S. Hrg. 112–278 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 

THE ROLE, RISKS, AND CHALLENGES 

FOR AMERICAN AGRICULTURE AND THE 

NEXT FARM BILL IN MEETING 

THE DEMANDS OF A GROWING WORLD 

HEARING 

øBEFORE THE¿ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 26, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: THE ROLE, RISKS, AND CHALLENGES FOR AMERICAN AGRIWORLD CULTURE AND THE NEXT FARM BILL IN MEETING THE DEMANDS OF A GROWING 

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

71–627 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–278 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 

THE ROLE, RISKS, AND CHALLENGES 

FOR AMERICAN AGRICULTURE AND THE 

NEXT FARM BILL IN MEETING 

THE DEMANDS OF A GROWING WORLD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 26, 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 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 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 

HEARING(S): 

Food for Thought: The Role, Risks, and Challenges for American Agriculture 

and the Next Farm Bill in Meeting the Demands of a Growing World .......... 1 

Thursday, May 26, 2011 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

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

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................ 4 

Grassley, Hon. Charles, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................. 13 

Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska .......................... 2 

Panel I 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 5 

Panel II 

Glickman, Hon. Dan, Co-Chair, The Chicago Council’s Global Agricultural 

Development Initiative; former Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

and Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, DC ....................... 32 

Mumby, Barry, Senior Member, Wakeshma Farms LLC, Colon, Michigan ....... 34 

Rosenberg, Andrew, Ph.D., Senior Vice President for Science and Knowledge, 

Conservation International, Alexandria, Virginia ............................................. 36 

Devries, Douglas, Senior Vice President, Global Marketing Services, Agriculture and Turf Division, Deere and Company, Moline, Illinois .................... 37 

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, Ph.D., H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition, 

and Public Policy, J. Thomas Clark Professor of Entrepreneurship, and 

Professor of Applied Economics, Cornell University, and Professor of Agricultural Economics, Copenhagen University, Ithaca, New York ..................... 39 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod ........................................................................................ 48 

Thune, Hon. John ............................................................................................. 49 

Devries, Douglas ............................................................................................... 52 

Glickman, Hon. Dan ......................................................................................... 61 

Mumby, Barry ................................................................................................... 67 

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per .................................................................................... 75 

Rosenberg, Andrew ........................................................................................... 81 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom ............................................................................................ 85 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Glickman, Hon. Dan: 

‘‘2011 Progress Report on U.S. Leadership in Global Agricultural Development’’The Chicago Council on Global Affairs ............................................. 94 

‘‘Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger 

and Poverty’’, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs ............................... 151 

Page

IV 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby: 

Written questions to Hon. Tom Vilsack .......................................................... 407 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten: 

Written questions to Hon. Tom Vilsack .......................................................... 406 

Johanns, Hon. Mike: 

Written questions to Hon. Tom Vilsack .......................................................... 411 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 

Written questions to Hon. Tom Vilsack .......................................................... 394 

Written questions to Hon. Dan Glickman ...................................................... 383 

Written questions to Barry Mumby ................................................................ 384 

Written questions to Andrew Rosenberg ........................................................ 388 

Written questions to Douglas DeVries ............................................................ 380 

Written questions to Per Pinstrup-Anderson ................................................. 387 

Thune, Hon. John: 

Written questions to Hon. Tom Vilsack .......................................................... 414 

Written questions to Hon. Dan Glickman ...................................................... 383 

Written questions to Barry Mumby ................................................................ 385 

Written questions to Andrew Rosenberg ........................................................ 392 

Written questions to Douglas DeVries ............................................................ 381 

Devries, Douglas: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 380 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 381 

Glickman, Hon. Dan: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 383 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 383 

Mumby, Barry: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 384 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 385 

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 387 

Rosenberg, Andrew: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 388 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 392 

Vilsack, Hon. Tom: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 394 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 406 

Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss ......................... 407 

Written response to questions from Hon. Mike Johanns .............................. 411 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 414 

(1) 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 

THE ROLE, RISKS, AND CHALLENGES 

FOR AMERICAN AGRICULTURE AND THE 

NEXT FARM BILL IN MEETING 

THE DEMANDS OF A GROWING WORLD 

Thursday, May 26, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in Room 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman of the committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Stabenow, Conrad, 

Nelson, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Johanns, Lugar, Boozman, 

Grassley, Thune, and Hoeven. 

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

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

Chairwoman STABENOW. Good morning. The meeting will come 

to order. I am very pleased to be having our first official farm bill 

hearing and to have our distinguished Secretary of Agriculture 

with us, as well. 

Let me first start by saying that my friend and Ranking Member 

Senator Roberts would certainly not want to miss the hearing 

today, but due to a death in the family, he has had to do that, and 

our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. But I am 

very pleased to have joining me as the Ranking Member, as the 

person that will be leading our Republican colleagues today, Senator Johanns from Nebraska. Thank you very much for being here. 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. We appreciate it. 

As the Secretary just indicated, we do have some wonderful 

Michigan red tart cherries for everyone, so please enjoy. 

Senator Nelson, thank you very much for being here. Senator 

Brown, welcome this morning. 

You know, the story of agriculture over the last 50 years is one 

of incredible productivity gains and impressive conservation 

achievements. Today, one American farmer feeds an estimated 150 

people. Think about that. One farmer for 150 people. And despite 

all the economic and budget struggles over the last decade, agriculture has remained a bright spot. We continue to innovate. Farmers have become even more productive and they have become even 

2 

better stewards of our land and our water resources. And we are 

not only feeding the world because of that innovation, but we are 

showing farmers in every corner of the world new strategies to be 

more productive themselves. 

Today, as we officially kick off the process for the 2012 farm bill, 

we are starting in a different spot than we have in the past. Instead of the usual discussion where we talk about each of the various farm bill programs, we are focusing today on the principles 

that are important for this discussion, the ability of American agriculture to feed the world, why that is critically important, how 

American agriculture can help the world better feed itself, and the 

risks and challenges that come with that, meeting the demands for 

better stewardship while producing more with limited resources. 

We have some great witnesses today who will testify this morning, and Secretary Vilsack is here, one of our nation’s greatest advocates for agriculture, rural development, conservation, and innovative farming, and we appreciate that. 

Our second panel is made up of leading experts who will talk 

about the importance of getting the farm bill right for not only 

American producers, but for consumers throughout the world. 

This first hearing of the 2012 farm bill is a great step down the 

long, deliberative road that this committee will undertake over the 

next year as we work to craft a bill that effectively meets our principles and our priorities and one that helps American agriculture 

continue to lead the world in productivity, innovation, and sustainability. 

It is easy to take our agricultural policies for granted, to assume 

that without them, things would work just the same as they do 

now. But when we look back at history, we can only marvel at how 

far we have come. 

I will use a current example. Today, people in the Western edge 

of the Oklahoma panhandle are enduring the longest drought on 

record, with over 240 days without rain. That is worse than the 

droughts experienced during the Dust Bowl. And yet, today, there 

is no dust storm. The topsoil is not blowing away. That is a testament to the good work our farmers and ranchers have done thanks 

to voluntary conservation efforts in the farm bill. There are many 

other examples of positive effects of American farm policy. 

So as we get started with the hearing today, let us remember the 

150 people who have food on their table today because of one American farmer. Let us celebrate the successes and recognize the challenges ahead. Let us keep focused on the principles, the goals, not 

the programs, that the farm bill should accomplish. And let us continue to work together to make sure that American agriculture remains prosperous and successful for years to come. 

It is now my pleasure to turn to Senator Johanns for his opening 

remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is an 

honor to be here, an honor to serve in a temporary capacity, at 

least, as Ranking Member for the purposes of this hearing. 

3 

I know I speak on behalf of all of us when I send my condolences 

to Senator Roberts and his wife, Franki, and their family, and I 

also know that he really wanted to be here, but family matters, the 

death in the family, called him away. He is disappointed to miss 

the hearing. I offered on his behalf to share a few remarks, and 

they will be very, very brief because I am anxious to get to our witnesses. 

Let me also start out today and say, Secretary Vilsack, it is good 

to see you here. What an appropriate way to kind of kick off our 

efforts in farm policy. 

Secretary Glickman, it is good to see you here today, also. 

As this committee begins examining our current suite of agriculture and nutrition programs, it is always important to remind 

ourselves and identify the underlying reasons for those programs. 

Farming and agriculture is about supplying the food, feed, and 

fiber necessary—and energy—for a growing global demand. 

The challenge facing agriculture producers worldwide, especially 

in the United States, is a very real challenge and it is a formidable 

one. We have already begun to see the effects of not meeting this 

challenge in places all over the world, but I would mention Egypt, 

Syria, and, of course, Africa. 

With this in mind, why would the Federal Government ever want 

to do anything that would impair the ability of our farmers and 

ranchers, our growers, to meet the demands that exist for the future? Why would we ever want to do anything that would impact 

their ability to serve and meet the needs of a growing world? 

We can spend a lot of time going through those statistics, but I 

think we all know them. The population is putting greater and 

greater demands on the United States farmer and rancher and 

grower to feed the world and provide the energy sources and the 

fiber sources. 

I especially want to say thank you to the people at USDA who 

have worked so hard through the years to put us in the right place 

to get policy right. As we know, I worked with those fine folks for 

three years and they do so many good things. 

I also want to thank our witnesses that are here today. We appreciate the opportunity to hear your testimony and to ask you 

questions and I look forward to that. 

While we often think in terms of one five-year farm bill to the 

next, I would suggest that as we queue ourselves up to think about 

this farm bill, we think about agriculture’s long-term importance in 

feeding a troubled and hungry world and how that relates to our 

national security and to our future. I believe it is a key part of 

that. 

Well, I will wrap up by saying I associate myself with those comments from our Ranking Member that I just delivered. I do look 

forward to engaging in a farm bill process, I guess on this side of 

the table would be the best way of putting that, and I look forward 

to working with our Chair, as we did last time, in crafting farm 

policy, and since I have been in the Senate, on resolving the issues 

relating to the 1099 requirements. 

With that, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I look 

forward to our witnesses. 

4 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, 

and let me just say, Senator Johanns, that one of the things that 

I think is really terrific about our committee is that we very much 

focus together. This is not a partisan committee. This is a committee where we focus together on farm policy. We may have differences about which crops we advocate for or what we believe is 

the most important focus, but it is very much done on a bipartisan 

basis, and I see my colleagues here on both sides who have been 

so critical in crafting farm bills and we very much appreciate everyone’s leadership and attendance today. 

We have excellent panelists today, and in the interest of time, I 

will ask that members’ opening statements be submitted for the 

record. We will recognize the Senators, as we always do, in order 

of appearance on alternating sides. We would like to thank everyone—— 

Senator BROWN. Madam Chair? Madam Chair? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. I have to preside at 11:00. Could I just have 60 

seconds now—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, you may. 

Senator BROWN. —since I will not get to the questions before I 

have to leave to preside. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Absolutely. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us, Secretary Glickman, too. Thank you for your work in helping with our 

ag research station in Worcester. Agriculture is still, as it is for 

most of us, the most important, largest industry in our State and 

research is a big component of that. 

And thank you, too, for your interest in the ACRE program and 

what you have done in crop insurance. We need to figure out, as 

the Chair and I have talked and others who have interest in that 

program, in conservation programs and the ACRE program both in 

terms of the safety net, the work we can do together to strengthen 

that and make it simpler so that more farmers, particularly more 

corn and soybean farmers who want to enroll in it will be crucial 

for only saving taxpayer dollars and providing that safety net for 

agriculture in my State. 

So I just wanted to say that, Madam Chair. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you, and we thank you very 

much for your leadership. Thank you. 

Well, I am very pleased to introduce officially our first panelist, 

Secretary Tom Vilsack, no stranger to any of us. Secretary Vilsack 

is a tremendous voice for American agriculture in rural America, 

has been since the beginning of his public service in Iowa as a 

former mayor and State Senator and two-term Governor of Iowa. 

He has brought a wealth of experience with him to the USDA. 

We look forward to hearing your testimony, Mr. Secretary. Welcome. 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much 

for that kind introduction, and to Senator Johanns, it is good to see 

you again, as it is all the members of this panel. 

First of all, let me also add my voice to yours in expressing condolences to the Roberts family for the loss as well as all of the families in the nine States that have been devastated by tornadoes and 

floods recently. Our hearts and prayers go out to all of them. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss U.S. agriculture and the next farm bill today. Many folks do not recognize 

it, but American farmers and our agricultural industry are responsible in no small way for the health and strength of our great nation. Not only do we rely on American agriculture for food, feed, 

fiber, and fuel, our agricultural producers also preserve our environment and help drive our national economy. That is why we believe and continue to believe a strong and effective safety net needs 

to be in place for those who need it. 

Agriculture is responsible for one out of every 12 jobs in America, 

and while many sectors of our economy are running trade deficits, 

American agriculture has enjoyed a trade surplus for nearly 50 

years. This year, we expect a record surplus and record agricultural 

exports should help support more than one million jobs across the 

nation. 

What is more, the incredible productivity of American farmers 

and ranchers makes all of us more prosperous. American families 

spend only six to seven cents out of every dollar on food, less than 

almost any other nation. That means we can spend more on a nicer 

home, save for retirement, or fund our children’s college education. 

And American farmers have taken extraordinary steps to take 

care of our nation’s natural resources. In the last 30 years alone, 

USDA has helped producers reduce soil erosion by more than 40 

percent, and agriculture has gone from being a cause of wetland 

loss to leading the entire nation in wetland restoration efforts. Our 

farms act as carbon sinks, mitigate the impact of climate change. 

Our farmlands, pasture, and forests help clean the water we drink 

and the air we breathe. 

But American farmers, as the Chairwoman has noted in her invitation to this hearing, also have a role in feeding a growing world 

population. They not only do this through historic productivity and 

record exports, but also through the development and embracing of 

new research and innovative practices and technology as well as institutional structures that can be shared with the rest of the world. 

At USDA, we support farmers in both their domestic responsibilities and their international role. Additionally, the Department 

seeks to conserve the nation’s natural resources, build thriving 

rural communities, and ensure that every American has access to 

healthy, safe, and affordable food. 

So as we prepare to write a new farm bill, you will have to discuss how USDA continues to support these various goals. At the 

same time, there will be considerable external pressures on that 

process, fiscal and political realities about the size of the debt and 

deficit, and the tight budget they have inspired. I have no doubts 

that the next farm bill will be smaller than the one that was 

6 

agreed upon in 2008. In acknowledging that reality, I hope that 

this committee will give serious thought to your priorities for 

American agriculture and your priorities for USDA and to the values of the American people. 

We at USDA are prepared to do as much as we can with fewer 

resources, but there is no doubt that cuts will have a real impact 

on American agriculture and on American people. There will be 

pain and everyone will have to sacrifice something. There are no 

easy cuts. Waste, fraud, and abuse are real, but they represent 

only a tiny fraction of the big budget picture. 

Today, USDA is already being forced to make very tough choices 

based on the budget resolution that is funding us through the end 

of this fiscal year. As a result of those cuts and because I assume 

there will be more coming, I am asking top leaders at USDA to 

think creatively about how to do business. Are there changes we 

could make in structure, program delivery, staffing, or responsibilities that could improve our efficiency or the quality of service we 

provide? I want folks to look at this moment as an opportunity to 

build a USDA for the 21st century, one that does things differently 

and might not deliver all of the services that we do today. 

And I would ask as this committee prepared to write a farm bill 

that you do the same. Let us know what your priorities are. Are 

there places where the private or nonprofit sectors can or should 

be involved? What are the results you want? Where should USDA 

focus its energy? And what are the resources you will be able to 

provide to allow us to meet the goals you have set for the Department? 

When these elements begin to be settled, I would ask you to give 

USDA the flexibility to serve American agriculture and the American people as effectively as possible. While prescriptive programs 

are appealing, they can make it difficult for USDA to deliver the 

best results for Americans. Give us the flexibility and the time we 

need to adjust to make this big difference. 

Please also recognize that we simply cannot cut our way out of 

a deficit. We also have to grow our way out. If we want to grow 

businesses, create jobs, and increase incomes, we need to make 

sure America is built to compete. We have to bear the cutbacks, but 

also, we must invest in our future so that we can strengthen American agriculture, rural communities, and the middle class while 

also growing our economy. In the end, the American farmer and 

rancher should be instructive to this body. The strength of American producers comes from their willingness to adapt, to work hard, 

to shoulder sacrifice, and to innovate. 

As Congress moves to write a new farm bill with limited resources, I hope you think of USDA in a similar light. We are ready 

to adapt and innovate, but we need clear goals and the resources 

to get us there. I look forward to working with Congress, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate members, to craft the 

next farm bill to serve as best we can with the budget we are 

given, American agriculture and the American people. 

Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my statement. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack can be found on 

page 85 in the appendix.] 

7 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Secretary 

Vilsack, and let me first start by indicating that I share and I believe the whole committee shares great concerns here as we move 

forward on the challenges in putting together a farm bill, given the 

discussions that are occurring as it relates to the very important 

need to tackle our deficit, as I think you and I both share the belief 

that agriculture has done its part, and done a very big part already 

before anyone else is doing it and has taken significant cuts in the 

current budget that was agreed to. So we have got to make sure 

that we understand the importance of rural America and the 16 

million people that already work in agriculture and the need to 

grow. We are never going to get out of debt with 13 million people 

out of work in this country, and so we have got to focus on growing 

the economy and agriculture is a very important part of that. 

So we have very challenging times to work on together and I appreciate your leadership in the tough challenges that we have got 

in front of us as we do this together. We will do it. We will do it 

to the best of our ability. But these are, I think, challenging times 

on the budget front. 

Let me talk a little bit about the—and ask you a couple of questions concerning the lessons that we have learned from what we 

have done right in American agriculture, when we look at this farm 

bill and all the positive aspects of it and the efforts that we have 

put into R&D and the efforts around supporting production agriculture and conservation practices and stewardship and so on. 

What are the top two or three lessons we have learned from all 

of that that we should be exporting and teaching to farmers around 

the world as they seek to improve sustainable production? 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, I think one of the most important lessons is the importance of continued investment in research. 

We have not been able to be productive as we have been without 

the important research that is being done, both publicly financed 

research and also privately financed research. That is why I think 

it is important for us to continue relationships with farmers and 

producers across the globe, making sure that we can impart our 

technology and our knowledge as well as our food assistance. 

The second thing I would say is that I think we all have a responsibility to continue to conserve the national resources, whether 

they are here in the United States or wherever they might be. And 

to the extent that we can encourage better conservation techniques, 

better utilization of scarce water resources, we might be able to be 

more productive and also create a better environment. 

And then the third thing I would say is that I think it is important for the rest of the world to be willing to embrace technology. 

As we have learned, one of the ways in which we can be more productive is by using science to increase the capacity of plants and 

livestock to withstand pests, diseases. We have had extraordinary 

increases in productivity because of science. And I think we have 

to work very hard to educate the rest of the world about this 

science and accepting science so that there is not the fear or concern that sometimes prohibits or inhibits producers in other countries from embracing that science. 

I would say I can answer that question in much greater detail, 

but that gives you a sense of what we have learned. 

8 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. Let us explore a little bit 

more about conservation efforts and better farming practices that 

have helped our farmers manage the significant risks that they 

face. What are some of the practices that seem to deliver, in your 

judgment, the most benefits to risk management for farmers and, 

again, top lessons as we look not only in our country but around 

the world in terms of where our focus should be. 

Secretary VILSACK. On conservation specifically? Well, we are 

learning a good deal about the benefits of conservation through an 

assessment process that we have just begun to utilize in large watersheds. I think what we have learned is that while it is important to focus on individual operations, also, you have to have an 

integrated and comprehensive approach to conservation that focuses on large watersheds. 

So, for example, we are investing resources in the Chesapeake 

Bay area and the Upper Mississippi River area, the California Bay 

delta and other areas. We have begun an assessment of how effective those conservation practices are. We have learned the following lessons. 

One, that American producers are willing to adopt conservation 

techniques. They are voluntarily willing to adopt those techniques. 

Two, that it is important that there be a suite of conservation 

practices. It is not just an individual conservation practice but multiple practices working in an integrated fashion that give you the 

biggest bang for the buck. 

Three, we know that conservation is working. We see less soil 

erosion. We see less nitrogen and phosphorous, for example, getting 

into our waterways. We obviously have more work to do, and that 

we have got to integrate those conservation practices with also better nutrient management plans and programs. 

I am encouraged by the assessments that we have done in the 

two areas. We are doing on in the Great Lakes right now and we 

will see what that unfolds. But when you look at 40 percent less 

soil erosion since 1982 and you see that there is a substantial less 

reliance on water resources because of conservation, these are practices and techniques that we can apply not just in the United 

States, but all over the world. 

I would also say that it is extremely important to make sure that 

we have the resources and that we target those resources and that 

we provide the technical assistance. Conservation is really handson. You have got to have people working with the farmer personally to be able to have the best effect, and what we have seen in 

the past is a mismatch between the amount of resources being provided and the number of people being able to manage those resources. So we are trying to align that better at USDA so that we 

can provide more technical assistance and more hands-on efforts. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. And finally, information I have read indicates that the incredible yield gains we have seen in the past decade may be slowing down. Is this an issue that the USDA has been 

tracking and analyzing, and do you have any insights as to what 

might be causing this, what we are working on in terms of solutions, and, of course, what is happening with the weather, of 

course, is also another huge discussion point. But speak a little bit 

about what you are seeing in terms of yield gains. 

9 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think the long term, I think that 

there are still gains to be had. We have seen enormous increases. 

Corn, in my lifetime, has increased 338 percent, wheat almost 200 

percent, soybeans 200 percent, to give you a sense of the productivity gains. So, obviously, as we have seen these dramatic gains, 

what we are now getting into are incremental increases as we 

maximize our efficiency. 

Having said that, I think that there are technologies that are 

being worked on in the private sector and in the public sector that 

hold great promise for a continued growth in productivity. The key 

here is to have a regulatory structure and system that allows those 

advantages, those technologies to get into production more quickly, 

which is why we are in the process of putting a Process Improvement Plan in place in APHIS to basically try to see if we can speed 

up our review of the regulatory impacts of these technologies to try 

to get them approved more quickly. We have had a backlog and it 

is something that needs to be addressed. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator JOHANNS. 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, I was heartened during your testimony by your 

reference to the safety net, the need for the safety net in appropriate circumstances for farmers. Let me, if I might, dig a little 

deeper on the whole concept of the safety net. 

When I became Secretary in January of 2005, corn prices were, 

I do not know, $1.95. With Katrina, if you will remember, they 

dropped to, like, $1.60. I mean, it was a wild time. The concept of 

a safety net then was the Marketing Loan Program, the countercyclical program. Without those, farmers in Iowa, Nebraska, across 

the corn belt literally would have gone broke because they were 

farming and producing their crops and not even covering the cost 

of production. 

Of course, that has changed today. Prices are strong. The carryover shown by the USDA is historically tight. It seems to indicate 

pretty good prices as we look into the next farm bill. 

As I get around the country in Nebraska and talk to producers, 

it seems like they reference me back to the importance of the Crop 

Insurance Program as the mainstay, if you will, of the safety net, 

and I would like to hear your thoughts about that, because it occurs to me that we could leave the loan deficiency program in 

place, the Marketing Loan Program. We could leave the countercyclical program in place. It is not going to pay out much for most 

of the crops anyway, if anything. But it is crop insurance that we 

need to be focused on, especially with the disasters that we have 

seen this year, but disaster seems to be always a part of agriculture. I would like to hear your thoughts on crop insurance as 

kind of the bedrock upon which we build a safety net for the next 

farm bill. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Senator, it obviously depends on what 

crop you are talking about, whether or not crop insurance is the 

vehicle for the safety net. But clearly, in the area that you have 

talked about, it is an important component. And so it is important 

for us to maintain the integrity and the viability of crop insurance 

10 

with whatever decisions you all make, and there is no question 

about that. 

The reality is, though, that you have to couple that, it seems to 

me, with a disaster program that recognizes that as good as crop 

insurance can be, there are circumstances and situations where it 

is not enough, or there are extraordinary and catastrophic circumstances, as we are seeing now in States that have been hit 

very, very hard recently in the South and in the Central part of 

the country, where we need to basically have a way in which we 

can provide additional assistance. 

At the same time, I think it is really important for everyone to 

understand that there are a number of different types of farmers 

in this country. There are commercial- sized operations for which 

crop insurance is vital, disaster assistance is important. But there 

are also relatively small-sized operations, operations that maybe 

they will generate less than $250,000 in sales. Those folks, in the 

second best year we have had in agricultural income in 35 years 

last year, will be lucky if they average $10,000 from their farming 

operation. 

And you might want to say, well, you know, maybe those folks 

do not—maybe it is time for them to consider something else. But 

to me, we want to make sure that rural communities still are thriving. We want to see them populated with young families. We want 

to see folks get back into the farming business. So as you craft your 

safety net, I hope everyone keeps their attention focused on that 

middle group who struggle mightily, who work off the farm, whose 

spouse works off the farm, who want to stay connected to the land. 

And so crop insurance is important. Disaster assistance is important. And we obviously want strong markets. We want to continue 

to promote exports. And, frankly, we also want to find more domestic opportunities to link those producers with local consumers so 

that perhaps there are additional opportunities for them that did 

not exist. 

Senator JOHANNS. You are kind of, I think—and I could not 

agree with you more. I always said I grew up on one of those small 

farms, as you know, in your home State, and I just love all of agriculture. I love the small operator to the big operator. I just love agriculture. 

But I think kind of what you are thinking about is kind of what 

I am thinking about, and that is that as you think about agriculture for the future and the importance of that safety net, and 

recognizing the severe budget limitations, I am hoping to encourage 

people to focus on the dollars that are available in the current agriculture programs and saying to ourselves, those dollars need to be 

committed to that because there is a better job we can do in crop 

insurance. There are some other things we can do. You expanded 

disaster relief beyond that. Well, what it comes down to is it just 

takes some money to finance that. Any reaction to that comment? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it does take money, but I think we are 

obviously facing the fiscal reality that there is just not going to be 

as much money as there has been in the past. I have a—I have 

seen a chart, and I do not know if it is accurate or not, but over 

the last 30 years, if you look at real growth in spending by function 

in terms of outlays in constant dollars, agriculture as one of the 

11 

many responsibilities, whether it is defense or space and science or 

transportation, agriculture has pretty much flat-lined in that 30- 

year period, and I think that is really an important consideration 

as you all discuss how you allocate these resources and how you 

allocate the reductions. 

Agriculture has been a good steward of the fiscal resources that 

have been provided to it. It has increased productivity. It has made 

food available and affordable. It has provided export opportunities. 

It has created jobs. You got a pretty good return for your dollar. 

So, clearly, we are going to have to be innovative, and I think 

one place where we can be innovative, if I can just take a second, 

is in addition to the safety net, the conservation programs. I think 

there are ways in which we can utilize conservation programs to 

encourage more private sector investment, and we are working 

with the EPA in a way to try to figure out if there is a way in 

which we could provide regulatory certainty for producers when 

they follow a suite of conservation practices. 

If you combine regulatory certainty and creating and being able 

to define the environmental results that you get from certain conservation techniques that somebody in the private sector may want 

to purchase, you now have a new opportunity to leverage those 

Federal dollars in an effective way, and that is what I think we are 

challenged to do. How do you leverage—how do you expand opportunities with those Federal dollars? 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator NELSON. Senator NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here today and for your extraordinary service 

for American agriculture. We appreciate it so very much. 

I want to continue with something that Senator Stabenow 

brought up more specifically here. The 2008 farm bill Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or as we all refer to it, EQIP, 

gave priority to water conservation or irrigation efficiency applications that reduce water use, projects where the producer agrees 

that associated water savings would not be used to bring new land 

under irrigation production, and proposals that improved conservation practices or systems that were already in place. 

And while the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program has 

provided financial and technical assistance to help farmers and 

ranchers conserve ground and surface water and improve the quality on agricultural lands, the first question I have is, have these 

programs been successful in helping producers reduce or more efficiently utilize their water resources in their production? 

Secretary VILSACK. The quick answer is they have, Senator, 

roughly, a 40 percent greater efficiency as a result of these programs, and it goes along with the additional soil erosion benefits 

from conservation. So the combination of the two indicates that 

they are working. 

Senator NELSON. And it is as though I am seeking to get another 

positive answer here, which I am. And do you believe that EQIP 

is effective in balancing environmental considerations and the need 

to produce a reliable and safe food supply versus the alternative of 

additional regulations? 

12 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. Okay. And then the final question in this area 

is to what extent is the Department working to promote these more 

efficient technologies that we have developed domestically to help 

other countries that are facing astute or very acute water shortage 

problems themselves? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, as part of the Feed the Future Initiative, we are focusing our efforts on capacity building, and one of 

the aspects of capacity building is taking our technical information 

and knowledge to countries and basically imparting that knowledge 

to farmers and producers as well as researchers and academic 

folks. We have, as you know, a very robust fellowship program with 

the Borlaug and Cochran Fellowships, which provide us an opportunity to share that information. 

An example is what we are doing in Afghanistan, where we have 

got teams of folks from USDA working with USAID and with Afghan farmers to try to convince them to move away from poppy 

production to pomegranates or apricots or things of that nature, 

and we are beginning to see some positive results. Our focus is obviously limited by resources, but nevertheless, I think we are making a real impact with the transfer of technology and information. 

Senator NELSON. Well, I think it is important that we continue 

to do that, because while only 17 percent of the world’s arable land 

is irrigated today, it still produces roughly 40 percent of total output, so it seems that we are going to have to continue to try to get 

better water use and to limit the quantity of water that is used to 

produce the kind of production that we are expecting today. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we are working and experimenting and 

researching various irrigation techniques which are being transferred as well as—and this gets back to the comment I made earlier—the importance of having countries embrace new technologies. 

We are working on drought-resistant seed, and to the extent that 

we can develop seeds that are more resistant to tough, stressful environmental conditions, the more productive folks can be around 

the world. But there has to be an openness and a willingness to 

embrace that technology. At this point in time, there is sometimes 

a reluctance. 

Senator NELSON. Well, in China, approximately 1,400 square 

miles of land in the northern regions turn to desert every year, 

and, of course, this limits their production and creates a greater demand with less production. So I hope that we are able to find the 

willingness to follow our lead in China and other locations in the 

use of water to certainly conserve it. 

Moving to another area that the Chair has referenced, biotechnology, I know that you support biotechnology and the benefits 

that it provides agriculture in being more efficient in meeting the 

needs of the growing world population. I really was appreciative of 

your efforts with Roundup Ready sugar beets when we were facing 

some challenges in getting that handled because of some court 

cases. Because of your efforts, I have heard often from my producers the frustration of the growing length of time it is taking for 

the Department to grant authorization for new products that have 

been submitted for review. Could you give us some idea of what 

13 

steps are being taken by the Department to perhaps approach this 

in a more timely manner? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there are a greater number of these and 

they are far more complex than when we first started this process, 

which is one of the reasons why it is taking a little bit longer. We 

have done a couple of things. 

First of all, as I indicated earlier, we are engaged in a Process 

Improvement Program in which we are trying to eliminate steps in 

the regulatory process that are duplicative or unnecessary. 

We are also expanding the number of people that are working on 

this particular area. We have proposed, notwithstanding the budget difficulties, to reallocate resources in creating additional teams 

of people that can look at this. 

We have also suggested that we can follow the same process that 

EPA and other regulatory bodies follow in encouraging or providing 

an alternative to us reviewing information, providing an independent contractor paid for by those who are seeking the regulatory relief to do a review, and then we at USDA would review 

the review, if you will, to ensure that its integrity—that it is solid 

and that its science is sound. This might speed up the process significantly. 

Having said that, I think that there continue to be challenges, 

which is why we are trying to encourage dialogue and a conversation between those who have questions and concerns about biotechnology, those who wish to proceed in a different direction, 

which we also support, organic production. There needs to be a 

more serious conversation between those groups so that we can 

find common ground, and we are trying to facilitate that at USDA. 

Senator NELSON. Well, as you know, the new biotechnology that 

continues to increase every day has resulted in far better yields in 

America than perhaps in other countries. Where their production 

has leveled off, ours continues to increase very dramatically because of these measures and the advancement of the biotechnology 

and the development of the seed grains and other plantings. So I 

hope that we can find ways to do it in an appropriate fashion. We 

do not want to make mistakes rushing forward, but we do not want 

to lose ground in the process, either. 

So thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. 

Senator GRASSLEY. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I want to read a short paragraph out of a statement I am going 

to put in the record before I ask questions. 

The American family farmer is going to lead the way in producing food for the world, but we all know prices fluctuate, weather 

changes, foreign markets may be open and closed without much 

warning, all leading to unpredictability for today’s farmers. Farmers have to have a good safety net and farm programs serve an important role as part of that safety net and we have to make sure 

that the farm program gets directly to the farmers that need it the 

most. 

14 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley can be found on 

page 13 in the appendix.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Before I ask a question, I would compliment 

you, first of all, in two areas that you have taken a leadership role 

in that I am glad to have a Secretary of Agriculture do that, in the 

area of civil rights and in the area of enhanced competition. 

I want to start with a question where you left off on what you 

said in response to a question from my colleague, the junior member from Nebraska, about helping small farmers. I believe both in 

the President’s budget, and I am not sure exactly what you have 

said about it, but we have proposals for hard caps on what can— 

payment limitations, I should call it. So could you comment, since 

you brought up the issue of small producers, comment on having 

payment limits better direct those farm programs so those family 

farmers that need them the most? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, I think we are faced with a fiscal reality and we are also faced with an economic reality, and the fiscal 

reality is that you have got far less resources to deal with. The economic reality is, as Senator Johanns indicated earlier, prices are 

pretty good right now. And when you have the combination of those 

two things, you have got to look for ways in which you can 

prioritize where your resources go. 

That is one of the reasons why the President has been fairly insistent that there be a reduction in the Adjusted Gross Income limits. Right now, you could, theoretically, have $750,000 of Adjusted 

Gross Income from your farming operation and another half-a-million dollars of income from non-farm sources and still get payments 

from the government. At a time when we are really challenged in 

terms of where the money is going to go and who it helps, it may 

make some sense for this body to take a look at that process, and 

the President has suggested that. I think you have, as well. This 

recognizes that these operations, these large operations, have substantial capital at risk, but they also have, in these good times, 

pretty good incomes, so—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. And I would like to suggest my willingness to work with you on that and the other members of this committee, as well. 

Even though it is a little bit out of the farm program but it is 

very closely connected with prosperity in agriculture, I would like 

to have you discuss the continuing role of ethanol and its part in 

any farm bill discussion. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think this is extraordinarily important. I mean, first of all, the American consumer is the beneficiary 

of ethanol. We are now enjoying 89 cents a gallon less in cost for 

our gasoline because we have an ethanol industry. 

We also have somewhere between 400,000 and 440,000 jobs that 

are directly or indirectly created as a result of this industry, and 

it is fairly clear that it also helps to improve the bottom line for 

the producers. So producers not only can profit from production of 

agricultural products, but they can also profit from processing. 

It is also true that the process of ethanol production creates coproducts or byproducts which are very helpful to other aspects of 

agriculture, including the livestock industry. 

15 

So there are a multitude of reasons why we need to continue to 

have this industry, in my view, but we need to be able to expand 

it to meet the renewable fuel standard guidelines of 36 billion gallons. When we do, it is a million new jobs in rural America. It is 

$100 billion of capital investment in rural America. Rural America, 

90 percent of persistent poverty counties are located in rural America. The per capita income differential is significant in rural America. The poverty rates are higher. The unemployment rates historically are higher. So we really have to pay attention and address 

the concerns of rural America, which oftentimes are sort of an 

afterthought, in my view. 

The ethanol industry has provided real hope. It is a linchpin for 

revitalizing the rural economy. And my only hope is that as you 

deal with the fiscal challenges that you confront here, that you do 

not create a cliff for the support that has been provided to the industry, because when we did this with the biodiesel industry, we 

saw 50 percent of production end and 12,000 jobs lost immediately. 

So if there is to be an end to those support levels, there needs to 

be a glidepath and perhaps a redirection of those resources in a 

way that can help bolster this industry, provide a maturing industry firmer ground, and allow us the opportunity to expand the feedstocks beyond just corn-based ethanol to a wide variety of things 

that we think have great promise. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I had the same question on crop insurance 

that Senator Johanns had, and so I will not ask that, but I do want 

you to know and the members of the committee to know that I 

think that is a very important part of the farm safety net. 

The last thing I will end with, but this is not a question, it is 

just something to take into consideration along with all the other 

good things you said about helping food production around the 

world, enhancing it so that we can feed—not just rely upon American farmers, but farmers to produce for themselves, and that is 

the studies that Hernando de Soto has done about the very important role that farmers or anybody, even people living in the cities, 

have title to land and ownership of land and be able to prove it, 

that it is theirs, if you measure those societies that have that and 

those economies that have that versus ones that do not have it, you 

will find out that the productivity of people in those countries is 

much, much greater. And I am not talking about just Europe and 

North America, but there are other countries that are developing 

that have gone that direction and have enhanced their productivity 

very much and I think it would be very helpful for our government 

to be promoting that concept among governments of other countries 

as well as all the other stuff that we are doing. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Senator CONRAD. 

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. It is a very good beginning to our contemplation of a new farm bill, which is extraordinarily important not only 

for the rural parts of the country, but the urban parts of the country, as well. I think, as every member of this committee knows, the 

vast majority of funding in the farm bill does not go to directly support farmers and ranchers, but directly goes to support nutrition 

16 

programs across America, that is felt in every community across 

our country, and I think it is important to remember that. Well 

over 85 percent of the funding in the farm bill goes for nutrition. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for your leadership. I believe 

you have been doing a superb job. It is confirmed for me by the excellence of your testimony here this morning. I was just listening 

to you talk about ethanol and the review that you gave of the importance to our economy, not only our rural economy but the national economy of biofuels and ethanol specifically, I was impressed, and I hope others are listening, are paying close attention 

to the very thoughtful testimony you are providing. 

I would just like to talk for a moment about America’s competitive position with respect to our toughest competitors in world agriculture, which remain the Europeans, and what they do to support 

their farmers and their ranchers compared to what we do. I was 

just having a chance to review the most recent World Trade Organization data, and when I look at what the Europeans are doing 

on a comparison basis, it is sobering. If you look at the most narrow measure of support, on a per acre basis, the Europeans are 

outdoing us three-to-one. On the broadest measure of support, they 

are outdoing us eight-to-one. 

So our farmers and ranchers are out there competing in world 

agriculture and the playing field is tilted against them, because, 

again, on the most narrow measure of support, the Europeans are 

outdoing us three-to-one on a per acre basis. On the broadest measure, they are outdoing us eight- to-one. 

And I know they have a strategy and a plan to dominate world 

agriculture because I have heard them describe it to me, and their 

plan is very simple. They have got farm supports at a higher level 

than we do. They are up here. We are down here. They want to 

keep getting equal percentage reductions until we fall off the table. 

That is exactly their strategy and plan. And shame on us if we fall 

for it. But they are very good about this. They say, well, everybody 

is taking equal percentage reductions. They never point out, from 

a very unequal base. 

The point of this is, I now look at the House budget that passed 

the House of Representatives, cuts agriculture $50 billion, by far 

the biggest percentage cut anybody is being asked to take, and I 

think we have got to ask the question, what is that going to do to 

the competitive position of the United States? If a budget like that 

were actually enacted—and it failed here in the Senate yesterday, 

thank goodness it did—but if a budget like that were enacted, what 

would it do to the competitive position of the United States? 

I would just ask you, do you have concerns that in doing what 

we all know has to get done to get our deficits and debt under control, are you concerned that this could go too far? And let me just 

end by saying, the Fiscal Commission on which I served recommended $10 billion of reductions over ten years. 

Secretary VILSACK. I want to make sure that I am clear about 

this. I do not underestimate the extraordinary difficult challenge 

that this committee and the Senate and the Congress have in 

terms of getting our fiscal house in order. I think agriculture has 

been instructive to the rest of the country that if you keep a lid 

17 

on debt, you continue to work hard and you embrace technology, 

you can be productive and you can be successful. 

Having said that, I think, candidly, that the USDA has taken a 

disproportionate share of the cuts and we are now at a place where 

I have had a very serious conversation with all of the under secretaries. I suspect that Senator Johanns knows what those conversations are kind of like, where you essentially say, look, we are looking at potentially a 25 to 30 percent cut in our discretion budget. 

That means we really have to start thinking about what we can do 

as well as what we cannot do. 

One area in particular is in the research area. At a time when 

we ought to be out-innovating and out-building and out-educating, 

as the President calls for us to be competitive, we are reducing our 

commitment to research at a time when we should be actually looking at ways in which we can leverage and increase our commitment 

to research. 

This research is one of the reasons why we have higher productivity, because it is producing genomes. It is producing more information and knowledge. It allows us to be better. It allows us to be 

protecting our crops against pests and diseases. It is developing 

new technologies and new ways to produce crops more effectively 

and efficiently. It is really something that we really ought not to 

shortchange, and it is part of the reason why I say we have to also 

grow our way out of this deficit in addition to cutting our way. Investments in research, every dollar that you spend, ten dollars return. 

Trade is another area. When you cut the Foreign Agriculture Service, it seems like a small thing, $10 million, does not seem like 

much. This is a relatively small part of our budget. Every dollar 

that we spent in trade promotion generated $35 of economic opportunity for farmers and producers and business leaders and job 

growth in the country. 

So I think you have to be really careful about this, and I think 

we have gotten to the point with the agriculture budget, if this 

chart that I alluded to earlier is correct, we have been flat-lined for 

30 years. The Defense Department has not been flat-lined. Health 

and Human Services has not been flat-lined. Science and technology has not been flat-lined. Transportation has not been flatlined. And I am not taking anything away from all of those. They 

are very important. But when you look at our numbers and then 

you look at that chart, it is hard to make the case that somehow 

agriculture can give more. 

Senator CONRAD. I just want to conclude, if I can, Madam Chairman, by saying this. Look, we know agriculture has to take reductions, as does every part of the Federal budget. We are borrowing 

40 cents of every dollar we spend. It cannot continue. But it should 

not be disproportionate. And I am extremely concerned that we are 

headed in a direction where we could see disproportionate cuts to 

a part of the budget that, frankly, has not contributed to the deficit. We paid for the last farm bill. We paid for it. And I just hope 

that message is being heard in other parts of this town. I thank 

you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Senator 

Conrad. 

18 

Before going on, let me just indicate, as you know, that I feel 

strongly and agree with you on this question. We have already seen 

a net $4 billion contributed towards the deficit as a result of crop 

insurance cuts. We are seeing disproportionate cuts in agricultural 

research as a result of the way we are changing the way things are 

funded and the other cuts that, Mr. Secretary, that you have talked 

about. And I share a deep concern and am conveying that at every 

point. 

The fact that agriculture is willing to do—we are willing to do 

our part in agriculture, but it is a mistake to undervalue the importance of agriculture to our economy and to the world, which is 

part of what this conversation is about, in terms of growing our 

economy and innovating and supporting our capacity to feed the 

world and to feed Americans, as well. And so this is a time, I think 

all of us who care deeply about agriculture need to be engaged in 

this discussion. 

Secretary VILSACK. Madam Chair, could I just respond— just 30 

seconds? 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, please. 

Secretary VILSACK. When you realize that roughly 200,000 producers in this country produce 85 percent of what we consume, I 

challenge anybody in the country to show me 200,000 folks who 

have contributed more to the American economy and more to the 

American nation. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well said. Thank you very much. 

Senator THUNE. Senator THUNE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Secretary, 

welcome. Thank you. Great to have you with us. 

I also am concerned about the perception that a lot of people 

have that the entire agriculture budget goes into production agriculture when about a dime of a dollar of agriculture actually supports the commodity title of the bill, conservation programs, and 

other programs that actually directly benefit production agriculture. I guess that is part of the job that we have in educating 

people, our colleagues included, about where that spending occurs. 

You only have to look across the country this year, from the 

droughts that we have seen in the Southwest, you have got severe 

flooding in the Northern Plains, in the Midwest and in the South, 

and, of course, you have got record-setting numbers of tornadoes in 

numerous States, and you realize the incredible devastation that 

natural and weather-related disasters have on millions of acres of 

farmland and to poultry and other livestock producers. 

From any perspective, and it has been talked about a little bit, 

the effective risk management for agriculture producers needs to be 

one of the highest priorities that all of us, I think, have on this 

committee as we look to writing the next farm bill. 

But I did want to bring up an issue with you with regard to risk 

management that is a little bit more of an immediate concern and 

that has to do with crop insurance, which is a critical feature of 

the safety net across the country, and especially in my State of 

South Dakota. My understanding is that RMA is proposing a 

change specific to the Prairie Pothole region to existing rules effective for the 2012 crop year that basically would remove prevent 

planting eligibility for acreage that was not planted and harvested 

19 

in at least one of the three most recent crop years using recognized 

good farming practices. 

This proposed provision has caused considerable concern in 

Northeastern South Dakota. I fully understand that there may be 

prevent planting abuses that RMA is trying to overcome with this 

policy change. However, I also believe that this proposed change 

has the potential to cause financial hardship on many farmers in 

that area and in North Dakota and Minnesota who have not 

abused prevent planting provisions. 

Would you be willing to consider other alternatives to RMA’s proposed change that would not allow continued prevent planting 

abuse, but that would still offer a certain amount of prevented 

planting assistance in those areas, assuming that prevent planting 

is an issue in 2012? 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, we are always willing to work with 

folks to try to get to the right solution. The key here is to balance 

the workability of the program with the integrity and the fiscal stability of the program. I mean, there are circumstances, unfortunately, where folks, because of the nature of their land, have had 

areas that have been, in a sense, flooded or ponds for an extended 

period of time who continue to receive crop insurance benefits 

when, in fact, they have never really for a long period of time been 

able to plant anything there. So I think what we have to do is figure out how do we separate that circumstance from the circumstance where it occasionally occurs and people are losing potential income. 

I am happy to work—if your staff has ideas or thoughts, I am 

happy to communicate those to Mr. Murphy, happy to have Mr. 

Murphy come up and visit with you and your staff if you think that 

would be helpful. 

Senator THUNE. That would, and we would love to have that happen because there are, I think, legitimate circumstances in which— 

and I understand what you are trying to target here and fully support that. But there are circumstances, and Northeastern South 

Dakota is a good example of one of those, where these rules have 

really, I think, gotten at farmers who are using recognized good 

farming practices. And, frankly, in Northeastern South Dakota, you 

have to understand, people have used analogies like pouring water 

on a pool table. It just kind of spreads out. The Prairie Pothole region is very flat and we have hundreds of thousands of acres now 

for consecutive years that have not been able to be planted. I do 

not think that the changes that are being proposed were directed 

at those particular types of producers, so I would like to work with 

you and your staff if we could do that. 

Mr. Secretary, one of the provisions in the 2008 farm bill—I 

should not say one, I guess there were several provisions that provided incentives for beginning farmers and ranchers. I guess I am 

interested in knowing from your perspective, as USDA Secretary, 

do you believe that the existing beginning farm programs administered by USDA have been effective and do you have any suggestions for improving those initiatives or for new ones as we get into 

this next farm bill? I think getting into agriculture for young farmers today is very, very hard because of the capital requirements, 

the cost of farmland, and those sorts of things, and I am curious 

20 

to know what your assessment is of the existing programs and 

what your recommendations might be for other ones. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, it is tough to move the dial in this 

area with the limited resources that have been allocated to the beginning farmer program. I would say that the monies are being 

wisely used, but I think we have to be a bit more creative. 

When you take a look at the last agriculture census, what you 

find is that we had 100,000 new farmers in the category of very, 

very small operations, small acreages that basically finance or provide commodities to farmers’ markets, things of that sort, and we 

want to encourage that because that helps to repopulate rural communities. 

But when you look at production agriculture and look at the commercial-sized operations, what you found was that we had a net 

loss of about 40,000 producers. And if you combine that with the 

aging nature of farmers, average age 57, 30 percent of our farmers 

over 65, you look and you see that the trend line is not what it 

needs to be. 

So I think we need to figure out ways in which we can provide 

sweat equity opportunities for young people who want to get into 

farming. Perhaps it is the tax code. Perhaps it is estate tax. Perhaps it is income tax. Some way or process by which someone can 

work on a farm, and as a result of that, generates some degree of 

equity that allows them then to go to a banker, be able to have a 

proven track record to have some equity, some collateral that they 

can use that allows them to expand their operation. 

I cannot say that I have a specific idea today, but I just know 

that there has to be something more than what we are doing, because what we are doing, while it is okay, is obviously not bending 

that trend line in the right direction. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your excellent testimony today. We 

appreciate it very much. 

I actually will start where you guys just left off, maybe, and 

broaden the question a little bit, because as I travel the State, people in Colorado are really worried about where the next generation 

is going to come from, whether they are going to be able to stay 

on the farm, be able to stay in rural America. We know that today, 

more than 90 percent of farm household income comes from offfarm activities and that, as you and I have discussed before, that 

means Main Street and a healthy non-farm economy is hugely important to our rural economies. 

In Colorado right now—I wanted to mention this to you in case 

you did not know—Governor Hickenlooper has been leading a sort 

of ground-up discussion with every county in the State about what 

their economic future looks like, what their plan for the future 

looks like. We have been encouraging—he has been encouraging 

people to think regionally, which I think is an enormously important part of what we need to do and what we have not done well. 

With stovepiped agencies and stovepiped programs, I am not sure 

21 

we have encouraged or incentivized the kind of regional thinking 

we need. 

And I wonder whether, in the context of the farm bill we are 

going to take up, you might be willing to share your perspective on 

how our discussion of agriculture really fits into a conversation 

about what the trajectory and future is of rural communities in 

this country. 

Secretary VILSACK. Agriculture, Senator, is at the center of rural 

development. It has been always and it will continue to be. But it 

has to be supported. There are far too many farmers today that 

need off-farm income, as you have indicated, either themselves or 

their spouse or a combination, to be able to preserve the farm. So 

rural development, job growth, is important to preserving farm 

ownership. 

In order to do that, number one, small communities have to recognize that they probably by themselves do not have sufficient resources, either financial or brain power-wise, to be able to do it on 

their own. They do have to think regionally. They have to think 

collaboratively. They have to look at what their natural resources 

are and how to better utilize those natural resources. 

I think there are essentially four key elements. We have to figure 

out additional ways to encourage private investment in rural areas. 

We have to think of ways in which we can expand on the innovation that agriculture has shown in rural America. We have got to 

create networks, both in terms of regional approaches to economic 

development, but also broadband expansion allows folks to be connected with the 21st century infrastructure. And we have to celebrate place. We have to do a better job of maximizing the economic 

opportunities from natural resources. 

When you look at what we are investing in, whether it is renewable fuel and energy, whether it is broadband expansion, whether 

it is these local regional food systems that can help create economic 

opportunity or it is the Great American Outdoors Initiative the 

President has launched, all those are strategies to try to advance 

rural development, create jobs, and help to support agriculture. 

And, in turn, agriculture helps to support the rural community. So 

it is a partnership. 

Senator BENNET. I would be interested—we do not need to do it 

today, but if your staff knows of models of places that have done 

four of those things well or some combination of those things particularly well, I think it would be interesting to us in Colorado to 

be able to see some of those examples. We may have some of our 

own, but—— 

Secretary VILSACK. We have invested in a program called Great 

Regions, where we have identified roughly 22 regions where we are 

investing some of the rural development resources that were provided in the 2008 farm bill that are doing a lot of this, a lot of strategic thinking and a lot of investment. We will provide your staff 

with the locations of those Great Regions, and Doug O’Brien from 

my staff would be happy to visit with your staff about what is taking place in those regions and what might be applicable to Colorado. 

Senator BENNET. Great. I wanted to shift gears in the last 

minute that I have here. You mentioned at the outset of your testiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:59 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71627.TXT MICHA
22 

mony that we were having a record year of exports, a record year 

in our trade surplus. And I just wondered whether would share 

with the committee, beyond Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, 

what the administration is doing to resolve existing trade disputes 

with Mexico, Japan, and China to make sure that we continue on 

this trajectory of growing our exports. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I had a very productive meeting with 

the Secretary of Agriculture of Mexico in December and we identified a number of issues, potatoes and beef on our side, a couple of 

issues involving specialty crops on his side, which we are in the 

process of working through. The resolution of the truck issue will 

be very helpful in terms of reducing tariffs that Mexico has assessed on agricultural products. And I am confident that we are— 

we are working through a process on potatoes that involves sort of 

a binding arbitration process that was put in place. We are waiting 

for a certificate from the Health Ministry on beef and the efforts 

to reopen the beef trade. 

In China, we are focused, as we have been for some time, on reopening the beef industry in China. I think the Korean Free Trade 

Agreement, when it is passed, will give us the impetus to go back 

to the table and to continue to negotiate with the Chinese. We are 

separated by a position on offals. We identified 15 to 20 offals 

which we think should be part of an expanded trade opportunity 

in China. China has identified three or four or five. Frankly, they 

did not identify the ones that actually could create market opportunities for us. We do not think it is science-based. And so we have 

got to keep going back to them with that. 

On the Japanese side, I had very fruitful conversations with the 

minister there, but they have changed the ministers. There have 

been three in the time that I have been Agriculture Secretary. And 

obviously, in light of what has happened in Japan, we are giving 

them enough space and time to get their feet back on the ground 

before we reengage in negotiations. 

Senator BENNET. And I think that is exactly the right thing to 

do. I would say that my understanding is that there may be a new 

appreciation of science-based analysis in the wake of this accident 

in Japan on the part of the Japanese, which may give us some help 

on the beef negotiations. So I think at the right time, that may be 

of some use. And I want to say thank you—I am out of time—on 

behalf of our potato farmers and our beef producers for your work 

to try to expand these markets. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Boozman, and then Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and we appreciate 

you being here, Mr. Secretary. 

I really—you made some comments about trade. I think in your 

testimony, you devoted an entire page to the importance of that. 

And in these very difficult economic times, not only does that increase markets and things like that, but that really is a thing that 

will help provide another security network, in other words, making 

our farmers more secure by getting those agreements done. 

The other thing is we have the information put out on the importance of the global stuff and what is going on. Again, the trade 

23 

agreements, in getting those done, you also create a situation 

where you start putting the infrastructure in more overseas, you 

know, the storage components, all of those things, the transportation components which are so important. 

So I guess my question is, how can we help you? You have come 

out very strongly. How can we help push the administration, push 

Congress, whatever we need to do to get these things enacted? 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, Senator, I think there is a—I believe there is a consensus on the importance of these trade agreements and I think there is a growing consensus on the importance 

of also having some trade adjustment assistance that will help 

those workers who are displaced or impacted negatively as a result 

of trade, and my hope is that as you consider that, that you include 

farmers in that category, because there are some farmers that 

sometimes do not get fairly treated in these arrangements. 

But on balance, these trade agreements are not just about increasing opportunity for farmers, as you pointed out, but to supplement what you said. It is for every billion dollars of agricultural 

trade, we generate 8,400 jobs. So when you are looking at Korea, 

$1.9 billion of additional agricultural trade, to a point where the 

Korean Free Trade Agreement, the agricultural component of that 

will be equal to the previous nine Free Trade Agreements that we 

have signed. So it is a tremendous opportunity for us to grow, and 

I think it does provide some momentum for further opportunities 

in other parts of Asia. 

So I think it is just continue to promote the benefits of this and 

continue to see this in a comprehensive way to move trade opportunities, not just the bilaterals but also the multilateral discussions 

with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. You know, the Doha Round is 

a little bit problematic right now because we just do not see the 

balance. We are hopeful. We want to have a strong Doha Round. 

Again, Senator Johanns, I am sure, is well aware of the challenges 

there from his past experiences. So I would say just continue to advocate for this and continue to point out the importance of trade 

in terms of security, economic, and for that matter, national security, as well. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. I agree. The other thing that you 

mentioned was the importance of the research, and we have a 

number of facilities in Arkansas. There is just a tremendous 

amount going on nationwide. You made the point that 200,000 supply 80 percent, and I would argue that the reason that we can have 

200,000 good is because of the research that came out of a much, 

much smaller group giving them the knowledge that they were able 

to go froward. 

So, again, I guess I am saying the same thing. How can we help 

in promoting the value of the research and maintaining those facilities that are doing such a tremendous job? 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, Senator, I think it is—I think understanding that as you deal with the deficit, which is real, that 

you also recognize that you need to grow your way out of a deficit, 

and this research investment pays. 

When you look at the amount of money that we spend on 

invasive species and pests and diseases, some of that money could 

potentially be prevented if we continue to be aggressive in terms 

24 

of our research, or we may be able to mitigate the damage by those 

pests if we continue to promote research. We might be able to figure out how to be more productive with that research. We might 

be able to figure out ways in which we can do a better job of transferring knowledge and information to other parts of the world so 

they, too, can be in better shape from a food perspective. 

So this is a really important component, often not fully articulated. We are always talking—you know, one of the frustrations of 

this job is that when you go out and you talk to folks, when they 

hear ‘‘farm bill,’’ they immediately think of subsidies and that is 

about all they think of. And the reality, which you all know, is that 

the farm bill is far more expansive than that, and a component 

that is often ignored is the research component. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK. I mean, it just—people—when you say, we do 

research at USDA, they go, ‘‘Huh? Really?’’ So I think publicizing 

the important role that research plays in agriculture, I think would 

be helpful. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Then very quickly, Madam Chair, can I just 

say that the flooding that is going on right now, you know, we have 

been waiting for the floodwaters to go down and everybody expected them to go down, but it is continuing to rain, and I would 

really encourage you, and I know you are doing this, but some 

things were done after Katrina, you know, similar situations where 

you had lots of damage to the farm community, to really look at 

ways that we can be helpful. I know even little things. 

You have got a lot of people with product in silos that they have 

contracted. The roads are gone. The water is up around them. They 

cannot get to it. Things like that, that maybe that is due at the 

end of the month, things that we can do to just look in and to help 

to remediate would be very, very helpful. 

Secretary VILSACK. We have instructed our teams to work with 

farmers and to work with communities that have been negatively 

impacted by these floods so that they are given the time and the 

opportunity to get themselves back on their feet. Our heart goes 

out to those folks. I mean, the tornadoes and floods are just devastating. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. You are welcome. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you for your recent visit to Minnesota and your work on 

biofuels, and I appreciated all your work. Many people have talked 

about your work with genetically modified seeds, which I am head 

of the Biotech Caucus in the Senate, so I appreciate that as well 

as the work that you have done with exports, as has been pointed 

out. When we have had issues with certain markets, you have been 

incredibly helpful. 

My first question—Senator Conrad touched on this—is just some 

of the budget proposals which are going to directly affect our work 

on the farm bill. I know he asked about the Ryan budget, the Republican budget that came over from the House, but that is, just 

to clarify that—and I think you know I have been one of the leaders on some of the reform efforts. I had a bill that did not pass a 

25 

few years ago to try to focus our farm payments more on family 

farmers. But, in fact, the Ryan budget would cut agriculture by $30 

billion, conservation by $20 billion, the nutrition program by $125 

billion, is that right? 

Secretary VILSACK. I will defer to you on the figures- - 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think it is right. And then the Deficit 

Commission, which was a bipartisan effort, actually is very different. It is a $10 billion cut, and I think everyone knows we are 

going to have some cuts. And could you—I know you talked to Conrad about this, but could you just expand a little bit on what this 

would mean? I will be honest. My biggest fear is we are going to 

start being dependent on foreign food and foreign oil, just like we 

are on foreign oil if we are not careful here. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, one of the great advantages we have 

in America is that we have a degree of self-sufficiency in food that 

is the envy of the world and we have got extraordinary productivity. So we obviously do not want to harm that. 

One of the areas that I am concerned about as we look at reductions is in the area of conservation, and there are several reasons 

for that. The obvious reason is that conservation is helpful to the 

producer and it is also helpful to the environment and it helps to 

preserve these natural resources that provide us this bounty. 

But there is another reason, and that is that these conservation 

payments go to those folks that I mentioned earlier, the 600,000 

that are struggling every day to make ends meet. Their land may 

not be as productive or they may not have as rich a soil. So when 

you cut and significantly reduce conservation—significantly reduce 

conservation, which is what that would be—you basically limit the 

capacity of those operations to continue to do what they need to do 

to stay in business and to stay on the farm and to stay supporting 

schools and the local community and the small businesses in those 

communities. So I have deep concerns about that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Next, on biofuels, I think you know there 

are a few of our colleagues here that just want to pull the rug out 

from under immediately, and could you talk about the uneven playing field that would be created if we were to allow the oil subsidies 

to keep in place and then completely take away even the ability for 

biofuels to have infrastructure and blender pumps and things like 

that? 

Secretary VILSACK. We spend a billion dollars a day and we take 

hard-earned American dollars and we send them overseas. The renewable fuel standard basically would allow us to reduce our imported oil by 17 percent, which is roughly equivalent to the President’s goal of reducing imported oil by a third. What that would do 

is it would create, as I said earlier, nearly a million jobs in rural 

America, $100 billion of capital investment. None of that is going 

to take place unless folks know what the rules are and unless folks 

have an understanding of where we are headed. 

When you create a cliff—and we saw this with biodiesel—when 

you create a cliff, when you just cut it off, no transition, no time, 

you just cut it off, basically, the markets get scared, the capital 

dries up, the production stops, and jobs are lost, and an opportunity for producers, particularly those producers in the middle 

26 

that need off- farm income or they need another market for their 

product, end. 

Why we would do that at a time when we have the capacity to 

wean ourselves from foreign oil and we have the capacity to take 

those dollars that we are shipping overseas and creating economic 

opportunity, to create it in rural communities, why we would not 

create some kind of glide path and redirect those resources in a 

way that would build a stronger renewable fuel industry is, frankly, beyond me. And there are so many myths associated with this 

that need to be addressed. The land use myth—a recent study has 

shown that that is not correct. The energy efficiency myth, which 

is that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it does, that 

is not correct. In fact, the most recent studies show that it is more 

energy efficient than oil. So there are a multitude of reasons why 

this industry is important and I sincerely hope that we do not 

make the mistake of creating that cliff. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right, and I think you are aware that Senator Thune, Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, and I, and a number of other people, Senator Stabenow, have been working on that 

glide path, to find a way to actually ratchet down the subsidies of 

biofuels to basically nothing, which is very different than what we 

have been hearing from the oil people. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is really important, and I would say 

that it also creates an opportunity for us to expand these production opportunities in all parts of the country, which I think is important, as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. And my last thing, which we can 

talk about later, it is just the wolf issue. I think you are aware that 

in the last negotiations on, I think it was Montana, Wyoming, and 

Idaho, I think, are exempt from the Endangered Species Act, yet 

the State of Minnesota has double the amount of wolves in all 

three of those combined States. And then we lost our wolf management funds in that deal and last year we lost over 100 cows, 15 

pet dogs, and a number of other animals to the wolves. 

So we are continuing to work with you to at least maintain our 

wolf management program in our State, to hopefully go through 

the Endangered Species Act delisting. If that is not working, most 

of the mainstream groups are not suing, but if we get delayed, we 

will be coming back here with legislation, because it is somewhat 

hypocritical that certain States got exempt when one State whose 

basketball team is named the Timberwolves—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Timberwolves. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. —is left with no wolf management funds. 

So that is something that I hope we will continue to work together 

on. 

Secretary VILSACK. I would be happy to work on it. I think this 

is an instructive point for the committee, though. In the past, there 

could have been an opportunity with the kind of flexibilities we had 

to be able to move some resources, but the reality is, with the 

depth of these cuts, there just is not that flexibility. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lugar, and before you speak, Senator Lugar, in thinking, 

turning to you, it reminds me just how fortunate we are in this 

committee to have such depth of knowledge about agriculture, a 

27 

former Secretary of Agriculture, four former Chairs, including yourself, and Senator Roberts having chaired the committee in the 

House, and so I think if any group of people will have the opportunity to actually put together the very best farm bill we can with 

the challenges that we have, I think it will happen here. It is just 

great to have you as a member of the committee. Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for that 

introduction. 

Let me just take advantage of your general statesmanship, Secretary, to raise a broad question that is often raised in other fora 

about the fact that the rural food supplies are limited, and in this 

particular year in certain crops that we produce, whether it be corn 

or soybeans or wheat, the supplies have diminished precipitously. 

In fact, many people write that unless we have very good crops this 

year in the United States, this crisis will take on even larger dimensions of human suffering throughout the world. Others have 

correctly been talking about the problems we are having with barriers to trade, and these have existed even given the human conditions we are talking about, for a long time. 

So I do not ask you to hop over all of that, but think, for a moment, how in the United States will it be possible for us to find 

more acres on which we might cultivate crops, or is that really a 

task that is not going to find solution given our geography, our history, and so forth? And beyond that, how are we going to move 

maybe even in a ten- or 20- year period to perhaps as much as a 

20 percent increase in yields on the acres that we have? 

This would not solve the world problem, but nevertheless, it 

would indicate an extraordinary statesmanship on our part in moving at least to do our part and maybe to stimulate Europeans, as 

the arguments we have with them on genetically modified seed and 

so forth, to think also in a production way so that, somehow, the 

increasing population in the world, which is happening, and apparently the decreasing supplies that make markets precarious do not 

envelop all of us. We cannot solve all this in our own farm bill, but 

I ask you for your counsel as we take up the farm bill as to what 

are the productive steps we might take along with you to bring 

about greater acreage, greater yields in the United States, even as 

we are working through the trade barriers that bollox up our movement. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, that is a very, very important question and it requires a comprehensive answer and I will try my best 

to touch on a couple of things. 

First of all, I think we have to continue to focus on research. 

There is no question that I have a great confidence in our ability 

to continue to be productive so long as we continue to invest in the 

research that allows us to figure out how to be more productive or 

how to protect our crops from diseases that might reduce yields. 

You know, there may be some circumstances and steps that we 

can take in terms of increasing acreage, but honestly, I am not sure 

that those steps will fundamentally change the equation. I think 

the key here is for us to be as productive as we can with the land 

that we have, and then, secondly, to be able to work with other nations to make sure that their productivity is as good as it can be. 

I do not think there is any question that there are many, many 

28 

parts of the world today that are underperforming simply because 

they have not embraced the technologies or have been concerned 

about the science that we have embraced in this country. 

And so my hope is that, over time, we can break those barriers 

down. We are beginning to see more and more countries begin to 

recognize the need to have regulatory systems and structures that 

will allow this science, the biotechnology and others, to take hold. 

We need to continue to focus on that. 

And I think, frankly, we need to figure out how to be more creative with the production processes that we have. For example, 

when we deal with biofuel production, interesting technology in 

Shenandoah, Iowa, I saw recently, where they are taking the CO2, 

the reclaimed water and heat from an ethanol production facility 

and producing algae, which they harvest daily. Algae can be used 

as a feedstock for biofuels. It could be used for aquaculture feed. 

It can be used for livestock feed. It can also be used for cosmetics. 

Tremendous opportunity, and they are going to have algae farms, 

which are very small in size in terms of acres because they can basically do them both horizontally and vertically, these tubes. I 

mean, it is a brave new world out there and we need to be confident and optimistic about it and we need to make sure that we 

continue the investments that allow those kinds of things to happen. 

Senator LUGAR. I just note as a personal point, on our farm in 

Indianapolis, my dad was getting 40 or 50 bushels to the acre when 

I was a boy and we are getting 170 regularly. This is not an allstar situation, but at least moderate, average Indiana, a four-fold 

increase even in my lifetime. This is why I am excited about the 

possibilities of going even further with the next generation, because 

I note not only is this a human task, but likewise, because of this 

crisis, land values in Indiana and many other States are going up 

very sharply. In other words, we are discussing this farm bill in a 

time in which, by and large, the net worth of most farmers is increasing substantially. The balance sheets are much better. So both 

of these things are moving along in ways that may be helpful. But 

I really trust your judgment to give us good counsel as those things 

that would be helpful to you either administratively or for inclusion 

in our farm bill, and I thank you for coming this morning. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary, good to see you again. Thank you for appearing in 

front of us. I am sorry I missed your comments earlier. I had a conflicting Energy Committee meeting. 

I want to pick up on a couple of the themes, though, that I did 

at least hear part of the discussion on, one of which is flooding. We 

are having a tremendous amount of flooding in our State and prevented plant is going to be very important to our farmers this year. 

I know you will be out around the country. You have been very 

good about coming to our State in the past and I would like to 

begin by inviting you to come out to our State and see some of the 

impacts of that flooding, not only to get your assistance with programs like prevented plant, but we have a unique situation in Devil’s Lake where we have an enclosed basin and the lake keeps getVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:59 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71627.TXT MICHA
29 

ting bigger and bigger, inundating farmland. So we are trying to 

use the programs, crop insurance programs that apply, the Wetland Reserve Program, which is a newer program that is an easement program that we are trying to make work, CRP, where it 

works. There is another program, Water Bank, that could apply, 

but does not have funding in it. 

I guess two questions. One is would you be willing to come out 

and see some of the impacts of the flood, and the second is what 

ideas you have or what assistance you can offer for some of these 

inundated acres in the Devil’s Lake area due to this very difficult 

growth of this enclosed basin lake. 

Secretary VILSACK. Senator, let me answer the second question 

first. I do know that Dave White, Chief of the NRCS, has been 

working with a number of folks in your State as well as in Minnesota to address this and I believe he has identified up to $10 million of additional resources that are going to be put into this effort 

to try to provide some relief and some assistance. We will continue 

to work with folks to figure out creative ways to do this, but obviously the resources are somewhat limited. 

You know, one of the questions there, one of the points I would 

raise in terms of the farm bill is to the extent that we can have 

flexibility to use some of these programs, we have a lot of programs. Maybe we need fewer programs and more flexibility within 

programs to be able to address unique circumstances and situations that we find in other parts of the country, including North 

Dakota. 

I am always happy to travel to the Dakotas. I cannot promise 

you when that will be, but I am sure that we will be back to the 

Dakotas at some point in time. 

Senator HOEVEN. We are working with Chief White. I thank you 

for that assistance. And, of course, your support behind it makes 

a big difference. 

The flexibility, I think, is an excellent point. You have got a 

number of programs, some of which I just identified, that have different strengths and weaknesses. If the Secretary, yourself or future Secretaries, had the ability to move dollars amongst those programs to meet the needs, I think that would be an important tool 

and would help our dollars go further and more effectively. 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. I mean, the challenge here, obviously, 

with fewer dollars is to figure out how to leverage them, and I 

think that there are ways in which you can do that, but sometimes 

when you are prescriptive in these programs, which I understand 

why, it limits your capacity to be flexible and to be responsive. So 

I think to be nimble, to be a 21st century agency, if we had fewer 

programs but more flexibility within programs that survive or 

exist, we might be able to do a better job. 

And if the committee and the Congress would be clear about the 

results that they want from these programs—to me, if you said to 

me, here is a conservation program and we expect you to do X, this 

is the result that we expect and here are so many billions of dollars 

to do it, come back next year and tell us how you have done, that 

would hold me far more accountable than having a whole series of 

programs with no specific result other than hopefully it is going to 

do a good thing for the farm economy. 

30 

To the degree that you can be very specific about results that you 

want, it will make it easier for us to be held accountable, and if 

we have the flexibility, if I can stand on my head and get Devil’s 

Lake figured out, what difference does it make how I do it so long 

as the result is what you want. 

Senator HOEVEN. I think you make a very good point and it is 

something we will have to look at in developing the next farm bill. 

On biofuels—Senator Klobuchar brought that issue up— we really are working to transition to blender pumps, flex- fuel vehicles, 

and higher blends allowed through the EPA, and then also help 

from the EPA with some of the regulations so that more of these 

fueling stations can utilize their equipment to dispense ethanol. I 

think it is a good transition that can work and I am optimistic that 

we are going to make that transition, which I think will be good 

for the industry and actually probably bring the biofuels and the 

traditional fuels industry together in some good partnerships. 

Do you have any thoughts beyond that as to how we continue to 

build the biofuels, again, in an environment where we have limited 

dollars? What else can we do, in your opinion? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have clarified our REAP program to provide some financial assistance to convenience store operators and 

petroleum marketers to be able to finance these flex pumps or 

these blender pumps. The budget that was passed, the budget resolution that was passed by the House, I think, eliminates that funding, which you can eliminate the funding, but the reality is, it is 

very difficult to get these convenience store operators to install 

these very expensive systems unless they have some incentive. 

The second thing, you know, I think there ought to be ways in 

which we can encourage auto makers and/or consumers to embrace 

flexible fuel vehicles. I am told by Secretary Chu—he knows a lot 

more about energy than I do—that a $150 part on every car that 

is coming off the line would basically make every vehicle a flexible 

fuel vehicle. If that is true, is there not some way in which we can 

encourage Detroit either to do that or consumers to be encouraged 

to purchase a car that has that capacity and, therefore, create 

greater demand. So if you make supply more convenient and you 

create greater demand. 

The last thing I would say is I think you want to be mindful of 

the fact that we are also working on aviation fuel, which is a tremendous opportunity. We have got a very interesting relationship 

with the Navy and the Department of Energy that we are working 

on to try to figure out how 50 percent of the Navy’s fuel needs 

could be met with biofuel. That would be true for the Air Force, I 

am sure, and the Army, as well. So there are tremendous opportunities here. I just—hopefully, we do not pull the rug too quickly out 

from under this industry. 

Senator HOEVEN. Madam Chairman, I know my time is up. Just 

one quick final comment. I appreciate the work on the biofuels. I 

think we are working to make that transition. Again, I am optimistic. 

The other is I also appreciate your earlier comments on the trade 

agreements. We need to get those trade agreements ratified, and 

your help there is greatly appreciated. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you, Senator. 

31 

Thank you very much, Secretary Vilsack. As you can tell, we 

have spent extensive time this morning, many members here, because obviously we are extremely interested and appreciate all of 

your input and leadership. So thank you for joining us. 

We are going to immediately move to our second panel. We have 

very important witnesses and we are at that point. I allowed this 

morning a little bit longer than the five minutes on questioning for 

our Secretary, but I am going to hold to five minutes on our next 

panel so that we can move through this. 

Thank you again, Mr. Secretary. We are going to ask each of our 

witnesses to move forward and we will have an opportunity to hear 

from each of them and then we will go to our round of questioning. 

[Pause.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, good morning. I think it is still 

morning. Yes. Thank you very much to each and every one of you 

for coming in, and let me introduce our panel and then ask you to 

move forward. As you know, we ask for five minutes’ verbal testimony and then, of course, we want to have whatever additional testimony that you would like to give the committee. 

Let me first, in introducing our panelists, welcome the Honorable 

Dan Glickman, who is certainly no stranger to this committee. We 

very much appreciate your leadership over the years as former Secretary of Agriculture and currently the Co-Chair of the Chicago 

Council’s Global Agricultural Development Initiative, where he is 

actively engaged on issues regarding food security. I also on a personal note want to note he is a graduate of the University of Michigan, so we appreciate why you have done such a great job over the 

years. 

Let me also welcome Barry Mumby from Michigan and his wife, 

Diane, who is here. We appreciate both of you coming in. He is a 

third-generation farmer from Southwest Michigan in St. Joe County, where his family grows soybeans and corn, among other things, 

on 2,200 acres. He is a founding Director and ten-year member of 

the United Soybean Board, and through them has traveled to 27 

countries to promote open markets for U.S. soybeans and currently 

in the process, I understand, of transitioning the land to the fourth 

generation, which includes his two sons and daughters. So welcome. It is good to have you. 

And Mr. Doug DeVries is a Senior Vice President for Worldwide 

Agriculture Marketing at Deere and Company, which is, of course, 

a preeminent global farm machinery manufacturer, and in this position, he is responsible for global marketing activities for Deere 

products, so we welcome you. 

And then Dr. Andrew Rosenberg is the Senior Vice President for 

Science and Knowledge at Conservation International as well as a 

professor and former Dean at the University of New Hampshire 

with background in public service, including a former Deputy Director of NOAA. So we welcome you. 

And certainly last but not least at all, Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen 

is the 2001 World Food Prize Laureate for his landmark research 

that prompted several governments to reform their food subsidy 

programs and increase food availability to the severely impoverished, currently a professor at Cornell University in three disciplines: Food, Nutrition, and Public Policy, Entrepreneurialship, 

32 

and Applied Economics and Management, and we are so pleased to 

have you with us this morning, as well. 

I will first turn to Secretary Glickman. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, CO-CHAIR, THE CHICAGO COUNCIL’S GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 

INITIATIVE; FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND SENIOR FELLOW, BIPARTISAN POLICY 

CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you. I am glad you mentioned my Michigan connections, including my wife—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. That is right. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. —my son, my brother-in-law, my sister- inlaw—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. That is right. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. —the whole team, you do know well. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, exactly. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. And I also appreciate being before one of my successors, Mike Johanns, who did a wonderful job as Secretary, and 

my mentor, Dick Lugar, whom I was confirmed before he and his 

panel, it seems like in the 18th century—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GLICKMAN. —but we are both still alive, Senator, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Let me just first mention, my testimony is offered 

on behalf of Catherine Bertini, who is the former Executive Director of the World Food Program, and I. We have been involved in 

the project for years through the Chicago Council on Global Affairs 

that looks at the need for the U.S. support for agriculture development abroad and ways the United States can be a global leader in 

this effort, and this was funded largely by the Bill and Melinda 

Gates Foundation, and we have sent you a whole bunch of materials, reports, and testimony, which we will assume will be part of 

the record. 

I just want to make a few points. Number one, we are going to 

need to double food production in this country, double—in the 

world, not in the country—in the world over the next 30 years. We 

are going to have an addition of 2.6 billion people in this world by 

the year 2050, so that is two Chinas. And we are dealing with a 

supply situation which is in much greater equilibrium than it has 

been in the past, which is going to cause much greater food price 

volatility and many other issues that result from that, political instability and an increase in poverty and hunger and a variety of 

issues there. And so that is a given, and I think that everybody understands that. 

What we have been looking at, is the United States poised to 

lead the world in trying to help not only feed the world, but move 

us to more global food self-sufficiency. And based on our review, 

this country in the last two years has made transformational 

progress in the areas of food assistance, food assistance delivery, 

reform of our food and foreign assistance programs, the metrics of 

the program, and the government working together, and that is 

through the efforts of the Secretary of State, the head of AID, Raj 

33 

Shah, and partnerships with the private and public sector. So 

things are much better. 

This was a listless period for the last ten to 20 years in terms 

of the ability of the United States to be a vital force in leading the 

world in foreign assistance, development assistance, but it has 

changed and it is a different world. And even Secretary Gates as 

Secretary of Defense has said that the three pillars of America’s 

leadership in the world are diplomacy, defense, and development. 

And development took a bottom line, a back seat to a lot of these 

efforts, and I think it has begun to change. 

I am not saying it is perfect now. We need more investments in 

agricultural research. More foreign students need to go to school 

here. The units of government often do not work perfectly with 

each other. There are not the partnerships with private universities that we would like to see. The land grant world was very 

much involved in the science and research of developing food selfsufficiency in the 1960s and 1970s. That slipped for a while. Hopefully, that is coming back. 

And the report gives a grade card of how the government has 

done. I mean, we actually, like, we gave the government a B-minus 

overall. But from the standpoint of how USAID is doing, how the 

State Department is doing, they actually fared very well. 

The second point I would like to make is the fact that America’s 

power to lead and change the world is in large part based upon our 

ability to be engaged in the developing world and helping them 

feed themselves. Catherine Bertini and I went to Mozambique and 

Tanzania just recently to see what is happening on the ground and 

it is tough out there, I have to tell you. I mean, the impediments 

to change are very great. In some respects, we saw more Chinese 

engagement in that part of the world than we saw American engagement. 

But the truth of the matter is, there is still great promise for our 

country to lead the world, and I wanted to give you one anecdote. 

We were in Tanzania and we were meeting with some government 

officials, and I forgot who it was, but somebody said to me, he says, 

‘‘You know, America is great and you have got three great leaders 

who are moving America’s influence in this part of the world 

along.’’ And he said the leaders are Bill Clinton, George Bush, and 

Barack Obama. 

I do not think you could find very many people in our country 

that would list those three leaders as moving America along. Bill 

Clinton, because of the efforts of the Clinton Global Initiative, the 

Clinton Foundation, efforts in the developing world. Obviously, 

George Bush because of his leadership in AIDS and malaria and 

the PEPFAR Initiative. And Barack Obama because of who he is 

and where he is from, and also because of his commitment to try 

to make the farms flourish in the developing world. 

Our potential to be a factor in leading these parts of the world 

into becoming food self-sufficient, reducing their poverty, helping 

all of the population, particularly women and girls, get out of poverty, because they produce most of the agricultural commodities in 

the developing world, and building democracy in governance systems is to a large extent dependent upon our continued engagement in this area. 

34 

I know Secretary Vilsack talked about the budget conditions, and 

I recognize that. I am reminded of all the years I testified on a lot 

of similar things, as I am sure Mike Johanns did, as well. 

But I would tell you that if we unilaterally disarm from our development agenda, now that we have a team in there that really 

knows what they are doing, it is really going to handicap the 

United States in terms of being a leader in the future of the world. 

Almost one-third of all the members of the General Assembly of the 

U.N. are from Africa. These people need our—not our assistance 

from the standpoint of charity, but they need our technical capability, our minds, our resources in terms of agriculture productivity, 

and it is not all exotic technologies, either. A lot of it is the basics. 

And if we can stay engaged, and that is my plea to you today, 

as part of the farm bill, as part of the budgeting process, if we can 

stay engaged, we will have great impact in the developing world 

and it will affect America’s economic, foreign policy, and national 

security interests, as well. 

So the recommendations are contained in our report. I would like 

to pay tribute to my former colleague, Mr. Roberts, who I had 

hoped he would be here and I regret that he is not for difficult circumstances. He and I have had, I would say, a wonderful marriage—I do not want anybody to take that too personally—here 

over the years in terms of the relationship back in Kansas, and he 

is a great friend of mine, as well. So I want to just pay tribute to 

him, too. 

Thank you. 

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

61 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mumby, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY MUMBY, SENIOR MEMBER, WAKESHMA 

FARMS LLC, COLON, MICHIGAN 

Mr. MUMBY. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I guess I am here 

because I have been in agriculture a long time and I bring to you 

basically the view from a family farm. I am a third-generation 

farmer and I am involved in the transition to a fourth generation. 

It has been a very rewarding life and, I guess overall, I could not 

have chosen a better profession. When I was at Michigan State 

University, I had an opportunity to do some other things and I 

chose to come back to the farm. My two boys achieved educations 

at Michigan State University in other fields. They chose to come 

back to the farm. A lot of roots. It brings you back. 

As I near the end of my career as an active farmer, I have become more and more involved in world issues in terms of what can 

the American farmer do to help foreign countries. In my travels, I 

witness almost an adulation, if you will, of farmers. Any farmers, 

any fish farms, any place that I visited around the world, whether 

it be China or Asia, Tunisia, wherever, American agriculture is so 

highly regarded, it is frightening, because you do not want to tell 

them what you do to be successful because they will do it, whether 

it is the right thing in their situation or not. It is not a process of 

evaluation. They just do it. And that is a responsibility that Americans carry when they travel. 

35 

I think my normal workday starts around 5:00 in the morning 

at this point in time and I continue to do a news world search, try 

to gather anything that is pertinent to agriculture. I share that 

with a bunch of associates that we convene a conference call every 

morning at 7:15, and that usually takes until about 8:00. 

My associates consist of risk managers for grain originators, risk 

managers for ethanol plants, a think tank in Detroit, two other 

services, and anyone else. We have some livestock specialists, as 

well, and I guess I serve on that and have for probably ten years 

now just because I am an average farmer. We are not a large farm. 

You know, 2,100 acres is not large. But it is a family farm and it 

is a solid family farm and I think if you go across America, you will 

find a lot of that. That is the insight that I bring. 

I really focused on risk management at this point in my career. 

I wish you folks a lot of luck because you have a big, big task. The 

risk management issues that I see right now for U.S. farmers, of 

course, prices, but that can be handled. There are methods to handle prices. Violent weather—I do not know how you deal with that. 

As I looked at some of the footage of the recent tornadoes, it may 

not be a disaster for a county, but if you are in the path of that 

storm, not only have you lost lives and property, you have lost 

crops. I mean, there was a path viewed from a helicopter that was 

brown. Nothing was in the path of that tornado left. Now, that has 

taken a lot of cropland out. That is a very localized, specific loss, 

but it is 100 percent. How you—I do not think you can write a farm 

bill that deals with that, frankly. But those are issues that we are 

going to face as we come to the fruition of this crop and see what 

we have this fall. I fear that we are going to fall substantially short 

of what is projected right now and I think we are on the edge of 

a very, very dangerous time. 

The next—we are up at bat. It is our turn to produce a crop. The 

next time, it will be South America. They need to come in with another big crop. Brazil had 73 million metric tons of beans this year, 

which is huge, but we are just basically treading water. We are not 

gaining anything in inventories. So the world carry-out stocks are 

flat. We are trying to build them, but the demand curve is way 

ahead of us. 

The U.S. farmer is not going to solve this problem by ourselves. 

We need to outreach to farmers in other countries and encourage 

them to adopt technologies that are commonplace here. 

I believe that we have done a great deal in soil conservation, no 

till drills. We have a lot of CRP acres that I believe could be 

farmed with no till technology now. I think that was basically laid 

out before no till drills and no till farming was a common practice. 

I think farmers in the United States will do everything they can 

to be as productive as possible. I think there are yield gains to be 

made with current technology right now if a lot of practices were 

adopted. I think the price structure right now is good enough so 

that it encourages farmers to adopt some of those practices and 

take a little more risk. You can afford to invest a little more in a 

$7 bushel of corn than you can a $3 bushel of corn. So you invest 

money and you take the risk, and farmers are entrepreneurs and 

they will do what they can to be profitable and they will do what 

36 

they can to feed the world, but I do not believe the United States 

alone can do it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mumby can be found on page 67 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your being here representing the folks that we all talk about 

all the time who are at the heart of what s happening for American 

agriculture, so thank you very much. 

Dr. Rosenberg, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW ROSENBERG, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE, CONSERVATION 

INTERNATIONAL, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Madam Chair and members of the committee, 

I am Andrew Rosenberg, the Chief Scientist for Conservation International, and thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

today on the risks and challenges facing American agriculture as 

the world population grows from seven billion to more than nine 

billion over the next 40 years and global food demand doubles by 

2050. 

Food security is part of Conservation International’s mission to 

empower societies to responsibly and sustainably care for ecosystems and the services they provide for the well-being of humanity, and our staff of over 800 people here in the United States and 

across the globe work together to address the challenges of food security and more broadly sustainable development. 

Conservation International partners with government, civil society, and the private sector, including leading U.S. companies such 

as Monsanto, Bunge, Cargill, Starbucks, JPMorgan Chase, and 

Wal-Mart to help reverse the unsustainable draw-down of earth’s 

natural resources and ensure that development is based on the 

principle of sustainability. 

For example, we are informal advisors to the Global Harvest Initiative, a partnership that includes Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, John Deere, and DuPont to address hunger and food security 

by sustainably closing the agricultural productivity gap. 

Conservation International views the agricultural sector as a priority because it is a major driver of rural economic development, 

providing income, employment, and prosperity for farmers and 

farm workers around the world. Ensuring a reliable food supply directly supports broader U.S. policy, helping enhance our national 

security through improved regional stability in developing countries and supporting U.S. competitiveness by creating growing markets for U.S. exports. 

The challenges of feeding a growing global population are threefold: Meeting the demand for food from a growing and more affluent population; increasing production in an environmentally and 

socially sustainable manner; and ensuring the world’s poorest people are no longer hungry. 

From our work over the last 25 years, we know that we must not 

only improve food production from agriculture, aquaculture, and 

fisheries, but also conserve the natural systems upon which that 

production depends. Natural systems provide many of the essential 

37 

supporting services for agriculture, including fertile soil, runoff protection, water regulation, and pollination, to name a few, and for 

a quick example, native bees provide valuable ecosystem services 

worth $8 billion to U.S. agriculture alone each year. 

Farmers are already experiencing the consequences of declining 

natural ecosystem health through increasing severity and frequency of shocks, such as droughts, storms, and flooding, and this 

will require the agricultural sector to continue to innovate and to 

engage in more sustainable practices. And towards this end, Conservation International has worked with our many partners to test 

innovative methods and promote conservation in agricultural landscapes. 

Conservation International is working with the Gates Foundation in Africa to develop a monitoring system for ecosystem health, 

the services ecosystems provide, and human well-being in agricultural land states to create the kinds of tools and systems that can 

improve food production while ensuring that the natural systems 

are not undermined. 

We are a founding member of the Keystone Field to Market Initiative that has developed objective data-driven tools to help U.S. 

farmers manage farms, explore different management scenarios, 

and compare their performance to peers. 

And through our partnerships with agribusiness companies such 

as Bunge and Monsanto and their network of farmer clients, we 

have piloted programs in Brazil to encourage protection and creation of private protected areas in agricultural landscapes to demonstrate that production and conservation can coexist. 

In Indonesia, Brazil, Liberia, and Peru, Conservation International is working with farmers to identify degraded lands appropriate for restoration through crop cultivation, and we work closely 

with corporations such as McDonald’s and Starbucks to develop 

sourcing polices that encourage purchase of sustainably grown commodities. Our experience has shown us that sustainable food production relies on health ecosystems and such that enhanced food 

security depends upon the protection of those natural systems. 

We look forward to working with the committee to ensure that 

the United States meets the challenge of innovation in our agriculture sector, ensure that American farmers remain leaders in 

providing sustainable food supply while maintaining the natural 

systems we all depend upon. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy 

to answer questions. 

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

81 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DeVries, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS DEVRIES, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

GLOBAL MARKETING SERVICES, AGRICULTURE AND TURF 

DIVISION, DEERE AND COMPANY, MOLINE, ILLINOIS 

Mr. DEVRIES. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Senator Johanns, Senator Lugar. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

here. On behalf of John Deere, we appreciate the opportunity to 

provide testimony today on this issue that is most important to not 

38 

only our country, but the world, and that is global food security. 

For 174 years, John Deere has been driven by a consistent purpose 

to achieve that, and that is improving productivity and efficiency 

of our equipment for the benefit of our customers and food production. 

As this committee begins deliberation on the future of U.S. food 

and agricultural policy, Deere believes it is critical that the policies 

and programs be reviewed in light of the new reality in agriculture. 

This reality entails more volatility, greater need for risk management, and a growing reliance on international commerce to support. 

The U.S. has long recognized the importance of strategic food 

and agricultural policy in supporting rural development, economic 

improvement, and social well-being, both at home and around the 

world, and strong partnerships between public and the private sector will be increasingly important in achieving these strategic goals 

and John Deere is committed to that opportunity. 

The global agricultural challenge that everybody has addressed 

this morning is significant. The population is increasing, and not 

only increasing but having increased purchasing power, meaning 

diets improving at the same time while becoming more urbanized. 

These givens require that we double agricultural output by midcentury, and we must achieve this additional output in a sustainable manner. Doubling output while not appreciably increasing inputs. 

For example, most of the world’s productive agricultural land is 

already in use. Some incremental acreage can be brought in, but 

it tends to be less fertile, more costly to farm, and often less sustainable. Clean water is also becoming increasingly scarce for 

urban and industrial needs, but significantly for agricultural irrigation. Add to these challenges unpredictable weather patterns and 

the enormity of the task becomes very clear. In short, we must 

produce more food in the next three decades than we have in the 

previous 10,000 years. 

So, how can we sustainably double agricultural output by midcentury? Clearly, we must be more productive than we are today. 

Specifically, the rate of future agricultural productivity growth 

must increase compared to the trend rates of the past. Although 

this challenge is significant, the technologies exist or are under development today to help do just that, not only in mechanization, 

but also in crop and livestock genetics and, importantly, in water 

use efficiency. 

Advances in machinery will play a big part in reaching this goal 

as agricultural equipment gets ever more powerful, smarter, and 

more efficient. For example, today’s large John Deere tractors include more lines of software code than the early Space Shuttles did. 

GPS technology today guides tractors and implements in the field 

with near perfect precision, reducing overlap in seeding, tillage, 

and crop care applications. This reduces input usage, saves time, 

reduces fuel requirements, and saves dollars for producers, all the 

while reducing environmental impact. 

Additionally, Deere strongly believes the strategic investments 

must be made in expanding and enhancing infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure in rural areas will significantly boost agriculVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:59 Mar 28, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71627.TXT MICHA
39 

tural output. And that investment must also require a focus on soft 

infrastructure, those policies that reduce or eliminate legal, financial, and social barriers to land ownership, property rights, and investment across the entire agricultural chain. 

We must also, as was indicated earlier, prioritize investments in 

research that will help accelerate agricultural productivity. We 

failed to increase investments in these areas in recent decades despite the growing challenge. Targeted priority research in efficient 

water use, specific crop genomics, agronomic practices, enhanced 

nutritional and health benefits of crops, and reducing post-harvest 

losses will pay enormous dividends. 

Finally, we strongly believe that expanding access to markets 

worldwide is critical and that the United States must lead in these 

efforts. One-quarter of all food and agricultural products today are 

traded and that figure will grow, making trade even more integral 

to improving food security for a growing global population. 

We believe the challenge before global agriculture still is not well 

understood, and this must change. This challenge requires us to 

think differently and to act more aggressively to ensure future generations are able to flourish while protecting critical natural resources. To promote awareness of this challenge and the opportunities, John Deere joined DuPont, Monsanto, and ADM to form the 

Global Harvest Initiative in 2008. GHI collaborates with key partners like Conservation International in the related spaces of food 

security, hunger, environment and conservation, economic development, sustainability, and national security to promote policies that 

can ensure we meet global agricultural demands while responsibly 

meeting societal needs. 

In closing, I want to express our optimism—no, more importantly, our confidence in agriculture’s ability to accelerate productivity and growth sufficient to meet future global requirements for 

food, feed, fuel, and fiber. I am also confident John Deere can contribute significantly in that offering. 

We thank you for the opportunity to come today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeVries can be found on page 52 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Pinstrup-Anderson, welcome, and again, congratulations on 

your efforts. 

STATEMENT OF PER PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN, H.E. BABCOCK 

PROFESSOR OF FOOD, NUTRITION, AND PUBLIC POLICY, J. 

THOMAS CLARK PROFESSOR OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND 

PROFESSOR OF APPLIED ECONOMICS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, AND PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, COPENHAGEN UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK 

Mr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN. Madam Chair, distinguished committee 

members, my name is Per Pinstrup-Andersen. I am a professor at 

Cornell University. 

I can think of no better way of beginning deliberations about the 

2012 farm bill than to look at the global food situation, something 

that is so very much on so many people’s minds right now. This 

is clearly the way to start the deliberations and I congratulate you, 

Madam Chair, for taking that position. 

40 

I would like to mention six points that I think are very important 

as you proceed with the deliberations and decisions on the farm 

bill. 

First, U.S. agriculture is and will continue to be a very important 

source of food for the world population, let there be no doubt about 

that. The value of agricultural exports from the United States has 

doubled during the last eight years and will continue to increase. 

Much of that increase will come from developing countries and it 

will depend on successful economic growth in those economies and 

those countries, and that is why initiatives such as the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program and Feed the Future are very 

important to promote agricultural growth in the United States and 

the employment that comes with it, because those programs, if successful, will expand agricultural exports out of the United States. 

It is clearly a true win-win scenario that can be achieved. 

Secondly, current estimates are that demand for food and feed 

will increase by about 70 percent by 2050. This is the first time in 

my professional life I have disagreed with Secretary Glickman. He 

thinks it will be a 100 percent increase. I think it will be a 70 percent. I am willing to split the difference. We do not really know, 

but what we do know is there is going to be a tremendous increase 

in the demand for food and feed over the next 40 years. 

I do not think there is any doubt that this increase can be met 

with an equal supply increase. The earth’s productive capacity is 

very far from being fully utilized. The key question really is whether appropriate investments and policies will be made to exploit the 

capacity to produce the food needed in a sustainable manner. It is 

not a question of not having the resources, it is a question of 

whether they are being appropriately used. 

My third point is that sustainable intensivication is the key to 

meeting future food demand. By sustainable intensivication, I 

mean increasing productivity per unit of land and water while 

maintaining the productivity of natural resources for future generations, and for that we need investments in agriculture research and 

technology and in extension. We have heard this mentioned several 

times this morning, critically important, both in the United States 

and in developing countries. Modern science, including genetically 

modified seed, offers tremendous opportunities. Agricological approaches in ecosystem management combined with productivity-increasing technology deserve a lot more attention than what that 

combination has been given in the past. 

My fourth point, large fluctuations in food production and dramatic food price volatility lead to increasing risk and uncertainty 

by farmers, consumers, and traders. Large fluctuations in fertilizer, 

oil, and pesticide prices add to those risks. And there is, in my 

opinion, no reason to believe that the price volatility in the international food market is going to be less severe in the future. Therefore, we need to focus, as has been mentioned this morning, on improved risk management, whether we are talking about producers, 

farmers, whether we are talking about consumers, or whether we 

are talking about the trading sector. 

My fifth point is that although we do not know for sure, we think 

that between 800 million and one billion people suffer from hunger. 

That is roughly three times the total U.S. population that does not 

41 

get enough to eat. Many more suffer from insufficient intake of nutrients. Overweight, obesity, related chronic diseases affect about 

one in seven of the world’s population. Agriculture and other parts 

of the food system play a key role in assuring good nutrition, not 

just by producing food, but in a number of other ways, and to fully 

exploit that role, policy and research priorities for the food system 

should explicitly consider opportunities for improving health and 

nutrition. 

My sixth and last point is that recent food price increases 

brought, as I mentioned earlier, new international attention to the 

need for increasing investments in agricultural development and 

improved food security. That attention culminated in terms of 

promises for funding, culminated with a commitment of $20 billion 

by G–8 and other countries at a meeting in L’Aguila in Italy. The 

problem is that the follow-up has been extremely disappointing. 

Not very much of the $20 billion have yet been allocated. There is 

an urgent need for the kind of investment we have been talking 

about this morning in public goods such as roads, irrigation facilities, agricultural research, local markets, rural institutions, to facilitate agricultural and rural developments in low-income developing countries. 

Without these investments, the private sector cannot do its job. 

It cannot operate efficiently and it will not make the necessary investments in food supply chains. We are going to have more food 

riots. We are going to have more political instability if these investments are not being made, and the opportunities for improving 

health and nutrition will not materialize. Neither will opportunities 

for expanding exports of agricultural commodities. So it is a true 

win-win possibility that we have. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pinstrup-Andersen can be found 

on page 75 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. We very much 

appreciate all of your testimony. 

Let me start questions with Mr. Mumby. Again, welcome for 

coming. As you look at transitioning to your fourth generation on 

the farm, I think it is important that we look at how we can ensure 

that new farmers are going to be able to continue the great work 

of your generation and others. I wondered if you might talk a little 

bit more about the top challenges for new farmers as well as for 

those that are transitioning, not just of the land but the expertise 

that is transitioned, and what else can we do? What should we be 

focused on as it relates to the next generation of farmers? 

Mr. MUMBY. Thank you for that question, Senator. In my estimation, we need to support our land grant universities. They have 

been reduced substantially in their budgets. They have a real problem trying to originate young agricultural people. There is not a lot 

of those folks out there. There are fewer and fewer. As was mentioned, there are 200,000 basically farmers that supply the majority of product. Those individuals in that 200,000 area are very, very 

important. They need to have more than Dad’s education. 

I was very pleased my sons chose to attend the university and 

really obtain their degrees in other areas and then decide to come 

back to the farm. I feel it broadened their education, made them 

42 

more business-oriented, if you will. But I think that is one of the 

key things. We have to support our universities and educate the 

young farmers. They cannot get it all from suppliers or from vendors. And there is a lot of education out there that is helpful there, 

but really, we have seen the decimation in Michigan of the Extension Service. Personally, I benefitted a great deal from the Extension Service. I was the first one in my family to graduate from college of any sort. So I really relied on the Extension Service. But 

budget constraints have made it very difficult. I guess that is my 

first concern. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much. 

I should have mentioned, as you are sitting next to a University 

of Michigan graduate, that you get extra points graduating from 

Michigan State University, my alma mater, Mr. Former Secretary. 

I appreciate—— 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Sometimes, I wish my parents had sent me to 

Michigan State. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, when I was on campus, I actually 

worked for Cooperative Extension, and so, Mr. Mumby, I share 

your strong support, having seen it up close and in person, what 

they do. 

Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen, when we talk about the world population 

growing and the increased demands that we all know are coming, 

we are also seeing an increased demand for high-value foods, as 

well. In your testimony, you mentioned the need for policies that 

increase access for fresh fruits and vegetables, other highly nutritious foods. What types of policies would you recommend and how 

can we implement them in a way that encourages production both 

here in the United States as well as in developing countries? 

Mr. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN. The key issue, it seems to me, is to 

change the relative prices consumers, particularly low-income consumers, have to pay for certain vegetables and what they have to 

pay for other things, like sweeteners and animal products. And one 

way to change those relative prices to make vegetables less expensive is to invest more in research to reduce the unit cost of production by certain vegetables and by certain fruits. Another way, of 

course, is to have direct interventions in the prices, but that tends 

to distort markets and that is probably not the best way to go 

about it. 

Nutrition education can play a major role, as well. In spite of 

much of the—in spite of all the information that is available to consumers, particularly low-income consumers, low-income consumers 

may need a lot more understanding of how to change their diet. So 

those are some of the things that can be done. 

But the point, I think, that is very important to get across is that 

we do not deal with nutrition in one box and agriculture in another 

box but that we integrate the two, and there are many, many ways 

of doing that. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DeVries, John Deere is relatively new, a recent entrant into 

the crop insurance business and I wonder if you might just talk a 

little bit about the company’s decision to get involved, what you are 

43 

learning from providing insurance to farmers in addition to your 

other lines of business. 

Mr. DEVRIES. We are in the crop insurance business and the discussion today around risk management and the issues facing producers today, growers of all kind, I think, underscores the reason 

why. If you think about the volatility, the variability in the marketplace and the need for producers to continue to have confidence to 

make investments over the long term in productivity improvements, whether it is in the form of equipment or seed technologies 

or other things that go along with that, protection is required to 

be able to support that and we believe that the combination of that 

risk management coupled with the kinds of things we can bring in 

the form of common agronomic practices, new technologies, we can 

allow for a better risk management profile for a producer going forward and that has proven to be the case. We believe it is a very 

interesting opportunity, continues to be, and we think it is a core 

part of our financial offerings going forward. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thanks very much. 

Senator JOHANNS. Senator JOHANNS. Let me just start out and say this has been 

a very, very good panel, a very interesting panel in terms of the 

breadth of things that you have all talked about, so it is a little 

bit difficult even to know where to begin with a question or two. 

But Mr. Mumby, if I could start with you, you are kind of the 

boots-on-the-ground witness, if you know what I am saying. You 

are out there every day. You mentioned your concern about supply, 

and, of course, having been a Secretary of Agriculture, I pay attention to those USDA numbers kind of religiously. Those carry-out 

numbers are historically tight, if you look at corn, soybeans, and, 

of course, that impacts other products that are raised. 

I look at the flooding that is going on out there. You know, I 

asked farmers from other States, how are you doing in planting. 

We have got States where they are just barely planting, and here 

we are, the first of June. It is getting awful late for corn. So you 

kind of wonder if they are going to start switching their focus to 

soybeans, and it is even getting a little bit late for soybeans. So all 

of that together raises concerns in my mind about supply and 

whether there will be an adequate supply. 

You talked about risk management and I would like to hear your 

thoughts about that, again, in terms of the boots- on-the-ground 

witness. What are you concerned about as you look out there at the 

next 12, 18 months? 

Mr. MUMBY. I think we are going to have historically low corn 

stocks at the end of this year. September is going to be very difficult for anyone to buy a bushel of corn anyplace. I do not know 

where we are going to come up with a substitute for that. You can 

only feed so much wheat in most rations. There is a lot of that substitution that will take place. The crops down South did not get 

planted on time for them, not timely. We always count on the 

South to bring in an early corn crop, maybe 400 million bushels, 

to supplement when we have a tight reserve, which we have extremely tight reserves. I do not believe that is going to happen. 

There is enough demand down there to probably soak up what 

early corn comes. 

44 

The North Central Corn Belt, Ohio has a disaster. It got worse 

last night, again. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes. 

Mr. MUMBY. I cannot see them plating 50 percent of their corn— 

this is just my number, but they were only 11 percent planted last 

week. They are going to struggle to get it from here on. Yields will 

go down, that is a fact, unless we have extraordinarily good summer weather. 

Senator JOHANNS. Secretary? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. First of all, I want to echo what Mr. Mumby said. 

I just was looking at my Blackberry. There is a Reuters story to 

expect corn plantings down about two percent more than projected, 

in part because of weather conditions. 

Senator JOHANNS. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I think what is happening is we are, after almost 

50 years of high supplies of almost all the major supported commodities, we are in for a long-term period of greater equilibrium 

between supply and demand. I am not saying worldwide shortages, 

but equilibrium, which means you will have significant shortages 

in various parts of the world at times when weather or natural disasters get there. 

It has got a most interesting ramification for how you are going 

to deal with the next farm bill, because farm policy, as you know 

more than—both of you—has been traditionally based upon low 

price, high supply since the Second World War. We are probably 

going into a period that is substantially different, both here at 

home and around the world, and it is going to have great ramifications to how the United States helps the world lead, and that will 

mean much greater attention to research, much greater attention 

to technical assistance. 

And the final thing I would say is the problems that the developing world are having with drought, pests, water, and energy are 

not limited to the developing world. We have got a lot of the same 

exact problems here. We are ahead of them in most cases, but a 

lot of these issues now, we are inexorably linked to the rest of the 

world, not just—they are not all by themselves. 

Senator JOHANNS. We are about out of time here and I want to 

be very respectful of your time. We have maybe even extended a 

little longer than we thought we would. But here is a thought I 

would offer as we are kind of wrapping up here today. 

As we think about the next farm bill, in many respects, I am 

coming to the conclusion that this farm bill is about risk management, because I think you are absolutely right. When we were 

working on farm bill after farm bill through the years, we were 

often using kind of the Roosevelt-World War II–Dust Bowl-Depression era approach. But the world has changed so vastly. We can 

have great technology. We can have Deere and others do wonderful 

things with equipment and et cetera, et cetera. The one thing that 

we all know we cannot control very much is what Mother Nature 

does to a farmer on any given day, and I just think that risk management policy is critical. 

A final thing I would offer, and I have been thinking a lot about 

this as each of you testified, what you are all describing to us is 

we need a 21st century model for agriculture because there are 

45 

huge demands on the U.S. agricultural system and people need to 

eat or we have worldwide chaos. We all know that. 

What I think we need to maybe spend some time talking about 

as a committee is how do we make sure we have got a 21st century 

USDA. And I do not say that critically of current leadership at all. 

It is just that you look at the time span to get things approved, and 

that has been slipping for years. I mean, you look at some of this 

stuff—Mr. Secretary, I am sure you did. I know I did as Secretary. 

And you would see these protracted processes that you go through. 

There are regulatory processes, and I could go on and on. If we tangle up the system in trying to overcome hurdle after hurdle after 

hurdle, then the problem we have is that we are not going to meet 

these demands. We are not going to see the progress we need. So 

how we deal with that, I think, has got to occupy some of our time 

as we think about the farm bill. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. May I just—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I also think we need a 21st century review of our 

agriculture research, because my experience at USDA was a lot of 

the research was important, but a lot of the research was repetitive 

and routine, not enough public research being done, that is, generic, basic research, because there was an awful lot of research focused on specific crops, and I understand a lot of that stuff. 

But, boy, if we are going into a world where supply and demand 

is much more fragile than it used to be, which means big dislocations in farm prices and food prices all over the world and possible 

political dislocations, which we have seen in Tunisia and Egypt and 

Yemen and other places, then we are going to have to really double 

down on finding ways to increase yields and produce crops that use 

less water, less energy, and do it sustainably, and that is a variation on the theme which I would agree, in addition to risk management. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, and thank 

you, Senator Johanns. Thank you to each of you. This has been a 

terrific way to begin the discussion. There is more to do. We will 

follow up individually and want to speak and continue to get your 

input. We, of course, will make sure that any additional questions 

for the record will be submitted within the next five days. 

We thank you again, and this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

MAY 26, 2011 

48 


71627.001
49 


71627.002
50 


71627.003
51 


71627.004
52 


71627.005
53 


71627.006
54 


71627.007
55 


71627.008
56 


71627.009
57 


71627.010
58 


71627.011
59 


71627.012
60 


71627.013
61 


71627.014
62 


71627.015
63 


71627.016
64 


71627.017
65 


71627.018
66 


71627.019
67 


71627.020
68 


71627.021
69 


71627.022
70 


71627.023
71 


71627.024
72 


71627.025
73 


71627.026
74 


71627.027
75 


71627.028
76 


71627.029
77 


71627.030
78 


71627.031
79 


71627.032
80 


71627.033
81 


71627.034
82 


71627.035
83 


71627.036
84 


71627.037
85 


71627.038
86 


71627.039
87 


71627.040
88 


71627.041
89 


71627.042
90 


71627.043
91 


71627.044
(93) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MAY 26, 2011 

94 


71627.045
95 


71627.046
96 


71627.047
97 


71627.048
98 


71627.049
99 


71627.050
100 


71627.051
101 


71627.052
102 


71627.053
103 


71627.054
104 


71627.055
105 


71627.056
106 


71627.057
107 


71627.058
108 


71627.059
109 


71627.060
110 


71627.061
111 


71627.062
112 


71627.063
113 


71627.064
114 


71627.065
115 


71627.066
116 


71627.067
117 


71627.068
118 


71627.069
119 


71627.070
120 


71627.071
121 


71627.072
122 


71627.073
123 


71627.074
124 


71627.075
125 


71627.076
126 


71627.077
127 


71627.078
128 


71627.079
129 


71627.080
130 


71627.081
131 


71627.082
132 


71627.083
133 


71627.084
134 


71627.085
135 


71627.086
136 


71627.087
137 


71627.088
138 


71627.089
139 


71627.090
140 


71627.091
141 


71627.092
142 


71627.093
143 


71627.094
144 


71627.095
145 


71627.096
146 


71627.097
147 


71627.098
148 


71627.099
149 


71627.100
150 


71627.101
151 


71627.102
152 


71627.103
153 


71627.104
154 


71627.105
155 


71627.106
156 


71627.107
157 


71627.108
158 


71627.109
159 


71627.110
160 


71627.111
161 


71627.112
162 


71627.113
163 


71627.114
164 


71627.115
165 


71627.116
166 


71627.117
167 


71627.118
168 


71627.119
169 


71627.120
170 


71627.121
171 


71627.122
172 


71627.123
173 


71627.124
174 


71627.125
175 


71627.126
176 


71627.127
177 


71627.128
178 


71627.129
179 


71627.130
180 


71627.131
181 


71627.132
182 


71627.133
183 


71627.134
184 


71627.135
185 


71627.136
186 


71627.137
187 


71627.138
188 


71627.139
189 


71627.140
190 


71627.141
191 


71627.142
192 


71627.143
193 


71627.144
194 


71627.145
195 


71627.146
196 


71627.147
197 


71627.148
198 


71627.149
199 


71627.150
200 


71627.151
201 


71627.152
202 


71627.153
203 


71627.154
204 


71627.155
205 


71627.156
206 


71627.157
207 


71627.158
208 


71627.159
209 


71627.160
210 


71627.161
211 


71627.162
212 


71627.163
213 


71627.164
214 


71627.165
215 


71627.166
216 


71627.167
217 


71627.168
218 


71627.169
219 


71627.170
220 


71627.171
221 


71627.172
222 


71627.173
223 


71627.174
224 


71627.175
225 


71627.176
226 


71627.177
227 


71627.178
228 


71627.179
229 


71627.180
230 


71627.181
231 


71627.182
232 


71627.183
233 


71627.184
234 


71627.185
235 


71627.186
236 


71627.187
237 


71627.188
238 


71627.189
239 


71627.190
240 


71627.191
241 


71627.192
242 


71627.193
243 


71627.194
244 


71627.195
245 


71627.196
246 


71627.197
247 


71627.198
248 


71627.199
249 


71627.200
250 


71627.201
251 


71627.202
252 


71627.203
253 


71627.204
254 


71627.205
255 


71627.206
256 


71627.207
257 


71627.208
258 


71627.209
259 


71627.210
260 


71627.211
261 


71627.212
262 


71627.213
263 


71627.214
264 


71627.215
265 


71627.216
266 


71627.217
267 


71627.218
268 


71627.219
269 


71627.220
270 


71627.221
271 


71627.222
272 


71627.223
273 


71627.224
274 


71627.225
275 


71627.226
276 


71627.227
277 


71627.228
278 


71627.229
279 


71627.230
280 


71627.231
281 


71627.232
282 


71627.233
283 


71627.234
284 


71627.235
285 


71627.236
286 


71627.237
287 


71627.238
288 


71627.239
289 


71627.240
290 


71627.241
291 


71627.242
292 


71627.243
293 


71627.244
294 


71627.245
295 


71627.246
296 


71627.247
297 


71627.248
298 


71627.249
299 


71627.250
300 


71627.251
301 


71627.252
302 


71627.253
303 


71627.254
304 


71627.255
305 


71627.256
306 


71627.257
307 


71627.258
308 


71627.259
309 


71627.260
310 


71627.261
311 


71627.262
312 


71627.263
313 


71627.264
314 


71627.265
315 


71627.266
316 


71627.267
317 


71627.268
318 


71627.269
319 


71627.270
320 


71627.271
321 


71627.272
322 


71627.273
323 


71627.274
324 


71627.275
325 


71627.276
326 


71627.277
327 


71627.278
328 


71627.279
329 


71627.280
330 


71627.281
331 


71627.282
332 


71627.283
333 


71627.284
334 


71627.285
335 


71627.286
336 


71627.287
337 


71627.288
338 


71627.289
339 


71627.290
340 


71627.291
341 


71627.292
342 


71627.293
343 


71627.294
344 


71627.295
345 


71627.296
346 


71627.297
347 


71627.298
348 


71627.299
349 


71627.300
350 


71627.301
351 


71627.302
352 


71627.303
353 


71627.304
354 


71627.305
355 


71627.306
356 


71627.307
357 


71627.308
358 


71627.309
359 


71627.310
360 


71627.311
361 


71627.312
362 


71627.313
363 


71627.314
364 


71627.315
365 


71627.316
366 


71627.317
367 


71627.318
368 


71627.319
369 


71627.320
370 


71627.321
371 


71627.322
372 


71627.323
373 


71627.324
374 


71627.325
375 


71627.326
376 


71627.327
377 


71627.328
(379) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

MAY 26, 2011 

380 


71627.329
381 


71627.330
382 


71627.331
383 


71627.365
384 


71627.332
385 


71627.333
386 


71627.334
387 


71627.335
388 


71627.336
389 


71627.337
390 


71627.338
391 


71627.339
392 


71627.340
393 


71627.341
394 


71627.342
395 


71627.343
396 


71627.344
397 


71627.345
398 


71627.346
399 


71627.347
400 


71627.348
401 


71627.349
402 


71627.350
403 


71627.351
404 


71627.352
405 


71627.353
406 


71627.354
407 


71627.355
408 


71627.356
409 


71627.357
410 


71627.358
411 


71627.359
412 


71627.360
413 


71627.361
414 


71627.362
415 


71627.363
416 


71627.364