the Missouri as we are 

dealing with a drought in 70 counties. The Governor has asked the 

Secretary of Agriculture now for 70 counties being designated in regards to emergency status. 

Yesterday I led a drought tour to see firsthand the effects of 

Mother Nature. Tammy Oast’s [phonetic] camp has already done 

that. The Governor has done that. Others have done that. And we 

wanted to do it as well. I have been working with the state and 

the USDA to find ways to provide necessary and responsible relief 

for our farmers and ranchers. 

We know that our programs face budget pressure, and they 

should. The Federal debt and deficit are out of control. All of the 

Department programs should be under consideration and a budget 

review. The Chairwoman agrees with me on that point. And the 

Agriculture Committees, with the best experience and knowledge of 

these programs, should lead in that effort. 

Agriculture faces a tough challenge ahead. Global population continues to grow at a rapid pace. We are going to exceed 9 billion people on this planet in the next several decades. That is a lot of 

mouths to feed. At the same time, emerging economies are demanding higher valued protein and grains. 

In order to meet this demand, agriculture must double our production. Some folks question the need for a Farm Bill with commodity prices where they are today. I do not have to tell this crowd 

that prices can fall much more quickly than they rise. And one 

thing about it, when you have good farm prices and you do not 

have a crop, that is sheer frustration. 

Without an adequate safety net, plenty of producers struggle to 

secure operating loans, lines of credit, cover input and equipment 

costs. We need those producers to stay in business if we are going 

to meet this global challenge and do so in a way in that protects 

our most valuable resource, our future generations. 

Thank you to all of our witnesses today. I know you are very 

busy. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I look 

forward to your testimony, along with the Chairwoman, and hearing not only about the Farm Bill, but also the impact of Federal 

regulations on your operations, the number one issue that I continue to hear about. It used to be, Did you read the bill? Now it 

is, Did you read the regulation? Now it is, Are you even aware of 

the tidal wave of regulations that are coming down the pike? 

So often I hear from producers that the heavy hand of Government intervention impacts them more than any other program. 

With this in mind, last week I sent the President a list of proposed 

regulations put forth by his Administration that impact our agriculture industry. I am hopeful that he will take a close look at 

them. 

4 

By the way, the Chairwoman held our very first hearing with the 

head of EPA and with the Secretary of Agriculture on the impact 

of regulations. So I am hopeful that he will take a close look at the 

letter that I sent listing the regulations that you all have told me 

are simply counterproductive, and other regulations, and try to insert some good old Kansas common sense into these actions. 

Again, thank you to all of our witnesses today and those in the 

audience who have traveled a long way to be with us. We want to 

hear from you, too. Again, anyone may submit testimony by signing 

near the entrance, and then you can send us an email or drop off 

a hard copy by September 1 to be part of the public record. Thank 

you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Senator 

Roberts, and let me emphasize again, we do want to hear from 

each and every one of you, and please submit in writing, if we are 

not hearing from you as one of the panels today. 

Let me also follow up and just emphasize again, I know all of you 

know this, but we need to say over and over again that the Farm 

Bill is a jobs bill. 16 million people in this country work because 

of agriculture, because thousands and thousands and thousands of 

people in Kansas and all around our country, one out of four in 

Michigan, jobs are in agriculture. 

And so, it is critically important, not just for producers, but for 

all of us to care about agricultural policy and having it be effective 

in this country. And certainly, farmers, ranchers here in Kansas 

know the importance of a strong safety net. 

You have been dealing, of course, with devastating droughts, too 

much water on one end, huge droughts on the other end, and I 

think if there ever was a time that it was clear or if anybody ever 

needed to be reminded about the risks that farmers face, they 

should be very aware of it this year, and the need for a strong safety net or effective tools to manage risk are critically important now 

more than ever and we are committed to working with you to do 

the very best we can. 

It is the top principle that we are focused on in the Farm Bill. 

But as we go into the process, let me just remind you that we are 

in a very serious budget situation, as you know, that is forcing us 

to look at the Farm Bill differently than in the past. We need to 

be evaluating everything the Government does, measuring every 

program, streamlining and consolidating programs. 

We have done that. We are doing hearings on that. We want to 

make it easier for you, not harder. If we can streamline and take 

away some of the paperwork, we certainly want to do that, like we 

did with the 1099 forms earlier this year, and we need your input 

on that as well. 

But we also know we have some tough choices ahead. There is 

no doubt that we are going to face another round of serious cuts 

in the deficit reduction process that has been set up. Agriculture 

has already taken substantial and, in my judgment, disproportionate cuts in the current budget. And Senator Roberts and I are 

working very closely to make sure that does not happen in the future. 

Let me just review the facts of what we are dealing with this 

year. The House of Representatives passed a bill earlier in the year 

5 

that would have cut $48 billion in production agriculture’s baseline. 

That did not have the votes in the Senate. Instead, Senator Roberts 

and I have worked very hard and successfully to create a process 

where our Agriculture Committees can recommend to the Deficit 

Reduction Committee what we believe should be the cuts and the 

policies related to that. 

As a result, the Deficit Reduction Agreement did not make any 

immediate cuts to agriculture, which, frankly, was a short-term victory for us, to be able to create a process where our Agriculture 

Committees are the ones that are proposing the policies that make 

most sense for agriculture. 

But we also know that agriculture remains a target with this 

new super committee as they finalize their plans to reduce another 

$1.2 trillion in spending. Again, we know that the deficit is real. 

We know we need to tackle it. We know everybody in farm country 

and every rural community understands that they have to do their 

part like everybody else. But we also know it has got to be done 

right and that is what we are committed to doing, and it has got 

to be fair for agriculture. 

The process is that on the Committee, we have until October 

14th, which is not very long, to give this new committee our recommendations, so it is even more important that we are here today 

and that we can hear from you, because our staffs are working 

closely and effectively together to put together what it is that we 

will be recommending. 

Bottom line, I think it is clear that we in agriculture must make 

some tough decisions or somebody else is going to make them. And 

so, we are anxious to work with you to make sure we get this right. 

We know the Farm Bill is going to look a little differently than it 

has in the past, but we are asking everybody to look at again what 

is most effective, what do we need to do to make sure that we are 

strengthening our support for your efforts. 

We do not want to get bogged down in old arguments or bureaucracy, but we need to focus on what you need, what is most cost effective, what are the tools you need, what does the safety net look 

like. So we welcome your input. We need it. We need to hear from 

you so that we can get this right. What should an effective farm 

safety net look like? What are your priorities? What programs can 

be streamlined, consolidated? What does not work? What do we not 

need to be doing? 

This is not going to be easy, but I have a great partner in Senator Roberts and we have a great seasoned Committee, as he and 

I both emphasize to folks, with more former Chairs of Agriculture 

Committees and Agriculture Secretaries and Governors and the 

Chair of the Budget Committee and the Chair of the Finance Committee, and I think if there ever was a time when we had an experienced group of folks in the Senate to be able to focus on the right 

kind of agricultural policy, I think it is now. 

So I am confident that we can come up with common sense solutions that will support and strengthen American agriculture and 

rural communities, while helping to put our country on a better financial footing for years to come. 

So let me turn it back to Senator Roberts to introduce our first 

guest. And welcome again. 

6 

Senator ROBERTS. Our first witness is his Honorable Governor of 

Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, GOVERNOR, STATE 

OF KANSAS 

Governor BROWNBACK. Welcome to Kansas. Delighted to have 

you here and looking with your purple on and this panel, we have 

a saying here, Every man a Wildcat, every man, woman a Wildcat. 

That would be true, I think, across this panel here. Probably true 

in the room, by and large, so we are delighted to have you here, 

delighted to have you in the state. You would welcomed to any K– 

State football games, too, that you would like to come to. Kirk—— 

Mr. SCHULZ. Yes, I can work that out. 

Governor BROWNBACK. We can work that one out. We ought to 

be able to handle that one. 

One quick observation. Glad to be on this panel and delighted to 

be with my former colleague, Pat, who I loved serving with and he 

is just a fun, knowledgeable guy. There are two people in this 

room, I would submit to the entire audience and to you, Madam 

Chairwoman, that no ag policy in this country, I would stack them 

against anybody in the country, in Pat Roberts and Barry 

Flinchbaugh that are sitting up here on the front row. 

These are two gentlemen that have been through, I do not know, 

how many farm bills, written them, and—six, seven farm bills, literally, that they have been through from staff member on up to 

chairing the Committee in the House, and you were right. We are 

going into this huge deficit time period. 

You are going to have to rewrite the restructuring of the Farm 

Bill and I cannot think of a better time to depend upon that expertise and get from the rest of the Congress, All right, here is the 

number, then how do we fit within this number, and that number 

is going to be lower than what it has been in the past. And we are 

planning at state government now for a substantially lower level 

of Federal money. 

Over half of our budget is Federal pass-through money, and I am 

telling everybody that in our departments, that number is going 

down and it is going down substantially and we should prepare for 

it, because the Federal deficit is completely unsustainable. Everybody knows that. And if we do not decide on this and do something 

about it, other forces will, whether it is market forces or somebody 

else on Appropriations or Super Committees or something like that. 

So I just think it is critical that we do that and you have got 

great expertise in my former colleague that I am delighted to be 

here on the panel to share with. 

I want to focus in a very brief period of time comments on one 

sector of the Kansas agricultural economy and that is the sector 

that is over the Ogallala Aquifer. And you have got much broader 

issues to deal with, but in the western third of our state is fossilized water, the Ogallala. It is a High Plains aquifer over several 

states and we have got a chart here somewhere, I think they are 

going to put up or we have got it back here, of the region and the 

decline in the Ogallala. 

Now, the significance of this is the region that it overlays, the 

1st Congressional District of Kansas, which Tim Huelskamp was 

7 

here, Pat used to represent that district, is the number one agricultural district in America. Now, I am sure some people in Michigan 

are going to want to check that number out and see if they are not 

in that, but I will bank that number with you. That is the number 

one agriculture-producing district in America for value of agricultural products. 

It is where much of the cattle herd of the United States is fed 

out. The people that eat beef in this country and around the world, 

they get it from there. We have an issue with the decline of this 

aquifer and we need to maintain the water and we need to conserve and extend it into its future. 

So at state level, we are looking at things we can do to do that. 

I am pushing that we move away from the use it or lose it doctrine 

of western water law in the State of Kansas and that we get away 

from this development policy because we need a conservation policy. 

We are looking at local management districts. We call them Intensive Groundwater Management Districts, and having these 

originated on a local basis. As you will see as well from this chart, 

the saturated thickness of that aquifer varies from region to region. 

It is different. The water does move, but not fast. It moves about 

a foot a day. But if you have got a well that you are pulling water 

from, it pulls from that region and the water does move, but not 

fast. 

We need to conserve and extend the Ogallala if we are to conserve and extend, and I want to see us grow the agricultural production in the 1st Congressional District. So I have put forward 

written testimony in front of you today of what we could use and 

would be very helpful in Federal farm policy to help us do that. 

One is a High Plains groundwater resource conservation program. No new Federal monies, but using the current funds to encourage the movement to dry land in some of this region because 

the water is over-appropriated in the Ogallala Aquifer and I described this in this particular piece. 

A second one that I think would be critically important to us, 

and Senator Roberts knows this issue better than anybody in 

America, is crop insurance for limited irrigation. Right now, your 

two options on crop insurance are full irrigation or no irrigation, 

dry land. You have got one of two options. 

Well, we really need a middle option here about, Okay, we cannot put on 18 inches of water this year of this aquifer. We can do 

six or 12, but you cannot get crop insurance on that, and you know 

that for so many people, if they cannot get crop insurance, I cannot 

get financing for this. So this is not going to happen. 

But that would help us tremendously and that is being discussed 

already with the USDA Risk Management Agency for a three-state 

pilot on this, our state, Colorado, and I think Nebraska is involved 

in that over the Ogallala region. It would be very helpful for us to 

be able to move that forward. 

The next is a currently existing program, the AWEP [phonetic] 

Program that has been used to pull some irrigated land out of production. That needs some more flexibility for us to be able to work. 

That was put in the 2008 Farm Bill. It has been of some use. We 

think it needs to be used not only to implement for foregone inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71636.TXT MICHA
8 

come, but to provide incentive payments for this transition in a period of time, and we have put forward specifics here that we have 

worked through as a state. 

And then finally, as far as specific recommendations, and I think 

Dr. Schulz will go into this more, we need agricultural research 

into low water areas, or what we can do with lower water amounts, 

and the one that quickly comes to mind is in the grain sorghum 

field. We need more crop variety development. 

And I might suggest to you a different route of doing crop research. One of the things we have had difficulty with is, we will 

do the research, but getting it out—a seed variety out to farmers 

is a tough high-cost thing. 

Maybe we could put some of our agricultural research in this and 

with private companies to develop these varieties, these grain sorghum varieties, or having scientists at Kansas State University 

work with a private company to develop the varieties, so we do not 

have this huge gap between research and what I can plant in my 

field, because what our guys need, ladies and gentlemen need, we 

need the varieties. 

We need these that are drought tolerant, that can produce on 

less water, and we need it now. We need it yesterday. And to get 

that partnership and do it with a private company, along with the 

K–State land grant involved in it as well, those partnerships are 

starting to develop in other areas and would be very useful in crop 

production, the crop industry, crop variety development. 

I am delighted to join with you. This is a narrow piece of a big 

Farm Bill you have to consider, but on our issues of water over the 

most productive agricultural district in America, this is probably 

the biggest thing you could help us out with. Thanks so much. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Brownback can be found on 

page 85 in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Sam, for your testimony. Let me 

indicate that the Topeka regional office for RMA, the Risk Management Agency, and Rebecca Days is the person that we have been 

working with there, and that has now gone to the Washington level 

for a limited irrigation crop insurance program, just as you have 

recommended. The plan would allow farmers with limited water resources to ensure their crop yields between the irrigated and the 

dry land levels with the use of limited irrigation. 

We have sent a letter to the RMA. We have been in touch with 

the RMA. I will be calling the RMA urging them to consider this 

new program as quickly as possible, and I want to thank Rebecca 

for all of her help. 

It is my pleasure now to introduce our second witness, the President of the Kansas State University, Dr. Schulz. 

STATEMENT OF KIRK SCHULZ, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, KANSAS 

STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SCHULZ. Thank you. It is a real pleasure to be here this 

morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of Kansas 

State University. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. it is indeed my pleasure to welcome you 

on behalf of Kansas State University, to Kansas, the heartland of 

our great country. We are pleased to have you in our state and we 

9 

thank you and value your leadership and the work of this important Committee. 

To Senator Roberts, welcome back home. I am pleased to tell you 

that Coach Snyder has told me, we will throw to the tight end 

more this season. So I wanted to be sure that my testimony was 

particularly relevant to the things you were interested in besides 

agriculture. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCHULZ. As you know, Senator Roberts, Kansas State University has long been an active player in agricultural science, animal health, and plant sciences. This research indeed is one of the 

University’s premier areas of expertise and was one of the key factors in the locating, by the Department of Homeland Security, the 

National Bio and Agro-Defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas on 

the campus of Kansas State University. NBAF will be next door to 

the University’s state of the art, biosafety level three research facility as we affectionately know it as Pat Roberts Hall. 

This is home to the University’s Biosecurity Research Institute 

which will provide an important transition for research from Plum 

Island to NBAF when it is complete and built in Manhattan, Kansas. 

Also this morning, I would like to welcome our valued friends 

and stakeholders to this hearing. Without question, this group represents a broad range of interests that are all, in one way or another, affected by the health and vitality of Kansas and U.S. agriculture. These folks have been and will continue to be key leaders 

ensuring a safe and secure food supply, not only for Kansas and 

the Central Plains, but indeed, our nation and the world as well. 

It is also my pleasure to testify on a panel with Governor Sam 

Brownback, a noted agricultural leader in our state and nation, 

and former student body president at Kansas State University. 

Thank you, Governor Brownback, for your service to agriculture 

and the State of Kansas. 

I would like to direct my comments now a little bit towards the 

2012 Farm Bill. It is indeed fitting and appropriate that these 

hearings begin in states where agriculture remains a major force 

in the economy. Agriculture and related food system enterprises 

are indeed drivers of the Kansas economy. 

In Kansas, the value of commodity cash receipts from agricultural products is about $12 billion annually. Roughly 53 percent of 

that value is from livestock, in particular beef cattle. The livestock 

inventory on January 1st, 2001 [sic] reported 6.3 million cattle and 

calves, ranking Kansas second in the nation in that category. Indeed, cattle outnumber the citizens of Kansas by over two to one, 

with 2.8 million residents, and you can win a whole lot of Trivial 

Pursuit games by knowing that particular fact. 

In support of the beef cattle inventory in the state, Kansas is one 

of the leading states in numbers of cattle and feed, and it leads the 

nation in meat processing capacity. Kansas continues to be a national leader in both wheat and sorghum acres, and in grain-milling capacity. 

Because agriculture and related food industries are central to the 

Kansas economy, this testimony and the content of the 2010 Farm 

10 

Bill are of keen interest to Kansans, land grant institutions, and 

the many industries that the Farm Bill affects in our state. 

Kansas State and Michigan State maintain a friendly banter 

around which school was the first and which school the second land 

grant university. I can answer that question for you. We do not 

have to go anywhere else. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCHULZ. That particular debate, however, has historic significance in that 2012 will mark 150 years since the signing of the 

Merrill Act and the establishment of the land grant system which, 

by any measure, has had a great effect on this country, both educationally, through ag, through research and extension, and I think 

is one of the reasons really the U.S. has been so competitive in this 

area. 

The partnership that has developed between the states and the 

Federal Government with the enactment of the Merrill Act, and 

subsequently the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts, provide a broader 

access to higher education and application research findings on and 

off campus. Efficiencies that have been achieved or knowledge generated by research and communicated to producers through extension programming have been a solid investment of public resources 

and will continue to really affect the future of agricultural research 

in this country. 

Public investment in agricultural biosciences is leveraged to 

maintain an abundant and safe food supply, sustainably use natural resources, and promote healthy communities. Therefore, we 

encourage the Committee to craft language that increases the authorization for capacity funding of Hatch, Smith-Lever, Extension 

Services of the 1994 Institutions, the Evans-Allen Program, which 

is 1890s research, 1890 Institutions Extension, and McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry. 

So let us look back very quickly at the 2008 Farm Bill which 

really had some important language in the form of the innovative 

proposal referred to as Creating Research, Extension, and Teaching 

Excellence for the 21st Century, or simply Create 21. 

Some important elements of Create 21 are as follows: Following 

enactment of the 2008 Bill, funding for AFRI, which is the Ag and 

Food Research Initiative, grew from $191 million in fiscal year to 

$262 million in fiscal year 1. However, that funding remains far 

short of the $700 million that was authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill 

and could be a target of budgetary cuts as Congress continues to 

pressure reductions in discretionary Federal spending. 

Like many land grant universities, Kansas State University relies heavily on extramural funding from USDA to drive research 

and outreach programs in support of the food system. In 2009, 

nearly one-third of all external awards coming to Kansas State 

University were from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Therefore, for our scientists to continue to multiply 20-fold, the 

Federal investment in agriculture research and discovery for certainly the good of Kansas and the U.S economies, AFRI must grow 

to meet that $700 million expectation to make sure that we are 

continuing to move forward in research and extension. 

One of the things, too, that has been a very popular political discussion has been earmarks and the bridges to nowhere controversy. 

11 

However, Federally-directed funding in the agricultural sector has 

generally resulted in tremendous public good. 

There are lots of examples that every land grant institution could 

lay out there of where these congressionally-directed dollars have 

had a substantive and important impact on the states, and make 

sure that they are directing dollars towards issues of importance 

in that particular region and state. 

A few things out of Kansas State University that have resulted 

from these congressionally-directed dollars include the Wheat Genetics and Genomics Research Center which has been funded 

through earmark appropriations since 1984. The genetic tools derived from this collection have been deployed around the world and 

contributed significantly to the development of high-value wheat 

germplasm. 

The Governor already talked a lot about the aquifer and those 

particular issues in the western part of the state, and water use 

efficiencies and things like that are also the type of research done 

through the land grant institutions that will form the basis for continued agricultural success in these areas. 

Food safety, pre-harvest work focused on E. coli, a major cause 

of food-borne illnesses in humans in the United States, again 

through congressionally-directed funding. And finally, the Great 

Plains Sorghum Improvement and Utilization Centers, truly one of 

the pride of Kansas State University, is the largest consortium of 

multi-disciplinary sorghum researchers covering all aspects of research and education from genomics through utilization and economics. 

All these programs, formerly funded by earmark appropriations, 

have yielded tremendous results that provided excellent benefits to 

the citizens of Kansas and beyond. We encourage language in the 

2012 Farm Bill that authorizes appropriations to restore these important programs. 

We understand the need for Federal spending priorities, but 

these programs are investments that are good for Kansas and good 

for the nation. We also are very, very proud, and a part of the land 

grant institutions across the country are extension. Our research 

and extension professionals throughout the state deliver solutions 

to the folks in the field, bring the research to bear, and make sure 

that we are continuing to make great advances in agricultural research and extension, not only in Kansas, but elsewhere. 

Just a few ways that our extension service continues and has delivered solutions in Kansas include work on watershed protection 

and improvement. Solutions for rural communities, which our Governor has led some really exciting initiatives to try and make sure 

that we are doing everything we can to support our rural communities. 

4–H. This is a tremendous program. Kansas is very proud of our 

4–H program, and this involves a lot of young people, getting them 

interested in agriculture, but preparing those leaders for tomorrow 

that will be so important as our nation looks forward. 

Air quality solutions for beef feed yards. Improved health and 

well-being for individuals of all ages. And I could go on and on 

about the terrific things that research and extension professionals 

do in Kansas and across the country. 

12 

It is my hope that this testimony captures the enduring optimism and can-do spirit that has been a common thread connecting 

almost 150 years of history in the land grant university system. 

That thread is a valued service to the clientele of that system. Faculty and staff at Kansas State University and land grant universities across the nation recognize that their work takes place on behalf of the greater good, a broader goal, and a common vision that 

is much bigger than their individual achievements. 

Members of the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry can be confident that every dollar of Federal investment authorized by the 2012 Farm Bill and expended at 

Kansas State University will be a wise and lasting investment. 

That investment is guaranteed to be leveraged further and to 

spawn innovation, discovery, and creativity that will be translated 

into solutions to improve the lives of Kansans, the lives of people 

in the Midwest, our country, and the world. 

I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and wish 

you the best of luck. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schulz can be found on page 123 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Dr. Kirk, and thank you, Senator 

Brownback. I know that you have a very busy schedule. You are 

certainly welcome to stay for all of the hearing and hear all the 

witnesses, should you choose to. You are excused and we are ready 

for the second panel. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. We do want to 

ask our panelists to come forward now as quickly as we can. We 

want to make sure we have ample time to hear from everyone and 

to be able to ask questions of you. Please come forward. 

Senator ROBERTS. Our second panel is being greeted by the 

Chairwoman. Mr. Steve Baccus of the Kansas Farm Bureau; Mr. 

Karl Esping, the Kansas Sunflower Commission; Mr. Kent Goyen 

of the Kansas Cotton Association. I like to think I had something 

to do with that. 

Mr. Ken Grecian, the Kansas Livestock Association; Mr Bob 

Henry, the Kansas Soybean Association; Mr. Kenneth McCauley of 

the Kansas Corn Growers; Mr. David Schemm, the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers way out there in Sharon Springs; Mr. Greg 

Shelor of the Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers from Tineola. 

Gentlemen, you may start and we can start with Steve Baccus. 

Mr. President? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I would just remind, at this point—and 

again, welcome. We have asked each of you to speak for four minutes. We certainly want any written testimony that you have, but 

because of the number of people that we have today, we are going 

to ask you to keep your statements to four minutes. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. Madam Chairwoman, if I could, I would like 

to have the representative from the big 1st District, who is here sitting on the front row, Mr. Tim Huelskamp, our Congressman from 

the 1st District. Tim, would you please stand? Thank you for coming. 

[Applause.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Welcome. Glad to have you. 

Please. 

13 

STATEMENT OF STEVE BACCUS, KANSAS FARM BUREAU 

Mr. BACCUS. Madam Chair, Ranking Member, thank you for 

coming to Kansas and for the opportunity to provide comments to 

this Committee. My name is Steve Baccus. I am a producer from 

Minneapolis, Kansas. My operation consists primarily of corn and 

soybeans, and we do occasionally grow a little wheat. 

I have the privilege of serving as President of Kansas Farm Bureau, the State’s largest general farm organization. Kansas Farm 

Bureau represents nearly 40,000 families who work each day to 

grow crops and livestock that travel around the globe to feed this 

hungry world. Our grassroots organization can be found in every 

one of the state’s 105 counties. 

As you well know, these local entities are the foundation of our 

organization and the starting point for our policy development 

process. Our member-adopted policy generally supports development of the next Farm Bill that preserves the principles of the 

2008 Bill. However, these are challenging times, so concerted efforts to determine which programs have broad support as well as 

deliver the best return in terms of providing a strong safety net as 

well as ensuring fiscal return need to be our focus. 

Madam Chair, let me cut to the chase. There are essentially two 

items that I would like to leave you with today that are critical to 

American agriculture. American agriculture relies on a strong safety net. In today’s market, that consists primarily of crop insurance 

as well as the direct payment. 

As you know, crop insurance allows us to manage risk and protect revenue on our farms. Depending on who you ask, recent cuts 

to crop insurance and changes in the SRA have resulted in between 

$12 and $20 billion in savings. You probably also know that are additional cuts will result in either increased premiums to producers 

or reductions in the number of products available. We cannot afford 

this kind of weakening of the safety net in today’s market. 

As you heard, we in the Midwest have been experiencing a 

record drought this summer. In fact, you do not have to drive too 

far from this hotel to observe first-hand those conditions, as many 

of your staff did yesterday. That weather reality illustrates the 

need for the continuation of direct payments used by producers to 

continue operations when markets or Mother Nature are not so 

kind. 

They also provide stability for younger producers to enter our 

very capital-intensive business. So supporting a strong safety net, 

Madam Chair, is Job 1. 

American agriculture can remain viable and sustainable only 

when given the opportunity to operate in an environment free from 

burdensome and costly regulations. Currently, Federal agencies 

have proposed rules or are drafting guidance on a significant list 

of topics which will quite literally make continuing the family farm 

a daunting task. 

I know this is a Farm Bill hearing, but efforts to inject common 

sense into regulatory schemes will go far in ensuring that we as 

producers can continue our efforts to provide safe, affordable, and 

abundant food both at home as well as abroad. 

In short, we are grateful for your service and commitment to 

Kansas and to American agriculture. We look forward to the opporVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71636.TXT MICHA
14 

tunity to work with you and the Committee to craft a farm bill that 

keeps producers profitable as well as competitive. Thank you and 

I would be happy to take questions at your convenience. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baccus can be found on page 56 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Our next witness is Mr. Karl Esping of the 

Kansas Sunflower Commission. Thank you, Steve, for summarizing 

so quickly. 

STATEMENT OF KARL ESPING, KANSAS SUNFLOWER 

COMMISSION 

Mr. ESPING. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Senator Roberts, distinguished members of the Committee, welcome to Kansas. 

My name is Karl Esping. I am a fifth generation farmer from 

McPherson County, which is about an hour north of here. And I am 

sure pleased that you have chosen Kansas as a venue to listen to 

the impact of the Farm Bill hearings. 

Although I am Chairman of the Kansas Sunflower Commission 

and a member of the National Sunflower Association, I am here 

today representing myself and fellow oil seed producers in Kansas. 

Some quick facts about sunflowers. Kansas plants about 125,000 to 

150,000 acres per year. In 2011, USDA has estimated 1.8 million 

flowers are planted nationwide, of which about 80 percent of these 

are planted to oil seed varieties. 

Most of these flowers are grown in the eight Midwestern states, 

as we affectionately call them, the High Plains. Farm Bill programs, and particularly the Risk Management programs, are a 

vital food security mechanism that keeps American food safe and 

affordable. Kansas producers are a part of that industry that has 

a positive trade balance. More importantly, these programs keep 

American agriculture successful and give producers a much-needed 

safety net. 

As we look at the future of the Farm Bill, cuts in funding are 

eminent. However, I hope the appropriators in Washington will 

allow your Committee the opportunity to determine how these 

funds are distributed. The expertise and ag backgrounds of the 

Committee members will be extremely important as the limited resources are being distributed. 

As you look at the priorities of the Farm Bill, please consider 

that producers need a safety net for crop failure. Crop insurance 

has been and still is the best tool for these situations. I feel that 

full funding for the Crop Insurance Program is of the highest priority for oil seed growers. Both production and revenue protection 

insurance products are important options. I encourage the Committee to continue the flexibility currently found in Federal crop insurance. 

Conservation programs are also very important. Flowers are generally a part of a robust no-till rotation, a practice which has 

gained wider acceptance through EQIP funding. 

Direct payments and market loan programs are also important 

pieces of the Farm Bill. Direct payments provide the financial security needed for producers to remain in business. Market loan programs serve an equally important role in sustaining producers. 

These loans allow debt repayment while still being sensitive to 

15 

market trends. Just as with all other programs, we see and understand the need for fair reductions. 

In the world of sunflower production, research is vital. We have 

talked about that already this morning. Although not directly tied 

to the Farm Bill funding, it is important for members of Congress 

and appropriators to understand how research helps agriculture 

producers keep up with the increasing demand for food in the 

world. The USDA ARS system is a key component of conducting genetic research and pest management. 

Partnerships with the National Sunflower group and its growers 

and the Kansas Sunflower Commission have provided vital funding 

through the ARS. These partnerships link ARS with Kansas State 

University and other universities in the Midwest. Over the last 

three years, $2.6 million has been invested by this partnership 

while USDA has invested approximately $6 million. 

I understand there will be many more public interests lobbying 

your Committee for debt reduction actions. We still produce the 

safest and most abundant food worldwide. We need your support 

and we need your leadership in Congress to continue our tradition 

and our way of life. 

With the utmost respect to you and the difficult decisions that 

you have ahead, I would ask that you remember those of us who 

are out in the country that put food on the world’s tables as you 

make these decisions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Esping can be found on page 97 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you very much, Karl. From 

Cunningham, Kansas, representing the Kansas Cotton Association, 

Mr. Kent Goyen. 

STATEMENT OF KENT GOYEN, KANSAS COTTON ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GOYEN. Chairman Stabenow, Senator Roberts, thank you for 

this opportunity to discuss farm policy issues before this Committee today regarding the 2012 Farm Bill. I am Kent Goyen, a cotton and grain farmer from Pratt, Kansas. Our farm has been producing cotton since 1999 when cotton production came to Kansas. 

I am here today representing the Kansas Cotton Association and 

our 2,000 members who produce cotton or have cotton grown on 

their land in our 23 southern Kansas counties. Our cotton production is certainly not the cornerstone of Kansas agriculture. We are 

Kansas growers who have invested over $60 million since 2000 in 

gins, warehouses, and cotton-specific farm equipment. Policy related to cotton and farm legislation is vital to us and to the commitment we have made to cotton production in Kansas. 

Nationally, cotton has a footprint of approximately 19,000 growers who plant between 10 and 13 million acres in 17 cotton-producing states. Direct and indirect employment within the cotton industry surpasses 420,000, and generates economic activity in excess of $100 billion. 

The debate over this legislation will take place in an environment of limited budget outlays and the perception that high prices 

negate the need for a safety net as well as trade policy negotiations. The Agriculture Committee is willing to contribute its fair 

16 

share to deficit reduction, but reduction should consider savings already achieved and reductions should not dictate policy changes to 

the authorizing committees. 

Committees should be allowed to develop policy that complies 

with the mandatory reductions. Policies should allow farm programs to continue as a viable safety net. The WTO–Brazil case 

puts cotton’s marketing loan program and counter-cyclical programs under special scrutiny. It is imperative that the framework 

agreement negotiated by the respective governments remain in effect until the 2012 Farm Bill is enacted and the dispute resolved. 

We believe effective farm policy should be market-oriented, allow 

for full production to meet the market demand, provide for an effective safety net, ensure availability of competitively-priced cotton domestically and internationally, encourage maximum participation 

without regard to farm size or structure. 

We support the 2008 Farm Bill’s approach to cotton program and 

all its components, from the marketing loan to the direct and 

counter-cyclical payments. The centerpiece of the cotton program 

has been the effective marketing loan program. It provides a safety 

net for producers, but does not harm the competitiveness of cotton. 

It gives rural lenders the confidence they need to make critical 

operating loans available. It has been a lever to move other important reforms such as standardized bales and bale packaging, electronic warehouse receipts, and heightened standards for cotton 

warehousing and shipping. 

Direct payments are an integral part of the current farm safety 

net. Opponents look at high commodity prices and seek to cut or 

eliminate these payments. However, farm bills are written for the 

longer term and elimination of these payments could prove disastrous when prices fall. 

Direct payments provide a level stability for our food and fiber 

supply and financial stability required by lenders and suppliers 

without distorting production decisions. It is critical to preserve as 

much baseline spending authority as possible for this primary piece 

of the safety net. 

Crop insurance is an essential risk management tool for cotton 

producers. Our industry continues to examine concepts that improve the various cotton crop insurance products. Revenue coverage, enterprise policy rates, and group risk products are examples of improved products that can provide a menu of risk options 

for growers. 

The cotton provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill worked well. If policy 

changes are inevitable in the 2012 Bill, the cotton industry remains 

ready to work with the Agriculture Committees to explore alternative programs that provide the needed safety net to our industry 

in a manner that is consistent with our international trade obligations and within budget constraints. Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goyen can be found on page 100 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Kent. And if I just might make an 

observation, Madam Chairwoman, after ’96, in a different kind of 

Farm Bill, we got into the cotton production and I am always fond 

of telling the National Cotton Council and my southern colleagues 

17 

that when Stephen Foster wrote that little song, Those Old Cotton 

Fields Back Home, he was talking about Kansas. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Our next witness from Palco, Kansas, representing the KLA, Mr. Ken Grecian. 

STATEMENT OF KEN GRECIAN, KANSAS LIVESTOCK 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GRECIAN. Madam Chairman, Senator Roberts, my name is 

Ken Grecian. My wife and I have a grain and cow-calf operation 

in Graham County in northwest Kansas. I am President of the 

Kansas Livestock Association and also serve on the Board of Directors of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which KLA is an 

affiliate. I am very pleased to be with you today. 

KLA is a trade organization representing 5,600 members in legislative and regulatory issues. KLA members are involved in many 

aspects of the livestock industry, including seed stock, cow-calf and 

stocker production, cattle feeding, dairy production, grazing land 

management, and diversified farming. 

KLA members believe the livestock industry is best served by 

free enterprise and free trade. KLA members oppose attempts to 

narrow the business options or limit the individual freedom of livestock producers to innovate in management and marketing of their 

production. 

KLA strongly opposes the regulation commonly referred to as the 

GIPSA rule issued by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration last year. In short, the U.S. producers are 

concerned the GIPSA rule would greatly expand the role of government in marketing livestock and eliminate producers’ ability to 

benefit from their efforts to improve the quality of their livestock. 

The proposed regulations ultimately would remove from the marketplace products that consumers prefer. Producers have responded 

to consumer demand by finding innovative ways to develop and 

market premium quality branded products. Programs like Certified 

Angus Beef, U.S. Premium Beef, naturally-raised and others would 

be jeopardized. 

These alternative marketing arrangements have allowed producers to get paid for the value that they add. These arrangements 

ensure a consistent supply of livestock that meet requirements of 

such programs. Without these arrangements, neither these programs or producer alliances that support them are sustainable. 

KLA members believe that the proposed rule would set the beef 

industry back to a time when all cattle received the same average 

price and beef demand was in a downward spiral. How can a system that sells the entire show list for the same price each week be 

more fair than the current system that pays for the actual value 

of cattle? 

When prices for all classes of cattle have reached record highs 

this year, how can claims of market manipulation by packers or the 

lack of competition in the beef industry be taken seriously? We 

strongly urge you to take action to prevent the implementation of 

this rule. 

Senator Roberts, in June you asked my friend, Frank Harper, if 

he thought we needed a Livestock Title in the next Farm Bill. And 

18 

I would say, No, thank you. The Livestock Title reminds me of the 

old adage, We are from the Government and we are here to help. 

KLA members believe free markets or markets free from Government interference best serve the beef industry. The Livestock Title 

only provides a home for misguided initiatives like the GIPSA rule; 

that we prefer that the Farm Bill does not restrict our marketing 

options or distort market signals. 

For any additional issues that affect livestock industry, I would 

ask you to refer to my written comments. And again, I thank you 

for the opportunity to be able to testify today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grecian can be found on page 

103 in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Ken. And now we turn, from Robinson, Kansas, representing the Kansas Soybean Association, Mr. 

Bob Henry. 

STATEMENT OF BOB HENRY, KANSAS SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HENRY. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Roberts. I am Bob Henry, a soybean farmer from Robinson, 

Kansas. I am a member and serve on the Board of the Kansas Soybean Association and I represent Kansas on the American Soybean 

Association Board of Directors. In that capacity, I am serving on 

the American Soybean Association’s Farm Bill Task Force. 

The Kansas Soybean Association is pleased to provide our initial 

thoughts on priorities for the 2012 Farm Bill. I want to highlight 

the significance and value of soybean production to the economy in 

Kansas. In 2010, Kansas produced approximately 138 million bushels of soybeans, making it the 9th largest soybean producing state 

in the country. At an average price of $12 per bushel, the farm-gate value of soy- beans produced in Kansas in 2010 exceeded $1.6 billion. Soybean 

products provide additional value to Kansas as well. Soy meal is 

used for livestock production and soy oil is used for bio-diesel, as 

well as bio-based products. Some bio-based products have been developed using check-off dollars to fund university research in Kansas. 

Kansas agriculture has long enjoyed the stability that farm programs have provided. Over the years, these programs have taken 

many different forms such as freedom to farm. Direct payments 

historically have provided basic support for farm income. 

The programs included in the current Farm Bill have helped to 

stabilize the farm economy while providing the cheapest food of any 

country in the world. Other programs such as crop insurance and 

the ACRE program have become very important to agriculture as 

producers attempt to manage risk. 

Kansas soybean producers feel that crop insurance has matured 

into a valuable risk management tool, this year a great example of 

the variability of the Kansas producers can experience. The record 

production for soybeans in the previous two years is being offset 

this year by flooding, heat, and dry conditions that can be typical 

of Kansas summers. 

Kansas soybean producers believe that one of the most important 

areas of the current Farm Bill that needs to be continued is the 

Federal support for crop insurance. The ACRE program has the poVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71636.TXT MICHA
19 

tential to be an important risk management tool with some modifications. The variability of production in Kansas has led to a slow 

adoption of the program for revenue assurance. 

Use of the state production average does not work in many areas 

of Kansas. The additional requirements for participation throughout the length of the current 2008 Farm Bill and the required reduction in the direct payments contribute to Kansas’s low sign-up. 

International trade plays an important role in the current price 

that soybean producers receive. Six of ten rows of soybeans are exported out of the country. Continued funding of the Foreign Market 

Development Program and the Market Access Program at its current levels is vital. For each one public-private dollar spent, exports 

increase by $35. Agriculture is one of the few areas that enjoys a 

trade surplus. Each billion dollars of agriculture exports equals 

8,000 jobs. 

We support the provisions in the Energy Title including the biobased market program and bio-energy program for advanced biofuels. Bio-diesel is the only currently recognized advanced bio-fuel. 

Madam Chairman and Mr. Roberts, this concludes my statement 

regarding the Kansas Soybean Association’s position on development of the 2012 Farm Bill. We will be pleased to respond to any 

questions that you and other members of the Committee might 

have. Thank you for holding this hearing in Kansas. We look forward to working with you in crafting the 2012 Farm Bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henry can be found on page 111 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Bob. And now representing the 

Kansas Corn Growers from White Cloud, Kansas, Mr. Ken 

McCauley. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH McCAULEY, KANSAS CORN 

GROWERS 

Mr. MCCAULEY. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Roberts, 

it is a pleasure to be here representing the Kansas Corn Farmers 

and farmers, really, all over the state. My name is Ken McCauley 

and I am past President of the National Corn Growers, currently 

belong to the Kansas Corn Commission and very active in the Kansas Corn Growers Association. 

I last stood before your Committee in 2007 testifying on the 2008 

Farm Bill and much has changed since then, but much has stayed 

the same. For example, in 2008, loan deficiency in counter-cyclical 

portions of the current Farm Bill were relevant. Today you would 

be broke before you reached the loan rate or the NLDP was taken. 

But as I said, we still have a severe need for risk management 

and this is vital for the communities of Kansas. I farm near White 

Cloud, Kansas, in the northeast corner. My wife and I produce corn 

and soybeans. My son and his wife also have a family farm in conjunction with our farm. We share labor and management and machinery, so to help him get started. 

My need for risk management is different than my son’s, and I 

think it is a vital tool for all farmers, but especially our young 

farmers. We need to continue crop insurance for that main reason. 

Kansas corn is a strong and growing commodity that provides a 

great economic benefit to our state. In fact, with a value over $3 

20 

billion, the 2010 Kansas corn crop was the highest valued grain 

crop in the history of our state. 

Advancements in technology and farming practices have been 

vital to corn success in Kansas. This year our Kansas corn growers 

planted 5.1 million acres with about 80 percent covered by crop insurance. This summer’s extreme weather conditions will lower our 

yield, but I believe the resilience of our crop and the efforts of our 

farmers we will ensure that we continue to meet the needs of our 

customers. 

To say that Kansas is a diverse state is an understatement, especially this year. This summer, some of the farmland very close to 

my home is under water from the Missouri River. But, however, we 

have enjoyed a relatively good crop with ample rains. This is contrasted with a large part of Kansas that is suffering through extreme drought. Even in a normal year, difference in climate, elevation, weather patterns from east to west are extreme. 

But what works for the McCauley farm probably will not work 

for a farmer in western Kansas. When you look at things like 

multi-year losses, especially in a state like Kansas where the western half can experience extreme drought while the eastern half can 

experience ample rainfall, statewide triggers just do not work. 

While the western half needs different things, we think that we 

need to look at opportunities to strengthen the crop insurance program. Risk management is not the only important thing to farmers. 

It is important for rural communities. When you talk to the banker 

about an operating loan, he will want to know what crop insurance 

coverage you have. It is an integral part of the way we do business 

in agriculture. 

That is why farmers need effective risk management, a combination of crop insurance revenue-based programs. We strongly support crop insurance tools as the most important foundation of a 

farmer’s safety net. Let us also strengthen the revenue-based program that we have today, fix the holes in the safety net while 

maintaining strong and viable Federal crop insurance program. 

Triggering a counter-cyclical revenue program closer to the farm 

level, for example, Crop Reporting District, will provide more realistic risk management for growers. I have a friend who farms in 

west Kansas at an elevation of 3,800 and my elevation is 883. It 

is impossible to assume that we have the same issues. 

As NCGA President, I was involved in some of these revenue 

products and I am very proud to have done that. But we continually are told to brace for cuts to the farm programs as our Government works to be more efficient. I believe farmers will understand 

the fiscal responsibility and we simply ask that the cuts to farm 

programs be proportionate to other programs. 

Even though direct payments are under fire, they do provide a 

valuable safety net for a farmer who is under extreme conditions 

and does not always qualify for enough risk management tools that 

we have today. For example, when you are in an extreme severe 

drought, or even a shallow loss, there is never enough risk management or money to go around. If direct payments are cut, please understand Kansas farmers will incur more risk. 

Beyond that, we are supportive of any free trade, the trade 

agreements that we have, the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade 

21 

agreements, and I would like to say agriculture is one of the few 

bright spots in the American economy today. Our farmers are continuing to work hard to meet the needs of their customers. Flash 

floods, drought, et cetera, but with a strong safety net and strong 

open markets, agriculture and America can continue to thrive and 

can continue to bolster our economies. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCauley can be found on page 

116 in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Ken, thank you very much. Our next witness 

is from Sharon Springs, Kansas, out by Mount Sunflower. Madam 

Chairwoman, the real trick to Mount Sunflower is not especially to 

climate, it is to find it. I have been out there three or four times 

and one time ended up in Colorado with a driver that insisted that 

he was on the right road. I told him he was not, but that is beside 

the point. Anyway, from Sharon Springs, representing the Kansas 

Association of Wheat Growers, we are pleased to welcome Mr. 

David Schemm. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHEMM, KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF 

WHEAT GROWERS 

Mr. SCHEMM. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Roberts, 

thank you for the opportunity to address you today. My name is 

David Schemm. I am the third generation to farm on the far western edge of Kansas near Mount Sunflower and Sharon Springs. I 

produce wheat, sorghum, corn on my farm, along with my wife, 

Lisa, and two teenage sons. I serve as President of the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers and I am honored to have this opportunity to submit comments regarding the future of our country’s 

farm policy. 

First, I would like to thank you for finding a path forward in the 

recent deficit reduction debate that will involve your Committee. 

We hear all too often that the general public is becoming more removed from the farm, and to put our future in the hands of those 

who do not understand agricultural’s unique vulnerabilities is a big 

concern for our producers. 

Wheat is an important crop for Kansas. Last year, farmers planted just under 9 million acres with hopes of being able to take advantage of near record prices. Unfortunately, Mother Nature had 

different ideas than producers did and some areas of our state received less rain over the past 12 months than they did in the dust 

bowls of the Great Depression. 

While some of our producers are struggling with record dryness, 

others have seen record rainfall and flooding. I can think of no 

other year in my 18 years as a producer that highlights the importance of the Federal Government as a partner in my operation. 

We count on the Federal Government for research and development to address production challenges we face, or an aggressive 

free trade agenda to allow access to world markets for our products. And in years like this for a functioning safety net to be able 

to address the risks that are out of our control. 

The farm safety net has protected not only our country’s family 

farms, but it has also helped our rural communities. As President 

of my local school board, having served on that board for the last 

nine years, I have watched our enrollment drop almost 20 percent 

22 

and our local business has suffered during the seven years of 

drought. 

However, since 2008, I have seen our enrollment stabilize and actually have increased by almost 10 percent this year. Local businesses are expanding and adding employees. Without a safety net, 

my operation, and many other family operations in our state would 

no longer exist and our rural communities would be much smaller 

or even no longer exist. With a farm safety net, farms have survived, new businesses have come into our area, and a new generation is coming back to the farm. 

We know that the challenges you face in Washington are startling and we producers share your concern about a large Federal 

deficit and a weak economy. We recognize the probability that the 

2012 Farm Bill will be smaller in dollars than the 2008 Bill, but 

while many challenges lie ahead in crafting the next Farm Bill and 

while it may seem that we as farmers have many complaints about 

the 2008 Bill, I am often reminded by our members that right now 

we have the best farm safety net we have had in history. 

It is my hope that we do not lose track of that thought as we 

begin work on the 2012 Farm Bill. Can changes be made to make 

programs more efficient and more functional? Yes. Should we take 

a hard look at all the programs in the Bill to ensure the public that 

their tax dollars are well-spent? Absolutely. 

But I also hope that we can remember that our agriculture success of today was built on the safety net of yesterday. I would like 

to thank you for coming to our state to hold this Farm Bill field 

hearing. Field hearings show your commitment to hearing firsthand from farmers and ranchers about the effect of farm legislation 

on individuals across this country. It has been an honor to submit 

my testimony and speak on behalf of wheat producers, and I look 

forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schemm can be found on page 

120 in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I want to thank you very much, David, for that 

very fine statement. Our next witness representing the Kansas 

Grain Sorghum Producers from Minneola, Kansas, not too far from 

Dodge City, Kansas, America, is Mr. Greg Shelor. Greg, I think 

your dad was a dean, right? 

Mr. SHELOR. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS. I miss those occasions in public service when 

he served in public service with what I call meaningful dialogue. 

Mr. SHELOR. Meaningful. Well put. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY SHELOR, KANSAS GRAIN SORGHUM 

PRODUCERS 

Mr. SHELOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Roberts for 

having giving us an opportunity to testify. As you said, I am Greg 

Shelor. I represent the Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association. I serve as President for that organization. I am past President 

of the national organization some five years ago and also serve on 

the United Sorghum Check-Off Program. It is a newly started 

check-off program that we are looking at doing some of the research that Senator Brownback and Dr. Schulz was commenting on 

earlier. 

23 

I farm some 140 miles west of here. As Pat said, it is south of 

Dodge City. Grain sorghum, I rotate that in with wheat on dry 

land no-till. Raise corn and soybeans in partnership with my oldest 

son on some [inaudible] so I have tried to keep it diversified out 

there. 

If you had went on a little farther west yesterday, you would 

have seen things just keep getting progressively worse as the farther west you go. There are areas on past Tim’s area that there 

was sorghum that was planted that did not even come out of the 

ground. It was still laying there just as seeded as the day they put 

it in. So we have got a large area from western Kansas through 

Oklahoma through Texas that is pretty devastated in crops. 

It does not look like anything in the horizon for moisture to help 

us out. This is going to go on into the winter, long-range forecasts, 

and even it is going to affect next spring a lot of crops, so as we 

go on looking at this Farm Bill, crop insurance, as most of them 

have alluded to, is going to be really important for a lot of producers out there. It is going to need to be kept strong and viable 

so that a lot of these producers will have some income to be able 

to stay on their farm. 

It has been kind of hard to justify the direct payments in the 

past when you have good crops and good prices, and as you look 

out there now with the disaster coming on and stuff, that is another safety tool that helps producers make up the void that crop 

insurance does not cover, because crop insurance does not cover all 

of your expenses. 

It does a large portion of it, but as the direct payments cover 

more of that, that helps them go to the bankers and get their financing for the next coming year, and it is really important to 

them that they can put that down on their financial statements 

and cash flows that they actually have some money that is coming 

in, that the bankers can look at that and say, Yeah, you have got 

crop insurance to cover it and you also have these direct payments 

coming in. 

So as we go on forward with that, that is two main issues that 

are really important to producers out there, especially in these dry 

areas. They alluded to the research. 

We have had some really good appropriations in the past for sorghum research and it has been cut, but as an industry that does 

not get a lot of support from the private companies in research for 

sorghum where we are looking for any areas where we can get 

some money to put into that and appropriations through the ARS 

and et cetera helps do a lot of good research for us, along with 

what we are doing with our national check-off. 

So if you have any other questions or anything I can answer, be 

glad to help. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelor can be found on page 131 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, we want to thank you, Greg, and we 

turn now to the Chairwoman to ask the questions that she has for 

the panel. Madam Chairwoman? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, and, Senator Roberts, I first want to say that I think this panel deserves 

the award for having the most people that stayed right on time. I 

24 

am very impressed. In Kansas. You are right, we only had one person a little bit over. We will not mention his name. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. But I will tell you that this is impressive. I do not think we could quite say that when we did our panels 

in Michigan. 

So let me ask all of you. Almost all of you have spoken about the 

critical nature of crop insurance. I think all of you mentioned that 

and we understand the important role that direct payments play 

for many of you as well. But is it fair to say—and I guess I would 

open this up to any of you—because several of you said that the 

most important tool at the moment, the thing you would be most 

concerned about losing would be crop insurance. 

Is that a fair statement? I mean, anybody disagree with that? 

Okay. So if we are looking at that and how we could strengthen 

that for you, because of the concern about shallow loss and so on 

and what happens from that gap with the crop insurance and so 

on, what can we do if we are looking at crop insurance to make 

that better for you or maybe, in your particular instance, it works 

fine. Or to cover more? 

I know that we have a number of crops that are not covered or 

are not covered well and that is one of the issues we have to look 

at, also. I know in my state we have had a lot of areas where we 

have crop insurance that is very effective, other areas where—and 

we need to work on it. 

But if you are focused on crop insurance, what would you suggest, any of you, as to the way to strengthen that as a risk management tool for you? Yes? 

Mr. MCCAULEY. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for not mentioning his name. I have two suggestions and most of my points 

were about maintaining the affordability of it as it is today. We 

talk about less subsidy to the companies. I think it is important 

that companies are there for us. But the affordability today is reasonable. 

The shallow loss and the declining APH’s of these drought-stricken areas is very important. Dr. Barnaby told me earlier that he has 

a paper, and I think those things are being studied, but I think 

that is very important to the concerns that I have. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. So you are talking about the difference 

between the coverage on the crop insurance and what your actual 

loss is? 

Mr. MCCAULEY. Well, no. As your crop declines from these severe 

droughts, extended droughts of Texas and western Kansas and all 

over, those decline your insured acreage and that is the APH. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, absolutely. Anyone else? Yes. 

Mr. BACCUS. I think it is important that we simply stop cutting 

from the program. We have cut $6 million out of the crop insurance 

program each of the last two years and that is a huge hit. Any 

more is going to hamper product development as well as increase 

premiums to the producers and I do not think we can afford that. 

I would like to see us take a look at RMA and the requirements 

they have on claims. We are dealing with [inaudible] right now in 

corn harvest in Kansas and the rules that they have for their 

claims agent are totally unrealistic. They are wanting them to go 

25 

out into the fields, walk every field, and collect samples from every 

field. There physically are not enough crop adjusters on this planet 

to do that, and yet, that is what RMA is requiring. So there are 

some ridiculous regulations like that that need to be looked at. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes? 

Mr. BACCUS. As Ken alluded to, the concern that I hear from our 

producers is multi-year droughts and a declining APH. I would allude to a situation with a man in the ocean with lead weights being 

tied to his feet. He can stay afloat for a year or maybe two, but 

eventually he ends up drowning. 

While the program was complex and was slow to implement, the 

SURE Program was actually like throwing a float to that person 

to allow them to survive better to the next year, and that is one 

thing I have definitely have heard from our members. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. So SURE, we have had a lot of concern 

that not many people signed up, it was complicated in the beginning and so on. But do you think that kind of approach makes 

sense if we were bringing it closer to the farm and making it a little less complicated? 

Mr. SCHEMM. Yes, very much. What we have heard from our producers is that the SURE Program did help to give them true relief 

from a multi-year drought. Like I say, they were just slowly, with 

the declining APH’s, we saw even on our operation a shrinking operation until the SURE Program, if we can make it quicker and 

less complex. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Yes? 

Mr. GOYEN. I would echo the thoughts and ideas. It has to remain fundable. It has to remain to where the farmer can afford it. 

It has to remain affordable to the local farmer. In the cotton industry, it is a little bit different and it will throw another kink in 

things, but we are paid on the quality of what we raise, too, and 

there is no provisions in that for—in this year’s crop, they were 

probably going to see a decline in quality as well as yield. 

If there were some provisions somewhat to where we could insure against the quality and the yield, it would surely be beneficial 

to us, also. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. HENRY. I just want to comment about, especially addressing 

soybeans, there is some real disparity in how soybeans are covered 

in different parts of the country, and speaking for the growers in 

the south, many of them do not participate in crop insurance on 

soybeans because of the complexity of the program and the coverage is just not there. 

So there are, especially in soybeans, there is lot of disparity 

throughout the country in different regions about how soybeans are 

covered. So we need to address those problems to make that a viable option for them. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. One other quick question 

and I will turn it to Senator Roberts. Mr. Grecian, I wanted to first 

congratulate you. I understand you received the Grassland Award 

for conservation practices back in 2008. Congratulations. I wonder 

if you might just speak for a moment about the role of conservation 

from your perspective in agriculture. How do you use the conservaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71636.TXT MICHA
26 

tion programs and practices in your operation to put yourself in a 

better position? 

Mr. GRECIAN. As alluded to, western Kansas suffered through 

five years of drought starting in about 2002, and it could have been 

devastating to our native rangeland. The EQIP Program allowed us 

to cross-fence. We drilled some wells, put in pipelines, spread our 

water supply, and did a more efficient job of grazing. 

It was an educational process to me, as well as benefitting my 

bottom line, and also sustaining our cow herd. To go hand in hand 

with that, the release of CRP acres to be grazed has basically saved 

our operation’s cow herd about five times in the last 25 years. 

But as far as conservation programs, they are—other things that 

we have done, we have put in a lagoon in our feeding operation to 

help enhance water quality. At the size we are, it probably would 

not have been necessary, but I saw it as a way of making sure that 

we were not going to contaminate any groundwater in the area. 

So the programs that we cannot justify an entire cost of have 

been very beneficial. The cost shares from the EQIP Program have 

been very, very beneficial to the livestock industry. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Let me just say that both the Chairwoman 

and I are very strong supporters of EQIP. I have some questions 

for each of the witnesses. I will try to rip through these because 

I know Panel 3 is waiting. 

Steve, as you know, young farmers and ranchers face an uphill 

road just to get into agriculture. I remember cutting a 30-second 

spot in an even-numbered year some time back saying the most important question we face in agriculture is not all of the details in 

the Farm Bill. It is, where is the next generation of farmers going 

to come from. 

By the way, I filmed that spot up on Highway 36 between Norton 

and Peaburg at that old stone house up there with the windmill. 

It was the fastest take that we ever took because right in the middle of the spot, we discovered there was a rattlesnake in that stone 

building, so we got out of there pretty fast. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. First take Roberts. That is what that was 

about. 

But you work with these young farmers every day, so you can— 

you mentioned your son is a partner with you. Just talk a little bit 

about the challenges that a young farmer faces in building a successful operation. What do you do if you are a young farmer and 

you go into your lending institution, your banker, and they come 

in to apply for a loan, and how are these requirements different 

than they would have been for you? I will go to Steve and Ken and 

anybody else who wants to say something. 

Mr. BACCUS. The longer you are in agriculture, the more equity 

you build up, assuming you have a successful operation, I guess. 

If you do not, you are not in agriculture any longer. The beginning 

farmer or rancher does not have that choice. He does not have the 

equity to fall back on. 

But I can tell you, through the Kansas Farm Bureau Young 

Farmer/Rancher Program, we do not need to ask the question, Who 

is going to farm this land? We have a multitude of young farmers 

27 

and ranchers out there that are extremely optimistic, that are extremely upbeat, that are looking forward to doing their role to take 

over the farm operations in the future. 

It is contingent upon us to develop the financing tools to help 

these people get the money they need for their operating notes, to 

buy the machinery. It is contingent upon us to help design risk 

management programs, like everyone on this panel has been talking about today, so they can go into their lenders and say, Here 

is my insurance program, here is my risk management program. If 

I do not raise a crop, this is still what I stand to receive. And that 

is absolutely critical to the success of our next generation of farmers. 

Mr. MCCAULEY. I totally agree with Steve, totally agree with 

Steve. It is very important, and I will add one important thing. 

When I started farming in 1972, it was a very good time. We had 

prices—it was before all the inflation hit. We grew equity. 

And as a young person, and I think today, these prices are actually growing equity for the small and younger farmer, and I think 

it is just really important that we do everything we can so they can 

preserve that equity and move into the positions that we are in, 

and actually become next generation’s leaders. I think it is just vitally important. 

And one of the reasons that I am doing the things that I am 

doing today and have one is to help that generation succeed. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. 

Senator ROBERTS. Karl, we have already gone over this. If you 

can pop up with any new ideas, why it would be good. Given the 

tight budget environment that we are looking forward to streamlining programs and try to increase the efficiencies, are there areas 

within the farm programs that you utilize where you think there 

might be opportunities for some streamlining or even changes in 

the programs? 

Mr. ESPING. Ideas, yes. I am sitting here thinking. The RMA 

thing, the crop insurance side there is a considerable amount of 

work going on in western Kansas now. We have been in contact 

with Rebecca some—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Speak into the mic. 

Mr. ESPING. Sorry, okay. Very good. Some of the— within crop 

insurance and the RMA, there is a potential or study going on not 

allowing producers with a crop following sunflowers to be insured. 

And we have been in contact with Rebecca several times in the Topeka office, and of course, national office, also. But that is a concern. 

If you are a western Kansas grower or west of 183 and you are 

growing flowers this year, you will be exempt from having any crop 

insurance coverage for next year, a restriction that I strongly question. 

But as far as streamlining, making it simple. That is a difficult 

thing for everybody involved, but the red tape reductions, that 

would help. 

Senator ROBERTS. I just might add that the SURE Disaster Program is part of the package that is available to producers in a 

drought. The only problem is that not many farmers I know, even 

in dry land operations, are going into the business of insuring their 

28 

pastures starting out. Maybe after five years of this, that is the 

case, and then you only get paid 18 months after you apply. And 

there is a 10 percent cut in regards to the program and there are 

about 23 pages you have to wade through to sign up for the damn 

thing. 

So we might want to consider a different kind of disaster program. I know that is very popular up in the north. Why they have 

to wait for 18 months for it is a little bit beyond me. But they have 

a disaster every year. So pardon that editorial. 

Chad Bassinger and his wife, Cassandra, took us on that tour 

yesterday of the drought during the early ’30s, a lot of dry land 

wheat, a lot of pasture land, or what is left of it, and he knows the 

area. He is just as smart as a whip and he is a perfect example 

of the kind of young farmer you are talking about, Steve and Ken. 

So they are out there. They just want a chance. 

Ken, the Kansas Livestock Association, since the debate about 

the GIPSA rule first began, and you have talked about it, I have 

been concerned that the Department did not have a proper grasp 

of the rule’s economic impact on both producers and consumers. 

We pushed on that and the USDA finally acknowledged this as 

an economically-significant rule, so did the Chairwoman, and they 

have ordered a cost benefit analysis. What a surprise. Unfortunately, some have suggested that the Department split its proposed 

GIPSA regulation on how livestock are marketed in this country 

into two parts as an attempt to bifurcate the enormous cost of this 

rule. What is your view of that? 

Mr. GRECIAN. Well, I think I answered that when I said we do 

not need a Livestock Title, but from KLA’s perspective, and we realize that there is a difference between species and perceived marketing problems. But I guess our concern is we would want to see 

the whole thing before we would support it. 

And myself, as an individual producer, when we look at the fact 

that Congress basically stripped most of the provisions out of the 

Livestock Title in the writing of the last Farm Bill, would those— 

if it were split by species, would it soon be melded into one policy 

or regulation that would affect us, just like the one that we have 

today? 

Senator ROBERTS. Unfortunately, we do not have an endangered 

species to work on a constant basis with all of these regulatory 

agencies. And in this particular case, the agency did go outside of 

the intent, the specific intent of Congress. 

And that is one thing that I know the Chairwoman and I are 

very concerned about, is when an agency just takes it upon themselves to say, Well, we are going to accomplish whatever agenda 

that they have and work toward that agenda regardless of Congress. That is why the Chairwoman hauled in—well, asked the people to come in to testify and say, Now, can we work this out? Look 

at the intent of Congress, you are outside the intent of Congress. 

As she plays the good cop. I obviously play the bad cop. But at any 

rate— and that is how it works. But thank you for your comments. 

Bob Henry, you have outlined several ways the current farm programs could be improved, all the work the Soybean Association is 

doing to look into these ideas. We want to certainly provide the 

best safety net possible, but we have recognized that we have the 

29 

budget deficit. So personally on your own farm, can you tell me 

which or what program is the most important one to you? 

Mr. HENRY. Well, I think, as probably I would speak for most 

farmers here, the risk management, how to protect yourselves in 

times of short crops or low prices. Being a highly capital-intensive 

industry and business that we are all involved in, the amount of 

capital it takes to operate that business has been commented on 

previously. 

As you go into the bank to borrow money, to take loans, to get 

operating loans, to buy machinery, whatever your need is, and it 

does not really matter what age group you are in, whether it is 

young or older farmers, the capital investment is tremendous, the 

capital requirements. 

Some way to create that safety net. In good times, in good crops 

we do not need it. It is the extremes of low prices or low yields that 

put us all in a real crunch as far as finances and the future to go 

on for the next year. So I think that is probably—risk management, from an individual standpoint, is probably the number one 

priority. 

In talking with other members on the board from all over the 

country, that seems to come to the forefront in every conversation 

you have. 

Senator ROBERTS. Kent, I skipped you. I did not mean to do it. 

We have got very few cotton farmers who participate in the ACRE 

Program nationwide. Do you utilize the program on your cotton 

acres, and if so, has it worked for you? If not, can you talk a little 

bit about some of the reasons you chose not to sign up? 

Mr. GOYEN. Personally, no, I am not involved in the ACRE Program. Very few in our area are signed up for that. 

Senator ROBERTS. Two percent of the farmers in Kansas signed 

up. 

Mr. GOYEN. It encompasses too wide an area before [inaudible] 

are pulled, and it is just a complicated thing. It was a hit to direct 

payments that nobody really wanted to give up, give up a known 

for an unknown. They did not want to do that when they first 

started. The area statewide would not work for cotton especially, 

but that you had to sign up for all the crops and then there was 

no recourse. If you signed up once, you could not get out of the 

thing. So basically, that is why most people did not sign up for it 

and were not too excited about it. 

It is a complicated thing. Even the FSA office, they have a hard 

time explaining that one, how it is going to affect you and what is 

going to happen. I think basically it could be a good program, but 

it has got to be fine-tuned a little bit. The areas, either they have 

come down to a county-wide or a small district of some sort to 

where maybe that would—the yield monitors would kick off then. 

But it is going to take a lot of fine-tuning, but I think basically 

it could be a good safety net and a good program if the revenue and 

the yields and everything else were implemented into it. 

Senator ROBERTS. Ken, is your bank pretty interested in which 

farm programs you utilize? Are there some specific programs that 

are more important to banks than other programs? Do banks ask 

what level of crop insurance you purchase, how much you will receive in direct payments? 

30 

Mr. MCCAULEY. I have not had that talk with my banker. I know 

he knows that I carry crop insurance. One of the things that is 

going on in this year is farming is very profitable. No matter 

whether you are borrowing money or not, bankers are interested in 

what level your coverage is, and they want to know everything 

about a young person. 

When you talk about crop insurance, most of them may even ask 

for the receipt to show—and the reporting of it. So, you know, your 

crop insurance goes across now to cross-check with the FSA office. 

The banker is asking both those people those things. So yes, they 

are asking those questions. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. David, 18 years of farming. 

You do not look that old. You have never seen a year that highlights the importance of the farm safety net more in this year in 

a year where devastation seems to be more the norm than the exception, what farm programs do you really rely on? What program 

do you know will absolutely be there for you at the end of the day 

by helping keep you afloat? 

Mr. SCHEMM. As has already been alluded to, the crop insurance 

program has been vital for our operation. And again, when I go 

into the banker, he wants to know what my coverage level is, what 

crops I am going to be growing, and what my insurance level is 

going to be on them. So the crop insurance program has been very 

vital to us. 

When we were going through those drought years and, unfortunately, it looks like we may be facing another one in our area again 

this year, the SURE program, once it finally did manage to come 

through, it actually did throw that float out to us to help us to try 

to more effectively survive, because we were watching our coverage 

level just shrink. 

But the insurance has been the key program. The direct payment 

has also been vital, though, because it has helped to offset the 

higher insurance premiums that we have been dealing with. I 

mean, we have seen record high prices and it just takes more 

money to insure that crop with those record high prices. And unfortunately, when you do not have a crop to sell, it does not matter 

what the price is. 

Senator ROBERTS. How long did it take you to sign up for the 

SURE Program and then how long did it take for you to get a payment? 

Mr. SCHEMM. Months. 

Senator ROBERTS. Months? 

Mr. SCHEMM. We had a situation on my own farm where because 

of the issue between RMA and the local FSA, we were actually 2.1 

percent off on acres on one field that we actually overpaid. We paid 

more to RMA, to the insurance, than what we should have. And as 

a result of that, that delayed our SURE Program for a SURE payment by approximately three months. 

Senator ROBERTS. What did you do? Pay it back or what? 

Mr. SCHEMM. It got lost somewhere in there, but—— 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. Thank you for that. That is very 

helpful. Greg, you are extremely diversified right in the heart of 

the drought. Can you talk about how the drought has impacted 

your operation? I cannot remember all the things you are into now, 

31 

but you are very diversified for obvious reasons, but what decisions 

have you had to make in order to cope? 

Mr. SHELOR. Well, it is just kind of onset. We actually had a fair 

wheat crop this spring, but with the drought coming on now, it is 

going to affect our fall crops. We are 30 to 40 days from putting 

fall wheat in again, and it does not look promising for that. And 

that is going to affect next year’s production and even next year’s 

summer crops because we rely on a lot of water retention in our 

soil, our subsoil. That is what makes it through the summer growing, and we have depleted all that. So that is going to take a lot 

of moisture to replenish that. 

So the crop insurance is going to be extremely important to be 

able to keep some payments coming and keep some cash flow going 

through the farm. And as it was alluded to earlier, the direct payments help make up that difference that the crop insurance does 

not cover, because, you know, you can only insure 65 or 70 percent 

of it. So you still have a void in there that you have got to make 

up the difference. 

And just one little comment I would like to make on the young 

farmers. They have got this TIP Program with the CRP. That has 

worked real well, getting some young producers in our area to be 

able to pick up some farm grant. It allows two years extension of 

the present land owner on his CRP payments if they give it over 

to a young person. 

I know of three just in our area that has utilized that. So that 

is one arena that is really helping maybe get some young farmers 

back involved in production agriculture. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you—pardon the pun— thank you 

for that tip. I am way over time here, 13 minutes, 46 seconds. I 

stand chastised, Madam Chairwoman, but I would yield to you for 

any further questions you might have. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, at this point, I just want to thank 

all of you for being here. It is very important information and testimony. We look forward to working with you as we put the pieces 

together for the Farm Bill and recommendations and how we focus 

on risk management. We know it is extremely important in farm 

safety net. So we look forward to working with all of you. We would 

excuse you and ask that our third panel come forward. 

We are going to call the meeting back to order and ask that all 

of our panelists join us and I will turn this over to Senator Roberts 

to make the introductions. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. From Jetmore, Kansas, representing the High 

Plains Farm Credit folks, he is the Director out there, Mr. Ron 

Bach. From Axtell, Kansas, the General Manager of the NemahaMarshall Electric Cooperative Association, Ms. Kathleen Brinker. 

From Fort Scott, Kansas, the President of the Kansas Association 

of Conservation Districts, Mr. Ron Brown. 

And from Salina, Kansas—yeah Salina, not Salina—the Conservation Policy Director of the Playa Lakes Joint Venture, Mr. 

Barth Crouch. Then from Garden City, we have the General Manager of the WindRiver Grain LLC, Mr. Robert Tempel. And Garden 

City again, the CEO and Chairman of Western State Bank—good, 

we have a banker—Mr. Jeff Whitham. Jeff, good to see you 

32 

And then we have the Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs 

and Chief Nutritionist for the Schwan Food Company in Salina 

Kansas, Karen Wilder. That is a big outfit that is producing a lot 

of pizza and making a lot of young school children very happy. I 

know they are supposed to eat great big plates full of broccoli—you 

put the broccoli on the pizza. Maybe we can do that. 

But at any rate, we will start off with Mr. Ron Bach. Ron? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RON BACH, DIRECTOR, HIGH PLAINS FARM 

CREDIT 

Mr. BACH. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Roberts. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Ron Bach 

and I am a first generation farmer from Jetmore, Kansas. I am also 

an elected member of the High Plains Board of Directors, Farm 

Credit. 

High Plains Farm Credit is located in Larned, Kansas, and is 

part of a nationwide farm credit system. High Plains is owned by 

over 1,000 farmers that borrow from us here in Kansas. I serve 

with seven other elected directors and one appointed. 

I am pleased to say that Farm Credit is one of those entities 

under the jurisdiction of your Committee that costs taxpayers nothing in Federal resources. In fact, in addition to paying taxes, we 

pay for the cost of our regulatory oversight, we pay insurance premiums that are counted as Federal revenues as well. 

Further, by returning earnings in the form of patronage payments to the farmers and cooperatives that own the system, we 

make sure the capital is flowing to rural areas. Last year, those patronage distributions came to almost $800 million across the country of which High Plains Farm Credit returned approximately 

$725,000 to our farmers. That is not a bad rural development program in itself. 

We are not coming to you today with a specific request for any 

Federal spending. However, included in my written statement, underscores several actions that the Committee might take that will 

have a positive impact on those we finance. 

At this time when many commodities are experiencing price levels that allow farmers to realize profits in their operations, it is important to remember the simple adage that what does go up tends 

to go down. My point is that just because some commodity prices 

may be high now, do not abandon the safety net that will ultimately protect farmers when prices fall. 

The drought in southwest Kansas has left many farmers without 

a crop this year. My experience has left me with half a wheat crop 

and a well-below my expected model crop. The lack of rainfall has 

left my cow-calf operation in jeopardy. I sold off some of the cows 

and the remaining pairs, some of which are on CRP grass, will be 

split and sold earlier than usual, leaving me with a down-sized 

herd. 

As I stated, I grow wheat. A very important part of the safety 

net is an effective, well-managed crop insurance program. I am 

grateful to have crop insurance as I have already collected a wheat 

claim check and I will be filing for a grain sorghum loss. 

33 

As you know, crop insurance already has shouldered significant 

cuts. We in Farm Credit continue to work hard to ensure that our 

customers and others have access to crop insurance policies they 

need to protect their investment in crop and farming operations. 

We urge that should the need to achieve savings from any of these 

programs, that the industry and those that are experienced in the 

day-to-day delivery of these be provided the opportunity to comment on proposed changes. 

Lastly, it is important for the Agriculture Committee to recognize 

that you have done a good job in overseeing the Farm Credit system. As you look for opportunities to assist agriculture without the 

need for direct Federal outlays, we stand ready to work with you 

if there are any areas that Farm Credit might utilize its experience 

and proven success to help so that we can continue to efficiently 

and effectively meet our mission. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you some background 

on how Farm Credit is meeting the needs of Kansas farmers and 

some thoughts about the next Farm Bill. We appreciate your commitment to agriculture and look forward to working with you as 

you move forward in developing the next Farm Bill. I would be 

pleased to respond to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bach can be found on page 62 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Ms. Brinker. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN BRINKER, GENERAL MANAGER, 

NEMAHA-MARSHALL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BRINKER. I missed the purple memo, I think, today. Thank 

you, Chairwoman Stabenow, and Ranking Member Roberts for this 

opportunity to testify before this Committee. Electric cooperatives 

utilize several programs authorized in the Farm Bill and we appreciate this opportunity to share with you how those programs 

strengthen rural America. 

I am Kathy Brinker and I am the General Manager of NemahaMarshall Electric Cooperative in Axtell, Kansas. Our cooperative 

provides affordable, reliable electricity to over 3,000 homes, farms, 

and businesses in northeast Kansas. We are governed by a democratically-elected Board of Trustees who, like our 21 employees, live 

and work with our members. 

Our employees volunteer their time on local boards and organizations in the small communities where they live. In the case of 

Nemaha-Marshall and other cooperatives, this commitment to community is not a coincidence. It is the way we are. 

Nemaha-Marshall is one of 30 electric cooperatives in Kansas 

and is among 900 not-for-profit member-owned systems that serve 

42 million in 47 states. Providing electric service in sparsely populated states like Kansas is a challenge. Today, cooperatives in Kansas average just three customers per mile of distribution line compared to 19 customers statewide. 

In Michigan, the co-op averages eight customers per mile compared to a statewide average of 38. Still, even under those challenging conditions, Kansas co-ops brought electric service to families in every corner of the state and today we continue to do so, 

keeping the lights and air conditioning on every single day. 

34 

Co-op service areas are often large and their population small, so 

the not-for-profit electric co-op model is very important. With fewer 

people to share high fixed costs, affordable credit through the RUS 

loan program is key to our operation. In the last five years alone, 

RUS has approved more than $400 million in loans to Kansas electric cooperatives. 

Nemaha-Marshall recently applied for an RUS loan to upgrade 

our facilities to meet the changing needs of our consumers. The 

loan levels are authorized by Congress every year in the Ag Appropriations Bill. The loan level of the largest program, Federal financing bank loans, has been set at $6.5 billion in recent years, 

and we urge you to keep that financing in the 2012 budget. 

We ask for your help in removing restrictions and ensuring RUS 

loans can be used to address all our needs, whether the loans are 

for renewable generation, new caseload generation, or making environment upgrades to existing generation. 

Another program we use regularly is the REDL&G Program, or 

the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program. USDA 

provides zero interest loans to electric co-ops which then pass the 

funds through to create jobs and services in rural areas. 

One example of how the REDL&G Program works in my hometown of Seneca, Kansas, a local employer, Koch and Company, received a $450,000 REDL&G loan in 2004 for a cabinet plant expansion. Nemaha-Marshall was proud to sponsor this project which 

created 55 new jobs and retained 185 jobs at that time. 

Since then, Koch and Company has expanded twice more and 

last year had an annual revenue of $40 million. They employ a 

total of 300 employees with an annual payroll that exceeds $8 million. 

Electric cooperatives have been leaders in energy efficiency because of our mission to provide reliable electric service at the lowest possible cost, not to make a profit for shareholders. An example 

of a successful energy efficiency program is the How$mart Program 

created and implemented by Midwest Energy in Hays, Kansas. 

The cooperative funds approved efficiency projects and the consumer repays the co-op on their electric bill. Midwest Energy has 

completed over 400 projects. As a locally based electric utility, 

Nemaha-Marshall’s goal is, and always has been, providing the 

best possible electric service at the lowest possible price to our 

members. Just as importantly, we are also here to support our 

communities and the people who live in them. 

Thank you for your continued support of the electric programs 

and the REDL&G program. They have been vital for protecting affordable financing and in helping co-ops grow in our communities. 

We look forward to working with you to develop a rural energy savings program. Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences. I will be happy to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brinker can be found on page 66 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Kathleen. Ron Brown. 

35 

STATEMENT OF RON BROWN, PRESIDENT, KANSAS 

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chairman, Senator Roberts, I am Ronald 

Brown, current President of the Kansas Association of Conservation Districts and I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide 

testimony on the 2012 Farm Bill on behalf of our organization. And 

I do have soil under my fingernails. 

Kansas is currently facing a significant drought in 66 of our 105 

counties, and that was moved up to 70 last week, and one of those 

counties is mine. With the southwest part of the state being ranked 

as an exceptional drought area, the U.S. Drought Monitor, the 

highest ranking on the scale. Kansas farmers and ranchers now 

face the worst conditions in decades, understand all too well the 

frustration and sense of futility that predecessors felt when the 

lack of rainfall in the ’30s turned the Great Plains into a giant dust 

bowl. 

But the key difference between the dirty ’30s and today is the 

improved farming and soil conservation practices that prevent wind 

erosion and keep the Great Plains from experiencing the dust 

storms that plagued the area back then. 

It is critically important not only to the state’s economy, but also 

to our quality of life that effective farming and soil conservation 

practices remain a high priority. Partnerships on the local, state, 

and Federal level are essential for coordinating and streamlining 

these efforts. 

The 2012 Farm Bill should be developed to ensure that these 

partnerships and coordination of effort to that end. KACB urges 

consideration of the following: Encourage landowners and operators 

to apply conservation practices appropriate for their operations 

that will permit them to maintain economic viability while maintaining and improving their natural resources. 

Farm Bill conservation programs be resource-driven, locally led 

with sufficient flexibility to allow funding to be directed to local priorities and concerns. Provide technical assistance funding to generate a broad range of soil, water, air, and habitat benefits. The 

conservation technical assistance program and each of the Farm 

Bill conservation programs are necessary to implement conservation practices and achieve proper land and water management. 

CTA funding allows NRCS to provide the local assistance and 

planning efforts conservation districts need to promote conservation to their local producers. Fully fund NRCS to meet the growing 

need for technical assistance, deliver Farm Bill conservation programs, coordinating with conservation districts, technical service 

providers, and other partners. 

Fund the 2012 Farm Bill conservation programs at or above 2008 

Farm Bill’s levels, and identify opportunities to streamline and improve efficiency within the program options. Ensure that the delivery system for conservation programs is easily accessible for conservation program customers. The sign-up process must be simple, 

easy to understand, completed with reasonable effort, and reach a 

broad customer audience. 

We support the continued sign-up for USDA conservation programs as well as consolidating NRCS Farm Bill conservation programs to improve efficiency, simplify the application process, and 

36 

better utilize available program funding. Conservation programs 

must provide a balance of sorts for those that set land aside for 

conservation priorities and those that provide incentives and costshare for working lands. 

Given the projected increase in world population, programs must 

provide assistance to implement or maintain conservation practices 

on working lands that produce much needed food, feed, fuel, and 

fiber. 

Farm Bill Conservation Title funds should supplement conservation district efforts to provide education and outreach to landowners, producers, and the general public. Again, CDA funding is 

critical to allowing NRCS to provide locally-targeted and needed assistance. 

Reducing on-the-farm energy consumption and developing a renewable energy production is critically important for American agriculture and forestry. Technology such as wind, solar, anaerobic 

digestion, biomass, cellulosic, biofuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, and yet 

to be developed technologies are key features of sustainable agriculture and forestry. 

Incentives should be provided to encourage implementation of 

new sustainable energy production. Much work remains to be done 

to complete PL–566 small watershed district projects. Fund all 

phases of the program to plan, install, and rehabilitate structures 

that protect our fragile farmlands. 

This is not the time to ignore the devastating impacts of floods 

and the associated cost to our Nation’s agriculture economy. 

In closing, we would urge Congress, at a minimum, to maintain 

mandatory conservation funding levels as agreed in the 2008 Farm 

Bill so that conservation programs aimed at providing critical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to address 

local resource issues will continue to benefit us all with improved 

air and water quality and soil health. Let us honor the memory of 

our past to build a better future. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown can be found on page 81 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. We thank you, Ron, and we go now to Barth 

Crouch. Mr. Crouch. 

STATEMENT OF BARTH CROUCH, CONSERVATION POLICY 

DIRECTOR, PLAYA LAKES JOINT VENTURE 

Mr. CROUCH. Madam Chairwoman, Senator Roberts, I am glad 

that we got this opportunity to be here. I am a transplanted South 

Dakotan that moved to Kansas permanently in 1994, and one of 

the first duties I had was to work with then-Chairman of the 

House Ag Committee, Mr. Roberts, on the ’96 Farm Bill. 

It has been an interesting relationship over the years. It is always fun to be around Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. It took us about a year-and-a-half to get the 

damn thing done, but we got it done. Thank you for you help. 

Mr. CROUCH. Hopefully it will not take that long this time. 

Senator ROBERTS. No, we cannot do that again. 

Mr. CROUCH. Playa Lakes Joint Venture, it is one of those things 

that when you work for them, you have to explain constantly to 

37 

other people who are you and where are you and what you do. We 

are a conservation organization that I like to think of as we are either the glue or the grief that is needed to get conservation done 

across six states with a partnership with 17 state, Federal, and 

local conservation organizations and agencies. 

As such, our primary mission is working on, as our name states, 

is trying to find ways to conserve and restore the Playa Lakes. And 

I want to publicly thank Senator Roberts at this time because of 

his unwavering support for the Rodney Dangerfield of wetlands, 

the Playa Lakes. And I think without his support, we would not 

have the one practice that specifically is for Playa Lakes, CP–23(a), 

for all of you jargon folks from the USDA world. 

And the fact that he has consistently supported conservation 

throughout his time has led to, inadvertently, Playa is being conserved by CRP and through now recent efforts with the Wetland 

Reserve Program. 

If only 40 percent of the Playa’s across the southern High Plains 

were conserved, we would see something that we need to have happen very dramatically and that is the major source of recharge for 

the Ogallala Aquifer are Playa Lakes. Now, it is a slow recharge. 

It is three inches per year, at the maximum, but if 40 percent of 

them were conserved, that would lead to around 50 to 100 billion 

gallons of water each year going back into the aquifer. 

And so, it is very important to us to have that conservation go 

on for the Playa Lakes and for our whole region out here in the 

southern High Plains. 

I had a set of talking points to go through. My good friend, Ronnie Brown, covered 90 percent of them, so I will get to the chase. 

The things we need in the Conservation Title are the tools that 

help the landowners who are the stewards of conservation in this 

country do the right thing and avoid the regulatory problems that 

come when we have changes. I think that the more tools in the 

toolbox we can have and the better funding for those we can have 

the better. 

The other thing that he brought up as well that we fully support, 

and that is why I sent you the map that showed where the conservation positions that are part NRCS and part partners out in 

the land that go door to door and talk to landowners and work with 

them on which conservation program would work for them. Those 

are vitally important and those kind of programs and the flexibility 

to do them are what we need in the Farm Bill. 

And with that, I am glad to be here. I am glad to see you. And 

I wish I had more connection with Michigan, but my good friend, 

Gordon Geyer, keeps trying to get me to come back there, because 

he has got a bear hunting spot that is really awesome. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. He is a very good friend of mine. You 

ought to take him up on it. 

Mr. CROUCH. I will. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crouch can be found on page 89 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Barth. Our next witness, wearing 

a green and white tie on behalf of the Michigan State Spartans, 

Mr. Robert Tempel from Garden City. 

38 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT TEMPEL, GENERAL MANAGER, 

WINDRIVER GRAIN LLC 

Mr. TEMPEL. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman and Senator Roberts, we would like to thank you for inviting us to come to talk to 

you a little bit about the Farm Bill and a little bit about our business. It is our honor to serve the producers of southwest Kansas, 

an honor to speak with you today. 

WindRiver Grain LLC is a commercial grain facility which loads 

and unloads 110-car units in Garden City, Kansas. Our company 

was established in 1997 as a joint venture with a cooperative system, independent grain companies, and a multinational grain company. The mission of our company was to bring world markets to 

southwest Kansas. 

Initially, our main focus was shipping 110-car units to the Texas 

Gulf on the BNSF railroad. Quickly we saw additional opportunities into Mexico, California, and the Northwest. None of these opportunities would have been possible without the commitment of 

origination customers, destination customers, and railroads wanting to develop a long-term relationship that developed into a longterm partnership. 

In 2007, Bonanza Energy chose to build a 55-million gallon ethanol plant next to our facility in Garden City. Again, the relationship we developed with the BNSF railroad was one of the biggest 

reasons Bonanza decided to build next to our facility. 

Overnight, this growth doubled the size of our company, as well 

as adding 39 good-paying jobs to Kansans. This has also created 

economic growth in our surrounding communities as well as creating opportunities to encourage young people to come back to 

rural America. 

The policies put into place in past Farm Bills were the catalyst 

which allowed us to see this economic growth in rural America. We 

feel it is important to communicate in how biofuels and industry 

has created commerce, jobs, and opportunities in our communities. 

This tied production and culture to the energy market, thus creating positive economic growth which has rippled throughout 

southwest Kansas and in other rural communities. 

This ripple effect has also been seen in other service businesses 

such as the 90-plus independent trucking firms who buy fuel, tires, 

repairs, and food in our local community. Production ag culture has 

been energized by ethanol demand. A few decades ago, U.S. produced roughly 8 million bushels of corn. 

One decade ago, we were seeing over-production in the corn market. Today, U.S. farmers produce around 13 billion bushels of corn 

due to ethanol demand increasing in the middle of this decade. 

Today, ethanol demand uses this additional 5 million bushels of 

corn. 

The corn production pie has increased due to this marketplace 

providing incentives for increased seed research, fertilizer efficiencies, increased water and land and conservation efforts. Looking towards the next Farm Bill, we believe crop insurance programs is vital to production agriculture and needs to be a priority 

in funding. If there are choices to be made, crop insurance is one 

that needs to continue to be reviewed and strengthened. 

39 

With the current conditions, we would also encourage USDA to 

fully support efforts to achieve approval defining grain sorghum as 

an advanced biofuel. This promotes sorghum production as a 

means of reducing the demand on our precious water supply in 

southwest Kansas. 

American farmers can meet this demand if given the proper market signals and common-sense Government policies. In order to 

meet the future global food and feed demand, we cannot afford 

over-regulation that stifles production agriculture. We are going to 

need research coming from land grant universities, working with 

the industry in production agriculture to meet the food and fiber 

needs of this growing world. 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share with this Committee a little bit about our business in rural America and how the 

past Farm Bills have impacted our own families and communities. 

We feel blessed to work with these hard-working Americans. We 

realize there are going to be reductions in all areas of Government 

spending. We understand and commend you on taking these necessary actions. 

In closing, I will leave you with this thought. America was founded on principles of hard work, freedom, liberty, and the faith that 

God will guide and protect those who seek His wisdom. May He 

guide and bless you as you lead this great country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tempel can be found on page 134 

in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you so much, Robert. Those were certainly pertinent words indeed. Jeff Whitham, we had to have a 

banker. Western State Bank, Garden City. Could not have a finer 

one. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF WHITHAM, CEO AND CHAIRMAN, 

WESTERN STATE BANK 

Mr. WHITHAM. Chairwoman Stabenow, thank you and welcome 

to Kansas. Senator Roberts, good morning. I am a banker from 

Garden City, Kansas. To locate that for you, Madam Chair, our 

high school football team’s success depends upon our hatchet game 

with Dodge City and we have been in a rebuilding mode lately. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WHITHAM. You know, as I think about talking about farm 

support programs at the USDA and where we are in terms of needing to balance this Federal budget that we all recognize, and I am 

glad to see a large enough percent of American voters have focused 

on it, that it is important and probably going to get done, as we 

talk about these programs, we have to focus on which ones are 

more effective and that is what I would like to try to address this 

morning. 

From our perspective, the most effective program is the multipurpose Crop Insurance Program, and for a couple of reasons, 

Madam Chair. First, our producers pay about 41 percent of that 

premium, so the Federal Government, the taxpayer, gets some leverage. 

Secondly, our producers are compensated, usually largely, when 

they have a problem, either a yield problem or a price problem. So 

that is pretty effective. As you talk about these programs in 2011, 

40 

you have to think about the SURE Program. It is an effective program. It is going to fill out a lot of lost revenue for our producers 

out in southwest Kansas because of this drought. And I should 

have mentioned, we run banking centers, about eight banking centers from southwest to northwest Kansas and we see a fair bit of 

that difference in yields every year. 

The direct payment program, I would tell you, is a little less effective simply because our producers receive those payments 

whether they have a good year or a poor year. It may not be all 

that effective for the taxpayer. 

We have—maybe switching over to the EQIP Program or to the 

Conservation Titles in the Farm Bill, the EQIP Program in our 

country is a good program. We generally see it being used for terracing ground, and as you know, in our country, it is a soil conservation and a water conservation tool largely. 

We see it used for terracing, which again our producers help 

lever by paying part of the cost. And we also see it being used by 

something that our Governor talked about this morning. We are 

going to be slowly abandoning irrigation wells in western Kansas 

as we do not have enough volume to be effective with those crops, 

and that has already started and the EQIP Program has a portion 

of the program that helps those irrigators discontinue irrigating, 

and it is useful actually on the family farm that I am a part of. 

We have used that part of the program. 

Another thing you might be interested in as you spend a lot of 

time reading the paper and thinking about the capacity of banks 

to cover the needs of farmers, credit needs of farmers, I notice that 

some folks kind of lump us in with money center banks and banks 

that have had significant problems, and still are, with residential 

real estate and commercial real estate loans and are having problems actually getting their loan volume up. 

I would tell you, other than maybe a few banks in the Kansas 

City-Lawrence area, that would not be a problem in Kansas. These 

rural banks have plenty of capacity, largely because for the last 

four years, our customers have had—our farm customers have had 

good years. That means that being the good money managers they 

are, they have paid down debt. 

To give you a little bit of a feel for that, we could probably 

make—we have $234 million in loans and we could make a $50 

million increase in that pretty easily, and with this drought, we 

probably will start doing that. 

Again, thanks for coming to Kansas. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitham can be found on page 

138 in the appendix.] 

Senator ROBERTS. We thank you very much, Jeff. And last but 

not least, Ms. Karen Wilder, who is the Director of Science and 

Regulatory Affairs—note Regulatory Affairs— and Chief Nutritionist for the Schwan Food Company up in Salina. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN WILDER, SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, THE SCHWAN FOOD COMPANY 

Ms. WILDER. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking 

Member Roberts. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. 

My name is Karen Wilder. I am the Director of Finance and ReguVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71636.TXT MICHA
41 

latory Affairs for the Schwan Food Company and Chief Nutritionist. 

The Schwan Food Company is a leading branded frozen food 

company, one of the largest frozen food companies in the world employing more than 17,000 people in the processing, manufacturing, 

transportation, distribution and sales of frozen foods. I oversee all 

aspects of the nutrition initiatives at Schwan and its wholly-owned 

subsidiaries, including Schwan’s Food Service, Inc. 

Schwan’s Food Service develops, markets, and distributes frozen 

food products to schools and many other institutional channels 

throughout the United States. Feeding America’s children began 

with the company more than 36 years ago. 

Schwan’s Food Service is one of the leading and most innovative 

school food service companies providing products to approximately 

72,000 of the more than 96,000 private and public schools throughout the United States. About 70 percent of the products distributed 

to schools are produced and manufactured at the facility in Salina, 

Kansas. Thank you, Senator Roberts, for making note of that. 

Over th years, Schwan’s Food Service has played a significant 

role in helping to convert USDA commodities into food products 

that met school needs in terms of nutrition, student acceptance, as 

well as cost. And we respectfully urge you to keep the USDA Commodity Food Program, including commodity processing, strong and 

well-oriented to meet the nutrition and budget objectives of schools. 

To meet the demands of the school food service markets, 

Schwan’s Food Service has spent millions of dollars in research and 

development to make our products healthier and more nutritious 

while at the same time making foods that kids will actually eat. 

Some of the items worth noting is that Schwan’s has introduced 

a line of products that carry the LiveSmart Schools. They meet the 

dietary guidelines of 2010. They provide 51 percent whole grains, 

less than 35 percent calories from fat, less than 10 percent calories 

from saturated fat, and less than 600 milligrams of sodium per 

serving. 

By the fall of 2012, at least 60 percent of our school products will 

meet the LiveSmart School criteria. We also participate in the 

HealthierUS School challenge, a component of the First Lady’s 

Let’s Move campaign. We are proud that the Schwan’s product innovation has enabled many schools to affordable meet the ambitious nutrition criteria of this campaign. 

Our goal is to support school food service directors across the Nation as they strive to provide even more nutritious foods that are 

affordable and acceptable to students. We believe strongly in the 

wisdom of school food service directors to strike a balance between 

nutritional improvement, student acceptance, and budgetary limits. 

We commend the USDA in food nutrition service for its thoughtful consideration of policy and guidance aimed at enhancing the 

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program. We believe 

that many of the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine in its report, School Meals, Building Blocks for Healthy Children, can serve to ground the proposed rule in science. 

That said, the Schwan’s Food Company recommends certain revisions to help ensure student acceptance and expand accessibility, 

while meeting the nutritional needs of today’s students. Our recVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71636.TXT MICHA
42 

ommendations echo the recommendations of school food service directors across the nation, as presented by comments submitted by 

the School Nutrition Association, including the Kansas State 

School Nutrition Association, the voice of school nutrition. 

We recommend refinements in the proposed rules to support the 

legitimate concerns of America’s school food service directors to balance nutrition objectives with considerations of cost and student 

taste preferences. 

In addition to our substantive recommendations regarding meal 

patterns, sodium reduction, whole grains, tomato paste crediting, 

saturated fat, we also echo the very important recommendation of 

SNA regarding implementation of these rules. Even if all the recommendations that are made regarding the proposed rules were accepted, it will force dramatic changes in the school meal program. 

The risk of unintended consequences is substantial. The responsible way to implement these changes would be to publish an interim final rule with implementation optional for school year 2012– 

2013. 

The enhancement reimbursement rates recently enacted by the 

Healthy Hunger-Free Act, provide a powerful incentive to schools 

to implement the new standards. Those who cannot would have an 

opportunity to adjust. Importantly, any problematic provisions of 

the meal standards could be revised before the rules are made 

final. 

We respectfully submit that the implementation schedule is best 

because it protects our children and schools from unintended consequences. Thank you for considering my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilder can be found on page 141 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much to each of 

you, and I think this panel is particularly important to be able to 

expand upon the areas of the Farm Bill because it is so comprehensive. It certainly is about commodities, producers of all types, but 

we are also talking about Farm Credit and financing and nutrition 

and elec co-ops, and certainly conservation and all of our grain operations and agri-business and how we are able to move. 

And when you are speaking about all the jobs that come from 

farm equipment and transportation and so on, it just reinforces for 

me how critical the agricultural economy is to America’s overall 

economy. And so, we thank you for all of your comments. 

I would start first talking a little bit more about conservation, 

and appreciate, Mr. Ron, you giving me the book, A History of Natural Resource Conservation in Kansas. Appreciate that. I chaired 

a county board of commissioners in Michigan and worked closely 

with our Conservation District at the time and learned a lot and 

gained tremendous respect for the work that is done in our conservation districts. 

But I wonder if you might talk a little bit more about conservation programs, Mr. Brown, and what is most attractive. I know 

CRP, I know from working with Senator Roberts that Kansans love 

the CRP Program and we do in Michigan as well, but I wonder if 

you might talk about the benefits of that as well, but more broadly, 

what you think is most important and most effective in conservation. 

43 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Firstly, I would like to maybe elaborate a little bit on what Senator Roberts said earlier about doubling our 

food production in the future. I have heard it a little different way, 

but we will have to produce as much food in the next 40 years as 

we have in all of previous history in this country, which I do not 

know how those two would correlate, but I am sure it will be similar. 

With that in mind, we do need a sustainable agriculture, and by 

sustainable, we would have conservation as the bottom line of that. 

We have endorsed and talked a lot about EQIP already this morning and the CRP, which is very fine, but one of our base problems, 

and we have already talked about the aquifer out west and I am 

in the eastern part where we have surface water, sediment being 

a big problem with our water supply lakes and all that. 

And what we are dealing with now that is a big ticket item that 

is really hard to deal with is stream bank erosion and stream bed 

degradation. I would submit that probably the greater part of the 

sediment in the Mississippi Epoxy [phonetic] area could be from 

stream bank erosion rather than field and farm erosion because we 

have done a great job of retaining soil erosion on our farmland over 

the years. 

We are not done, we are not finished, but we have went a long 

way. But we are in a big ticket item on stream bank erosion, and 

how we are going to cope with that I do not know. But it is a serious problem. We have many Corps of Engineers lakes in eastern 

Kansas that are filling with sediment. Some are nearly half full of 

sediment at this point. 

And there has been some experimenting with dredging. They 

have been experimenting with many things, and they are so costly, 

and it is hard to build new lakes now, and our population increase 

is still expanding in parts of eastern Kansas around the metropolitan areas, and the demand for domestic water is growing every 

day. So I think we need to maybe elaborate a little bit more. 

EQIP has worked wonders and we do not want to discontinue 

that, and I would think—and I mentioned in my statement—that 

we would like to see the consolidation of most of these farm conservation programs where they will be easier to access to the farmers. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, Mr. Crouch, you talked about the 

Wetland Reserve Program. This is something that has been particularly important to us in Michigan as well. But I wonder if you 

might talk a little bit more about the importance of that program 

and any suggestions that you have related to that. 

Mr. CROUCH. Well, thank you for asking about the Wetland Reserve Program. It is probably—there are some changes coming to 

it that we really like, that we have seen pilots done. Nebraska has 

a pilot right now where if you are doing center pivot irrigation and 

you have a wetland in your field, you can enroll it in WRP and the 

center pivot continues to roll. I think that is a wonderful opportunity that should be offered to the rest of the country to do that. 

Since it does not have a baseline, I am very much afraid that it 

will get lumped with other easement programs and be much reduced, and we would hope that that does not happen. If there is 

a way to find the money, and I know you have not asked me yet 

44 

to point out a program that we could cut and I will not do that 

until—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. No, I will ask you. Please do, yes. 

Mr. CROUCH. There is one that we feel does not seem to—and I 

have talked to a lot of my farmer and rancher friends about as 

well. It is a program that a former Chairman of the Senate Ag 

Committee’s private program and much loved by him and is not 

loved by us and that is the CSP Program. I think there is money 

there that could be moved to other places and used in a more useful manner. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Did anyone else 

want to respond on conservation? Yes, and we have talked about 

this. I guess I would just ask if anyone else--I do not know, Mr. 

Bach—first of all, I was very interested that you are a first generation farmer. 

You know, so many times we are hearing from folks that are second, third, and fourth generation, and getting into farming as a 

first generation farmer, I am wondering, from your perspective, 

why did you do that? 

Mr. BACH. Well, it is a little unique. My father actually worked 

for the railroad. But it was an exciting venture to me. I mean, it 

was—it really came about that through my high schools years and 

such working for a producer that was of retirement age. 

And then coming back, he was ready to retire, so I bought him 

out, and through a series of buying him out for a share of the 

crops, and it put me in a position to then rent his ground and then 

later bought it and expanded it beyond that pretty well. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Recently, the Secretary was in Michigan and we were talking about some ideas that he has about supporting the kind of efforts you are talking about where it is passing 

on the farm, not to someone within the family, which is the most 

traditional way and we certainly want to make sure we are protecting that opportunity, but maybe some other options that would 

support a farmer to be able to mentor someone that wants to get 

into farming and be able to move and turn their operation over. 

I do not know if you would have any suggestions on any incentives that we might focus on to be able to make that easier. 

Mr. BACH. Well, Farm Credit currently has a Young and Beginning Farmer Programs. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Mr. BACH. Each association has their own—a little bit differently 

among associations, I mean, whether they relax the credit standards a little bit or with a non-family member being eligible to cosign for a loan or what might be the standards now. That is usually the biggest hurdle to get around, is the capital needs that a 

young beginner farmer would need. 

And that is where I would maybe—I want to reiterate anyway 

the direct payments are necessary to a young farmer beginning. I 

mean, as we get more established in farming, they may not be a 

big part of the dollars as crop insurance, and crop insurance, you 

have got to have that safety net, but the direct payment is something a young farmer does rely on. He needs every dollar he can 

get anyway. Thank you. 

45 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Absolutely. Thank you. Ms. Brinker, we 

have done a hearing in the Agriculture Committee, as you know, 

on the great work that rural electric co-ops are doing now and how 

to expand. There are a lot of efforts around energy efficiency, the 

REAP Program as well as the new Rural Energy Savings Program 

that we have been talking about. 

So I was very interested in your testimony about Midwest Energy. You said they have 400 projects right now that are going. But 

could you talk about the Rural Energy Savings Program a little bit 

more, how it would encourage more co-ops to be able to implement 

these types of programs? Because I think there is a lot of interest 

around the question of energy efficiency, to be able to do more 

incentivizing of those kinds of programs. 

Ms. BRINKER. Well, the up-front costs have always been kind of 

a barrier from encouraging people to spend on energy efficiency. In 

the example we have here in the state, Midwest Energy up-fronts 

those costs and creating a loan then to the member who then repays it over a period of time with their utility bill. 

With the Rural Energy Savings Program, we think that the Government could be more involved in encouraging that nationwide for 

people to be energy efficient in their homes and remove the barrier 

of those homeowners’ up-front costs. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. Let me talk about research 

for a second, and, Ms. Wilder, you did not specifically talk about 

that, but I am wondering to what extent working with the USDA 

that you are involved or with the universities and so on. I am sure 

you are very involved in that as a company, certainly. But if you 

have any comments on the research programs or suggestions as it 

relates to the USDA? 

Ms. WILDER. Absolutely. We are involved with a number of universities including Kansas State. We are happy about our relationship with Kansas State. We have looked at a new cultivars of 

wheat. 

Whole grains has become a mainstay in the proposed rule for the 

school meals, and the one thing that we know is that whole grains 

have evolved so that they are not bitter, grainy, or rejected by children, because if products are not going to be eaten by the children 

in the school meal program, whether it is school breakfast or school 

lunch, then we have failed at delivering nutrition to children to 

help them be and do the best they can in a school day. 

Other areas of research are around dairy, looking at cheese, trying to address issues related to sodium reduction, fat reduction 

while still retaining flavor. And then certainly with regards to assessing student acceptance, we do a lot of testing with universities. 

They basically manage an assessment of intake of different kinds 

of foods, different combinations of food to determine plate waste. 

At the end of the day, the school food service director needs to 

meet the guidelines that are set by the Food and Nutrition Service 

of USDA, but if those particular food items are not accepted by 

children, if children do not have enough time to eat the items and 

they are thrown again, it really imparts significant costs to the 

manufacturer as well as to the school itself. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. Well, thank you. And I have one 

other question and then I will turn it over to Senator Roberts. I 

46 

am wondering, Mr. Tempel, as well as Mr. Whitham, crop insurance. You mentioned the importance of crop insurance. Any suggestions for us as we look to the future as to areas we should focus 

on for improvement? 

Mr. TEMPEL. I guess from our side, it is just continuing to make 

sure we support that because it looks like it is the best safety net. 

From our standpoint in our business, it is the main thing we want 

to make sure that we suggest to your board. 

Mr. WHITHAM. You know, it is the primary—it is the primary 

program that at the bank we focus on our producers participating 

in and need to know what their coverage levels are, and it is a program—you are asking questions about how it might be changed. 

Thinking of it a little bit more from a taxpayer’s point of view, 

there probably could be some means testing as to size of operations. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much. I am going 

to turn it over to Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ron, obvious question. Crop insurance. We have heard crop insurance about a hundred times. I hope we have the message and I 

hope we can bring that message to Washington. Are there certain 

farm programs that are absolutely critical to your ability to lend 

to producers with some degree of confidence? And what is it about 

these programs in particular that make them important to you as 

a lender over a several year period, over the longer term? 

Mr. BACH. Well, now, I will reiterate that I am a director, not 

a lender. I mean, I set policy and such and you did take that steam 

away. As you stated, the crop insurance are the underlying standards, I mean, to know what your fallback position is and such. 

You asked—what was your question on the programs? 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, which programs you really depend on 

and what is it about those programs or the program or whatever 

that makes it unique to you so you have confidence to make that 

loan to that young farmer, or for that matter, any farmer over a 

period of years? What is it about the program? 

Mr. BACH. Well, the reliability of it. I mean, it is about the program, I mean, the fact that you can take the dollars right to it, if 

you are talking about the Farm Bill program, I mean, and 

what—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I guess what I am driving at is for you to tell 

us what has been both of our concerns is the degree of stability, 

the degree of predictability of these kinds of programs so that you 

can look down the road, not only next crop year, but hopefully five, 

hopefully ten on down the road, and that that message should be 

delivered to the Congress in regards to the budget deliberations we 

have. 

I am not talking about any particular program increasing whatever, but at least look at the stability and the predictability of our 

lending institutions in this country, which is why I think there is 

a lot of money sitting on the sidelines as opposed to wandering into 

the economy or being invested in the economy. 

Mr. BACH. Well, I think it would be great if we could have a 

longer Farm Bill than five or seven years. I mean, they would have 

to do it continually. But there is the stability of having what we 

47 

use as knowing that the program is going to be there year after 

year. I mean, I do not know if that answers your question or not. 

Senator ROBERTS. We are going to keep it simple and that is exactly te answer I was looking for. Kathleen, can you describe to us 

the investments you will make using the RUS loan, and further, 

how does RUS secure the loan to ensure that Nemaha-Marshall 

makes the payments? 

Ms. BRINKER. Well, yes, Senator. Just as our first loan did back in the late ’30s and early ’40s, our current loan, which was $7.6 

million, will be used to build infrastructure, poles and wires, substations, such as that, to provide reliable energy to our consumers. 

I want to reiterate, too, that this is kind of a zero cost thing, too, 

because it is a loan. It gets repaid back. Just as our first loan did 

in the late ’30s and early ’40s, that loan has been paid back 100 

percent. 

The co-operatives have an exemplary record of repaying those 

loans. So our investment we use for that will also be going from 

a self-read, self-calculate method of members figuring their own 

bill, reading their own meter, to a system where the meter is read 

remotely and the bill calculated for them. 

And how do they secure the loan? RUS provides a lien, takes a 

lien on all of our plants and our investment. So they have a lien 

on our assets so they have some sort of guarantee. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, then conversely, if that loan was not 

available, how would a change of financing costs and your co-ops’ 

ability to even make those improvements? 

Ms. BRINKER. Well, we would be forced to go to private financing, 

which would then be higher costs. Many times our local banks and 

stuff do not have the funding available to fund such large loans as 

$7.6 million. With those higher costs, too, it is a shorter term. 

These facilities, many of ours, have been out there for 70 years already. 

So with a shorter term loan and higher costs, it does not fit well 

with the electric co-operatives. These facilities are designed to last 

30 or 40 years and that is how the RUS loan program is. 

Senator ROBERTS. Axtell is over by Seneca, right? 

Ms. BRINKER. I live in Seneca. 

Senator ROBERTS. You live in Seneca. Sixth grade, Holt Junior 

High. That is what they called it then. Actually it was sixth grade. 

We went up to Seneca to play basketball and there were holes in 

the gym, in the wall, and the snow came through the holes on the 

basketball court. We just had fifth and sixth graders. I feel sure 

that Seneca has seventh and eighth graders on that team. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BRINKER. Crops are not the only thing we grow there. 

Senator ROBERTS. Did your dad have anything to do with that? 

He probably played against us. Well, at any rate. 

Ron, you have got to come back with me to Washington one time. 

When you come back, drop in. We will try to find out who is in 

charge of the rural fugitive dust program. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. And that we had Chad Bassinger and his wife, 

Cassandra, we had that big bus. We did not cause hardly any dust. 

There are still the lakers out there. I am sure out west there is 

48 

some blowing, but not nearly as much in Kingman and Reno County. We are now blowing away. We do not need to post an EPA inspector at every county road to find a grain truck if it is tearing 

up dust. 

Back in the ’70s when this came about at first, I finally located, 

as a Congressman, after three days of trying, the young lady in 

charge of rural fugitive dust. Her suggestion was to send water 

trucks out at ten in the morning and three o’clock in the afternoon 

and tamp down all those dusts on the county roads. Did I realize 

how much dust we have in Kansas? And I said, Yes, ma’am, I do. 

But with the CRP Program and everything else that is involved 

that you have already mentioned, conservation. So can you help me 

come back and find who the heck ever it was that opened up that 

file and decided to start that up again? 

Mr. BROWN. I don’t have an idea. I do not even want to know, 

I don’t think. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. Let me go on here. Barth, thank you 

for your comments about the CRP and all your work in making it 

successful. Can you tell us a little bit about what you envision 

down the road between the relationship between the wildlife habitat and livestock operations we have been successful in opening up 

and raising on some land that had been reserved for a very critical 

habitat, but when you get into a situation like we are into, why it 

still remains a good partnership. Can you talk about that a little 

bit? 

Mr. CROUCH. Absolutely, Senator. One of the things that the 

Kansas Conservation Partnership has advocated for some time is 

that the rules on the Conservation Reserve Program should allow, 

at no cost to the landowner, a way to turn lands that want to be 

grazing lands again into grazing lands while they are in CRP Program. 

The easiest way to make sure that that land turns into grazing 

land is to graze it while it is in the CRP. That makes it more possible for the land to become what it needs to be. I had that lesson 

brought home to me. Two years ago we had a Greater Prairie 

Chicken tour that goes into Lincoln County, and a gentleman there 

named Bill Donnelly, we were out looking at his pasture and he 

showed me, he said, What do you see there? 

You know, ever since I have been in school and all my life, people 

have been saying, What do you see on the land? And it was a low 

ridge. And he said, Can you tell the difference between that ground 

and this ground? This was native prairie, never been broken. He 

said, What is that? I said, I do not know. 

And he said, Well, that is where my dad did his first on his own 

CRP, planted it back through native grasses, because he said it 

was not worth farming it and he was tired of watching it not 

produce a crop, and so he put it back. And immediately grazed it 

the first year. And it does not look like, unless with that little ridge 

where the dirt had blown in and settled in the fence line, except 

for that you would not know that it was any different. 

What we are hoping for with the Lesser Prairie Chicken Initiative is to get folks that want to come out of CRP and go into grazing to allow them to do that with using EQIP, using even the 

49 

Grasslands Reserve Program to get there. And that is where I see 

the changes that we need. 

And some of these—the one that drives us crazy and I have got 

a friend that would shoot me if I did not say it now. CP–25, the 

Rare and Endangered Habitat, in Kansas and a lot of those areas, 

it needs grazing to become the kind of habitat we really need for 

the wildlife. In the long run, those wildlife species and that grassland all worked with grazing before. 

Senator ROBERTS. We just got that done after considerable discussion. I would add that the lesser or the greater prairie chicken 

seems to thrive pretty good on the acreage that is grazed as opposed to the other acreage where you get invasive species coming 

in and really causing problems. So it is not an either/or situation 

and it is a partnership situation which I want to thank you for 

that. 

So Robert, you are a business manager. I was going to ask what 

your biggest challenges are. Let me just rephrase it. Are you facing 

increased regulatory burdens? Answer, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Or do you have concerns about paperwork for 

compliance? Answer yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I wonder who majors in this stuff. How can 

you attract young people who could do the software to keep up with 

all the regs coming out. Can you talk a little bit about that? I 

mean, where do you find people to keep up with this stuff? I have 

a staff. I have 16 people. I should not have said that. I have 12 

people. You did not know about the other four. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. We have the darnedst time. We have the 

darnedst time and I know that your staff does, too, just keeping up 

with the dang fool regulations and the cost. It is just killing us. So 

have at it. 

Mr. TEMPEL. Well, from our standpoint, you know, the regulations, just like the sweet boggers we cannot get bends now. So in 

a lot of these flat-bottomed bends and things like that, they will 

not allow us, which we have all had flat-bottomed bends for a long 

time, and so the sweet boggers, we are not allowed to get in those 

at this point, so we are having to come up with different ways to 

do that. 

Senator ROBERTS. Why? 

Mr. TEMPEL. Because they are saying that the risk of somebody 

getting hurt in a bend with an auger in there that allows one side, 

and that is the biggest thing. 

Senator ROBERTS. Okay. 

Mr. TEMPEL. And then the other thing, you talk about dust emissions. I mean, just another thing for us, the ethanol plant. We are 

next to each other within basically 50 years of each other and we 

cannot have a conveyer going to the ethanol plant because of dust 

emissions. So we run a truck around to that ethanol plant, create 

more dust than we would going into the ethanol plant directly. But 

if we tie them together—— 

Senator ROBERTS. You had better water it down at ten in the 

morning and at three in the afternoon. 

50 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TEMPEL. You had better have a big water truck. 

Senator ROBERTS. First we have to find the water. 

Mr. TEMPEL. One other thing we talked about in crop insurance, 

I guess I wanted to mention, we think we should keep that in private hands, not to go into some other program, but to keep that 

in private hands as well. 

Senator ROBERTS. Jeff, what should the Committee consider to 

address the credit needs of producers? 

Mr. WHITHAM. Yes, sir. You asked the last panel some questions 

about young farmers or young men and women trying to get into 

farming. And first of all, USDA has some good programs for young 

and beginning farmers. They have some real estate programs that 

are fixed rate and go out to 40 years. They have some programs 

for equipment and operating that will handle young farmers up to 

a certain size and then they have to graduate. 

So we have worked with a number of young farmers as they have 

come out of that graduation program, I call it, and I am sure the 

Farm Credit System folks have done the same thing. We look for 

ways to work with these young sons and son-in-laws of producers 

and their wives. They are our next crop of customers. They have 

more risk initially, just because it just is so capital intensive. 

These farms programs—that crop insurance and that disaster 

payment program help a lot. That disaster payment program that 

I criticized a bit because—well, it does provide benefits to smaller 

farms and younger farmers. They just do not have as much equity 

and liquidity to withstand a couple of years of poor prices or poor 

yields. 

So we work at it pretty hard. It is still a bit of a chore. If there 

is not a family member helping out a lot, it is a pretty tough chore 

to get done. 

Senator ROBERTS. What is the average size farm in Finney County? I know that it varies from all the—— 

Mr. WHITHAM. You know, it probably is six to eight quarters of 

ground. Most of these producers own some ground and rent some 

ground. Most of these producers irrigate some ground, probably a 

third irrigation and two-thirds dry land, about that size. Probably 

a couple sections. 

Senator ROBERTS. My staff is going to criticize me and beat me 

about the head and shoulders for me even bringing this up, but we 

do have a tremendous—I do not know what to call it—it is a misunderstanding on the part of an awful lot of people who want to 

shape the farm program to help small family farmers. And that is 

somebody five-foot-two in Vermont as opposed to somebody six-footfour in Finney County. 

Now, I am not going to get into all that I get into on that because 

it just gets me riled up and the Chairwoman does not want me to 

do that and take the time to do it. But you said capital intensive. 

And to be a farmer in Finney County, Kansas, America, and 

produce what you do produce in the good years to help our country, 

this country and a very troubled and hungry world, you cannot do 

that. 

51 

Small farmers, God bless them, and all the niche markets and 

I love specialty crops. I eat a Bing cherry every morning with a 

glass of ethanol. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Add some blueberries and apples. 

Senator ROBERTS. Add some blueberries. Well, I do all this with 

Chair Grassley. I do not know if he wants to do that or not. 

But it is so capital intensive. And bless your heart for really focusing on these young farmer issues. I have said enough on that. 

Karen, I really share your concern with the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. You talked about science-based, science-based. We 

need more one-armed scientists so they cannot say on the other 

hand. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Science-based nutrition standards for foods, 

one, improve the nutritional profile of school foods. Everybody 

wants to do that. Two, do it in a way that schools and communities 

can forward. Certainly you want to do that. And three, stop and 

think about it, provide foods that school children actually want to 

eat. 

Now, you have got school meal rules that are proposed without 

making the changes that you have recommended. And the Child 

Nutrition Bill gives specific instructions to school meal rules. They 

are contrary to the new rule on national nutritional guidelines. 

And you are stuck in the middle. You are in purgatory. You are in 

regulatory purgatory. 

The other thing I want to get upset about is, is that I, from time 

to time, go to elementary schools and eat the school lunch program 

that the kids eat, share with them. And we talk a lot and basically, 

started the Reading is Fundamental Program and I am trying to 

get them excited about reading. Big ticket item. 

But then we have school lunch. The president in Garden City, by 

the way, I cannot remember what elementary school it was, the 

young man greeted me. He was student body president, and we all 

file in and he had his tray first and then whatever and then he left 

several little openings there on the tray, pockets, whatever you 

want to call them. 

At any rate, they were empty and the food minder at the end of 

the check-off saying, you know, told him to go back and fill what 

he had not filled, which he did. And so, then we went to the table 

and I, of course, behaved and I took everything. 

So at any rate, while we were sitting there eating, all of a sudden I noticed him glancing around and by that time, there were 

quite a few people emptying their trays and whatever, I looked and 

he had not eaten any of the three that he had not chosen and it 

went into the ash can and came back. 

I said, I thought they told you to eat that or that you were supposed to eat that. He said, Oh, they do all the time. And I said, 

And you do not eat it? He says, No, I do not like it. I said, Well, 

do you not get a little hungry at the end of the day? He said, I do. 

I go straight to Taco Bell. 

Now, there is a lesson there. I understand that the people are 

trying—the Federal Government now, not 4–H, not what you see 

on television, not any number of entities that tell you to do what 

52 

grandmother told you to do in the first place, moderation of all 

things, but the Federal Government now is in the business of less 

salt and maybe taxing jelly rolls—I am not making this up. That 

was an idea that popped up in the Finance Committee, no pun intended. 

Holy cow. We are getting into a big nanny government that tells 

us what to eat, how to eat, when to eat it and everything else, and 

I am all for a nutritious diet. Goodness knows, we have a real problem with obesity. As a matter of fact, if we could put a program 

next to obesity, it would be funded. 

But what do you do? How do you operate with this indecision? 

Are you the one that they drafted to get up to speed, all this, and 

keep up with the regulations and know what you are doing and everything else? 

Ms. WILDER. Absolutely. 

Senator ROBERTS. Bless your heart. You need a purple heart or 

something. 

Ms. WILDER. Unlike you, I have more than actually 12 behind me 

and my staff that help to interpret. I also visit with hundreds of 

school food service directors and I will tell you that there is a lot 

of fear and concern in the hearts of food service directors who do 

the best they can to pull together a nutritious meal for the children 

that they serve. 

They listen to the children. They have them come in and taste 

foods. They actually get students to do a thumbs up/thumbs down 

on foods. This particular regulation that was issued as a proposal 

by the Food and Nutrition Service is unprecedented, not only in 

terms of the number of changes and regulations built into it, and 

the fact that it is unfunded to the level that food service directors 

need, but the fact that food service directors were never asked for 

their opinion. They were never asked. 

How is this going to work in your school? They were never asked 

to even pilot or test, which frankly, has happened in the past with 

the Food and Nutrition Service. So lo and behold, we are faced with 

a whole host of changes in the menu plans. Now we are feeding 

children at different ages, different grades, different foods, different 

calorie levels. 

The sodium restrictions are exceedingly difficult and while we all 

need to cut back on sodium, the reality is, salt is in a number of 

foods, not only for functional purposes—think about dough development for those of you that make bread. Take salt out. What happens to it? 

But also preservation. Think about meats. Food standards. Many 

of the food standards are going to run counter to the proposed 

rules. So again, this has not really been thought through. 

From a science standpoint, the school breakfast and school lunch 

program are there for the purpose of helping to arm children with 

the food and the nutrition that they need to think, to act, if it is 

in athletic programs, if it is playing a musical instrument. It is to 

help a student do the best they can. 

We know from research and research that we funded that hungry children do not learn. They act up in school. They do not feel 

well. They are going to the school nurse. So if we have got a proVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Mar 30, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71636.TXT MICHA
53 

gram that is funded, but the children do not eat the foods, then we 

have failed them. 

And all I can say is, again, we need to kind of hold back on some 

of the regulations, the way they have been proposed. The time lines 

are exceedingly aggressive. It is going to cost food companies, including us, a lot to try and manufacture a process and a product 

that delivers products that schools want. And then the question is, 

will children eat the food? 

So we are very concerned and we know a lot of other members 

of industry are also concerned. 

Senator ROBERTS. I thank you for your comments and it is a subject matter I know the Chairwoman and I care very deeply about. 

And I am not going to go into any more rants on big nanny government. I think that that closes my questions, Madam Chairwoman. 

If you would like to ask additional questions or make some concluding remarks, I would certainly applaud those at this time. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. And thank you, 

each and every one of you, and to everyone who has been with us 

today. This has been very helpful and very important. I want to 

thank you, Kansas, for sending an extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable Senator, one that keeps us entertained at every meeting. 

So I thank you for that as well. 

But in all seriousness, we know we have a lot of challenges in 

front of us, probably the toughest Farm Bill to write since the first 

one was written. But we all know it is an opportunity for us to take 

a tough look and to do our best to make sure that everything we 

are doing, every dollar we are spending is spent and stretched as 

effectively and as far as possible, and that is what we are doing. 

Agriculture has and will continue to be a part of solving problems in our country, including our deficit, and we will all work together to do our very best job on that. But let me just close by saying that really supporting American agriculture and rural communities is a lot more than about funding levels or even policies. 

In my judgment, it is about our way of life in America. It is 

about communities, it is about values, it is about a sense of responsibility. We have a large number of our men and women in the 

armed services coming from rural America. Why? Because there is 

a sense of giving back. And I think that is worth fighting for. Our 

way of life is worth fighting for. 

To me, in addition to everything else we talk about, that is an 

important reason to have a strong rural America with a strong agricultural background. And that is what we are focused on doing 

and I very much appreciate your being here. 

We would just indicate again that we need to have any comments you would like to make given to us in the next five business 

days, which would end at 5:00 p.m. on September 1st. 

With that, thank you so much for having me. It is great to be 

in Wichita, Kansas, and the meeting is adjourned. 

[Applause.] [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

AUGUST 25, 2011 

56 


71636.001
57 


71636.002
58 


71636.003
59 


71636.004
60 


71636.005
61 


71636.006
62 


71636.007
63 


71636.008
64 


71636.009
65 


71636.010
66 


71636.011
67 


71636.012
68 


71636.013
69 


71636.014
70 


71636.015
71 


71636.016
72 


71636.017
73 


71636.018
74 


71636.019
75 


71636.020
76 


71636.021
77 


71636.022
78 


71636.023
79 


71636.024
80 


71636.025
81 


71636.026
82 


71636.027
83 


71636.028
84 


71636.029
85 


71636.030
86 


71636.031
87 


71636.032
88 


71636.033
89 


71636.034
90 


71636.035
91 


71636.036
92 


71636.037
93 


71636.038
94 


71636.039
95 


71636.040
96 


71636.041
97 


71636.042
98 


71636.043
99 


71636.044
100 


71636.045
101 


71636.046
102 


71636.047
103 


71636.048
104 


71636.049
105 


71636.050
106 


71636.051
107 


71636.052
108 


71636.053
109 


71636.054
110 


71636.055
111 


71636.056
112 


71636.057
113 


71636.058
114 


71636.059
115 


71636.060
116 


71636.061
117 


71636.062
118 


71636.063
119 


71636.064
120 


71636.065
121 


71636.066
122 


71636.067
123 


71636.068
124 


71636.069
125 


71636.070
126 


71636.071
127 


71636.072
128 


71636.073
129 


71636.074
130 


71636.075
131 


71636.076
132 


71636.077
133 


71636.078
134 


71636.079
135 


71636.080
136 


71636.081
137 


71636.082
138 


71636.083
139 


71636.084
140 


71636.085
141 


71636.086
142 


71636.087
143 


71636.088
144 


71636.089
145 


71636.090
146 


71636.091
147 


71636.092
148 


71636.093
149 


71636.094
150 


71636.095
151 


71636.096
(153) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

AUGUST 25, 2011 

154 


71636.097
155 


71636.098
156 


71636.099
157 


71636.100
158 


71636.101
159 


71636.102
160 


71636.103
161 


71636.104
162 


71636.105
163 


71636.106