[Senate Hearing 107-137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-137
CONFIRMATION OF ANN M. VENEMAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 18, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.senate.gov~agriculture
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-331 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana,
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MAX BAUCUS, Montana MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
ZELL MILLER, Georgia CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Mark Halverson, Staff Director
Alison Fox, Counsel
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Keith Luse, Staff Director for the Minority
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, January 18, 2001....................................... 1
Appendix:
Thursday, January 18, 2001....................................... 55
Document(s) submitted for the record:
Thursday, January 18, 2001....................................... 81
Question(s) and answers submitted for the record:
Thursday, January 18, 2001....................................... 111
----------
Thursday, January 18, 2001
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry........................ 1
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from Indiana, Ranking
Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry...... 4
Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from Mississippi.............. 19
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from Kansas.................... 24
Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter G., a U.S. Senator from Illinois.......... 33
Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho.................. 30
Conrad, Hon. Kent, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota.............. 16
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., a U.S. Senator from Arkansas........... 27
Miller, Hon. Zell, a U.S. Senator from Georgia................... 31
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, a U.S. Senator from Michigan.............. 35
Dayton, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota................. 40
Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska........... 38
Johnson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from south Dakota.............. 22
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from Iowa.............. 44
----------
Introduction of Ann M. Veneman
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from California........... 6
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from California.............. 7
Dreier, Hon. David, a Representive from California............... 5
----------
WITNESSES
Veneman, Ann M., Designee for Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 10
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Harkin, Hon. Tom............................................. 56
Boxer, Hon. Barbara.......................................... 58
Craig, Hon. Larry E.......................................... 62
McConnell, Hon. Mitch........................................ 63
Baucus, Hon. Max............................................. 65
Johnson, Hon. Tim............................................ 60
Leahy, Hon. Patrick.......................................... 67
Santorum, Hon Rick........................................... 73
Grassley, Chuck.............................................. 76
Veneman, Ann M............................................... 78
Document(s) submitted for the record:
Biographical information of Ann M. Veneman................... 82
Letter of Opposition submitted by Marcia Merry Baker,
Executive Intelligence Review.............................. 104
Letter of Support submitted by National Federation of Federal
Employees.................................................. 109
Question(s) and answers submitted for the record:
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche........................................ 112
Johnson, Hon. Tim............................................ 119
Conrad, Hon. Kent............................................ 122
Harkin, Hon. Tom............................................. 126
Leahy, Hon. Patrick.......................................... 130
Roberts, Hon. Pat............................................ 134
Baucus, Hon. Max............................................. 138
Smith, Hon. Gordon........................................... 141
Lugar, Hon. Richard G........................................ 143
CONFIRMATION OF ANN M. VENEMAN AS SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. in room
538, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Tom Harkin (Chairman of the
Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin, Lugar, Grassley, Roberts,
Cochran, Craig, Fitzgerald, Miller, Conrad, Nelson, Johnson,
Dayton, Lincoln, and Stabenow.
The Chairman. The Senate Agriculture Committee will come to
order. And I will at this time recognize our distinguished
Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Harkin.
It's my privilege to pass the gavel over to Chairman
Harkin, who has already used it to commence this meeting.
[Laughter.]
But nevertheless, I advised him a few days ago, it's well
to get loosened up, he may need this. This is a 50-50 Senate,
there is every attempt always made in this committee to work in
a bipartisan and collegial fashion. And I'm grateful that, that
has been so. And Tom Harkin is a major reason why that is so.
So it's a privilege to pass the gavel over to you for this
very, very important meeting. And I just have the admonition,
make sure that you do well.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. I will be
returning it shortly.
[Laughter.]
I must at the outset first of all thank Senator Lugar for
his many kindnesses and generosities during our tenure together
here on the Senate Ag Committee. It truly has been a bipartisan
effort. We've had a great working relationship and I believe
that will continue to be so during this session of the Senate
also.
And so I look forward to working with you, Senator Lugar,
and addressing the many problems that we have in agriculture
and moving our agenda forward with our new Secretary of
Agriculture.
I also have said at the outset that this is again a
singular honor for me to chair the Ag Committee for a couple of
days. The last Iowan to chair the Senate Agriculture Committee
was Jonathan P. Doliver from Fort Dodge. He served as chairman
of this committee from March 15th, 1909 to June 25th, 1910, a
little over a year. So that was a short time.
Well, I'm going to beat him.
[Laughter.]
I will go down now in history as being the second Iowan to
ever chair this committee. And I will also go down in history
as having the shortest tenure as chairman of this committee.
[Laughter.]
So it is an honor for me.
And it's an honor to be here today to welcome our Secretary
of Agriculture designee, who is here today. Here is the
procedure that we'll follow. I will make my opening statement,
I will recognize Senator Lugar for his opening statement. I
know that Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, and I assume
Congressman Dreier, will also have other things they have to go
to, other hearings.
I will recognize you for introducing Ms. Veneman and then
you can be excused. Then we'll come back to the Committee and
each Senator will be recognized for up to 10-minutes, both to
make an opening statement and to propound questions to the
Secretary of Agriculture designee.
So with that, let me just open by again welcoming you here,
Ms. Veneman. We look forward to a good hearing and one in which
we can exchange some thoughts about agriculture and the future
of agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture has one of the
toughest and too often under appreciated jobs in our
Government. In any number of ways, the programs and activities
of the Department of Agriculture touch upon and improve all
Americans, in every walk of life. And particularly, if I might
be a little bit home bound, in a great agriculture State like
Iowa, it's tremendously important who serves as Secretary and
how well he or she carries out those responsibilities.
I must tell you, I was encouraged by the nomination of Ann
Veneman to serve as Secretary of Agriculture. I've known her
for a number of years, worked with her in previous posts at
USDA. Ms. Veneman is an intelligent and capable person, with
solid experience in administering food and agriculture
programs, both here in Washington and in her own State of
California.
Her credentials include service as Deputy Secretary of
USDA, and Secretary of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture.
I believe we can work together and we have to work together
across party lines to do the work that must be done for farm
families and rural communities and consumers. As we have both
said here, we have a strong record on this committee of
bipartisan cooperation. And again, I want to thank Senator
Lugar for that cooperative attitude.
As I mentioned, the Department of Agriculture has far
reaching responsibilities, from farm programs to food safety to
conservation to nutrition assistance. I hope today's hearing
will be the start of a productive discussion and working
relationship on the many critical issues that fall under USDA's
jurisdiction.
Starting with farm policy, I believe it is essential that
we rework the Freedom to Farm bill, and we should make every
effort to do that this year. We should keep what is working,
mainly planting flexibility and conservation, and improve that
which is not working. Mainly that involves improving the farm
income features of the bill, so that our Nation's farm families
do not have to depend on the uncertain prospect of emergency
assistance packages year after year.
This year, we will also begin the process, I've already
discussed this with Senator Lugar, of having hearings and
beginning the process for the next Farm Bill, the present one,
which expires next year. Again, I feel the next Farm Bill
should include a much stronger emphasis on conservation.
I and Senator Smith of Oregon have proposed a new voluntary
program to provide financial incentives for maintaining and
installing conservation practices. It's a proposal that will
both improve farm income and bring about far greater dividends
to farmers and our Nation as a whole in the form of improved
conservation of our natural resources for future generations.
Building markets and demand for agricultural products is a
critical need in agriculture. We have a number of pressing
issues in the area of agricultural trade. And I expect that Ms.
Veneman's experience here will be valuable in working to expand
our export markets.
We have a lot to do on the domestic side through creating
and developing new uses and markets for our commodities, along
with much greater use of ethanol, biodiesel and biomass fuels.
Biotechnology offers a lot of promise in this regard, although
we have some knotty issues that will have to be resolved if
agricultural biotechnology is really to succeed.
We also can and must do more to help rural communities
share in the prosperity that the rest of the country is
enjoying. Our rural communities are falling far behind. That
includes jobs and economic growth and a higher quality of life
in our rural communities. And USDA has a critically important
role in rural utilities, electricity, telecommunications, sewer
and water services, assisting rural cooperatives and
businesses, improving community facilities, channeling
investment capital to rural areas.
I think our strategy for rural revitalization must include
promoting the success of farmer owned cooperatives and
businesses that process and market farm commodities. An
overriding concern is the future of the independent family farm
producer in American agriculture. We've seen a dramatic change
in the structure and landscape of farming as a result of rapid
and sweeping consolidation, vertical integration and economic
concentration.
A key responsibility of the next Secretary of Agriculture
will be to enforce the laws in USDA's jurisdiction
aggressively, to work with the Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission, to enforce the antitrust laws fully
and to work with us on needed new legislation.
From the consumer perspective, USDA has no role more
important than protecting the safety of our Nation's food
supply. We are blessed with an abundant supply of safe and
wholesome food. But there's more that can and should be done to
improve the safety of our food. And as a Nation, we cannot fail
to meet our responsibilities to combat hunger and malnutrition
here and abroad.
We Americans enjoy a level of wealth and abundance
unprecedented in history. We simply cannot tolerate or condone
hunger or malnutrition in our own country. We can do more to
help people in developing countries, especially children. I
strongly support the initiative proposed by former Senators
Dole and McGovern, and as begun by President Clinton, to
provide food assistance in ways that both combat hunger and
promote education in developing countries. The proposal for an
international school lunch and school breakfast program is one
that we need to pursue vigorously.
So again, I welcome you, Ms. Veneman, to the Committee. I
look forward to today's hearing and to working with you in the
coming months and years.
And with that, I would recognize Senator Lugar from
Indiana.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Harkin can be found in
the appendix on page 56.]
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
INDIANA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,
AND FORESTRY
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I join you and our colleagues,
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer and Congressman Dreier, in
welcoming this distinguished nominee to our committee this
morning. I was pleased a few days ago to visit again with Ann
Veneman. I have appreciated her leadership over the years at
the State and local level and at the Federal level in a
previous administration. She demonstrated then the wisdom and
the diligence that are required for the job that is at hand.
Her combined knowledge of domestic affairs and international
experience make her an ideal candidate.
As she knows, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is a very
difficult department to manage. One of my suggestions
throughout my tenure on this committee has been that the
Secretary manage it, as opposed to accepting a stovepipe
mentality of 41 duchies, or reduced, as this committee has
helped, to 35, by my count. It is important that the Secretary
be the Secretary, and that she manage ably and comprehensively
in behalf of all of the interests that somehow come together in
USDA.
And that will encompass a wide, diverse set of issues, that
you have illustrated in your presentation, Mr. Chairman. And I
agree with the agenda that you have. Each of these are very,
very important subjects, which I'm certain will have the
attention of all of us.
For the moment, I have confidence in Ann Veneman. And I
look forward to her testimony. And I appreciate very much your
leadership in expediting both the hearing and the possibilities
for her early confirmation. I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
As I said, then, I would recognize our distinguished
colleagues from the Senate and the House for purposes of
introduction of Ms. Veneman. Then we'll return back to the
Committee for opening statements and questions.
And in that regard, I would again exercise the right of, I
will recognize our member from the House. We like to be our
generous to our people who take the time and effort to come
across all the way from the House side over here, as many of us
have done in the past. So we welcome you here, Congressman
Dreier, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Congressman Dreier. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Let me join my friend Dick Lugar in congratulating
you on the fine job that you're doing chairing this committee.
We appreciate the fact that you've expedited this so well.
I want to say that it's a special privilege for me to be
here with the distinguished former Chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee, my friend Pat Roberts, and also to join
with my colleagues, Senators Boxer and Feinstein, in this very
important introduction.
Both you and Senator Lugar, Mr. Chairman, have just spoken
about the bipartisanship that goes on here in the Agriculture
Committee. And bipartisanship is very clearly the flavor of the
month now. Virtually everyone is talking about it with a great
deal of enthusiasm.
And I congratulate this committee for the approach that
you've taken. I think it's very important that we note that Ann
Veneman is in fact one of the greatest models for
bipartisanship and has been throughout her entire life. Her
father was a very prominent State assemblyman in California.
In fact, a column that was just written by a great, a very
famous columnist with the L.A. Times, George Skelton, said that
Ann's father was in fact clearly among the top 10 most
respected State assemblymen in the last 40 years in California.
He came to that position in large part because of the
bipartisan approach that he took to dealing with public policy
questions. And his daughter has clearly emulated that.
You've gone through already the distinguished positions
that she has held. She's clearly extremely qualified, extremely
talented, and I believe will do a great job as Secretary of
Agriculture.
Not many people know that the number one industry in
California is agriculture. People think it's technology, the
entertainment industry, tourism. But agriculture continues to
be number one. In fact, the San Joaquin valley, from which Ann
Veneman hails, I was told when I was up there a few months ago,
if they had enough water, could feed the entire world for 100
years. And it seems to me that when you look at, if you look at
the very great importance that agriculture has for the world
from a California perspective, and having had Ann Veneman as
the leader of that effort in California, she is well trained
now to serve as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
The issue of trade is for me one of the top priorities. I
spend most of my time, my focus on the Rules Committee, which I
chair, we talk and focus on trade issues. I was very privileged
to have worked with Ann on the North American Free Trade
Agreement. She was very involved in the U.S.Canada Trade
Agreement, the very important granting which Senator Lugar and
I worked on, the granting of permanent normal trade relations
with the People's Republic of China.
These are all very key issues for agriculture. And Ann's
expertise in these areas will, I believe, serve her very well
when she becomes the first woman ever to serve as Secretary of
Agriculture.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Congressman Dreier, thank you very much for
that great statement, and thank you for being here this
morning.
I now recognize our senior Senator from California, Senator
Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee.
It's a great pleasure for me to be here with my colleagues,
Senator Boxer, Mr. Dreier from California, to really indicate
in my introduction also my personal support for this nominee.
Ann Veneman has really built a very distinguished career. She
has supported farmers by opening new markets for California's
agricultural products. She brings 20 years of experience, a
truly global perspective, and I think this will serve the
American farmer well.
Interestingly enough, her father also was a distinguished
Modesto peach farmer. And all through the course of her career,
she has been a strong advocate for agricultural products. I
think an interesting aside that also demonstrates the support
she has is that a delegation from the California Farm Bureau
has traveled here for this nomination hearing, headed by the
President of the Farm Bureau, Mr. Bill Pauli. I'd like to ask
him to stand, if he would, and just welcome him and the
delegation to Washington.
Ann Veneman first joined the United States Department of
Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service in 1986. She rose to
Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity
Programs in 1989.
Two years later, she was appointed as the Deputy Secretary
of Agriculture by President Bush. In that capacity, she was a
leader in the fight to open world markets to American
agricultural products. And as Mr. Dreier said, she helped to
negotiate both the NAFTA agreement and the Uruguay Round of
talks for the GATT Agreement.
In 1995, she was named California Secretary of Food and
Agriculture by Governor Pete Wilson. As California's
Agriculture Secretary, Ms. Veneman successfully ran an agency
of 1,800 employees with a $200 million budget. She emphasized
biotechnology and food safety. She expanded overseas trade,
especially in Asia and South America, and she tightened border
controls to protect California's crops against pest
infestation, which has become a major problem.
Under her watch, the value of California's agricultural
commodities grew by some $4 billion, from $22 billion to $26
billion. In addition to her work in State and Federal
Government, she has extensive experience in the private sector,
giving her insights into the needs and challenges facing this
key industry.
As a board member for the biotechnology company, Calgene,
she gained a deep understanding of the possibilities and the
real and the perceived dangers of genetically modified crops,
which I think we all believe is going to become a much more
important and also deeply concerning area in the future. So
this experience should serve her well, as questions about the
safety of these crops continue to arise.
The next Secretary of Agriculture is going to have to
confront the global and technological changes facing the
agricultural industry. And I think with her experience in both
the public and private sector, Ann is really well suited to
deal with these issues. Based on her record, we can assume that
she will take a lead in opening new markets for our country's
agricultural products, while developing policies to ensure both
traditional and genetically modified crops are safe for the
American consumer.
So I'm really delighted. For California, and I think my
colleague and friend will agree with this, this is a very
important appointment. And I'm just very proud to see Ann here,
her family here, and to wholeheartedly introduce, recommend and
support her appointment as Agricultural Secretary.
So thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. If I might be excused,
there's a certain hearing in Judiciary which I'm involved in.
[Laughter.]
So I'll go back there. Thank you.
The Chairman. I understand. Thank you very much, Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Boxer.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. Senator Feinstein, your
words were just right on the mark, and I endorse everything you
said. I endorse the comments of David Dreier, as well.
Mr. Chairman, congratulations, Mr. soon to be chairman,
congratulations. And to all my friends on this committee,
you're all my friends, you're my good friends--it's nice to be
here.
I also wanted to note your two new members, Senators Nelson
and Dayton. And I wanted to tell them, since I've been around a
little longer than they have, enjoy this day. This is a good
day. In the future, there will be more contentious hearings.
This one I think you will enjoy.
I wanted to say how pleased I am to be here, and that my
schedule worked out so that I could be, Ann. I also want to
welcome the members of your family who happen to be sitting
behind me. And I know they are as proud as they can be.
Clearly, Ms. Veneman has a long list of firsts associated
with her career: the first woman to head California's
Department of Food and Agriculture, the first woman to hold the
post of Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
she sits before you as the first woman ever nominated to be the
Secretary of Agriculture. It's a very proud moment, I think,
for women and for men as well, who care about women and care
about equal opportunity, and I know it's all of you.
I also think there's another first. I think she's the first
peach grower to be nominated to be Secretary of Agriculture.
[Laughter.]
So we have a number of firsts here, Mr. Chairman, in
addition to yours.
And this of course makes our peach growers very happy, and
frankly, all of our growers, from almonds to avocadoes and all
of the things that we grow in our State.
I am not going to go into everything she's ever done in her
life because I think most people have touched on it, other than
to say, far longer than the list of firsts is the list of
praise and kind words that her nomination has received. My
friend Leon Panetta has said that President elect Bush could
not have picked a more moderate, hard working and intelligent
candidate. The California Farm Bureau praised her nomination,
saying she understands agriculture and knows where it needs to
go.
As the members of this committee know well, and I know
well, even though I'm not on this committee because I am often
involved in what you do. Agriculture often breaks down along
regional rather than party lines. Ann Veneman brings
substantial California experience to this job, but she has
drawn praise nationwide. The Des Moines Register, for example,
praised her nomination, calling her ``talented, energetic,
knowledgeable and personable.'' And I know that you will find
all those things to be true and more.
She has been broadly praised for her knowledge and her hard
work in the areas of trade, food safety--which matters so much
to all of us--and of course, the high tech developments in the
ag industry.
We have a $27 billion per year agricultural industry in
California. And it's not shocking to know how pleased they all
are with this nomination. Some of them are here Senator
Feinstein introduced a couple of folks. And I really know that
she will serve all of our Nation's farmers well.
In closing, I trust that her confirmation will be smooth
and that she will follow her colleague, mentor and fellow
Modesto native, Richard Lyng, to be the second Californian to
assume the post of Secretary of Agriculture. And again, my
friends on the Committee, I think you're going to be very
pleased.
And with that, I will take my leave, Chairmen both. And of
course, if you ever need to talk to me about Ann in the future,
I'll be right here, johnny on the spot. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer can be found in
the appendix on page 58.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer, Congressman Dreier, you're excused. I know
you have other business to attend to.
Again, before I administer the oath to Ms. Veneman, I would
like to welcome our two new members. I think we may have at
least one new member on that side, but we don't know who that
person is right now. But I would like to welcome our two new
members, both neighbors of mine, one to the north and one to
the west.
Senator Nelson, of course, former Governor of the State of
Nebraska, who takes the seat of our former colleague, Senator
Bob Kerrey, who served with distinction on this committee. I
have known Senator Nelson for many, many years. We've done a
lot of work together. I can assure all of you that you will
find no one with a broader and more intense interest in all of
the aspects of agriculture than Senator Nelson. And we welcome
you to this committee, Senator Nelson.
And my neighbor to the north, Senator Dayton, again, I have
to tell you this, I first campaigned for him for the Senate in
1982. So if there's a guy that never gives up, it's Mark
Dayton. And he has served with distinction in his State as
State Auditor of the State of Minnesota, has distinguished
himself also in the private sector. But again, someone I've
known for many years and again, someone who has a very deep
knowledge and appreciation for all aspects of agriculture. We
certainly welcome Senator Dayton to the Committee also. And we
look forward to the new member on the Republican side as soon
as we can whenever they come up.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Veneman, if you'll rise, I'll administer the oath and
we can get on with this.
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the
testimony you are about to present is the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Veneman. I do.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Veneman, do you agree that if confirmed, you will
appear before any duly constituted committee of Congress if
asked?
Ms. Veneman. Yes, Sir.
The Chairman. I should also mention for the record that a
number of letters of support for Ms. Veneman's confirmation
have been received, and without objection, they'll be placed in
the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the appendix
on page 81].
Members are asked to submit any written questions by the
close of business today, Thursday. In submitting questions,
members may want to keep in mind that because Ms. Veneman does
not have full access to all of the resources of USDA, she may
have some difficulty in answering questions that are especially
technical, and that may take some time to get back.
So Ms. Veneman, again, welcome to the Committee. This truly
is an historic occasion for a number of reasons, not the least
of which is you will be the first woman Secretary of
Agriculture. And I say it's about time.
Ms. Veneman. Thank you.
The Chairman. The history of agriculture in America has
mostly been about the men who have farmed and who have led
certain farm issues. But basically I think for too long we've
forgotten the intense role that women have played in all of the
aspects of our frontier, the development of agriculture, new
products, many of the scientists or plant geneticists and many
of the people involved in genetics and livestock, these have
been women.
And I think for too long they've been forgotten and shoved
by the wayside. And so I think your being Secretary of
Agriculture will send a very positive message to young women
around the country that they, too, can have a great future in
agriculture, in all aspects of agriculture.
So I think this is truly historic. And I want to
congratulate President elect Bush for picking you as his
nominee to be our Secretary of Agriculture.
I had a couple of housekeeping questions. I asked two. The
third one is that the Committee has your committee
questionnaire and the financial disclosure report and analysis
from the Office of Government Ethics. For the record and for
the benefit also of any members of the public who may have any
questions, will you briefly describe for us the process you
have followed and the steps taken to make sure there will be no
conflicts of interest for you relative to any clients you may
have represented, boards you may have been on or any
investments you have or may have had? And will you assure the
Committee that if there ever is any question that arises, you
will consult closely with the experts on ethics in USDA's
Office of General Counsel to guide your actions?
Ms. Veneman. Yes, Sir, and I have been continuing to
consult with the Office of the General Counsel at USDA and the
Ethics Office to ensure that everything that I've been involved
in the past will appropriately be dealt with as I assume if
confirmed assume the position.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Veneman, I would recognize you for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ANN M. VENEMAN, DESIGNEE FOR SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Veneman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and almost
Mr. Chairman Lugar, and members of the Committee. I truly am
honored and humbled to be here as the President elect's choice
for Secretary of Agriculture.
I would like to thank the Committee members for your
gracious reception that I've received from most of you that
I've been able to meet with over the past couple of weeks. I've
appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and discuss the
areas of interest to each of you.
I also want to thank the staff for their assistance and
cooperation in preparing for this hearing.
The issues facing our farmers and ranchers today are
complex and challenging. The hard working men and women who
provide our food and fiber have been tested by low prices, bad
weather and other adversities. Government has appropriately
lent a hand during these trying times, and it is important that
we continue to focus our attention on trying to solve the
challenges that face producers throughout the country.
In addition to assisting our farmers and ranchers in
difficult times, we must also work together to help them seize
market opportunities, both at home and abroad. With 96-percent
of the world's population living outside of the United States,
we need to expand trade and eliminate barriers to access for
our products in what is an ever-expanding global market.
As we seek market growth, we should continue to search for
new and alternative uses for our farm products and find ways to
strengthen the competitive position of our producers. Our
producers also need help in adapting to changing environmental
standards. Regulations should be based on sound scientific
principles and Government policy should help, not hinder, the
ability of farmers to be good stewards of the land.
Working with Congress, the Department needs to be vigilant
in protecting the safety of our food supply and in protecting
agriculture from unwanted pests and diseases. Our research
programs should assist us in achieving these goals.
Technology is driving change in every part of the economy,
including the food chain. Advances in technology are leading to
new products, increased productivity and more environmentally
friendly farming. Research should enhance such technologies and
the programs should help farmers take advantage of the new
opportunities.
The mission of the Department of Agriculture extends beyond
production agriculture. From feeding hungry families and
children to assisting rural communities to managing our
majestic forests to consumer protection, the Department's
responsibility reaches the lives of nearly every American.
If confirmed, I intend to promote cooperative working
relationships with other agencies of Government to ensure that
the concerns of farmers and ranchers are understood and
advocated throughout the Government. Because as you all know,
many of the areas of the Department's responsibility overlap
with other parts of Government.
If confirmed, I will work to foster an atmosphere of
teamwork, innovation, mutual respect and common sense within
the Department and focus our delivery systems on quality
service to our customers.
Those of you who know me also know that I believe in
working cooperatively with Congress. If confirmed, I will look
forward to renewing old friendships, and building new ones,
particularly as we work together to craft farm policy in the
new century.
As President elect Bush has said, ``The spirit of the
American farmer is emblematic of the spirit of America,
signifying the values of hard work, faith and
entrepreneurship.'' This is the spirit I hope to bring to the
Department of Agriculture and the position of Secretary.
I look forward to working with you toward our common
objective of helping America's farmers and ranchers continue to
be the most productive, innovative and profitable in the world.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Veneman can be found in the
appendix on page 78].
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Veneman.
And I understand that you have relatives, and I want to
mention them for the record. If they would please stand and be
recognized, we welcome them here. I understand your sister,
Jane Veneman, is here, and your sister in law, Heidi Veneman,
is here. And your niece Allison Hughes, please stand. Welcome
to the Committee. Thank you for being here today. It's a great
day today.
Well, I would introduce again another distinguished new
member of our Committee, who just arrived, Congressman Debbie
Stabenow, Senator Debbie Stabenow now, of Michigan. That minor
slip means that she has served distinguished in the House, on
the House Agriculture Committee. So we welcome her to the
Senate Agriculture Committee. Senator Stabenow also served in
the State legislature in Michigan on that agriculture
committee.
So this may be a record, three agriculture committees in a
row. So we welcome Senator Stabenow to our committee.
Ms. Veneman, I will start off the questions. As I said, we
will take up to 10-minutes, then I will recognize Senator
Lugar, then we'll just go back and forth with questions. As I
said in the beginning, we'll just each take 10-minutes, you can
make your opening statements and ask questions. If we have
another round, we'll come back to that.
I just have a couple of questions. I do not intend to take
the full 10-minutes.
Ms. Veneman, just a couple of things that we had discussed
earlier. The 1994 USDA Reorganization Act consolidated food
safety activities within the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, and created the Under Secretary for Food Safety
position. This Under Secretary position was created by Congress
to elevate the importance of food safety at USDA and to ensure
that USDA's food safety programs would be kept separate from
its market promotion programs, to avoid any potential conflict
of interest.
The reorganization recognized that Food Safety and
Inspection Service [FSIS] was a public health regulatory agency
and a vital part of this country's public health. The Under
Secretary for Food Safety is one of the country's top public
health and scientific appointments, and the country's highest
ranking food safety official.
Will you pledge to continue to build on this public health
foundation that we have established at USDA, seeking a
candidate for Under Secretary for Food Safety who has solid
public health credentials? And will you maintain the public
health focus at the Food Safety and Inspection Service,
including the FSIS Office of Public Health and Science?
Ms. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, I think that my record speaks
for itself with regard to my commitment for food safety. And I
would certainly continue that commitment, and to ensure the
safest food supply that we can possibly have in this country.
As you know, consumers in this country do enjoy the safest
food supply anywhere in the world. And I think we should do
everything we can to continue the record that this country has
with regard to food safety.
I also believe with regard to food safety that we ought to
continue to work with the other agencies of Government that
have responsibility for food safety and the research
organizations that are looking at some of the challenging
issues with regard to food safety.
So I would certainly continue the commitment of the aspects
in the Department of Agriculture that deal with food safety and
commit to you that we will work closely with other agencies of
Government to make sure our food safety policies are
coordinated as effectively and efficiently and in the public
interest.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, Ms. Veneman. Again, I want
to point out that when we created that position here, and I
remember the debates very well on that, it was a strong
bipartisan effort to create this Under Secretary for Food
Safety. Again, we envisioned it as one of the top public health
and scientific appointments. I emphasize that as the kind of
credentials that we hope that you would look for in appointing
and finding a person to fill this position: public health,
scientific, it's the highest ranking food safety official in
our country, and someone who has solid public health
credentials in that regard.
Second, in 1996, USDA issued its hazard analysis critical
control points and pathogen protection rule. Let's call it
HACCPP, we all know it by that. As you know, the pathogen
reduction portion of the rule was partially struck down in the
Supreme Beef case recently in Texas.
One of the next Secretary's first tasks will be to work
with the Attorney General to decide whether to continue the
appeal in that case, and to decide how to approach revision and
updating of the salmonella performance standard.
We need to have the most effective and scientifically sound
microbiological performance standards possible. But at the end
of the day, those standards have to be enforceable. For some of
us, there's a lot of bills that are pending in Congress to
ensure the enforceability of performance standards. A majority
of the members of this Committee voted to support enforceable
performance standards. And I think the majority of the public
would support that, also.
So my question is, do you support having enforceable
microbiological performance standards, where at some point, the
Secretary of Agriculture would have the power to withdraw
inspection for failure to meet them?
Ms. Veneman. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. I think it's an
important aspect of any food safety regulatory authority to
have enforceable standards, and to have scientifically based
standards for enforcement purposes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Veneman. I
appreciate your candor in that.
I would recognize Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Veneman, in your experience, both in Washington and in
California, one of the highlights has been your negotiating
ability with regard to foreign trade possibilities with
farmers. And this Committee has dealt with the export issues
almost every week of our existence, because this is so
critical. And there has been disappointment on the part of most
of us that we have not progressed more.
As you take a look at the horizon, from your experience as
an attorney, as well as one involved in the administration of
agriculture, what are the prospects for exports? Are the EU
people so intransigent? Are others so tied up in protection of
their own agriculture that we can anticipate very slow going?
Or do you have some ray of optimism to share with us this
morning? And give us that flavor, if you can, from your current
experience.
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, I think that, as you have
indicated, some of these trade issues have gotten more and more
difficult. They've gone on for many years in the case of some
of these cases that have been brought both before the WTO and
ones that we're still trying to work out, not having brought a
case yet.
We also want to continue to look toward opening up markets
further. I think that the agreement with China on MFN and
joining the WTO has been an important opportunity for
agricultural products, and hopefully we can get that agreement
finished and get it effectively enforced in accordance with
what has been negotiated. We need to continue to work on the
bilateral issues, so many of which we have with the European
Union now.
And I've had several conversations already with Mr.
Zoellick and intend to work very closely with USTR. I think
that we certainly heard in his announcement the other day the
word agricultural mentioned several times during that
announcement, emphasizing both the President elect's
recognition and Mr. Zoellick's recognition of the importance of
looking at agricultural trade issues as we move forward with
our trade agenda.
I might also add that the President elect has been very
forceful in his statement that he wants to pursue with the
Congress the granting of additional Fast Track authority to
negotiate additional trade agreements.
Senator Lugar. Well, I hope that you'll be a teammate with
Bob Zoellick, because that would be a good team, and a very,
very important mission, which you understand and which this
Committee, I think unanimously, would like to work with you,
would like to inquire of you really with some frequency as to
how it is going and how we can be helpful.
I want to take up a complex subject. Chairman Harkin has
mentioned in our pursuit of new farm legislation, most of us
are in favor of the flexibility, the so-called Freedom to Farm.
Most of us likewise are in favor of more income for farmers.
And the question is how to do both. We must find better
formulas for that.
I'm intrigued by Sparks Company, Inc. analysis using the
1997 Census for agriculture. And there's no need for you to
worry about these facts, per se, because we'll deal with them
more in detail. But they point out that commercial farms, as
they define them in this country, that is with sales of over
$250,000, now comprise only 8-percent of our farms, but 72-
percent of our production. Almost three quarters coming from
just these 157,000 farms.
A second group, called transition farms, 189,000 of them,
have sales of $100,000 to $250,000. My farm is one of those. I
hope not in transition, but nevertheless, it is not a
commercial farm by this definition. And finally, there are 1.57
million farms that, and this is 82-percent of all the farms,
and these have sales of less than $100,000.
Now, that group, the 1.57 million, produce only 13-percent
of everything we now produce. The transition farms, my crowd,
do 15-percent and 72-percent of this 157,000, just 8-percent.
Even more startling is that 72-percent of the income from
the families that operate the commercial farms come from the
farms. Seventy-two percent they get from the farm, 28-percent
comes from off the farm. When you come down to my group, the
transition farmers, we get only 43-percent of our income from
our farming and 57-percent from somewhere else.
And when you come to the 1.57 million, the 82-percent, 100-
percent of the income comes from off the farm, net. Now, that
doesn't mean that some people don't make some money on those
farms. But they lose more in that process than they make.
Now, this is, I think, a pretty startling fact. So we want
to pursue that with the Sparks people and the Census people. If
82-percent of our farms in our net basis are losing money, and
100-percent of their income comes from somewhere else, that is
a very, very tough farm policy to fashion.
Now, you've dealt with this in California. This is a
microcosm across the board of just what I've suggested. Ten-
percent of the Nation lives in California, and probably 10-
percent of the farmers, maybe more. How have you dealt with
this? You clearly have seen this coming, either a consolidation
or the larger situation or the production. Because when we have
our payments, our AMTA payments, the criticism is made that
these monies are going to the large farms. Well, of course,
they are, 72-percent of all the production is with this group.
Only 13-percent with the 1.57 million.
And so it goes, round and round, however, we try to
supplement farm income. And maybe that's the way that it should
be.
But can you give us, once again, any flavor of how you
begin to approach this, or how you have approached it, as
Commissioner of Agriculture in California?
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, I think it is important to look
at the changing structure of agriculture as we enter into any
discussion about farm policy. And I think these statistics are
very enlightening. In California, of course, we weren't dealing
with farm policy in the sense of farm income programs and so
forth. Those were dealt with primarily at the Federal level.
I did often get the question, though, about consolidation
of farms and the declining number of farms and so forth. I
looked carefully at the statistics and what we saw happening
out there was actually an increase in the number of farms. And
part of that was because people were taking advantage of niche
markets and being able to produce, as a very small acreage
farmer, to a very niche market, whether it was the strong
system of farmers markets that we had that was regulated by the
State government, or it was roadside stands, or it was new
products that were tailored to specific markets or specific
high quality restaurants.
But I think that one of the things that, the lessons
learned from all of that is that we do have to help our farmers
learn how to market up the food chain, so that they can get
more value for what they are producing. And I think that's a
role that we can play together with Congress in working and
looking at farm policy for the future.
Senator Lugar. That's a very important consideration. I'll
not go through the rest of this, but the farmers in the
commercial markets got as much as 20 or 30 cents a bushel more
for corn or beans or wheat than did others. Because their
marketing skills, their ability to use futures markets, the
crop insurance products, all of these. And this is a big
educational question. How do we all come up to the table with
some degree of equality in terms of skills of marketing, the
education of how you might do this sort of thing.
But these are issues that you're well aware of. This is why
we have confidence in you. I simply raise them because I think
they are fundamental to the farm income problem, finally, and
the ability to actually take revenue from the farm.
I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Senator Conrad.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Designate Veneman, for being here. Thank you very
much for coming by my office the other day and giving us a
chance to talk about issues that are important, certainly to my
State, but I think agriculture writ large as well.
I'd like to just put up a couple of charts to frame the
discussion. This first one shows what's happened over the last
decade. The green line is the prices farmers paid for input,
the red line is the prices farmers received. And we can see why
there's a crisis in agriculture, and why we've had to write
four disaster packages in the last 3 years.
The arrow points to the 1996 Farm Bill passage point. And
we can see the gap has dramatically widened since the passage
of that legislation. Many of us believe it's been a disaster in
terms of farm policy, and certainly in terms of the income to
the farm producers that we represent.
Let's go to the next. This chart shows the level of support
that the EU is providing domestically to their producers versus
what we do for our producers. This is on a per acreage basis.
You can see roughly that the Europeans are providing ten times
as much support to their producers as do we. And I think
they've clearly got a strategy and a plan to dominate world
agriculture, and part of that strategy and plan is, go out and
buy markets.
We can see in the next chart how they're doing that with
respect to export subsidy. The blue part of this chart shows
the European share of world agricultural export subsidy. It's
about 84-percent of all world agricultural export subsidy is
accounted for by the Europeans. We're 1.4-percent.
So this creates an unlevel playing field for our producers.
The deck is fundamentally stacked against our producers.
So my first question to you would be, what would you do to
change this?
Ms. Veneman. Senator, I think that it's important to
recognize, as you say, it's both competition within the country
as well as outside the country, and that agriculture has become
more and more competitive as time has progressed.
I think that with regard to the future of farm policy in
this country, there are a number of proposals that have been
advanced. There's a number of regional differences that we've
seen. As I've talked with many of you on the Committee, there
are many differing interests, depending on the region,
depending on the commodity.
And I think that what we need to do is work together to
find as much consensus as we can on the future of farm policy
and the future of programs in this country.
With regard to the European Union and the subsidies you've
talked about, this has been an issue that has been plaguing
producers in this country, the Government for many years, and
in fact was part of the background of what created the
proposals that were negotiated in the Uruguay Round, beginning
to bring down export subsidies and domestic support,
particularly targeted at that which the European Union has. And
I think that needs to continue to be negotiated, to continue to
bring down the levels of support in trade negotiations, as was
begun in the Uruguay Round.
But I think that a combination of trade negotiations, of
future farm policy, we need to together work to address the
kinds of issues you're bringing up.
Senator Conrad. Let me just say that I think the Uruguay
Round in many ways is part of the problem. Because there, we
agreed to equal percentage reductions from these very unequal
bases. I can tell you, the Europeans in my talks with them have
told me, that's exactly what they want to do. They want to
continue to get equal percentage reductions from these unequal
bases, always leaving them on top. And I hope very much that we
will not go back to any other round and agree to equal
percentage reductions when they start out in this incredibly
dominant position.
Let me ask you specifically, yesterday President elect
Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted to President Clinton's
final budget report. In that final budget report by the
President, he advocated an additional $74 billion over the next
10 years to agriculture to in part change this dynamic, to
level the playing field.
Mr. Fleischer reacted in an interesting way to a question.
The question was, it's becoming a pretty regular thing each
year for Congress to pass bipartisan support for aid to
farmers. Are you saying that President Bush might want to stop
that? Mr. Fleischer, in response, ``That's not aid to farmers.
That's an assumed bail out above and beyond all existing levels
of spending. And the history is that legislation of that order
comes about when there are dire straits in the agricultural
community. For President Clinton to assume that there will be
dire straits for 10 years in a row, either he's a very good
weather man or he's inflated the spending.''
Do you believe that President Clinton has inflated the
spending in the budget report that he put out?
Ms. Veneman. Senator, to be perfectly honest, I have not
reviewed President Clinton's budget report. I am not familiar
with the specifics of it. But if confirmed, it would be my plan
to quickly review the budget that has been presented, and have
input into the supplemental budget or the addition to the
budget that would then be submitted by the new Administration.
Senator Conrad. Let me just be more clear. Without respect
to the specifics of his budget proposal, do you believe more
resources need to be put into agriculture to help level the
playing field here between the U.S. and the EU, and to provide
leverage for the negotiation with the Europeans?
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, I think that that's an issue
that we need to look seriously at. But until I see all of the
numbers and all of the basis of the current budget, I'm not
able to tell you specifically what the current needs are going
to be for the coming year and beyond.
Senator Conrad. Well, I would just hope that as the
Secretary Designate, that you would have a sense of this now. I
really do. I mean, to me, this is right at the heart of what's
happening to us. And unless we help level the playing field,
we're going to consign our people to failure.
I don't know what other conclusion one could come to. It
reminds me a little of the Cold War, when we built up to build
down. We built up in part to get leverage for a negotiation.
And for some reason, we haven't figured that out with respect
to agriculture. I can tell you, the Europeans have told me,
look, we believe we're in a trade war with you. We believe at
some point there will be a ceasefire. And we believe it will be
a ceasefire in place, and we want to occupy the high ground.
And the high ground is market share.
And so they've had this strategy and plan of spending a lot
of money to get market share, so that they're able to dominate
in these trade talks. And we don't seem to be able to figure
this out. To me it's not complicated, it's really very simple.
They occupy the high ground, and we can either go out and try
to match them or be consigning our people to failure.
I've got a bit more time. I'd like to go to a trade
question if I could. In North Dakota, we've been very adversely
affected by the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. I call it the
so-called free trade agreement, because with respect to
agriculture, it wasn't so much free trade as negotiated trade.
And on many terms, we lost that negotiation.
We saw in durum, which is the type of wheat that makes
pasta, very popular all across America, certainly popular in
California, North Dakota is the major producer, the Canadians
went from zero percent of our market to 20-percent, not because
of any competitive advantage, not because they're better
farmers, but because of loopholes in that agreement. Incredibly
damaging to the producers that I represent.
The USTR has started an investigation as to the question of
whether the Canadians are selling below their cost in our
market. Would you support that investigation?
Ms. Veneman. Well, certainly, Senator, I would support a
very strong enforcement of the trade laws that we have on the
books. If in fact there is a violation of trade agreements, or
if there is any kind of indication of dumping, we ought to
investigate and we should enforce our trade agreements. That's
part of what makes trade agreements effective, is the
enforcement mechanisms in our trade laws that allow us to make
sure that they are being complied with.
And so certainly, if investigation shows that there's a
basis for a violation, I believe we should proceed to take
action as appropriate.
Senator Conrad. Final question. Will you come to North
Dakota to meet with the farmers there at some point if it fits
into your schedule?
Ms. Veneman. I would be happy to come to North Dakota,
hopefully when it's not too cold.
[Laughter.]
Senator Conrad. You know, our weather is not reported
accurately.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Veneman. I was there once.
Senator Conrad. It's very mild, especially in February.
[Laughter.]
Thank you.
The Chairman. Compared to the Arctic Circle, yes.
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I was considering this hearing today, Ms. Veneman, it
occurred to me that you're probably the best qualified nominee
who has been suggested for this job of Secretary of Agriculture
since your fellow Californian and former Secretary Richard
Lyng. The background you had at the Department of Agriculture
and Foreign Agriculture Service and in California as head of
the Food and Agriculture Department there, and your service as
Deputy Secretary truly do make you the best qualified nominee
who's been before this Committee in some time. I congratulate
you on your nomination and look forward to working with you in
your capacity as Secretary of Agriculture.
I have a few observations I'm going to make, and I don't
really have a long list of questions. First of all, Senator
Helms told me to tell you that he hopes to be able to get here
for the hearing, to congratulate you and to tell you that he is
certain you will make a great Secretary of Agriculture. He
appreciated your visit to his office the other day. He has
other obligations that may keep him from the meeting. But he
has asked me to advise the Committee that he will submit a
statement for the record in due course.
Let me say that there are a number of things that I think
are major concerns in agriculture right now, one of which is
the fact that last year, we passed disaster assistance
legislation, and unfortunately not all the benefits of that
legislation have been made available to agriculture producers
who are eligible for these benefits. Some have told me that as
much as half the benefits have not yet been paid out.
I hope that you will take a quick look at what can be done
by the Department to accelerate the action that's needed to
carry out the provisions of our disaster assistance
legislation. Farmers are having more than a tough time with the
cost of inputs, particularly energy costs now, that are making
it very, very difficult for them to continue to stay in
business.
On another subject, I hope that you will consider our
research program, which consists of a balance, I think, between
cooperative research programs with colleges and universities
and laboratories around the country, along with the Agriculture
Research Service programs, as a very finely balanced effort to
identify ways to make farming more efficient, to make food more
safe, to in many ways strengthen the agriculture economy in our
country. And so I hope that you will support Congressionally-
directed research activities and respect the views of Congress
on these subjects.
We also had in our last Farm Bill a very aggressive and
comprehensive conservation program, including a number of
initiatives, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation
Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, all
of which are proving to be very important incentives for
private landowners to use their lands in ways that conserve
water and soil resources and conducting farming operations that
are consistent with environmental interests that we all share.
I hope you will be able to support additional acreage being
put into these programs and being designated for us. And one
other thing that's come to my attention recently on this
subject, is that many of those who work in the county offices
throughout the country are not as familiar as they should be
with the details of these programs. I've had farmers tell me,
they've gone in and asked about some of the programs, and the
person in the local office will have to get out a book, or a
regulation, directives, and start reading along with the farmer
to try to figure out whether there is eligibility for the
program, how you apply, what are the criteria, what do they
mean.
I hope that this can be a part of this Administration's
policy, and that is to help ensure that those who are
administering the programs and advising farmers know what
they're talking about, and are aware that these are priorities
of this Administration.
I didn't know I was going to make such a long speech, here,
Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry about this.
On foreign trade, your background particularly equips you
with knowledge about our foreign trade programs, opening up new
markets, making sure that our exporters are treated fairly in
other countries when they're trying to sell what they produce
in overseas markets. We've adopted a number of legislative
initiatives over the last several years, the middle income
training program, to try to acquaint emerging economies through
exchange programs with our economic system and our agricultural
products, in ways in which we can work together with some of
the countries that are developing their economies. These lead
to better trade relations, better opportunities on both sides
of those programs.
The market access program occasionally gets criticized. But
it has proven to be very effective in breaking down barriers to
trade and making sure that trading practices in foreign
countries are fair to us.
Passage of normal trade relations legislation with China
and other countries is also an enormous step in the right
direction, in my opinion. But some are concerned that the
Chinese may seek designation in the World Trade Organization
that would place them at an advantage over other developed
countries in WTO. I hope you will take a look at that and work
to ensure that China's accession to WTO is monitored and ensure
that it meets market access, subsidy reduction and other
targets that are consistent with other developed countries.
Finally, I'm going to close with this. I think you need
someone at the highest level of the Department who is
acquainted with southern agriculture who is able to make sure
that the interests of those in the South are expressed during
debates on policy and programs at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. I know you are aware of these interests and these
concerns, but there are some special problems that exist in our
part of the country. And I think having a southerner in a high
ranking position at USDA would be a very good thing.
Also in that connection, I got a call from Kenneth Hood,
who is President of the Delta Council, which meets annually at
Cleveland, Mississippi, to invite you, in his behalf, to be
their speaker. This is kind of like Senator Conrad's question.
I'm not going to ask you to come to Mississippi in July or
August.
[Laughter.]
But this is the last Friday in May, which is kind of nice.
[Laughter.]
And they're having their annual meeting. This is a very
important meeting for the mid South, for agriculture and
economic development proponents. The Delta Council really is a
prime mover in the economic development effort for the
Mississippi Delta. And they've had a distinguished line of
visitors and speakers at that meeting. The first, I guess, that
got national and international attention, was Dean Acheson,
when he was Under Secretary of State. He unveiled the Marshall
Plan at that meeting, and then he got credit for doing it at
Harvard or Yale or some other more fancy venue.
But he tried out the speech at Delta Council in 1947. Well,
anyway, there have been governors and Secretaries of
Agriculture, Vice President Bush came and spoke. So I'm
inviting you to come down and speak. I hope you can work it
into your schedule.
If you have any reaction to any of my comments or
suggestions, I'll be glad to hear your thoughts on any of
these.
Ms. Veneman. Well, you gave me quite a list. With regard to
the administration of programs, particularly disaster
assistance, I have heard this from several members of the
Senate and the House about the, and people in agriculture as
well, about the concern about getting the programs, once they
are passed by the Congress, implemented as quickly as possible.
And I will pledge to you that we will do everything we can, if
confirmed, to do that.
I share your interest in research. I think that research is
very important in agriculture. One of the initial missions of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture when it was created by
President Lincoln was to conduct research. It was to help
agriculture in this country through research. And I certainly
have a strong commitment to research and believe that our
research ought to continue to work not only in the traditional
areas of production enhancement, but also be focused on helping
us solve the issues that agriculture faces today, whether it's
food safety issues, environmental issues that we need to focus
research in areas that will help farmers.
I also share your interest in conservation programs and the
fact that they should be voluntary, incentive-based, and we
should give our farmers the opportunity for additional
conservation programs and opportunity to participate in those
programs. Because as you know, farmers often get criticized for
the manner in which they farm. But farmers are truly the
environmentalists. They have to have the land, the air and the
water in order to be farmers. They are the best stewards of the
land, and we need to help them find ways to do that.
You mentioned the county offices not being familiar with
the regulations. As you might recall, I was very involved when
working with Secretary Madigan in looking at this whole issue
of reorganization and bringing the offices together. One of the
ideas at that point, and one of the things I would hope to
continue to pursue, is bringing cross training to these
agencies of the USDA, so that we can provide, as I said in my
opening statement, the best possible service to our customers.
I believe that it's important that the different parts of the
Department not just be looked at for their separate programs,
but they understand each other's programs because they're
serving the same and similar constituencies.
Finally, on trade, I think it is important to continue the
trade programs that have been effective in helping us open up
markets. And I will pledge to continuing to do that.
And I understand your concerns about the South. One of the
things I said before, there are regional differences in
agriculture in this country. I understand that fully. We want
to make sure that we bring balance, regional balance, to the
appointments that we make at USDA. And we plan to do that.
Finally, I will check my schedule.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cochran. I might just say,
in the interest of good time management, if other Senators have
requests for Ms. Veneman to appear in their State that they
submit it to Chairman Lugar. We'll get it to you en bloc, and
that way you can just map out your whole schedule for the year.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Harkin. I would ask
unanimous consent to submit a full statement for the record, as
well as some additional questions for Ms. Veneman.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Johnson. But I welcome Ms. Veneman to the
Committee, you and your family. I want to thank you again for
taking some time out to meet with me in my office earlier, to
discuss some of these key issues, particularly Northern Plains
and Great Plains issues.
Of course, we in South Dakota are proud that Ms. Veneman
has some South Dakota ties. In fact, her Dutch ancestors
homesteaded in Charles Mix County near Platte, South Dakota in
1892. That was a long time ago, and there's not much peach
growing in Charles Mix County, South Dakota. But nonetheless,
we're proud of your connections to our State. And as you
evaluate the visits that you're going to be making, I'll join
in inviting you back to your ancestral State, keeping in mind
that South Dakota is the balmy part of the Dakotas.
[Laughter.]
It is on the south coast of the Dakotas. And also, I join
in, in expressing some concern that there be that regional
balance that you've alluded to in terms of staffing. I think
there is a real concern that the northern plains agriculture
has its regional, unique qualities to it. And I'm certain that
you will take that into consideration as you develop your staff
and your offices at USDA.
I look forward to additional discussions with you in a less
formal setting on the farm program, on trade, on concentration,
antitrust and vertical integration, both in the grain and the
livestock sector, in particular. I have concerns about where
we're going with value added agriculture, conservation
programs. And we did have an opportunity to discuss very
briefly the conservation reserve program [CRP] wetlands pilot
project that we currently have in South Dakota and across our
region.
Of course, our research in Genetically Modified Organisms
[GMO] issues as well, that we can spend some time talking
about. These are matters of enormous importance to the State of
South Dakota.
A point that I wanted to raise with you is one that is
fundamental in our part of the country. Over the past three
years, Congress has enacted disaster legislation to augment the
farm program transition payments, and in fact, our financial
assistance to farmers in fiscal 2000 was a record $28 billion.
There's no particular rebound on the grain side in terms of
price anticipated in the near future. If we are to head off a
fiscal 2001 price crisis for family agriculture in this
country, I wonder if you'd share a couple of thoughts with us
about whether you think additional ad hoc disaster legislation
is the best vehicle for addressing that problem on the near
term, or whether you believe some modification in the context
of the existing farm program makes more sense and would be more
efficient in that way.
If we are to do disaster legislation, do you believe that
we should continue down the road that we have in the past,
essentially, of bonus AMTA market loss payments, or are there
other mechanisms and more efficient mechanisms for providing
badly needed financial resources during times of record bull
prices, particularly on the grain side? I'd be interested in
any insights you might have to share with us, Ms. Veneman.
Ms. Veneman. Senator, I'm fully aware of what the
Government has done in terms of stepping up to the plate to
help farmers in these times of low prices, primarily low
prices, but also we've had some disastrous weather and other
things in the past several years that have created the need to
continue to provide additional safety nets for farmers. And
certainly, I believe that it's important that we continue to
provide safety nets.
I'm not prepared today to say what form that ought to take.
I understand what you're saying in terms of, should it be
additional ad hoc or should we have something a little more
structured and a modification to the existing farm programs. I
think we need to look at all those options and determine what
will best serve agriculture, not only for the short term
difficulties they're having, but also for the long term.
Senator Johnson. Well, I appreciate your observations on
this, and look forward to working with you. As I have shared
with you earlier, there's a time and a place for disaster
legislation, when unique, unforeseeable circumstances occur.
But it troubles me that this is a relatively inefficient way of
providing resources. It is not the kind of predictable,
manageable kind of plan that allows farmers to go to the bank,
allows them to plan long term. And I would hope that we could
come up with a more institutionalized, more reliable and
hopefully more cost efficient, hopefully utilizing market
forces, that would complement what we're doing, to see to it
that we survive these low price swings that we have under the
current program.
So I look forward to working with you on that. I know we
have several members of the panel, and I want them to have
opportunities to discuss these matters with you as well. I have
a simultaneous confirmation hearing going on in the Energy
Committee, and I'm going to have to excuse myself for that
purpose. But thank you again, and congratulations on this
nomination.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson can be found in
the appendix on page 60.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. I slid in under the cover of darkness, Mr.
Chairman. I believe Mr. Roberts was here first.
The Chairman. All right, do you defer to Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Roberts. I thank my distinguished friend.
Madam Secretary to be, you're going to be a busy person. I
have it down here that you're obviously going to go back to
California. And in order to be confirmed, it looks like to me
you're going to Minnesota, Nebraska, Michigan, Georgia, also
Arkansas.
Senator Craig. Am I on the list?
Senator Roberts. Yes, we have Idaho down here.
[Laughter.]
South and North Dakota, Iowa, and Indiana, Mississippi and
now Illinois. However, not one of those places can make you an
honorary marshal, so come to Dodge City, Kansas.
[Laughter.]
I am extremely pleased to be here today for the
confirmation of a good friend as Secretary of Agriculture. I
have had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman, to
work with Ann many times down through the years. So I am
pleased to join the Ann Veneman marching band. I don't know if
I should play the bass drum, the trumpet, or the trombone or
the piccolo, but I'll pick an instrument.
You bring a wealth of experience to the job, not only in
regards to your previous service as the Deputy in regards to
the previous Bush Administration, but as Secretary of
Agriculture for California. I have been to California many
times. They have unique problems in agriculture. And Mr.
Chairman, Ann Veneman has always brought sound science and
common sense to reach some satisfactory conclusions to the
challenges we face in regards to agriculture and the
environment.
I'm particularly pleased with your previous experience in
the ag trade policy arena. I'm extremely happy that you'll be
working with Bob Zoellick in that respect. I might add, you
mentioned, I think it was the cross-trainer tour, I think we
needed some cross-training shoes to do that. That was back
during the days when there were amendments to the Farm Bill and
ag legislation by Charlie Stenholm of Texas, and some fellow
named Pat Roberts of Kansas. There were more Stenholm
amendments at one time and more Roberts amendments during
another time, but that's another story.
And the Assistant Secretary joined us. Mr. Chairman, we
went to South Carolina, we went to Kansas, we went to Kansas,
those are the obligatory stops. We went to California, went up
in the northeast to try to streamline the paperwork and the
information between Farmers Home and at that time it was SCS
and ASCS. Ann Veneman sat in the back of the plane, by the way,
it was coach, because I know we were back there talking about
her dad, my dad and politics. She comes by this very naturally.
And I don't know of anybody who persevered more to try to bring
that cross-training expertise to the Department.
If Senator Conrad is upset with the amount of payments and
how they're being paid and all that, and I think all of us are,
whether we need either more or less, and I'm concerned about
the trade picture. I think we always need an aggressive and
consistent and comprehensive trade program. So as we enter the
WTO negotiations, we need somebody who will use the bully
pulpit. And I know you plan to do that in behalf of American
agriculture on the international scene.
Now, we visited about this issue at length when you came up
and paid us a courtesy call. I would remind every member that
Ann Veneman was in Seattle, most of us were in Seattle, the
distinguished Chairman and the Secretary of Agriculture at that
time says we cannot fail. I somewhat affectionately call the
Seattle Round the Tear Gas Round. I'm not sure we failed, but
we sure didn't make much progress.
And so as we go into the next round, as you have indicated,
we really need a bully pulpit champion that will stand firm.
And it has been mentioned that we're going to be undertaking a
major debate on the Farm Bill in the not too distant future.
And I'll just say this, I hope you and the Administration will
play an activist role in helping us reach some logical
conclusion.
I want to turn to another issue. And it is sort of
reflective of the question that I'll have for you, and I will
try to make this fairly quickly. We have an energy crisis that
is now looming all across farm country. Natural gas prices
increased from $2.30 per unit as of this time last year to
$8.10 today. We just checked on it today. Last year, it cost
$100 to produce a ton of ammonia for fertilizer. The cost of
natural gas now makes up 72-percent of the cost of production.
At today's prices, it would cost nearly $400 to produce that
same ton of ammonia. And that makes fertilizer production
economically impossible today. We had people from the
Fertilizer Institute in my office yesterday saying, we're
shutting down.
If that's the case, a shortage of fertilizer is really
looming, and it will be very quickly. Additionally, in Kansas,
many producers, as in other parts of farm country, use the
natural gas to simply run their irrigation pumps. So already,
our farmers in America's breadbasket are planning to shut down
their wells this spring.
So now you enter the small town banker. He has a big stake
in all of this and the bankers are telling me that their
farmers are having a very difficult time, make that our
farmers, making their crop operations cash flow, even without
the added costs of fertilizer and natural gas. And we've heard
these comments by my colleagues. No water plus no fertilizer
equals huge production drops. And that spells disaster.
Now, I won't go into it any more than that, except to say
that I think that is looming. We're sitting on an economic and
energy powder keg in regards to rural America.
Now, these issues remain largely outside the USDA. My
question to you is, and we have talked about this, I remember
when Senator Kerrey held an emergency meeting of all members of
the Ag Committee, all the farm groups, all the commodity
organizations, urging the Secretary of Agriculture to get more
involved in behalf of farmers and ranchers in regards to global
climate change.
So much of this that deals with the farmer's daily life and
pocketbook and his future comes from other agencies. So my
question to you is, do you plan to form some kind of, I don't
want to call it a task force, but it would be certainly a
coordinated effort with the Interior Department, with Gayle
Norton, with EPA, with Secretary Whitman and with the FDA, we
have the Starlink issue and all of that. And it seems to me as
I recall it during the previous Bush Administration, when we
would have a food safety scare or something like that, that
there was a task force, and the Secretaries would meet. And
they would be able to allay the public fears within maybe 24
hours and deal with the State departments of agriculture all
throughout the country.
What kinds of plans do you have for that kind of
coordination so that we can really get at these problems that
sometimes are beyond the purview of the USDA?
Ms. Veneman. Senator, as I said in my opening remarks,
Ithink it's very important that USDA play a key role in the
interagency process. I'm a strong believer that interagency
processes need to be well coordinated, that we need to seek out
our sister agencies and look at commonalities of issues, look
at whether it's the trade issues where we'll be working with
USTR, State Department, Commerce and a host of other agencies,
environmental issues with the Environmental Protection Agency,
Interior and so forth.
In fact, President-elect Bush held an initial meeting with
Agriculture the Friday before Christmas. And not only was I in
attendance with producer group representatives, but Christine
Todd Whitman was also in attendance. I thought that was a very
important sign that we are going to work together. She made a
commitment to work together to understand the issues of
agriculture.
I think certainly with the Interior Department there are a
number of issues, whether it's our resource management programs
with regard to our forests and public lands, or our use of
water. And the FDA and other food safety agencies, we intend to
work very closely with them. I've already had a conversation
with Tommy Thompson about the overlapping responsibilities
we're going to have in that area.
I have talked with Mr. Abraham about the importance of
energy and the energy issues to agriculture. I think it goes
beyond inputs that you're talking about and the production
agriculture impacts. But also, we're seeing the impacts on the
ability, the potential ability of farmers to sell their
products to food processing firms because they're being
squeezed by the energy crisis as well.
So at every end of the food chain, the energy crisis is a
serious issue. I would agree with you.
I have also talked with the Attorney General designate, and
he got asked in his hearing, about the issues of antitrust and
concentration. So I think this issue of overlapping
jurisdictions and overlapping areas of interest is an extremely
important one. And I'm committed to working with other
departments and agencies of Government to make sure that
agriculture is well represented and that the interests are well
understood at the table.
Senator Roberts. Thank you for that response. I have one
very quick observation. We spent $8.2 billion last year in
what's called the Roberts-Kerrey Crop Insurance bill, along
with the help of every person on this committee. Actually, if
it works, it's going to be the Roberts-Kerrey bill. If it
doesn't, we'll call it the Kerrey-Roberts bill. And we have a
staff member over here against the wall who had a lot to do
with that, and a staff member back behind me as well.
But we spent $8.2 billion to give the farmer some real help
in that regard that could help allay the problem of the
expenditures that everybody is talking about. And as far as I'm
concerned, we need, I won't say a new broom, but we need some
real help on that. I understand in our conversations in the
past that we will really try to make sure that that program
works. It's just extremely important with that kind of
investment.
And I thank you, and I look forward to your speedy
confirmation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.
Senator Lincoln.
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
ARKANSAS
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to Ms. Veneman. We are delighted that you are here.
I would like to take a few seconds and thank the Chairman,
Chairman Harkin and Chairman Lugar, for their incredible
leadership in this committee. It is one that I thoroughly enjoy
serving on because of my roots, and certainly because of where
Arkansas stands in the agricultural realm of things. I'd also
like to welcome the new members to the Senate Ag Committee.
Senator Miller joined us last year, but it's certainly good to
have him back right here by my side. As you have noticed, it's
really nice to have those from your region. And I'm delighted
to have another southerner over here, as well as Senators
Nelson and Dayton and Stabenow. We're delighted to have you
here, and looking forward to working with all of you, as we are
with you, Madam Secretary.
I represent a State that relies on agriculture as its
largest industry, and I shudder to think of what my State's
economy would look like without the poultry farms in the north
and the west or the cotton and rice fields of the Mississippi
Delta region of our State, or the timber forests in the South.
Our Nation's agriculture policy is at a critical juncture, and
we will, I hope, develop and implement a new Farm Bill during
our work here, and certainly your tenure at USDA. It will be
very easy for you to visit Arkansas when you're in Mississippi
for Senator Cochran, because I'm right across the river.
[Laughter.]
It won't take you long to jump across the river.
But I certainly look forward to working with you and
hearing your vision for the Department of Agriculture. And I
appreciate your taking time to come by my office to introduce
yourself and for us to get better acquainted, for that working
relationship I certainly look forward to.
As I do often, I will identify with some of the other
members. When you get to this end of the table, you realize
that much has been said, you just haven't had your opportunity
to say it. But I'd like to echo, as I often do, some of Senator
Cochran's comments, especially about the conservation programs,
as well as the disaster assistance. The sign-up for the yield
loss portion of the program begins today, actually, January 18.
And FSA still has yet to develop rules for covering the quality
of losses there.
So I think it's very important, his question, and certainly
your response, that we are looking for a dedication from you
when we complete those programs and that disaster assistance,
to implement the required regulations that are necessary to get
those programs implemented and out there to those agricultural
producers. So I can't emphasize that enough, of how important
that is, and I appreciate my colleagues for bringing it up.
Also, as you well know, Arkansas is the Nation's number one
rice producing State. You know that because California is the
second. But nearly half of the U.S. rice crop is exported each
year, and our farmers are suffering from low prices, in many
cases due to the lack of fair competition around the world and
the barriers to our exports. I'd like to at that point
associate myself with the comments from Senator Conrad. I think
that having someone on our behalf in terms of agriculture who
is at the table fighting in regard to trade, I certainly
appreciate your emphasis and your willingness to work with the
new representative from USTR, who I met with yesterday. How
absolutely vital it is going to be for you to be bold and
aggressive in that, in standing up for agriculture. I think
that's going to be absolutely essential for us to regain those
market shares that we do need, and to ensure that we're going
to change the face of that pie chart that Senator Conrad shared
with us.
But just specifically, Japan has, to my knowledge, recently
announced its agricultural proposal for the WTO negotiations,
which calls for reduced market access for U.S. rice. Its
current important policies do little to facilitate selling
competitive U.S. rice to Japanese customers. A second entity to
that question is Cuba, which was an enormous market for our
rice in Arkansas, and southern rice, and how important it is
that whatever law we may have passed in the 106th Congress, and
I have to say my expectations are low in what it's going to be
able to accomplish.
But I'm really looking to you for what it is you anticipate
you'll be able to do and what you're going to be willing to do
in moving Japan and our other trading partners to eliminating
trade distorting import barriers as well as helping us to open
up those very, very important markets to us.
Ms. Veneman. Well, as you know, Senator, Japan, before the
Uruguay Round, had a complete ban on any imports of rice. One
of the outcomes of the Agriculture Agreement in the Uruguay
Round was a concept called tariffication, which converted non-
tariff barriers into their tariff equivalents and gave a
minimal but increasing level of market access for certain
products, particularly in the cases of things like rice to
Japan, where there was a complete ban on the productpreviously.
That gave us certainly the ability to enter into that
market. The concept that was negotiated in the Uruguay Roundwas
that that access amount should continue to increase, theminimal
level of access should continue to increase, and theamount of
overall high tariffs should continue to come down. The concept
of tariffication I think is still a workable one. It's
certainly not something I think the U.S. would want to
backtrack from in terms of the agreement in the next WTO round.
And I would certainly commit to you that we should work
strongly and very hard to make sure that Japan and other
countries that have allowed product to come in continue their
commitments that they made in the Uruguay Round and allow
access to continue to increase on a gradual basis, to all them
to adjust but allow competitive product to come into the
market.
I think with regard to other trade agreements, we need to
be, as I've said before, vigilant in our enforcement but
continue to find openings for new markets for our agricultural
products.
Senator Lincoln. I hope that all goes to say that you will
stand firm. We oftentimes find out that agricultural products
in those negotiations tend to be the last negotiated, and they
also seem to be the most susceptible. Also in light of your
comments about looking for those markets, I hope that does
include Cuba and a strong support of being able to try and open
up those markets for our producers.
Just in closing, I'd like to also touch on something you've
already talked about and apparently have begun in some detail,
and that is the interagency cooperation. I think many of us
have been frustrated from the agricultural standpoint of the
interagency cooperation and really communication. Time and time
again, new regulations are put forth by one agency, with little
more than a peep out of USDA. And we truly, as producers, can
be affected more so than absolutely anybody.
Looking in retrospect from the 106th Congress, the TMDL
issue, which we would really hope that there's going to be
significant input from USDA on many of these particular issues.
The Kyoto Protocol negotiations, Fish and Wildlife issues which
you and I have discussed, and I hope I've introduced you to a
few new species out there that tend to devastate our fish crops
down there in Mississippi and Arkansas.
The FQPA certainly is another example where I think farmers
definitely and producers feel that USDA should take a
leadership role in working with EPA and others. So I'm pleased
to hear your comments that you've already made contact with
those other agencies, and I hope that we won't lose the overall
impact of what that has on producers, your capability to
communicate and certainly be very proactive and aggressive on
behalf of producers with the other agencies.
So welcome, we're delighted you're here, and I'd also like
to echo Chairman Harkin's comments that women have had a great
deal to do in agriculture, and we're delighted to have a woman
now at the head. Thank you.
Ms. Veneman. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln.
Now Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank
you for being here this morning and congratulations. We look
forward to your confirmation and your active role with this
committee in the coming years as we shape all those things that
all of these members have suggested are critical and important.
And I will only echo that they are and that for the sake of
American agriculture and America's consumers, that we remain an
abundant, productive country.
Let me stop talking about agriculture at that point. I'll
only mention potato wart once. I'll only mention the 40 million
hundredweight overhang of potatoes in the market once. And the
need to deal with those critical situations that are plaguing a
very large segment of Idaho's agricultural economy as we speak.
Last year, while this committee worried and fretted about
the farm situation in our country, and while this marvelous
chairman right here worked with all of us to produce that
abundance of resource to help American agriculture, and Thad
Cochran did a marvelous job as Chairman of the Ag Subcommittee
of Appropriations, something else was going on across America
that is on your watch and that you will have a major role to
play in. The smoke clouds over Idaho and Montana were blinding
to the average citizen. The community of Salmon, Idaho, was
shut down for 3 weeks, people walking around with masks over
their face, people with respiratory problems evacuated from the
town, because the Nation's forests were ablaze.
Over 6.8 million acres of public and private land burned in
our Nation this past year. This Government will spend, when the
bills are all totaled, well over $2 billion putting out fire.
And in my State of Idaho, where you are the steward over nearly
half the public domain that makes up my State, the Forest
Service is in a desperate need of leadership and direction. It
has been politicized and effectively destroyed as it relates to
esprit de corps and a responsibility of leadership, as to a
balanced use of our public lands.
And as a result of that, the chaos that reigned supreme
this summer was something that many had predicted years in
advance. In 1981, a team of forest experts gathered, just
happened to gather in Idaho, but from across the world, to
examine the forests of the inland west. And they determined at
that time that those forests were sick and dying and some
already dead. And that report was issued in 1982, and they said
at that time, if active management is not the word of the day,
then we can expect massive forest fires that will change the
ecosystems of the west and the public lands and the forests.
And they began. They started in 1984. We went into a wet
cycle, we came out of that wet cycle a year and a half ago, and
they began again last year.
Idaho at this time is only at about 50-percent of its
snowfall and its snow pack, as is true of Utah, parts of
Montana, parts of Wyoming, eastern Oregon and eastern
Washington. The inland west, by all appearances, is dry and
getting dryer. And what we experienced last summer could well
be something we experience again in the coming year.
And you are the steward over a very large portion of that
land. Who you select as your deputy secretary in charge of the
Forest Service is critical. How you reestablish command and
control and esprit de corps to our Forest Service is going to
be ever so important as we work to implement public policy.
In another committee, I happen to chair the Forestry
Committee, and have developed a knowledge there that I'm
anxious to work with you in seeing if we cannot develop a
collaborative process at the local and State level and involve
our State governments to assure the kind of environmental
integrity we want of our forested lands. But not to sit idly by
and suggest that sweeping, massive forest fires are just mother
nature at her worst best. It is not. These fires are abnormal,
they are extremely hot as a result of the fuel buildup on our
forest floors. And the Nation is reaping the whirlwind of that
kind of man-caused destruction.
That's just another agenda that I suspect would not get
discussed very thoroughly in this committee today because we're
all so focused on our farmers and their needs and on production
agriculture. But as you know, you have the responsibility of a
rather massive agency. And a part of that agency is the U.S.
Forest Service, which has the responsibility of stewardship
over America's treasures, America's public lands.
I will not ask you questions, but only to suggest to you
that let's de-politicize the U.S. Forest Service. Let's bring
it back on-line as a construction conservation corps,
responsible for the management of these public lands in a way
that shares the benefits of those lands both environmentally
and for productive resource purposes with the American people.
You will be confirmed. We are anxiously awaiting the
opportunity to vote for you and to begin to work with you in
the shaping of not only agricultural policy for our Nation, but
public land resource and forest policy for the years to come.
Congratulations.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig can be found in
the appendix on page 62.]
Ms. Veneman. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Craig. And now Senator
Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. ZELL MILLER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's good to
see you again.
Ms. Veneman. Nice to see you.
Senator Miller. I do not think that the importance of this
Cabinet position can be overstated. We are headed toward a new
Farm Bill, while in the midst of an agricultural crisis. Our
rural economies are suffering, and this has tremendous impact
in States like Georgia, where one out of every six residents is
engaged directly or indirectly in agriculture.
With emerging farm technology, with competitive trade
realities, with labor shortages, I don't think it's any
exaggeration to say that American agriculture is at a
crossroads. We met earlier, and it was a good meeting. While we
may differ on the quality of Georgia peaches compared to
California peaches, I know you're going to be a very strong
advocate for all regions of U.S. agriculture.
My State has great agricultural diversity, poultry and
peanuts and cotton and tobacco and timber and many specialty
crops. This diversity creates unique needs, and you know that
because of California's agricultural diversity.
I'm also very pleased, as has already been said, that you
have great experience in foreign trade. I think this is an
extremely important credential. American agriculture is
becoming more and more dependent on trade. And I encourage the
Department to work with other departments and other pertinent
Federal agencies to find new markets for our producers, as
Senator Lincoln has already said.
I also believe that the Department of Agriculture and Labor
must work quickly to develop a guest worker program that is
economically viable and is fair to both producers and laborers.
And this will take leadership by you and the Secretary of Labor
and the Labor Department.
I want to close with just one question, albeit a
complicated and controversial one. We have all heard the old
adage that all politics is local. Well, so are foreign
interests. And if you will indulge me, you can see where I
think I'm headed, towards peanuts. Peanut growers right now are
facing very difficult decisions. With diminishing import tariff
rates, imports will continue to offset U.S. grown peanuts,
pushing Government costs to new levels. At present, the program
is no net cost. So we will either have to accept increased
program costs under the current system or change the program to
a more market oriented structure, which if other commodity
programs are any example, will cost a lot of money.
So my question is twofold. Will you support a peanut
program that does have some reasonable cost for the Government?
Or if we move to a more market oriented program, would you
consider supporting compensating those individuals who have
invested in the peanut quota?
Ms. Veneman. Senator, I haven't looked closely enough at
this issue to tell you where I would come out on what kind of
solution to the peanut issue is appropriate. I know that the
program has been under increasing pressure, that there are
difficulties with the program that's operated, as you say, as a
no net cost program for many years.
But I would hope to bring together the interests of the
producer groups and work with them and members of the Senate
and the House to find acceptable solutions to particularly
these programs that are beginning to feel the stress of not
working the way they have in the past. But I think we should
bring all interested parties together to find the most
appropriate solutions and I would look forward to working with
you in that regard.
Senator Miller. I do also. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Miller.
Senator Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
ILLINOIS
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Veneman, congratulations. I think you'll do a wonderful
job as Agriculture Secretary. And I would add Illinois to your
long list. I take some comfort that you worked under Ed
Madigan, who is of course a native of Illinois. I think that
the town of Lincoln, Illinois, actually, in the land of
Lincoln. And I look forward to working with you over the next 4
years.
I noted that in your opening statement you said that if
confirmed, I intend to promote cooperative working
relationships with other agencies of Government to ensure that
the concerns of farmers and ranchers are understood and
advocated throughout the Government. I think that's a very good
statement, it was a very encouraging statement that you had
made.
And I did want to bring up one such issue, which would have
cross-departmental implications. And that is the issue of
ethanol. Last year, the USDA released a study that concluded
that if MTBE were phased out and replaced with ethanol over 3
years, it would create approximately 13,000 new jobs in rural
America, increase farm income by more than $1 billion annually
over the next 10 years, and reduce farm program costs and loan
deficiency payments through an expanded value added market for
grain.
The study also concluded that within 3 years, ethanol could
be used as a substitute oxygenate for MTBE in nationwide
markets without price increases or supply disruptions. And I
guess my request from you would be to work across departmental
lines. This committee has always had pretty bipartisan support
for ethanol. And I think you will probably be having some
contact, particularly with EPA, over this issue. And I guess
I'd ask for your commitment that you will promote ethanol as an
environmentally friendlier alternative to MTBE, and that you
would work closely with your counterpart at EPA to ensure a
strong future for ethanol.
Can you give this commitment to this committee?
Ms. Veneman. Senator, I think throughout the past several
months during this campaign, President-elect Bush has made it
very clear that he is committed to promoting ethanol and other
renewable fuels and other alternative uses for agriculture
products. So yes, I can commit to working with the
Administration and particularly with EPA on these issues. And
as I said, we've had conversations with Christine Todd Whitman
about the importance of agriculture and working with her on
agriculture issues. She has committed to working in close
working relationships to understand the issues of agriculture,
and I would intend to continue to do that.
Senator Fitzgerald. If I could just ask a little bit of a
follow-up. Would you be willing to advise Ms. Whitman to reject
your home State's waiver request from the oxygenate requirement
in the Clean Air Act?
Ms. Veneman. I'm certainly familiar with that. It's
obviously not in the jurisdiction of USDA, but I'm certainly
willing to have conversations with her about it to discuss the
pros and cons of such a waiver request, and also to express the
strong interest of production agriculture in this request.
Senator Fitzgerald. Well, I appreciate that. And I do have,
in the interest of time, I'm going to just give you one other
question. I think this is a question that's being asked, I've
noticed in watching the other hearings, a lot of Cabinet
nominees are being asked the same question. Since 1990, all the
agencies of the Federal Government have had to undergo audits.
And I guess prior to 1990, we did no audits of all the
different Government agencies, all the money the Federal
Government spent, they didn't do any audits, which always
struck me, coming as I did from a banking background, where if
a teller line was $10 off, no teller could go home until they
found that $10.
With respect to our Federal Government spending $1.8
trillion, almost $2 trillion a year, they are now doing audits.
But over the last 10 years, while this requirement has been in
place, only a handful of the departments and agencies have
gotten clean audits. And most of them have gotten adverse
audits.
And some of them, like the USDA, have had a disgraceful
record in terms of their books and records. Their auditors have
repeatedly refused to give any opinion whatsoever. They've
issued what's called a disclaimer of opinion on the USDA's
books, I believe for 10 years in a row now. The disclaimer of
opinion means the books are in such bad shape auditors can't
make heads or tails of them. You can't tell what money is
coming in or what money is going out.
Last year, I chaired a subcommittee hearing where the
Inspector General of the USDA testified. I was much chagrined
to find that the USDA's fund balance disagreed with the
Treasury Department's fund balance for the USDA by $5 billion.
Now, they were thrilled, because they worked that difference
down to $230 million. They were uncorking the champagne at the
USDA that they were only out $230 million. That is an awful lot
of taxpayer money.
And they had a car listed on their books for $98 million.
Now, I don't know what kind of car it was, maybe it was a
Batmobile or something. It certainly must have had all the
options.
But this is really a disgrace. They had found that money
was taken from a soil erosion fund and used to paint wall
murals in urban areas. They found that checks for day care
homes were being sent to empty lots. And the list went on and
on.
When you come back, when I in subsequent years, after
you've been in there, do those hearings to hear from the
Inspector General, will we find that the USDA's books and
records still aren't in order, and that you still can't get a
clean opinion?
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, I would certainly hope that we
can improve the record of the USDA in that regard. I am a
strong believer in accountability in Government programs. I
think that one of the difficulties in an organization that is
as huge as USDA and has so many different missions is that it
has not in the past had accounting systems that are consistent
with each other. That is something I would hope to improve upon
so that we can have more consistent accounting systems and
better accountability. So hopefully we're not getting the
unqualified audits that you're referring to.
Senator Fitzgerald. Will you make it a top priority of
yours to clean up the books and records over there?
Ms. Veneman. I will commit to you that we will work very
hard to address this issue.
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you very much, and good luck to
you.
Ms. Veneman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fitzgerald. I just want to
add my support for what Senator Fitzgerald just said on both
those issues, but especially on the ethanol issue. We hope that
you will be a strong advocate for ethanol.
Senator Stabenow.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Good morning, and Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate very much having the opportunity to serve on this
Committee with you and with our incoming Chairman, Senator
Lugar. It's a pleasure to be with both of you.
And I do apologize for coming in in the middle of your
statement. I had the opportunity to introduce the incoming
Energy Secretary to the Committee on Energy this morning. So I
was a few minutes late. It is a pleasure to see you again. I
appreciated the opportunity to have you come visit in my
office. I know we share many common interests, both from
California and Michigan being the top States in terms of
diversity of crops, Michigan second only to California. I think
that's very important. Many people don't realize that about
Michigan.
On a personal note, I would just indicate that it's been a
very long time since a Michigan Senator has served on this
committee. Of interest to me is that the last time our State
was represented was in 1959 to 1963 with Senator Phil Hart, who
I know is certainly someone, represented by the Hart Building
and held in high esteem by this body. So it's my pleasure to be
once again serving Michigan on this committee.
Let me indicate that while most people associate Michigan
with automobiles, and I would start by saying that as you visit
the other States, I've invited others, you can start in
Michigan, purchase a vehicle, I promise you it will not cost
$98 million in order to purchase the vehicle.
[Laughter.]
And then you could drive to each of the other States. We
would be happy to start your visits that way.
I would associate myself with many of the comments made by
colleagues in terms of so many of the issues raised that affect
Michigan. But let me juste add that we all have a very large
task ahead of us with the reauthorization of the Freedom to
Farm bill. I'm extremely concerned about strengthening the
current farm safety net and look forward to working you as we
sort through those issues.
I'm very interested in the opportunities for agricultural
research. Of course, having a premier land grant institution,
Michigan State University, in my hometown, as well as my alma
mater, and developing new demand for commodities, bio-based
fuels. I would also like to associate myself with the comments
regarding ethanol and support for continuing and expanding that
focus.
Food safety is a growing concern that's been a priority for
me, particularly in light of the fact that we all remember the
contaminated strawberries that were consumed by school
children. Some of those were in my Congressional district, so I
have been focused on food safety and working for a balanced
approach, focused on research and consumer involvement. I think
that's very important.
The rural programs through USDA are also critical to my
State. Between 60- and 70-percent of the benefit goes to the
upper peninsula in Michigan, which is a very important part of
my State. And I'm very committed to expanding the opportunities
to rural communities, economic development as well as
supporting agriculture through the USDA.
Let me just mention that like California, Michigan is a
salad bowl State. We have traditional crops, wheat and soy and
corn and as well a diversity of specialty crops, which we have
discussed. So those issues regarding specialty crops, whether
it be pesticides, whether it be crop insurance, a variety of
issues are important to us. We have tart cherries and apples
and asparagus and blueberries and peaches and lettuce and sugar
beets, and I could go on and on with the diversity of crops.
So it is important, and I have been particularly focused on
crop insurance to expand that opportunity to specialty crops.
When we look at the issue of pesticides, there are some of our
crops that have only one or two pesticides available. So what
happens becomes very important in the decisions of the USDA
regarding pesticides. And I look forward to working with you on
those issues.
I would have two questions for you today specifically that
relate to Michigan I would appreciate your comments on. One we
discussed briefly in my office, but I want to reiterate because
it's so important to Michigan today. And that is the question
of bovine TB. While we produce a broad range of agricultural
products, as I've mentioned, dairy has the highest amount of
cash receipts and is a very important component of our
agricultural economy in Michigan. Last year, Michigan lost its
TB-free status granted by the USDA, due to the presence of
bovine TB in our cattle. And while Texas and New Mexico also
have bovine TB in cattle, we're the only State with the
presence of bovine TB in non-captive animals, namely, free
roaming deer, which is a tremendous issue as we try to wrestle
with this.
The deer transfer the disease to the cattle which
consequently must be euthanized at a severe hardship to our
farmers. The State of Michigan, along with Michigan State
University, has developed a State plan to combat this disease
and it's expected to take at least 20 years to totally
eliminate this problem. Last year, the Michigan delegation
worked closely with the USDA to inform the Department about the
problem. The USDA declared an emergency in Michigan and
provided funds through the Commodity Credit Corporation to help
combat the disease, to increase research, implement tests and
compensate our farmers.
Combatting this disease in our State is one of my top
priorities. And I would ask that you continue to focus
resources from the USDA on this issue, and would ask for any
comments that you would have regarding this particular issue
that we discussed.
Ms. Veneman. Thank you, Senator. I was pleased to be able
to talk with you about this issue, because as you know, until
we were in your office, I was unaware of this issue and its
severity in your State. I will commit to work hard to combat
diseases in animals that impact our agriculture. I think this
leads to a much bigger issue, an important mission of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Government and agriculture, and
that is, the importance of programs that combat not only animal
diseases, but pests and diseases that affect plants as well.
As you know, agriculture, both USDA and State agriculture
departments have a very important role in this regard. And I
think we cannot underestimate it. It's not just with animals,
and it's not just Med flies and specialty crops. We saw a very,
very serious impact on our wheat production a few years back
when we dealt with carnal bunt. Again, we had to find a way to
control the disease so that it did not impact our ability to
market that product abroad, so that we were able to control it
and contain it and eliminate it as quickly as possible.
I also agree that as we see new and emerging kinds of
issues come up with regard to pests and diseases that we have
to focus research continually on these types of problems to
find better ways to deal with them.
Senator Stabenow. Let me ask one just follow-up. First of
all, I am aware as well of the issues related to wheat. In
fact, the first bill I introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives dealt with the question of wheat and barley
scab, which is a wonderful name of a bill to be introducing,
your first bill, on wheat and barley scab. But a critical
issue, and I was very pleased to help lead an effort to bring
the land grant universities together to form a consortium
regarding research.
And that would lead to my final question, which relates to
research through our land grant universities. I would welcome
your thoughts and perspectives. As we have talked before, and I
know that you are a friend and associate of our president at
Michigan State University, and we are very proud of what
happens through that land grant institution. It's critical to
Michigan's agricultural base, and the work that's done there.
We have formed a National Food Safety and Toxicology Center,
bringing in multiple disciplines.
But I'm very concerned that cooperative extension and that
our land grant universities continue to receive the support
that I believe they deserve, as they are critical to us. And I
would welcome your thoughts regarding those institutions.
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, as I said, I believe that
research is a very, very important part and component of what
USDA is involved in, and that research has been critical to the
success of agriculture in this country. The land grants have
played a major role in that and I believe need to continue to
do so.
As we discussed in your office, one of the things that the
land grant universities are now able to do and are beginning to
do is work with other parts of their universities, whether it's
medical schools or environmental sections of the university, to
begin to find common solutions to issues that impact
agriculture. And I would certainly want to encourage that
through our land grants and find models like you have at
Michigan State to encourage cooperative research that addresses
the kind of issues that we're dealing with today in the food
and agricultural system and the health related issues that are
so tied in today with food and agriculture.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Well, welcome. It's wonderful
to see such a well qualified person being nominated. And I'm
pleased to support your confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEBRASKA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm unofficially a
member of this committee today, and I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. Thank you for the invitation. And it's
a pleasure for me to continue the Nebraska tradition of having
a representative on this Agriculture Committee.
Congratulations, Ms. Veneman. I want to thank you for your
opportunity to come to Nebraska, and I want to welcome you
back. Ms. Veneman came to Nebraska for my Governors Agriculture
Conference in the early 1990s, when we shared the opportunity
to talk about agricultural issues at that time.
Nebraska is also a diverse State when it comes to
agriculture. I'm not going to start listing the levels of
agriculture for fear of leaving one out, and I don't want to do
that. Also, the University of Nebraska in Lincoln is a land
grant institution, very much interested in, very deeply
involved in ag research. And I'm encouraged by your comments
about the necessity and support of agriculture research to the
future of agriculture in the country and certainly in the
world.
One of the things that has been suggested, I think it was
Senator Cochran who made reference to having someone from the
South involved in your agricultural, Department of Agriculture
hierarchy, because of the differences in agriculture as it
relates to the South. And we talk about agriculture as though
it's unitary, and we know that it's very diverse. And the
diversity is not only dependent upon region, although it's much
affected by region. But there are certain areas.
And I would hope, without being parochial or regional in my
request, probably being supported by my midwestern and Great
Plains colleagues, that you would have a person involved that
would understand the unique problems and the diverse problems
that we have in the Midwest, recognizing not only the
difference in agriculture products, but the difference in
weather and where the most recent disasters occurred in terms
of weather due to the drought, largely across a good part of
the Midwest.
I am concerned about the Freedom to Farm Act, and what we
might do to develop a new farm program that will in fact
deliver the kind of support safety net that you referred to in
a way that will work for agriculture where those needs exist
today. Risk management, the Federal Crop Insurance Program
certainly have a lot to do with it. And if you take a look at
the payments that have been spread out over the last several
years, maybe in some respects the Freedom to Farm Act has been
the most expensive non-farm program that we've entertained in
this modern time.
I was hopeful that you might give us a little bit of a
preview or some peek about what you might have in mind about
modifications to the Freedom to Farm Act, but I guess we'll
have to stay tuned to see what you develop and what you come
back and provide in the way of leadership.
I'd like to think about agriculture as it relates not only
to production agriculture but as it relates to energy, to world
security and in so many different areas, a comprehensive
approach. The trade agreements not only involve, they involve
food safety, biotechnology, they involve trade barriers, they
involve opportunities for free and fair trade. And they're in
many respects all interrelated.
I certainly encourage the cooperation that you're referring
to under the EPA, Energy and Agriculture, but also as it might
relate to Foreign Affairs and other areas to see that we can
have a comprehensive approach. Because I think agriculture,
when we've come to the trade agreements, has always been a
stepchild. It is the last thing that seems to get included.
And if I had one criticism to level at the trade agreements
as it relates to agriculture, not as to other products from the
United States, but as it relates to agriculture, it is that we
didn't spell NAFTA right. It needs two Fs, Free and Fair Trade.
I think that's the point that I would like to make to you and
leave with you on trade agreements, that we spend the kind of
time necessary to be sure that these trade agreements are not
only open opportunities, but they level the playing field.
And I was taken by Senator Conrad's charts, because I think
that's exactly what I have in mind. I'm not opposed to free
trade, as long as it's fair, and as long as we work toward
making it fair where it isn't.
Therefore, much of the hoopla today about GMOs and
biotechnology from other parts of the world, I would put not
only in the category of food safety, because that's the
question that's raised, but I would put it also into the
category of trade of trade barriers, another way of protecting
local production, local industries. I'm not a protectionist, on
the one hand. On the other hand, I am very concerned about the
lack of protection we have very often for our own producers
here at home when we open up the agreements and we don't
provide for the level playing field at the very outset.
Now, we have all kinds of mechanisms to go in when we
encounter unfair trade practices, but that's the equivalent of
having a referee, not having a referee on a basketball court,
but having a committee, years after the infraction, decide
whether it was foul. I'm not going to suggest to you that it
would make sense to have an actual referee with a black and
white striped shirt standing there making every decision that's
brought before that individual.
But we need something that is prompt, not time consuming,
something that is also accurate in dealing with these issues.
Otherwise, dumping or other violations can go on for a long
period of time and be ruinous to many producers, whether it's
in the sugar industry, North Dakota, Nebraska or Michigan,
wherever it may be. We have to be sure that we work diligently
to be certain that every effort is made that these trade
agreements and the actual encounters under the trade agreements
are free and fair.
I also hope that as you look at market assistance programs
and export enhancement programs that you'll work to make these
part of the leveling of the playing field. If we can't get out
competitors around the world to bring down their level of
support, I'm not one that likes to move away from market
conditions, but I have to admit that part of the market
conditions include the level of support in other countries. So
we have to join or we have to get them to join us by reducing
their levels of support.
And I don't like to get involved in other countries'
business. But when it affects what we're doing, we can't ignore
it.
I'm very encouraged by what you said about ethanol. As a
Governor, I was pleased to have the opportunity to start the
Governors' Ethanol Coalition. Today I believe there are 22
States that are now members of the Ethanol Coalition. I'm not
going to tout all the things we've done in Nebraska, except to
say that we went from nowhere up to third in terms of ethanol
production during my 8-years. I want to continue to work with
Senator Lugar and Chairman Harkin and other members of this
committee to be sure that we push forward for more ethanol
production, more biofuels, biodiesel, more renewable resources
soybeans, other biomass energy sources because I think we can
put an energy policy for our Nation together that will include
a large portion of renewable resources that will go into energy
production.
But I'm not sure we have it working in the right direction.
I would never suggest that we don't trust people out in the
field; they are, after all, your employees. But I think there
has been a system of bringing that back into Washington for
command and control, and I for one would like to urge you to
look very carefully and seriously and get back to this
committee, or at least to me, on your recommendations regarding
this. I think it would facilitate and would better, I think,
streamline the whole process so that it can be done in a very
timely manner, because when it is delayed it certainly doesn't
serve the public in this case, the producer very well.
So I thank you very much and it is good to see you again,
and I do welcome you back to Nebraska.
Ms. Veneman. Thank you.
Senator Nelson. What you can do is buy your car in
Michigan, and all across the midwest you can fill your tank
with ethanol.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Veneman. There you go. I like that.
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Dayton.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK DAYTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
serving with you, and also you, Senator Lugar, when you become
the Chairman. Thank you for your gracious words about my
perseverance. I would only point out that the difference
between your electoral success in the last 18 years and my lack
thereof is reflected in the relative positions on this table
here. But I am glad to be here.
Ms. Veneman, historically I've had great affinity for
California; I think we associate it with Disneyland and the
Rose Bowl. But now that those experiences have become distant
memories for most Minnesotans, perhaps less so; and in the area
of agriculture, the State of California represents fairly or
unfairly, at least in the common perception of Minnesota's
farmers and producers many of the economic and production
dynamics over the last years that have driven thousands of
Minnesota farmers into bankruptcy and have threatened our rural
way of life and are harming every business on Main Street in
Minnesota.
These conditions we saw most of them in Minnesota have been
exacerbated by the effects of the 1996 Farm Bill. Without
supply management and increased production under our basic
economic law of supply and demand, market prices have fallen
precipitously in our key commodity sectors. When I ran this
summer, the price of corn in southern Minnesota was $1.25 a
bushel; it was $1.85 a bushel when I ran for the Senate in
1982. Wheat, $2.60 a bushel in northwestern Minnesota compared
to $3.50 a bushel in 1982. Dairy, $9.90 a hundredweight,
compared to $12.50.
So contrary to the intent of the 1996 Farm Bill, the
survival of the remaining Minnesota farmers has become
increasingly and in some cases, totally dependent on these
Federal payments.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that you were with me last
fall in southern Minnesota, and a number of farmers there were
asking you, ``What will the emergency assistance payments be
next year? Not even the regular program payments; what would
the emergency assistance be next year?'' because they needed
those dollars committed to go to their banks for financing for
this year.
So I guess my first question is, what do you propose to do
to put the marketplace back into American agriculture, to help
get prices in the domestic marketplace to levels where farmers
can make a profit and we won't need these kinds of huge
Government payments?
Ms. Veneman. Well, as I indicated, Senator, in my opening
statement, I think the Congress has appropriately responded in
these difficult times of low prices, bad weather in many cases,
and other adversities.
At the same time we are looking at opportunities for
farmers, and I think we need to look at opportunities for
farmers, to expand markets for products, as you said, both at
home and abroad. As we've had a lot of discussion today, we
need to find ways to not only open new markets for our
products, expand markets, but also tear down trade barriers
that exist.
At home, I think we need to continue to find ways to have
additional marketing opportunities for our farm products,
whether it's new and renewable fuels, as we've had some
discussion about, whether it's new products out of agriculture
which our research will help us find, or whether it's helping
farmers understand the realities of the marketplace so that
they can participate in marketing further up the food chain and
therefore get more value for their products.
All these are difficult, but I think that if we work
together we can find ways to strengthen the competitive
position of our farmers, and hopefully strengthen prices over
the long run.
Senator Dayton. Thank you. I wanted to just put on the
record my concern. I don't disagree with anything you said, and
it's been said for the last number of years. In fact, I think
the increased marketing and foreign trade opportunities for
American farmers has been set forth as the ``Holy Grail'' to be
achieved if we're going to and I think in fact, while it is
certainly important, it has been demonstrated so far, and this
last Administration has certainly been aggressive in these
areas and hopefully the next Administration will be doing more
but the result has not been higher prices. In fact, even with
some of the value added, I support what the Senator said about
ethanol. But the reality is, we have levels of production in
corn the second highest in the Nation's history last year;
soybeans, the highest and again, the basic law of supply and
demand is that the prices are going to be down, not only
through the floor but into the subbasement, and the
alternatives are either massive subsidies and record high costs
to American taxpayers, or letting farmers literally fall into
increasing bankruptcy.
So I think we have a fundamental problem. We have a
program, with whatever good intentions it was designed, that
has had a contrary effect, and I think it is really causing a
systemic crisis in many of our commodities. We now have, we are
told by the USDA, over a year's inventory of corn in this
country. Well, it's just given then that the economics, barring
some climactic disaster, are going to continue.
So I would urge you to look at these areas and come forward
with your recommendations in ways that are really going to
fundamentally address the scope and degree of the problem. We
are talking about the same kind of euphemisms that we've kind
of hung on before.
I would say of all the regional inequities in the U.S.
programs, none for Minnesota is more inequitable and unfair
than current Federal law as it relates to dairy producers. A
combination of the price support levels being set lower and
lower, and the regional marketing order system which
disadvantages Minnesota, means that, again, our price support
not only has the floor dropped, it's really down into a level
where we lost from 1982, when we had 32,000 dairy producers in
the State, and now it's less than 7,000. I ended up with close
to 1,000 of them in two meetings just 2 weeks ago with
Congressman Collin Peterson of northwestern Minnesota, and I
was struck by the size of the turnout meaning, the desperation
that many of them are experiencing now.
And California, by contrast, is a different situation. It
has its own price support system and has ever-increasing
production and expansion in the size of its operations.
What faith should Minnesota dairy farmers have that you
would understand and be concerned about, the circumstances in
which they find themselves, given that California's experience
seems to be so different from it?
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, certainly I've been involved
with much more than just California in looking at agriculture
policy. But we've talked a lot today about the regional
differences. There is probably no better example of regional
differences in terms of what people think ought to be done
about agricultural policy than dairy. It's going to be a very
challenging subject as we go forward in the future because
people do have such differing opinions about what the dairy
policy ought to be for the future.
I would hope that all the different dairy interests could
work together to find and recommend programs that would be of
benefit to dairy producers nationwide, so that we can not have
to arbitrate the regional differences, but find something that
is good for dairy around the country.
As I said, this is very contentious. And it is one of the
issues that creates, probably, the most regional divisions of
any commodity that we have.
Senator Dayton. Well, we are quite confident that we have
all the answers in Minnesota. If you could just get the
California dairy producers to go along.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Veneman. I don't think this is a California versus
Minnesota issue, though.
Senator Dayton. No. I agree with what you said. And I echo
what others have said today about the concern about imports,
about inequities in the way that our policies have not only
shaped these, but also permitted exports, dairy being an
example. According to the figures I have had cited for me from
some of our producers, this last year some 14-percent of the
foreign imports of dairy products were 14-percent of our total
production, where the law calls for 5-percent. And I am
appalled that there has not been better enforcement of these
agreed-upon restrictions, and I was pleased to hear you say
today that you will do so. I think that is very, very
important.
As part of that, I wonder if you have taken a position or
what your views are on labeling of food products, of imported
products, as such.
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, as you know, many of our
imported food products are labeled. The question is, should we
have additional labeling? And there is truly a split among
producer groups, among various other groups up the food chain,
about what ought to be done with labeling.
I think for the most part, consumers do have labels that
are explicit. And if there is a need for additional labeling,
we certainly will look forward to working with the groups to
determine what needs to be done.
Senator Dayton. Would you support in principle the notion
that consumers ought to have a right to know what is in the
food products they purchase, including where those products
come from, particularly since some of the environmental
pesticide measures in other countries don't even come close to
our own? Is that something you would support in principle?
Ms. Veneman. Well, most food that comes into this country
is country-of-origin-labeled already. I think that's important.
The second thing that I think is very important to point
out is that food cannot be imported into this country unless it
meets U.S. standards.
Senator Dayton. In theory, yes.
Ms. Veneman. And I think that it is very important that we
have the necessary resources to make sure that we enforce those
standards on food that is coming into this country.
Senator Dayton. Well, I support you strongly, Madam
Secretary. I think that enforcing those is, again, part of it.
One final question if I may, Mr. Chairman, quickly?
I just want to commend you, as you mentioned, for asking
Administrator Whitman to work with you. I would urge the same
reciprocity in areas like the ever-increasing size of our
feedlots throughout Minnesota and much of the country. I don't
know what your experience in California has been, but I am
concerned that we are putting our citizens more and more at
risk with the kind of ecological consequences of these ever
larger operations, the lagoons, the lack of place to put that
waste, and the like.
Ms. Veneman. Well, those kinds of regulations, as you know,
have been an increasing focus of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and I think certainly, if confirmed, I would have the
intent to work closely with Ms. Whitman to make sure that there
is a clear understanding of agricultural operations so that
they have that input in the process of making regulations that
regulate those industries.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Dayton.
My colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
chairmanship, and also for the history about Iowa having once
before had a person in your position. Maybe you could research
for me if anyone from Iowa has been Chairman of the Finance
Committee before
[Laughter.]
Since you have all that information. I'll just let you do
that for me.
Congratulations, Ms. Veneman, on your nomination and what
it does for American agriculture. I'm only going to have two
questions: one on value added, and one on concentration, but I
wasn't here to give an opening statement and I'd like to do
that.
I believe that you already know a great deal about the
economic and cultural ramifications of Federal agricultural
policy, and these are very important to me, as well. You
probably know that maybe I brag too much about being a farmer,
and my father before me was. I think I understand agriculture
and how policy decisions from Washington impact hardworking
farmers, including my son, Robin, who operates our family farm.
Before I ran for office and after I leave, God willing I
would still plan on being in farming. There is little that I
feel more strongly about than providing the agriculture
community with the potential not only to survive, but more
importantly, to thrive, and that means profitability. An area
where you're so strong is in international trade, and if
there's going to be profitability in American agriculture,
obviously such a strong suit that you have will help us along
in that direction.
I know, Ms. Veneman, that you recognize the complexity of
the issues facing our farmers and ranchers, and due to your
previous experience as Secretary of the California Department
of Food and Agriculture and before that as Deputy Secretary of
the USDA, I know that you understand many aspects of
agriculture and what a strong agricultural economy means to my
friends and neighbors in Iowa.
Your past service and knowledge of international trade
policy is outstanding. Trade is one issue that California and
Iowa do have in common. Iowa ranks second only to California in
farm exports, and I believe by increasing our world market
share we will improve the plight of the family farmer, and you
are the right person for that task.
Agriculture is always very broad, and it's a very diverse
field. For instance, in the State of California and I don't
pretend to know all about agriculture in California, but I
believe you are a leading producers of vegetables harvested for
sale, and tomatoes and grapes and strawberries, and you
probably have hundreds of crops that you raise. In my home
State of Iowa, we lead the Nation in the production of corn,
soybeans, and hogs. There are significant differences between
agriculture production in California and Iowa.
While it has been a number of years since the Secretary of
Agriculture has hailed from Iowa that was Henry Wallace, 1933
to 1940 my home State and the midwest have historically had
strong representation within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
I would also like to see working farmers end up in one or
more of the top slots at the USDA. I believe it is very
important for the Bush Administration to seek farmers, not
Washington insiders, to best represent the interests of our
agricultural community. I have been saying for a while now that
I would like to have individuals with ``dirt under their
fingernails'' for the top spots. But let me clarify this point.
I want someone who uses Schedule F to report the majority
of their income. I would like to see top-level decisions
deliberated by people who have friends and neighbors on the
farm. I want judgments made by people who understand what it
means to be a midwestern farmer in the 1980s when things were
so tough. This is very important to me.
I have faith that if you will address my concerns, you will
do an outstanding job leading the Department of Agriculture. In
addition to developing new and improved trade prospects, I look
forward to working with you to provide new rural development
opportunities through value added ventures.
I hope that we also move quickly to address issues of
agribusiness concentrations, through legislation like my bill
to provide USDA authority to challenge mergers, in a similar
fashion as the Department of Justice, and a bill that I am
going to introduce with Senator Johnson next Monday limiting
packer ownership of livestock for slaughter. And of course, one
of the biggest tasks in front of us all is shaping our next
Farm Bill.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that today's discussion that we
have had with the President elect's choice for Secretary of
Agriculture will result in better understanding by both sides
of what we feel needs to be addressed to make the 107th
Congress a success for family farmers in our rural communities.
In regard to agribusiness concentration, as I follow-up on
my statement, I want to outline my question. During the 106th
Congress I introduced the legislation already referred to. The
legislation in a very short statement, without doing justice to
it gives USDA the same authority to challenge a proposed merger
as the Department of Justice currently possesses.
I also sponsored legislation that will give your Department
responsibility to implement, and this legislation codifies a
recent General Accounting Office report outlining suggestions
for improved investigations of competitive practices within
packers and stockyards.
Then I already referred to the bill that Senator Johnson
and I are going to introduce. In a very general statement, but
one that I hope you can be fairly precise in answering, is
this: how does the issue of agribusiness concentration fall on
your priority list? And are you interested in moving quickly on
the issue?
Ms. Veneman. Senator, you and I have discussed this issue
in our meetings. There is probably no other issue that came up
so consistently as concentration, in my meetings with various
members of the Committee and various people not on the
committee. In fact, I understand that Senator Ashcroft or I
should say, Attorney General designate Ashcroft was asked a
question about this as well in his hearing. So I know that it's
on people's minds, and I know how important it is.
As you know and as you have indicated, the Packers and
Stockyards Act in USDA is an important authority and we would
intend to use that authority to its maximum degree. In
addition, I would intend to, and I've had conversations already
with Mr. Ashcroft about the Justice Department's role in these
concerns, and he has pledged to me that we will work closely
together to address these issues.
But I also think that while we find ways to make sure that
our laws are appropriately enforced in this regard, we also
should look at alternative opportunities for our producers,
whether it is helping producers take advantage of niche markets
so that they have an alternative market for their products, so
that they can have the opportunity to participate up the food
chain by different kinds of ``agri organizations,'' new
cooperatives, etc. And we provide the kind of education to
allow them to understand how to take advantage of such
opportunities.
So I think it is both an issue of enforcement and an issue
of assistance in terms of helping them find new opportunities.
Senator Grassley. I welcome those new opportunities that
you seek, and I think that you have spoken strongly about how
you will approach concentration. Just don't let somebody get
you off course on the enforcement aspect at the same time that
you are trying to do the other things that that leadership
requires you to do, and I'm glad to hear that you are
interested in doing those.
Along the lines of, and this is not something that you have
to respond to, but along the lines of making maximum use of the
Packers and Stockyards Act, the General Accounting Office
report suggested more than suggested, flatly stated that in
many respects, the Packers and Stockyards Act, to make sure
that we have adequate competition in agriculture, is stronger
than the anti trust laws in a lot of other areas. And so it is
an opportunity to do a lot. We talk about anti trust laws so
much; we have not given proper attention to the Packers and
Stockyards Act, and we are starting to do that now. So we would
be backing you up in your strong enforcement of that.
Now, for my second question, taking off on what you said
about alternative opportunities, and this would involve not
just agriculture but rural development, et al., while it is
important for us to guarantee an environment free of unfair
trade practices, it is just as important and this is exactly
what I think you just said for us to assist farmerswith
alternative opportunities. I would bring up the value added
opportunity ventures so that they may capture more of the cents
of every dollar spent at the retail level for commodities from
the farm.
Last year I sponsored legislation creating a value added
opportunity fund for producers to draw grants and for the
development of value added enterprises. Would you support the
continuation of this program? And can we work together to
provide new opportunities for producers and producers' groups
seeking working capital?
Ms. Veneman. Well, Senator, I have to admit that I'm not
actually familiar with the fund that you proposed in detail,
but I think that based on my previous answer, I am committed to
the kinds of programs that you're talking about, and that is
opportunities for producers to participate in partnerships,
cooperatives, and so forth that allow them to share in the
value up the food chain. I think there are many examples we
have seen of producers coming together to do just that, all
throughout the country, and hopefully we can find and seek
those out and use them as models to show producers how they can
get more value up the food chain and more value for their
product.
Senator Grassley. I accept that answer, and I hope you will
have a chance to study it.
In the process of studying it, because some special
interest fought our legislation so hard, wanting Congressmen
and Senators to think it was unfair brick and mortar type
competition to existing business in agricultural processing, I
want to make it clear that it is to facilitate this process,
not to build businesses and competition. It is to empower
family farmers to accomplish the goals that you have stated
well, and those interests may come to you and try to convince
you that this is just a subterfuge for doing what I say it is
not intended to do.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley can be found in
the appendix on page 76.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
I have just a couple of follow-up questions. In fact, I
wanted to just follow-up a little bit on what Senator Grassley
just raised on this whole issue of concentration and
consolidation, vertical integration.
Last August, August of 1999 the Department of Agriculture,
the FTC, and the Department of Justice entered into a
memorandum of understanding to work cooperatively to monitor
competitive conditions in the agricultural marketplace. They
agreed to confer regularly to discuss and review law
enforcement and regulatory matters, etc. I bring this to your
attention and ask if you plan on continuing to abide by this
memorandum of understanding, or if you would at least take a
look at it and respond back to me, if you haven't been briefed
on it by now.
Ms. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the
memorandum per se, but I think I have made it clear today that
I would intend to work very closely with counterparts
throughout Government on issues that are related to
agriculture, whether it is through this memorandum of
understanding or other kinds of cooperative working
relationships. I am committed to working inter agency for the
best interests of agriculture.
The Chairman. Thank you.
It has been brought up a couple of times here as you know,
Senator Lugar and I introduced legislation to establish in the
Anti Trust Division, Department of Justice, a position with
responsibility just for agricultural anti trust matters. So in
response to this, the Department promised to appoint a special
counsel in the Anti Trust Division to focus on agriculture and
agri business matters. They did that; Mr. Doug Ross, I believe,
is that person who is down there now. But there is no
requirement. They sort of preempted our legislation and we
never got it through, so there is no real requirement for the
Department of Justice to continue that practice.
Again, I think you mentioned it earlier, but I just wanted
to reemphasize that I hope you work with the incoming Attorney
General to make sure that we keep that position, and I hope you
will be an advocate for that, to keep that position there. If
not, I assume that Senator Lugar and I will work again to try
to get the legislation through. But if we don't have to, if
they keep the position, that would be the best way to proceed.
Again, picking up on what Senator Grassley said, the GAO
issued this report last September on the Packers and Stockyards
programs, entitled ``Packers and Stockyards Programs: Actions
Needed to Improve Investigation of Competitive Practices.''
Again, as Senator Grassley said, they did say that basically
Agriculture has a lot of authority under Packers and Stockyards
in this area.
They made two major recommendations: one, that USDA should
develop a ``teamwork'' approach with economists in GPSA in the
crane inspection in the Packers and Stockyards Administration,
a teamwork with them, and with attorneys in your Office of
General Counsel, so it should be a teamwork approach between
OGC and Justice, with the attorneys there; and second, that
USDA should determine the number of attorneys needed to
participate in investigations. That's one of the things we kept
hearing back from Secretary Glickman and others, that well,
they just didn't have the wherewithal to do that. So after this
GAO report was released I wrote to the Secretary and asked him
for a timeframe to implement the recommendations. Well, he
wrote me back on October 19th andhe said, ``GPSA is now taking
steps that are expected to implement the GAO recommendations by
April 1st, 2001, except that GPSA will only be able to do so
fully if the Office of General Counsel receives from Congress
an additional $500,000 for additional attorneys in the Trade
Practices Division.''
So we worked with Senator Cochran I am on the Ag
Appropriations Committee we worked with him and we got the
additional money. So in the final appropriations package there
was $500,000 for the Office of General Counsel to assign
lawyers specifically for enforcement of the Packers and
Stockyards Act. So the funding is no longer an issue, and I
hope you can assure me that these recommendations will be
implemented by April 1st, as your predecessor has promised.
Ms. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the
details of what you have expressed here, but certainly I will
do everything I can to make sure these recommendations are
implemented.
I wanted to say one word about the recommendation on
teamwork approach. That is something I truly believe in. We
have to use the resources of Government in a way that maximizes
the expertise of all areas and creates opportunities to work
together so that we can utilize the resources in the best way
to implement the programs that we are administering and the
rules and regulations that we are required to enforce.
The Chairman. Let me kind of sum up a little bit on where
they cycle has come now.
We had this memorandum of understanding that all of us
worked hard to get them to implement or to agree on: the FTC,
Department of Justice, and USDA. At the same time, a number of
us I don't know who all was on the letter asked the GAO to do
this study on the Packers and Stockyards Act on anticompetitive
activities in agriculture, vertical integration, the whole
panoply of things in terms of concentration. As I said, they
came back with this report last September.
We then moved ahead and tried to get the Department of
Agriculture to implement it. They said, ``Look, we would like
to, but we don't have enough attorneys to do that.'' So we got
them the money. We are now at the point where we hope we can
implement the GAO recommendations as early as possible, April
1st or something like that, and then move ahead to, hopefully,
this year see the Department of Agriculture taking a more
aggressive position in really looking at some of these
practices in agriculture. We are at the point now where we have
just a few I forget now; I had the data here but now I can't
find it I think we have four firms handling about 80-percent of
the meat right now. I don't know what the other figures were on
that. But these have to be looked at yes, 80-percent of the
beef is four firms, and 54-percent of the pork is done by four
firms in the United States.
The one thing that I constantly hear from my farmers is
that they just have no markets left. They get one bid. That's
all they get; take it or leave it. That's not much of an open
marketplace for agriculture when that happens.
So one of the things that I hope to be focusing on this
year with you is the utilization of your division, GPSA, and
the attorneys and the additional money that we got so that we
can begin to really be more aggressive in this area.
The next thing I wanted to ask you about before we finish
here is in the area of conservation, specifically, the CRP
program, the WRP that's Wetlands Reserve Program and the WHIP
program, the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program.
Let's start with the WRP and the WHIP program. Both of
those, Senator Cochran has been very helpful in funding, but
they are basically running out of money and acreage. I hope
that we can have some input from you early on regarding both
the WRP and the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program in terms
of more acreage and how much more money we need to enroll more
acres in that program.
The third part of that stool is the CRP. We now have the
limit in law is 36.4 million acres right now, that is allowed
by law to be put into the CRP. I think we're now at around 33
million acres in the CRP. There is a push by many in the sports
area, a number of wildlife organizations, asking that we
increase the CRP level actually, they want 45 million acres,
which sounds high, but I personally believe that we could raise
the ceiling on the CRP to somewhere in the neighborhood of 40
million acres from 36.4 million, and by raising that ceiling,
hopefully get more enrolled than the 33 million that we have
now.
Many of the farmers who had land in the CRP initially did
not get back in the second round. Again, this committee, and I
think the Committee in the House, rightly so, said that because
of budgetary concerns we were going to try to really enroll the
most fragile lands first in the CRP. When they finally got down
to some of the farms that had been in the CRP before, farmers
found they couldn't bid it in.
So I am wondering if we might look at different ways that
we might expand the CRP in a way that will allow some of the
people who had land in the CRP to bid it back in once more.
So again, my question to you is just your feelings about
how you feel about increasing the number of acres that we have
in CRP, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat
Improvement Program. I just want to get your general philosophy
on that.
Ms. Veneman. Mr. Chairman, I think that these programs are
very important. I think we have model programs in terms of
voluntary, incentive-based programs that are usable in our
country.
I have not seen any studies yet on the pros and cons of
increasing the acreage, but it is something I certainly would
want to look at carefully and work with you on. I understand
that the money has been used up in these programs fairly
quickly each year, which would indicate that there is a demand
for these kinds of programs. So I would certainly want to work
with you to look at what kinds of proposals we may want to make
for the future.
The Chairman. Well, I really want to work with you on that,
because, again, working with Chairman Lugar, I hope we can have
some hearings this spring on conservation and what we can do to
maybe even move an agenda on that this year, even though the
Farm Bill doesn't expire until next year.
I have introduced legislation that I've worked on for some
time now; it has been introduced in the House, it has
bipartisan support on the House and Senator Smith and I have
introduced it in the Senate, which we have dubbed the
``Conservation Security Act,'' but names are not important. It
is basically a voluntary-based conservation program. Now, you
are right, there are programs out there that farmers can use,
and in your opening statement you said that farmers are the
best stewards of the land. But a lot of times, in doing
conservation work, it may cost them in terms of production, or
it costs them in terms of time, fuel, equipment usage it costs
them one way or the other a lot of times to engage in what they
already do.
I hear a lot from farmers, ``I've been a good
conservationist, I'm doing these things, but I'm not getting
anything for it.'' And so I have worked with many of these
conservationists to develop a voluntary program where farmers
could come in and sort of ``pick from the menu.'' At one level,
they could do so much conservation, then a higher level and a
higher level. Depending on how much they do, they would get a
payment for it. And as we look at it, I think what we're facing
is a phased-back cutdown and things like that. Perhaps one of
the things we can do is begin to help give incentives to
farmers and to help pay them for the good conservation work
that many of them are already doing, and to give them an
incentive to even do more. Again, it would be voluntary. If
they want to do it, fine; if they don't, they don't have to.
But it has gotten a lot of support from different farm groups,
and I hope that you would take a look at that. I welcome any
thoughts you have on it or changes or modifications, any input
that you might have, but I would hope that we could perhaps
move some kind of a conservation agenda even this year.
Now, just a couple more items I want to cover. One is Food
Stamps and the Food Stamp Program. I've had the unusual
experience in Iowa of finding that our Food Stamp usage is
down, but the number of people going to food banks is up. I
said, how could that be? Why is that happening? Why is the
usage of food banks going up? What has happened is that because
of the change in our welfare laws, many people who are working
now can get some Food Stamps. They qualify for some Food
Stamps, but they run out before the end of the month. They are
working, but they are not making enough money to really afford
to continue to feed their families, so what they do is, toward
the end of the month they go to food banks. I can give you the
data on that, on how much more and I checked with other States,
and I find that that is true in a lot of areas around the
country. Food banks, the demand has gone up, even though we
have a Food Stamp Program.
So I am hopeful that we can take a look at the Food Stamp
Program and see what we can do to increase its usage. My
opinion is that it's better for people to have the Food Stamps
than it is for them to go to the food banks. We're always going
to need food banks, but that ought to be sort of the ``last
bastion,'' the last safety net. But Food Stamps is an important
program. It's a Federal program.
Again, I guess my question to you, if I had one, would be
just your thoughts on the Food Stamp Program. Do you agree that
it's an economic stabilizer, a safety net? Do you agree that it
should be a Federal program and that it ought to be linked to
food, and not just some kind of income assistance? See, the one
thing we have always tried to do with Food Stamps is keep the
link to food. And now we hear things like, well, maybe that
ought to be a cash assistance type of program.
At the outset I would like to ask for your thoughts on how
you view the Food Stamp Program and how you feel about it being
a food program rather than just a cash assistance program.
Ms. Veneman. As I recall the history, Mr. Chairman, this
has been a debate that has entered into the food assistance and
Food Stamp Program since its inception. A lot of people are
surprised that the Food Stamp Program is housed at USDA. Part
of the reason that it is housed at USDA is because of that link
between providing a food benefit, not just an additional
payment benefit.
I think that a lot of the other food programs that have
been administered by USDA are just as important. The WIC
program has been very important in helping with nutrition
assistance for pregnant and lactating mothers and small
children.
The Chairman. A great program.
Ms. Veneman. A very good program. And I think that these
are programs that we want to continue for the future, but also
find ways to make them operate better.
The Chairman. Well, the WIC program is a great one.
Again, we have to look at the Food Stamp Program in terms
of eligibility, especially for children, that type of thing,
and again I hope we could take a look at that. My strong
feeling is that it has to remain a part of the food program. I
have had a lot of people come up to me time and time again in
all my years on the House Agriculture Committee and say,
``Well, all this money goes out for Food Stamps, and it makes
it look like an agricultural program. It makes it look like
we're spending all this money on farmers. We're spending it on
Food Stamps.'' My response is, well, it is a food program.
But quite frankly, it is one of the things that keeps that
linkage with all of our farm programs and with the fact that
people need food to eat, and it's that one strong link that we
need to keep there. So I feel very strongly about keeping it as
that, and not just as a cash assistance type of program.
I had some other questions, but time is getting late, but
quite frankly, it's one of the things that keeps that linkage
with all of our farm programs and with the fact that people
need food to eat, and it's that one strong link that we need to
keep here. So I feel strongly about keeping it as that, and not
just as a cash assistance type of program.
I had some other questions on trade and different things
like that, but time is getting late. Like I said earlier, I
would like to submit some questions to you in writing, and I
look forward to your responses to those on some trade issues
and on some rural development issues. I really did want to get
into that, but it's getting too late rural utility services,
the infrastructure of rural America. The rural utility services
and the Department of Agriculture, I've seen them do some great
things out there. We have need for clean water, we have need
for waste disposal in rural areas. We need some economic
incentives also, rural water we've done some great things out
there, but I just think we need some more if we're going to
have a healthy rural America.
I will submit some of these questions to you in writing. If
you could get back to me, I would appreciate it.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I would just commend you on an
excellent hearing.
And likewise, I look forward to working with you as
Secretary of Agriculture. Thank you for your forthcoming
responses.
Ms. Veneman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Leahy apologizes. He is unable to be
here because he is chairing the Judiciary Committee, and I have
a statement of his which will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy can be found in
the appendix on page 67.]
Senator McConnell also has a statement which will be made a
part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator McConnell can be found
in the appendix on page 63.]
Again, thank you very much, Ms. Veneman. We congratulate
you on your selecting. We look forward to your swearing-in and
we look forward to your appearance here as the first woman
Secretary of Agriculture. Thank you very much.
Ms. Veneman. Thank you, Sir.
The Chairman. This hearing is adjourned until the call of
the new chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
January 18, 2001
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________________________________
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.025
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
January 18, 2001
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.087
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
January 18, 20001
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4331.080