[Senate Hearing 107-872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-872
FARM BILL ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 17, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
______
85-329 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
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
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
ZELL MILLER, Georgia PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BEN NELSON, Nebraska WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE, Minnesota MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Mark Halverson, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
David L. Johnson, Chief Counsel for the Minority
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Keith Luse, Staff Director for the Minority
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Farm Bill Issues................................................. 01
----------
Friday, August 17, 2001
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Miller, Hon. Zell, a U.S. Senator from Georgia................... 01
----------
WITNESSES
Adams, James Lee, Camilla, Georgia............................... 10
Campbell, Murray, Camilla, Georgia............................... 07
McGee, Mary Alice, Nashville, Georgia............................ 06
McLendon, Robert, Chairman of the Executive Committee, National
Cotton Council................................................. 02
----------
FARM BILL ISSUES
----------
FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m. in the
Georgia Center for Continuing Education, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia, Hon. Zell Miller presiding.
Present: Senator Miller.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ZELL MILLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
GEORGIA
Senator Miller. I would like to bring the U.S. Senate
Agriculture Committee to order and I would like to welcome
everyone to this important and this very, I am sure going to
be, informative Senate Agriculture Committee hearing.
I look forward, as I know you do, to the testimony that we
are going to have presented.
Let me thank our three panelists. We may have a fourth
coming in later, but the three panelists that we have here that
are going to participate in this hearing are Mr. Bob McLendon
of Leary; Mr. Murray Campbell of Camilla; and Mr. James Lee
Adams of Camilla. Mary Alice McGee of Nashville, Georgia may
come later.
During their careers, these men have been tremendous
advocates for southern agriculture. They have been active as
local and state leaders, they have been dedicated servants for
a better rural America and I commend them for that dedication
to the agriculture industry and I thank you for testifying
before this Committee.
Over the last two days, we have heard from many
agricultural producers. We have heard from researchers and
organizational leaders. Many discussed improvements in current
agricultural programs and others described innovations that
they see as the future of American agriculture. I believe it is
important to note that no matter what path agriculture chooses,
the current situation in this nation's agriculture economy is
critical. That is something that we all know and are aware of
and that is why so many of you are here still for this hearing.
It is imperative I believe that we act quickly to solve the
problems plaguing our family farmers in order to ensure an
abundant and safe American food supply throughout this century.
The 1996 Farm bill is set to expire at the end of 2002. My
colleagues in the House have moved very quickly this year. They
have already developed a new farm bill, which most of you have
had the opportunity to review. The Senate Committee has
convened hearings all across this country, hearings like this
one, gathering testimony to be used in crafting our version of
the new farm policy.
I will continue to urge my Senate colleagues to expedite
this important legislation and many of the priorities in the
new Farm bill I hope will including providing our farmers
protection from dramatic fluctuations in commodity prices; a
safety net to contend with destructive weather or low prices;
conservation programs that provide incentives to farmers and
are adaptable to many regions of the country; the necessary
funding for food and nutrition programs that are so critical to
our children and our elderly; rural development programs that
will bridge the technology divide, thereby enabling communities
to better educate their citizens and to also attract new
industry; and increased resources for educational research
institutions such as the one hosting us the past two days;
enabling our farmers to maintain the leadership role in world
food production.
These are just a few of the challenges that we face here at
what I think is a crossroads of American agriculture. The
policies of the past have not worked, many have failed our
farmers and the time for change is now. The information
exchanged and debated during the symposium, I think is a
positive step. I know it will help the Committee to develop a
legislative blueprint designed to protect family farms for
future generations.
Once again, I want to welcome these panelists. I have read
their prepared testimony, it is excellent, and I would like to
ask them now, starting with Bob McLendon, to give us a brief
summary of the testimony that you have submitted to this
Committee.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MCLENDON, CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL
Mr. McLendon. Thank you, Senator.
My name is Bob McLendon and I operate a diversified farming
operation in Leary, Georgia, but my primary crops are cotton
and peanuts. I am immediate past president of the National
Cotton Council and I presently serve as Chairman of the
National Cotton Council's Executive Committee.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the entire cotton industry, I
would like to commend you for holding these hearings on farm
programs and express our appreciation for the opportunity that
we have today to testify.
I want to focus this testimony on the next Farm bill, but I
cannot discuss long-term policy without first thanking you and
the Senate for taking action on the economic assistance package
that was just passed and funds were delivered this week.
As you know, the cotton industry is undergoing severe
economic stress from producers throughout textile
manufacturing. Depressed prices, increased costs and slack
demand are threatening to shrink our infrastructure and
drastically transform our industry. This highly competitive
industry generates over $120 billion annually in revenue for
the U.S. economy, and is worth fighting for.
A successful cotton program starts with a non-recourse
marketing loan and retention of cotton's three-step competitive
provisions, including the ability to use a marketing loan
certificate. Loan redemption provisions should be keyed to
world market prices.
These aspects of our program are fundamental. Beyond these
fundamental components, we believe the next Farm bill must have
improved income support. Our goal is income support from
programs and the market that will provide cotton producers with
a return equivalent to what they have received in recent years
from all sources, including emergency assistance.
With the objective of complying with our WTO commitments,
we encourage as much reliance in decoupled AMTA-type payments
as feasible. Additionally, we recommend some type of counter-
cyclical income support that is as coupled and as commodity-
specific as practical, given budget considerations and our
commitments within the World Trade Organization.
We provided fairly detailed analysis of different types of
counter-cyclical programs in testimony we delivered to the
Senate Ag Committee in July of this year. In much of this
analysis, the National Cotton Council used a target revenue
number based on total returns to the producer that was roughly
equivalent to those returns received during the 1999 crop year.
Since that time, the House Agriculture Committee has passe
legislation that contains a new counter-cyclical payment
program that conforms to many of our industry's
recommendations. It has received a favorable response from
cotton producers throughout the country even though it did not
quite reach the revenue goals described in our earlier
testimony.
Our members also support maintaining as much cropping
flexibility as possible, providing farmers the option of
updating their acreage bases and the continuation of cottonseed
assistance.
The National Cotton Council has consistently been opposed
to payment limits. We believe limits on marketing loan gains
are particularly counter-productive as they hurt producers'
access to marketing loan benefits when they need it the most,
when prices are low certainly as we have had in the last three
or four years. If these limits are not eliminated, then we urge
the Congress to keep the three entity rule, retaining
provisions for the CCC loan redemption with marketing
certificates and provide for separate and reasonable limits for
each category of benefits.
Mr. Chairman, our internal discussions have not led to the
cotton industry having a consensus on loan rates. Our producer
members favor a loan rate not less than 55 cents, while our
merchant segment oppose anything above 55 cents. Certainly it
looks like we could have come to agreement, and we are close,
we probably will be able to do that before the discussions are
over.
There is another serious issue confronting the U.S. cotton
industry. Our sector is especially vulnerable to the effect of
an appreciating dollar because of its impact on imports of
textile apparel and textile goods into our country. The
continuing strength of the U.S. dollar has led to a surge in
textile imports that has taken a tremendous toll on our textile
manufacturing industry in our country. During the first 6
months of this year--during the first 6 months of this year--45
textile plants have been closed and 15 million jobs have been
lost, in the southeast particularly. A lot of these are in
Georgia.
Last month, the U.S. mills consumed cotton at a annual rate
of just under eight million bales. That compares to a
consumption of 11.4 million bales just a year ago. We have lost
some of the biggest names in textiles to bankruptcy. Every week
we hear of another mill closing.
Cotton producers, ginners, merchants, textile executives
are asking what can be done to salvage the domestic textile
industry. Our industry is facing the stiff international and
domestic competition to the greatest degree I can ever
remember. Five countries--China, the United States, India,
Pakistan and the former Soviet Republics--produce about 70
percent of the cotton in the world. China, India and Pakistan
and many developing countries are committed to the textile
production and they are, through one mechanism or another,
subsidizing their production or manufacturing. In a lot of
cases, they are subsidizing both of those.
Their determination to capture the U.S. textile market,
combined with the competitive advantage they received from the
strong U.S. dollar, is a one-two combination that is laying
waste to a manufacturing sector of considerable importance to
Georgia and the entire southeast United States.
I have attached to my testimony, a document prepared by the
National Cotton Council entitled ``An Industry in Crisis'' that
details the bleak economic conditions in the U.S. textile
industry. Mr. Chairman, our industry has generated a number of
options for assistance, but the one that could do the most
significant amount of good in the near term is the elimination
of the 1.25 cent threshold under the step two program that we
have for cotton. Eliminating the 1.25 cent step two threshold
will not be enough, but it will be a start in the right
direction. Beyond that, we need to find other ways to help
offset the devastating impact of the strong dollar.
The Council's economic staff estimates that if the value of
the dollar had not risen from its 1995 relationship to other
currencies, today's rate of U.S. mill consumption would be
approximately 12.3 million bales, about 4.5 million bales
higher than the actual rate that we have today. Think how far
that would go toward solving cotton's price and offtake
dilemma.
In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I will refer the
Committee to my written testimony. In it, we stress the
importance of a strong export program, express our concerns
about negotiations concerning the export credit guarantee
program and indicate our support for continuing existing
conservation programs. However, Mr. Chairman, we cannot help
but take a first-things-first approach in this debate. Without
an adequate farm program, our producers will not be able to
continue in business. We are concerned that the current
spending authority Congress has provided for developing a new
farm bill may be inadequate to provide the necessary levels of
support, along with the significantly and increased
conservation spending.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I will
be pleased to respond to questions at the end. Thank you.
Senator Miller. Thank you very much. I am going to be
meeting with some of the textile manufacturing people, what is
left of them, next Thursday, and I appreciate your comments.
Mr. McLendon. Thank you.
Senator Miller. Let me ask you this. I may have a question
individually as we go along and then we will have several at
the end.
You talked about the AMTA coupled type mechanism as a good
method to get proper income assistance to farmers. Besides
doing something about updating base, have you heard any
complaints about getting this kind of proper income assistance
to farmers given?
Mr. McLendon. No, sir, not really. We have become
accustomed to an AMTA type payment that we receive in the
spring of the year before we plant our crop. It goes a long way
and helps the farmer to plan his income needs for the upcoming
crop. You know, there is no excuse to do things because it has
been done that way, but it has been a good program and farms
have come to look to that. It is a good program.
Another reason that we at the Cotton Council recommended
that type program is to comply with the WTO rules that we
agreed with. That is how we came up with the AMTA type payment
as part of the income delivery. Maybe a little criticism of
that program has been that when prices are high, we will still
get that payment, but in order to comply with the rules that I
did not make, that is the reason we recommend it.
It is a good program, it is a good program for the country,
and even without WTO requirements, I would recommend that we
have that program.
Senator Miller. Needs to have updated base though, right?
Mr. McLendon. Yes, sir, we recommended updated base and we
have received some criticism because we have not--did not
recommend updated yields that are frozen at 1985 levels and if
we had had the money, Senator, to have updated the yields, we
would have been 100 percent in favor of doing that. It was
going to be a very expensive program. The budget that was
passed, funds allocated for the program just were not adequate.
We in the southeast have increased our cotton acreage, I
mentioned it yesterday, from 120,000 acres in 1982 to a million
six. Well, under the 1995 Farm bill, our AMTA payment was based
on about 800,000 acres, whereas this year we are planting a
million six. There is a lot of acres that we were not getting
payment and we felt like that it was only fair that we update
the acres. It helps more us in the southeast than it does a
producer in the mid-south or Texas or California.
This is a program that we in the southeast that represent
cotton interested worked really hard to get this done and it
made good sense. That is the reason we were able to convince
the other producers in other parts of the country to go along
with it. It is going to benefit Georgia a great deal. It will
benefit Bob McLendon and we thought it was only fair that we
have the opportunity to do that. It is not going to hurt the
guy that does not update his bases. You take a mid-south
producer that has gone from cotton to corn, his AMTA type
payment will be less because his corn payments are less, but he
has the option of maintaining his old payment under the Freedom
to Farm, in the House version. I do not know what we will have
in the Senate.
Anyway, it is a good program for a Georgia farmer.
Senator Miller. Thank you very much.
Senator Miller. Our next panelist is Ms. Mary Alice McGee
of Nashville, Georgia. Mary Alice, you were on time. I know you
have come a long ways this morning and you were on time, we
just started a little early.
Thank you for being here and thank you for making that
effort to be here.
STATEMENT OF MARY ALICE MCGEE, NASHVILLE, GEORGIA
Ms. McGee. Thank you.
Senator Miller, thank you for this opportunity today to
testify in the Senate bill hearing. I am Mary Alice McGee from
Nashville, Georgia. I am a tobacco quota owner, farmer,
housewife and president of the Berrien County Chamber of
Commerce.
The economy in Berrien County is predominantly comprised of
agriculture. Within our economy, tobacco has for years been a
mainstay and that is what I am here to talk about today.
I want to tell you a story I heard at a tobacco warehouse
just this week. A friend's father passed away about 6 months
ago. Later, as they were going through his belongings, a sales
bill for tobacco was found from the year 1932. On this bill,
there was 600 pounds of tobacco and he received a check that
day for $6.00. In 1933, Congress passed the Agricultural
Adjustment Act to protect farmers from being subjected to the
monopsony powers of the tobacco companies.
This Act was repealed and reinstated in 1938. The Act of
1938, which became known as the Federal Tobacco Program, gave
farmers production controls and support prices for their
tobacco. In 1983, the program became self-supporting with what
is known as the no net cost program. The upside to this was
that the program was made able to support itself, using no
taxpayer's money. The downside was that the program was written
by tobacco company employees who slanted the language in their
favor.
As we move forward to 1998, 1999 and 2000, we have
witnessed probably the strongest case of oligopsony abuse in
U.S. history. Prices for tobacco have been fixed, auctions
rigged and tobacco companies have cut quotas by over 44
percent. Also in 1999 and 2000, the tobacco companies and leaf
buyers forced contracts on farmers by telling them ``sign now
or be left out, the tobacco program is over and you had better
get on board and get a contract,'' and any other tactic that
they could use to persuade farmers to abandon the tobacco
program.
The effort to kill the program will probably be successful
this year. With few auctions being held at a 20 cents per pound
higher contract price than auction price, farmers have been
lured to abandon the auction systems. During all of this
maneuvering on the part of the companies, the United States
Department of Agriculture has taken no position on rules
regarding contracts and has allowed the companies to destroy
the farmers only protection from these large multi-national
corporations; namely, the Federal Tobacco Program.
The companies' manipulation and the ultimate destruction of
the Federal Tobacco Program will directly negatively impact the
livelihoods of over 500,000 people in 13 states and cripple the
economies of the communities in which they live.
Senator Miller, I call on you today to hold more Senate
hearings, not only on tobacco, but all other commodities, so
the farmer may be afforded a forum in which he may tell his
story, a story of abuse of power wielded by large corporations,
enabling them to buy farm products cheaper and control and
eventually eradicate the independent family farmer.
Again, thank you for giving me this opportunity.
Senator Miller. Thank you very much for that testimony.
Let me ask you this as we go along; take all these issues,
some of which you have mentioned, that are facing tobacco
growers today, like the drop in quota and the contracting and
the labor and the retrofitting of tobacco barns, all of these
things; if Congress could reach an agreement for a buyout of
tobacco quotas, would, in your opinion, farmers in your areas
continue to grow tobacco or would they move to an alternative
crop of some kind?
Ms. McGee. The farmers in our area would continue growing,
but they would have to cut back to only use the barns that they
were able to retrofit, whatever amount of acres that those
barns could handle. I have heard none say they would quit. They
would have to cut back just to use the ones that they had
retrofitted.
Senator Miller. Thank you.
Now, Murray Campbell.
STATEMENT OF MURRAY CAMPBELL, CAMILLA, GEORGIA
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Senator Miller, for the
opportunity to come and give this testimony today.
Before beginning, I would like to make it clear that these
ideas are mine and mine alone and I am not representing any
other group or entity today.
Over the last couple of days of your symposium here on the
Future of American Agriculture, we have heard some very
interesting presentations. Some offer encouragement and hope
for a bright future and some were quite frightening. We were
left with little doubt that agriculture is undergoing profound
change as we move toward globalization of our economy. There is
no way that I as a dirt-under-the-fingernails farmer from the
struggling rural county that derives about 70 percent of its
economic activity from agriculture can have a vantage point to
offer you any solutions better than the ones that you have
already heard. I would like to highlight four areas that if
addressed will help my friends and neighbors that you represent
down in southwest Georgia.
I like to think of the first three as a group. We need to
look at them this way as they affect our ability to export into
the world market and also our ability to compete with cheaper
foreign imports. They are the regulatory burden we bear because
we are producers from this great, caring nation. The penalty
face is the strength of our U.S. dollar because of this great,
stable and strong nation; the unintended and misguided
imbalance in our trade policy that is tilted toward the
technology and service sectors of our economy while placing
less value on the hard-working, blue collar workers in the
agriculture and manufacturing industries that built this great
nation.
We as a nation care about a lot of different things. We
care that our workers are not exploited and have therefore
instituted a minimum wage law that sets a minimum standard for
the price of labor that we have to have to produce a crop. In
today's agriculture with GPS technology in our tractors and
agricultural chemical rates labeled in half ounce rates, the
last thing on earth that I can afford is a minimum standard
worker. I cannot compete with a Chinese farmer on the cost of
labor to produce a crop. It is not just agriculture and it is
not just China. I read last week that the State of Florida has
been selling a Hawaiian shirt in their tollbooths for $39.95
that is produced by foreign workers receiving $1.20 per hour--
the State of Florida.
We also have OSHA standards to keep our workers safe and
workmen's compensation insurance to provide for them if they
are injured. Neither I nor any other farmer begrudges our labor
force these benefits. They are in the public good, but the
public is not paying for them--we are, and our competitors are
not.
Do we want to export our agriculture infrastructure, as we
have by cutting textile jobs that have put many a child through
college down in my area? Georgia alone has lost 5700 textile
jobs in the last 12 months.
Labor is not the only higher cost that we have to bear as
U.S. producers. Every new regulation, like the new diesel
sulphur emission standards that will increase the cost of an
engine, add to a U.S. producer's costs. Better sulphur emission
standards are in the public's best interest, but the public is
not paying for it--we are and our competitors are not.
There are many other examples of regulatory costs that need
addressing, whether it is the added cost of registering
products because of EPA requirements or whether it is simply a
marketing decision by companies to charge whatever the market
will bear, agricultural chemical prices are higher in the
United States than they are in other countries. It is much the
same as in the case of the pharmaceutical companies, and they
and the big ag chemical companies are one and the same,
charging less in other countries for prescription drugs. It is
just not as practical for me in purchasing my crop protection
chemicals to get on a bus and cross the border, as so many of
our senior citizens have done to get their prescriptions
filled. I simply have to pay the higher price--my competitors
do not.
Governmental regulations, even good ones in everyone's best
interest, run up a U.S. producer's costs. I had the opportunity
to have dinner a couple of winters ago with some folks from
Australia that invest in agriculture. Farm press in the U.S. at
that time was saying that declining cotton prices from around
70 cent a pound to around 50 cent a pound was going to depress
southern hemisphere plantings and that things would look better
for our prices in the spring. I asked one of them about their
cutback in acreage and I was informed that they intended to
plant more. Well I exclaimed, ``How in the world can that make
sense,'' he explained it to me as he would a backward child;
that Australian cotton was priced off the New York Cotton
Exchange in dollars and that at that time the dollar had risen
by about 20 percent versus the Australian dollar. What it did
is it more than compensated him for the decline in price. What
he did not tell me and I figured out later was that he bought
all of his crop inputs in Australian dollars, so when he made
that sale, he discounted his inputs and his profits were
increased.
Now Senator, I am just a country boy. Am I going to have to
learn to trade currency futures, as I have learned to have to
buy puts and calls to be able to compete with the Australians
in selling cotton? Once again, it is not just agriculture's
problem. Here is a quote from a top General Motors executive
that I read in the WALL STREET JOURNAL last week. He said, and
I quote, ``There is an imbalance between the Euro and the yen
that has gone beyond a reasonable boundary. The strong dollar
is destroying the manufacturing capability of this country.'' I
know exactly what he feels like.
This all goes back to our trade policies. An excellent
example of this comes to us from the debate that has been
raging over the Canadian softwood lumber tariff. U.S.
retailers, just the same as the State of Florida in selling
their shirts, want the absolute cheapest price that they can
get to sell to their consumers. In this particular case, Home
Depot and other lumber retailers want to benefit from the
increase volume coming from lower prices. My wife owns some
Home Depot stock that has been a pretty good investment, as
that company has grown. It may be time to sell it, if they are
focused more on their volume than on profitability. The bottom
line is they do not care whether the lumber comes from the
Canadian government that manages their timber for maximum
employment or from a Georgia producer who employs best
management practices to keep Georgia's water clean and pays
property, state and Federal taxes on his sales.
Senator Miller, I would like to thank you for how hard you
work with this administration to have the 19.3 percent tariff
levied against Canadian lumber last week. Thank you.
I had a very lively discussion once with Senator Paul
Coverdell on free trade and he convinced me how important it
was to us as U.S. producers. I remember very distinctly that he
very strongly that it needed to be a two-way street--fair
trade.
The last area I would like to address is conservation. I
would like to applaud Senator Tom Harkins' leadership in this
area. We as agriculture producers and rural landowners have
always led the charge for good stewardship. We are practicing
environmentalists. No one cares more about the wildlife habitat
and water quality on my farm than I do. We hunt and fish our
property and we are the ones that drink the water there. The
wildlife my family enjoys every day is one of the great
benefits of a rural lifestyle. There is no doubt in my mind
that the best conservation program for rural America is
profitability. If I have the money to spend, there is nothing
that I would rather spend it on than conservation. Any new
Federal programs in this area are welcome. I would just ask you
as the Senate Ag Committee not to rob Peter to pay Paul. The
funding for new conservation efforts should not come out of
price support dollars. Reallocating those dollars to
conservation efforts is misguided. It is not going to matter
much to me if I have some wonderful conservation practices
established on my farm and timberland and it is sold at the
courthouse and someone else owns it.
Conservation is in the public's interest. Seek to broaden
the funding for these new programs to other areas of the
Federal budget and not just out of the price supports that
agriculture currently needs through the period of change.
I discussed this with representatives from one of the
largest environmental organizations in Georgia and I expect
them to take a position on that in our favor.
Globalization is new, change is not, change is always
inevitable. What we are currently experiencing, however, is a
change in the change itself. The rate of change has
accelerated. That accelerated rate of change is what is causing
the disruptions that are so painful to us as U.S. producers. We
cannot adapt quickly enough, restricted by regulatory, monetary
and trade issues well outside of our control.
Since the ink started to dry on GATT and NAFTA, the WTO and
the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas have made their way
into agricultural jargon. Global markets are different. To
borrow a quote from a book of the same title, ``Someone has
moved our cheese.''
We are the greatest nation in the history of the world.
There is no reason that we cannot find ways to protect our
agricultural infrastructure during this period of rapid change.
The principles of marketing loans and target prices outlined by
the House Agriculture Committee farm bill are great places for
the Senate to start when you reconvene after the August recess.
I would add the 2002 bill would be better than a 2003, for time
is of the essence.
With your help, we as U.S. producers will adapt and emerge
stronger, more agile and with increased productivity, just as
this nation has so many times in the past when challenged by
change.
We thank you for your help.
Senator Miller. Thank you very much.
I have a question or two, but let me go on to James Lee
Adams right now and hear from you, James Lee.
STATEMENT OF JAMES LEE ADAMS, CAMILLA, GEORGIA
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate what you are
doing, I appreciate your attention.
Farm bills are written in the context of their times and
that is one problem we have had. I have been associated with
five or six of them now on different degrees of attention and
what-have-you--involvement. Like generals that always plan the
next war based on what happened in the last war, we have had a
fatal error I believe in the Farm bills in the fact that we are
doing it in the context of what is going on today. The best
example was the 1996 Farm bill.
I know there are quite a few folks that were concerned that
something would happen in Asia, for example, which it did, to
drop the income. The income of a farmer in the United States is
totally dependent, to a large degree, on economic growth
overseas since we export so much overseas. When that came apart
in Asia, that essentially is one of the items that really
unraveled our income in this country. Every other speaker has
already alluded to the strength of the dollar and that has just
absolutely been devastating.
We have to start addressing regulatory questions, both
domestically and overseas. We have to have questions of labor
overseas and domestically. Currency fluctuations have to come
to the forefront and income growth overseas and other items
that we have never even taken into account that are going to
impact us long term such as the AIDS crisis in Africa. We are
literally losing multiple customers by the hundreds of
thousands that would have been able to take off another 15 or
20 years economically and really helped the agricultural sector
in this country; we have so much losses in that area.
You have a situation though, there are several--and those
are probably beyond the purview of the Farm bill, all those
questions are. There are some items that ought to be included
within the Farm bill.
The role of contracting in agriculture has got to be
addressed. We know we are moving more and more to a situation
where we are contracting in agriculture. I am a poultry
producer, I know what that situation is like, and I see it
coming in other crops, particularly in the crop of peanuts that
I grow today. We will be contracting just like the tobacco
folks and we are going to have a situation where we are facing
these oligopolistic situations of manipulation of prices,
setting of prices.
I am former president of the American Soybean Association
and I know what has happened within the soybean industry as far
as prices of a product coming out of there. If that is not
addressed, we in agriculture who are producers, are literally
going to have to go to the point where our return on investment
will be one and a half, 1 percent, like it is in some other
contracting areas. That needs to be addressed at some point in
time.
APAC, when I was on that Committee, we told Jules Katz and
we told Carla Hills at the time in 1990 that the currency
fluctuations had to be addressed. There are some opportunities
to really make some changes in that line. I do not think we
have to go to those Draconian measures like adopting a
hemispheric currency, but it has to be addressed because what
we are doing today, we are--on the backs of the wealth creating
sectors of the economy, we are destroying those by the strong
dollar. Every sector--manufacturing, mining, commodity
producing areas--are literally being destroyed.
Now it is great when you go overseas and start spending
money over there as a tourist. We are having a balance of
payments that is just absolutely devastating our local
industries in this thing. All those need to be talked about.
Trade negotiations, we need to go ahead, and I know some
farm organizations--again, I am like Murray, I am speaking
entirely for myself--we need to put the sidebars in place and
have minimum standards on labor and environmental standards and
regulatory standards in these negotiations. They need to be in
there, because if they are not, there is no way I or any other
farmer can compete unless that field is level in those
particular areas. I know that is going to be controversial.
We also need to be looking--beyond the oligopolistic
section of what is going on, we need to be taking a look at the
Canadian Wheat Board, the Australian Wheat Board and other
groups such as the Chinese when they purchase. There is no way
I as a producer or a producer in this country can move those
prices on the Chicago Board of Trade or the New York Commodity
Board, but I can guarantee you one thing, these countries do
it. Somehow or another, we have to start having more
transparency of what is going on on those boards, because they
can be moved and it can absolutely devastate what happens to a
farmer in this country.
Thank you.
Senator Miller. Thank you very much.
Let me ask you this, you've elaborated on it some, and
Murray got into it and it has been mentioned several times
during the course of this symposium, and that is the
devastating effect of the strength of the U.S. dollar--what
options are there out there to correct this situation that
would not alter the national economy?
Mr. Adams. We are going to have to pay a price on the
national economy. You know, economics is a tradeoff at all
times. The situation we are facing today is a complete tradeoff
as far as our balance of payments, as far as those sectors of
the economy that long-term produce well. Now we are assisting
with this service sector, we are also assisting those sectors
that import into this country as far as goods and services. We
are literally destroying the wealth creating sectors of the
economy of the United States, and I put agriculture in that
sector.
There has to be some changes in this area and if not, I can
lose competitiveness by a devaluation of a currency in Brazil
quicker than any other way, and it is a way which I have no
control over at all. I can be completely competitive today,
they can devalue the currency and I am out.
Senator Miller. Murray, you want to say anything else about
that, and I know Bob wants to say something.
Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. Bob and James have been involved
with this a lot longer than I have. I am really quite honored
to be on a panel with them, Ms. Mary Alice.
I remember reading at the time, when he was talking about
Carla Hills, that there has been some talk in the past about
using some snapback provisions in some of the trade
negotiations, so that if there were these major devaluations
and fluctuations within these currencies, that you could level
that playing field back out by using those--having those
triggers that would come into place to level that field.
Senator Miller. Bob.
Mr. McLendon. Yes, sir. We at the Cotton Council have been
looking into this because it does affect the textile industry
and that is the reason over 70 percent of our textile apparel
is being imported, because of the strength of the dollar. We
can produce yarn, textile yarn, as cheap as anybody, probably
cheaper than anybody else in the world. Our textile industry
has made a tremendous investment in equipment so they can do
that. One thing we have looked at as a mechanism that could be
used to assist us to compete with the inflation in the dollar,
is to adjust the CCC loan repayment. Anything you do is going
to cost money, but I benefit from a strong dollar because I do
something other than farm, and our economy seems to do well,
except agriculture does not do well during this time.
That is one thing that we have looked at, is some type of
program to adjust the CCC loan repayment to some index. The
USDA has all kind of indexes on the exchange rates throughout
the world. That is just one example that can be used to allow
me to be more competitive in the world, is to allow me to repay
my CCC loan at an adjusted rate based on the currency exchanges
in the world.
Senator Miller. Thank you. James Lee, Murray or anyone else
have anything on the dollar? If not, let me move on--well,
while we are in this area, let me talk to you about or get your
opinion on fast track. I am going to have to deal with that
pretty soon after I get back to Washington.
Starting over here with Bob and going down the line, what
do you think about that?
Mr. McLendon. I am in favor of it because it allows our
trade negotiators to do a better job during the discussion. You
know, as a peanut producer, NAFTA has been blasted as something
that is going to cause a tremendous problem for us as peanut
producers. It may or may not have, but it has helped the cotton
industry tremendously. We are in a global economy, we are going
to have to have these trade things, we do not need to have
anything to tie the negotiators hands behind their backs. I am
in full favor of it.
Ms. McGee. Senator, I am in favor of it too, and we have to
get our tobacco on the world market where we can get a profit
from it. From what I have read and studied, this would help us.
Senator Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell. Senator, have not always held that belief, I
thought that was something that would be very dangerous and we
needed to be wary of it. As we are moving into this area of
more globalization and as we are changing our programs to make
them more competitive in the world markets, I think it is
something that is going to be absolutely essential to us to be
able to survive as U.S. producers.
Mr. Adams. Senator, you know that no one is going to
negotiate with us if we do not have that provision in there, we
need to start adding some provisions in there to protect us
domestically and I am talking about regulatory and labor. Why
in the world we in agriculture do not form an alliance with
labor unions on this particular issue and some of the
environmental groups on this particular issue, I do not know.
It is stupid and short-sighted on our part.
Senator Miller. Thank you. Let me throw this general
question out for each one of you also to give me some feedback
on.
By now, you all have had an opportunity to review the House
version of the new Farm bill. I have been surprised--everybody
has reviewed it, from the way that people have come up and
talked with me since I have been here the last couple of days.
As a general overview, how do you feel about that House bill
and the concept of it?
Mr. McLendon. Senator, I will respond first.
I like it. It does not give us everything, as I mentioned
in my testimony, that we would like to have, but it is a
tremendous improvement over what we have had the last three or
four years. We have not had a safety net under the Freedom to
Farm, prices could go just as low as they could and I would not
be compensated in any way to allow me to survive until things
got better. This bill provides that safety net and that is the
No. 1 thing.
It provides that safety net through three types of
payments, and the counter-cyclical payments, which the Freedom
to Farm did not have--when prices get low, then the government
steps in to help me survive. It is complicated, it is
different. I am old enough, I do not like to change, but I like
the commodity part. Nobody has talked today about peanuts and
peanuts--I used to be a peanut farmer that grew cotton and once
I was elected president of the Cotton Council, I became a
cotton farmer that grew peanuts. Peanuts are very important to
me and I do like the format that the House came up with. I am a
quota holder, I rent quota, I grow quota peanuts, I grow
additional. This bill works for me. I have spent some time with
it. The Cotton Council has been trying to educate me about two
years on this counter-cyclical payment, so I was able, the
first day I got that draft, to sit down and see not only how it
affected me from a cotton standpoint, but peanuts.
I like the program. The figures could change, it could be
improved some maybe on the buyouts and some other things, but I
like the concept.
Senator Miller. Thank you.
Mr. McLendon. I hope we end up with something that will
work for me like this will now.
Senator Miller. We may not have heard much talk on peanuts
just in the last day or so, but Bob, I want to assure you, I
have heard a lot of talk about peanuts----
Mr. McLendon. I knew you had.
Senator Miller [continuing]. Since I have been home.
Mr. McLendon. I was not going to let the opportunity pass
to talk about it today here either.
Senator Miller. Talking about the House version of the Farm
bill, what do you think?
Ms. McGee. It is fine. I have read the majority of it, and
going with the peanuts, most of the farmers that I have talked
with back at home would like to see the base stay with the
producer and I certainly understand why tobacco was not
addressed in the bill; but overall, It is fine.
Senator Miller. Thank you. Murray.
Mr. Campbell. Senator, Professor Womack said it very well
yesterday. When you overlay the counter-cyclical payments on
the Freedom to Farm, it improves it drastically and It is a
very good bill. It is going to be something that will be
beneficial to us as producers for the next few years. It will
give us some protection.
I really cannot--it almost hurts my feelings not to be able
to comment on peanuts, as the Chairman of the National Peanuts
Research and Promotion Board, I am restricted in that area.
People have a problem understanding when I am talking for
myself and when I am not, so I will defer to my peanut
producers here. James Lee will do it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Miller. James Lee has no such constraint.
Mr. Adams. Senator, we do not have any choice, we have to
change. I mean in light of what has gone on with NAFTA and
Section 22 being gone, it has got to go.
A couple of things I would be concerned about, I am
concerned about; again, is this oligopolistic situation because
we are essentially going to be selling to two people on this
thing. The other thing we all need to be aware of is when this
passes, and I assume it will, essentially we are going to take
$200 a ton out of the economy of southwest Georgia and southern
Georgia and that is going to be a real problem as far as the
economic impact. Because whether that rent was paid to the
quota holder or, in my case, grown as a quota holder and stayed
on my far and spent in that local community, essentially that
price could well be gone as far as a certain number of dollars.
That is what concerns me.
I like a couple of other things in the House bill, but I
hope you all can take a look at Senator Harkins' green
payments. That is going to be the wave of the future. You are
going to be able to get some allowances with some other groups
and be able to get some dollars. Always want more money. I was
reminded, years ago I was at a fertilizer dealer one Saturday
and a friend had his daughter there, young daughter about 4
years old. The fertilizer dealer bought her some Coca-Cola and
she was sitting there drinking the Coca-Cola. He kept looking
at her and kept looking at her and she never did say anything,
and he finally said to her, ``What are you going to say to the
nice man?'' She said, ``You got any crackers to go with it?''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Adams. We are looking for crackers, we need them.
Senator Miller. Let me stay down here with James Lee and
ask you this, still talking about the new Farm bill: If
Congress passed it by the end of the year, do you feel that you
could adopt the new policies to your operations in time for
next year's crop and then we will come back down the line?
Mr. Adams. Absolutely. I can also comment as a former state
FSA chair--thank goodness now I am former. I do not have any
doubts that FSA can do what needs to be done from their
perspective. Now as a farmer itself, I am used to planting
crops and I have in the past with no programs in place. I have
planted wheat very often and in fact been up to the point of
harvesting wheat. You get a pretty good feel. Most of the
farmers know what direction things are going and what-have-you
and you may not have the final regs. We are not totally flying
blind.
I would much rather see us go ahead and make those changes
now, as soon as possible, because of the gravity of the
situation. The Georgia farmer can accommodate ourselves to it.
We have been in a problem in the past because the midwest never
does realize that we do plant so much earlier and harvest so
much earlier than they do. We are used to it, Senator, we can
take it, we can do it.
Senator Miller. What about the rest of you on the panel, as
far as that question is concerned. Murray.
Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir, very definitely. I echo what James
Lee said. The only thing I would encourage is that time is of
the essence. I am used to flying without having the complete
regulations in place and all, but my banker does not have quite
the same level of risk acceptance that I do and he would prefer
that we knew a little earlier or as early as possible.
Ms. McGee. We could adjust to it.
Senator Miller. Bob.
Mr. McLendon. Yes, sir. We, not only in Georgia, but in
visiting and meeting with cotton producers throughout the
country, they look forward to having a new program. Because for
the last 4 years we have been to Washington and worked to get
economic assistance during this period of low prices, and we do
not want to do that again. I would rather you write the bill
and we can implement it without any problems. If our economy
shows that the surplus will not be to the level it was when the
calculations were made and the funds appropriated for us to
have a 10-year bill, I am afraid the next time that calculation
is done, there will not be as much funds and that is one main
reason we need to go ahead and do it. The next thing is that we
will have a better bill than we are operating under now and
there will not be any problem with us getting it done.
I will tell you, I want to commend the USDA and FSA for
getting out these economic assistance packages. I would have
bet my supper it could not have been done as quick, because it
never has been done. We have complained about it, but it was
just unbelievable, and we needed it in the country.
Thank you.
Senator Miller. Let me start with Mary Alice on this, and
others of you can jump in after she has her answer.
What about increases in fuel and other energy costs as far
as producing and curing the tobacco crop, have you seen any
change in that and I want the others to comment on the increase
in energy costs as well.
Ms. McGee. I the tobacco area, it has devastated us. No. 1,
with the retrofitting of the barns, that has taken a day or 2
days longer than usual to cook the barn of tobacco out, plus
you have the rise of the price of the diesel or propane,
whichever they are using. It is really cutting the bottom line.
Senator Miller. Anyone else want to comment on that
subject?
Mr. Campbell. Senator, I am down there in the southwest
Georgia corner down there, where there is a whole lot of
irrigation and we have been blessed with some rainfall this
year, but if we had had to do the irrigation pumping that we
did in the last two seasons this summer, it would have cost me
a good $50 more an acre, just with the price.
Senator Miller. Before James Lee answers, let me just throw
this in there; there has been some talk about putting in--
adding an energy title to the next Farm bill. What do you think
about that?
Mr. Campbell. It would be a great idea. One of the speakers
this morning said that we as agriculture did not have the
opportunity to add a fuel surcharge on like I paid a little bit
lately on airline tickets.
Senator Miller. James Lee.
Mr. Adams. I would hope to go beyond that, and again, we
need to revisit this question of energy growth off the farm.
Dr. Buchanan and I have talked about it in the past, I think
ought to be in that title not only maybe some help or
assistance for energy costs, but it maybe could take a long-
term addressing of this whole energy question. For example, we
can grow 10 times more alcohol per acre with sweet potatoes in
Georgia than they can on an acre of corn in the midwest. Now
why in the world are we not starting to produce some ethanol
and alcohol in the southeast with some of these crops that we
use and with our continuously long growing seasons and so on.
We need to have an innovative approach on energy, not just
short term help, but we need to have a long term look at where
we are headed. U.S. agriculture can do a lot more than we are
given credit for today.
Senator Miller. You can make alcohol out of sweet potatoes?
Mr. Adams. We have boys down home make it out of anything.
Senator Miller. If my friends up there in the mountains had
known that a few years ago--[Laughter.]--we would have had
sweet potatoes all over those hills.
Mr. Adams. We have had some folks down home do it.
Mr. McLendon. Might have been worth me attending this
conference to learn that, James Lee.
[Laughter.]
The price of energy has definitely affected all of us in
southwest Georgia that irrigate. Not only the cost of diesel
fuel and gasoline, but the increased cost in our fertilizer.
Even though we have seen a little reduction in that, it is not
going to go down to the level it once was, but last year when
we worked on the disaster program--economic assistance program,
we tried to get the Secretary to give some kind of surcharge
for fuel cost increases and the Secretary got concerned--
Secretary of Agriculture got concerned that the person that was
buying heating fuel was not going to get that adjustment and so
they were concerned about the publicity if farmers got it and
other people in our economy did not get it. It has increased my
cost of production in 2000, my diesel fuel, I use about 100,000
gallons of diesel fuel on my farm a year and it was increased a
little over 100 percent, went from 40 something cents a gallon
to about 90 cents a gallon.
Mr. Adams. Senator, we have probably done some things that
are maybe not really good for Georgia in the long run too. It
is just amazing to see the number of irrigation systems that
were switched in the last year from diesel, which is not
controlled, over to electric. Long term, we may be bumping up
against some economic growth possibilities of the state of
Georgia by making this switch.
Senator Miller. I see some nodding out there in the
audience from that statement.
We have about 15 more minutes and at this time, I would
like to use that time for any participation from the audience.
I will start with--he is not exactly the audience, but I will
start with Dean Buchanan. Do you have any questions you would
like to ask members of the panel?
Dr. Buchanan. Yes, sir, I would like to ask one question.
Obviously in my role as dean and director of the College of
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, I have responsibility
in our state for research, extension and education programs in
agriculture and related areas. Obviously we get support from
several sources, beginning with counties, but also state as
well as Federal. Obviously you can only spend a dollar one
time, and of course our major support for our programs comes
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I would like to ask the panelists the point: How do you see
support of agriculture and whatever potential competition there
is between farm programs that are directly in support of
farmers versus support for the programs that I represent in
research, extension and teaching?
Mr. McLendon. I will respond first. We have to have both of
them. We cannot take funds out of research and put it in
commodities and vice versa.
I mentioned yesterday in my presentation that I have been
able to compete and grow cotton again in Georgia because of the
research and technology that has been offered to me through the
boll weevil eradication program and the BT development of
cotton. We need to have both and we at the Cotton Council have
worked for research dollars. Certainly a lot of times, I feel
like with the varieties of cotton that we have now, we need
better varieties and I commend you and your staff for what you
have done to try to bring the research for new varieties in
Georgia back to the forefront. You have done probably more--we
as citizens of Georgia and farmers do not realize what has been
done, that you have done. Most of the states have not taken the
strides to try to revitalize the breeding program for cotton. I
commend you and I have told you that before.
I appreciate what you have done.
Senator Miller. Anyone in the audience like to ask a
question? If so--I see Tommy wanted to ask a question--if so,
stand and if you want to address it to one of the panelists or
all of them, however you want to do it.
Mr. Irvin. Probably I would rather just address it to you,
Senator.
The panel has done a great job covering many aspects of
agriculture. Maybe to beef up some of the things that have
already been said, that you are looking at phasing out the
peanut program, you ought to give some serious consideration
maybe to a buyout program for tobacco. It is essential that we
have parity, because those two allotments programs are kind of
unique to Georgia. I know that has been on your agenda.
In the panel earlier today there was strong support for
minor crops as we move into additional crops. They are non-
program crops but as I in my presentation made mention of the
$169 million that was put in for fresh fruits and vegetable
promotion, that kind of expenditure will be very helpful.
Then in the broad area of energy, you mentioned some of the
major ones, but there is one you did not mention. I was
wondering why one of the panelists did not mention this, the
fuel oil for chickens, it is a vital part of our total
industry. An energy policy ought to be all inclusive, not just
leave out--take in part of them.
These are some major issues that Congress needs to consider
and I wholeheartedly support a very expanded energy policy.
From what I understand, the President has interest in that area
but I am not sure he has taken an all inclusive approach to the
energy. It is something that Congress can help guide the
President as we try to solve some of the major things that are
affecting our farm community.
These are just a few of the things that you have talked
about here with the panel, but to cover a view that maybe the
cracks, we chink those to make sure we have an all inclusive
farm program.
I do want to commend you for your interest in being on the
Ag Committee, I would have been disappointed if you did not ask
for it. You have had a good conference here and I am glad I had
a little part in it.
Senator Miller. Thank you, Commissioner.
Yes, Mr. Bouis.
Mr. Bouis. Picking up on that provocative suggestion that
you could make alcohol out of sweet potatoes, I wonder if you
would expand a little bit on your ideas of expanded
agricultural research into new products, new ways of doing
things and new places to go. One of the things that I think
about is that we have a humongous quantity of wet citrus pulp
in Florida that we do not know exactly what to do with.
Mr. Adams. One thing we have missed the boat on, Senator,
there should not be any waste product at all on the farm. You
are probably familiar with what we have done on our farm. I had
a son-in-law that is real bright and he came back and we had 20
chicken houses and we had about 3000 pounds of dead chickens we
could not dispose of any way that I want to talk about in
public. It was costing us money if we did it legally. He got us
in the alligator business. We have 16,000 alligators and now
that is a tremendously good profit center on that.
What we have to do is take the blinders off. I have asked
Murray and some others to look at this: For example, peanuts,
right now as you probably know, they are putting pharmaceutical
products into bananas, hepatitis B vaccine, doing the human
trials right now. We ought to be--we do not grow that many
peanuts in Georgia--I mean bananas in Georgia. We ought to have
that in the peanut. If you have 200 million Chinese that need
that hepatitis B protection and that is probably the number. I
can just see the doctors over there telling them, hey, you have
to eat two peanuts a day or one peanut a day. All a sudden we
have gone from $600 a ton peanuts to $60,000 a ton peanuts and
we have to have armed guards out there to keep those peanuts
protected.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Adams. We are starting to change the economy around
when we start doing that, but I think the problem we have right
now is we have locked our minds down and have not really
broadened it broad enough to see what really agriculture is and
can be.
Mr. Bouis. Thank you.
Senator Miller. Any other question?
Mr. Echols. Yes. Thank you, Senator, I am Jimmy Echols from
Hall County, Georgia. I am a fruit grower and I have followed
all these discussions with a great deal of interest.
I had a crop failure in 1990 and in 1991 or 1992 the
government came up with about a billion dollars that they paid
out to farmers as disaster payments. That was my first
experience at getting a handout from the government. That is
what we old-timers used to call it. I guess now it has become a
way of life for a lot of folks, from what I have heard here.
The government did get back a big percentage of that
because I did not have income averaging at the time and the
payment was made in a year when I did have a crop, and so they
got back 40 percent or so of that money back when I filed my
tax return.
I would like to add to what the Dean has said and ask you
this, if we had some research that would help us to overcome
freezes in the fruit business and some of the other problems we
have in the fruit business so we might not have to have a
disaster payment, if we spent more money on research, I would
rather--it would help me and my family more and my customers
more--if I had a crop, I would not have to have a disaster
payment. I would put in a plug for additional funds for
research and extension to get that research out to the farmers.
Thank you.
Senator Miller. Thank you. That we are probably going to
have to bring this to an end now.
I want to thank all of you out there in the audience who
have stayed here and participated in this hearing. Whenever we
first started putting this hearing together, I expected the
four of us, me and some of my staff and maybe Dean Buchanan to
be here for it. I thank all of you for your interest in staying
around. It has been very worthwhile.
I also want to thank three members of my staff who have
worked very hard helping me and helping Dean Buchanan with this
symposium--Alex Albert, who is my chief of staff has already
gone, he had to catch a plane back to DC, he just left a few
minutes ago, he waved at me as he went out the door, he stayed
on here with me as my chief of staff after having been with
Senator Coverdell as one of his agricultural LAs for a number
of years. I am deeply grateful to Alex.
I also want to thank Jody Redding, who was part of your
planning committee and who represents me and who also stayed on
with me after Senator Coverdell's death. Where is Jody? Thank
you.
Wes Higginbotham, who is right here behind me. He is the
son of an Arkansas farmer, I stole him away from Senator
Blanche Lincoln and he is doing me a great job as my
agricultural LA.
The reason I specifically mentioned these three men is
because not only do I want to thank them here in front of all
of you, but I also want you to know that if you need to get in
touch with me about anything that relates to agriculture or
anything else, for that matter, but as far as agriculture, Jody
and Wes and Alex would be certainly somebody you could go to
and they will get it to me just right away and I will get right
back with you if it is something that I need to get back with
you on.
I really appreciate you four panelists. Mary Alice, I am
sorry you had to drive so fast and so hard this morning to get
here, but thank you very much for being here. Bob and Murray
and James Lee.
It is always good to hear from folks who know the problem
first-hand, who are on the front lines, who deal with it, as
they say this day, what is it, 24/7--is that not what they
mean, around the clock, every day of the week? You are there on
the ground, you know what is going on and it is good to hear
from you. You have given me some good thoughts, some good
ideas, some good testimony that I can take back. it has been
very frank, been very, to me, very informative. It has been
very practical. It is not some pie in the sky idea and I
appreciate it. There is some really good stuff that I can take
back with me to make a part of the testimony that the
Agriculture Committee is putting together right now. I am very
grateful to you. I appreciate what you mean to the state of
Georgia.
Thank all of you again. Dean Buchanan, thank you for
everything you do. Have a safe trip back home.
[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]