IT CAN COST MILLIONS TO RUN FOR CONGRESS. WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? WHAT DOES IT BUY?
How did you end up getting into public service?
If I had one reason, it was that someone with a basic background and understanding of agriculture – rural America – would have something to offer to the Congress. And we got a lot of encouragement from our friends that we had made. We managed to [roll] [collate] [cooperative] for nine and a half years, lobbied for a cotton-grower organization. People seemed to think we had something that would-would accomplish that.
And so, that’s what caused me to get interested in doing it.
I enjoyed it a tremendous amount, except the last six years were not very enjoyable. The partisan environment, the meanness of the political system that has now just engulfed Washington, D.C., that literally has the Congress is broken because of this overzealous partisanship.
That wasn’t fun.
Any signs of it starting to abate?
No. Not yet. I think it’s going to take another election or two before we get there.
Are things going in a good direction for family farmers?
Well, overall, agriculture is going in a good direction, and I think our foreign policy, the good, the bad, and the ugly as the past, has accomplished the things that we needed to accomplish. When you look at the fact that America, we have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people.
Subsidies, warts and all, of any other country in the world. You have to conclude, I think in fairness, that most of what we’ve been doing has worked for the purposes of which it was designed. And that’s to provide a stable supply of good quality food. Does that mean that you stay on the same track? No. Agriculture has always changed in order to meet the challenges of the future.
You can’t live in the past. You’ve got to live in the future.
In California, they grow fruits and vegetables. Farmers there are upset that commodity growers are getting the help that they’re not. What’s your take on that?
Because that was the intent of the programs that have benefited the commodity crops. There’s no reason to subsidize anything except to provide for a level playing field in the marketplace, in this case, the international marketplace. Other than that, there’s no reason to subsidize, and that’s why Congress got involved in subsidizing certain parts of agriculture.
Now, the specialty crops that complain — and rightfully so — that they were short-changed in the ’02 farm bill, having been one of the principle officers-authors of that bill, we told them then that, if you want Congress to do something with you and for you or to you, you’ve got to ask for it. And the specialty crops, prior to ’02, couldn’t get together on what it was that they wanted Congress to do.
They took me up on that after ’02 and have put together now a very good proposal of what specialty crops need. And I think you’re going to see in the ’07 farm bill, they’re going to receive the just and rightful consideration for those. But Congress can’t get what is on the minds of producers. Unless-unless you come to Congress and make your appeal and can get 218 votes, it’s not going to happen.
One of the clients that I work for is the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, of which California is a major player in agriculture. And this same trend now towards looking at what do specialty crops need, and how do they need it, is something that’s going to be — I think you’ll see them a lot happier in the ’07 farm bill, and certainly I’m working for that, that general outcome myself for the same reasons that they are.
How did food-growing end up being called a “specialty crop?”
Well, I try to avoid using that term myself, because I’m a cotton, wheat, cattle farmer/rancher — not rancher/farmer — but they’re special to me. That’s a term that’s just got used for fruits and vegetables, basically. I think there could be a better term. It’s agriculture. It’s feeding America. But we kind of know here in Washington on the Ag Committee what we mean. And what the Californians mean is, the crops that they’re raising, that haven’t been included in the subsidy.
There is so much made of the total subsidies, but we have a little over 300 million acres of cropland in the United States. Less than 10 million of that go into specialty crops. 290 go into the subsidized crops. Now, that sort of tells you that ground area, and a lot of investment, etc., in land goes into the so-called commodities. Again, that doesn’t mean it’s always going to be there, nor should it be there, and I made it very clear over the years that I would have voted at any time — and would encourage today — to eliminate all subsidizes in the United States. All.
Provided the rest of the world simultaneously did the same thing. Now, there are different subsidizes. There are non-tariff trade barriers that affect our ability to ship our products to other countries. There are now great concerns about food safety, both that being imported into the United States — which is awfully important to consumers in America — but it’s true also of consumers in other parts of the world.
So the important thing for us when we talk about Ag policy is to realize that we who produce are a very small minority. 2.1 million farmers, but 150,000 produce 75% of everything that’s produced. And in these so-called specialty crops very, very high value, extremely important to the consumer. But also there is a need for Congress to legislate on behalf of their ability to compete both with imports coming in as well as their ability to export.
The subsidies going to commodity crops are geared towards export, trade?
Sure. Yeah, it is, because — cotton, for example — we now export about two thirds to almost three fourths of all the cotton grown. It wasn’t too long ago that it was just we actually used more at home than we did export. But we’ve seen a collapse of the spinning industry, the textile industry in the United States. The jobs have gone to Mexico and out of China.
That’s the international marketplace and you have to maintain competitiveness in that. And that’s where I say, I don’t have any problem justifying a subsidy that maintains a level playing field with the world. That is easily defendable. If our subsidizes provide an unlevel playing field — and that’s where some in WTO are contending right now — then that’s something we need to look at, and we are looking at, and we are making the changes to maintain a level playing field.
You mentioned the largest percentage of crops are commodity crops. Did that exist before it became subsidized?
Yeah. Another little rule of them I have when we talk about subsidies: if you want more of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of something, you tax it. And the specialty crops that we’re talking about have never asked for subsidizes. They do not want them. They do not need them. And they’re exactly correct.
What they need is some of the research that needs to go into the food safety side, into the insect challenges that we have. That’s where they needed their assistance. And then I have to point out that there’s quite a bit of taxpayer dollars that indirectly subsidizes the specialty crops that go into food. It’s commonly called food stamps. It is providing the ability of those who need assistance in buying the food to feed their families — which is a very real and supported need — those food stamps go to purchase food.
And we hope that they buy fruits and vegetables, milk, those things that will make for a nutritious diet. That’s an indirect use of taxpayer dollars. Not as directly as it is with subsidization, but it’s something that we always would like to talk about, because there are those that believe that food stamps ought to be eliminated. I’m not one of them. When you’re working at or just above minimum wage, you need a help in feeding to maintain that level playing field for working men and women.
Why are organics booming?
Well, there are a few people that are willing to pay more for what they believe is a better food product. It’s a niche market. But, anytime there’s a niche market, i.e. there’s someone willing to buy what you’re producing — if you can produce it and make money at it, that’s what it’s all about. And so, that’s another part of the ’07 farm bill, the organic growers are going to receive increased and just consideration for programs they need in order to build their part of the overall market.
They are very well organized now. They’re putting together very concise and very articulate of their needs. And they’re going to get the consideration that they should get.
Do you believe organics are a superior product?
Well, I guess my opinion can be summed up by saying that, I don’t believe it would be possible to feed the world organically. Biotechnology, fertilizers, manmade insecticides, herbicides, the bio, genetically-changing the makeup of crops — for example, cotton — in order that we don’t use as much insecticide, and we can product it cheaper — I think is going to be required to feed the world. What I mean in that, right now, today we have approximately 6.5 billion people in the world.
We’re told that it’s going to increase by 50% in the next 50 years. That means we’re going to have to produce 50% more food to feed the world over the next 50 years, and we know we’re going to have to do it on less ground acres, because of the just tremendous changing of the use of the land, from farming to urban development. The urban sprawl.
And then we know that countries like China and India, that have got a tremendous amount of people, that are having to increase their food production dramatically just to feed themselves, that takes a lot of water. And water is going to become a limiting factor. We know the deserts of China and India are growing because there’s not enough irrigation water to meet their needs.
We’re way ahead of them on conservation. They’re going to catch up, out of necessity, but, so, when you say “organic,” it’s a niche market and it’s an important and profitable niche market, but I do not believe that it is possible for the world to be fed organically. We’re going to have to use the best minds of the world that are educated in our tremendously good universities.
One of the slogans for agriculture has always been to try to find a way to grow two blades of grass where one grew before. That’s the challenge. And I have never been a believer that you could do that organically. You have to use the best minds and technology, or we will come up short.
What do you think about nitrates in water as a result of increased corn growing? Does that concern you?
Sure. I’ve got mixed feelings about it. And this gets us right back into the subsidy question. I have had to do a lot of defending of subsidies over my years in the Congress, and before. I’ve never had a problem for the reasons of maintaining a level playing field and making certain that — and we always argued that really the subsidizes were going to consumers.
Well, we’re proving that, now. There’s very few subsidizes being paid to corn growers. There are some that are going to be in question as to whether they should be continued. But today, you can’t build and argument — I believe — of why a corn grower should receive a subsidy for growing corn. Now, they are receiving a subsidy for ethanol, and you can make an argument that that needs to be there in order that we do not have a bust again in alterative energy.
If the price of oil were to decline to $30 or $40 a barrel and stay there for a few months, you would have a major problem with all of the ethanol plants, other than those that are already bought and paid for. The ones under development would have a real economic challenge. And not only would it apply to corn ethanol, it would apply to [celulosic], it would apply to wind, it would apply to solar, it would apply to all of the alternatives in this. So the concept that we’ve always used with, well, we use with the ’02 farm bill is countercyclical.
If the price comes down, you have to put in a safety net for the producer, or suffer the economic devastation that would occur and has occurred in the past. If the price goes up, there shouldn’t be a subsidy. Now, we have a situation in which the price of corn has gone up, and there are very few subsidies, and should probably be no subsidies to feed grains, with the price of ethanol where it is.
If the prices comes down, then you need to put a safety net under, for our nation’s best interest. Now, the consumer with cheap corn, subsidies, where the corn grower made up his revenue through a subsidy, the consumer benefited. We had cheaper beef, cheaper pork, cheaper poultry, cheaper corn flakes. All of the things. Now, we know, with the price of corn going up, you’re seeing the price of good is going up.
Corn’s getting blamed for some things that they don’t deserve on the price of food. It’s not just the price of corn that you get two cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes. We all know those numbers. But it means food’s going up. And energy is going up. So, now you have high-energy prices — thanks to the price of oil — and the price of oil is being set by the world market. In spite of the fact you hear, gouging, and all the things that oil companies are doing you’ve got realize, if we don’t buy it at the current price, somebody else is going to buy it.
And we don’t seem to be willing to do without it. Demand continues to go up for energy. So, it’s a long answer, but it is fortunate that we have the technology now that we are able to produce some alternative energy. I don’t think there’s anybody that believes corn will be the alternative energy of the future, but it’s the alternative energy of today.
The final point I would make is, it’s always interesting to me, listening to people talk about all the problems associated with ethanol, with — [aoria], the water you mentioned, is a very real — the use of farm chemicals getting into our water supply is something that we need to work on do work on regularly. But it’s interesting to me that those who believe that — and will say — we need to develop all of the alternative energy that we can — too many of them conveniently leave out nuclear, coal, hydro, even wind.
Why? Because they somehow believe that we just need to cut down on demand through conservation, and we don’t have to develop all of the alternatives. I personally believe we need to develop all of the alternative energy, keep it as market-oriented as we possibly can — because if you’re going to subsidized something, you’re going to have an effect on the marketplace. We need to be careful about how and whom we subsidize and make sure that it fits within what our national policy needs are.
And our national policy needs are producing all of the alterative energy that we can.
Are the specialty crops and organic crops going to fare better with this farm bill because they’ve gotten representation with lobbies?
In some cases. Our farm, here, we have the Organic Trade Association as our client here. Also, the trade associations, no matter what you’re producing if you’re in a competitive marketplace, you had better be organized to the extent that you always put your commodity forward. If you’re in the international marketplace, you really need help from your government to maintain that level playing field.
I like to put it this way: you can have the greatest idea since sliced bread, and you can be 100% right in what you believe needs to be done for your self-interest. But then, you’ve got to convince your Congressman — or if you are a Congressman, then you’ve got convince 217 of your colleagues — that this is what they should do. And then 51 Senators, or 60 Senators, depending on how controversial the issue is.
And then you’ve got to get a Presidential signature, if you want something — if you want Congress to do something for you, or keep it from doing something to you. It’s our political system, and it’s criticized tremendously, but as Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government ever created save all the others.” And I can’t think of another system that I would change to, that would do a better job for us.
But representative government means that our representatives need to know what it is they need to be doing. And when you talk about agriculture it wasn’t that long ago — in fact, almost when I did my first visit to Washington as a lobbyist for rural electric cooperatives, or cotton-growers in my region — back in those days, there were only three entities, really, that affected farm legislation. The House and Senate Agriculture Committee, the USDA, and a few general farm organizations, a very few.
Farmers Union, the National Farmers Organization, and that was about it. Well, that’s changed. There are hundreds of groups that are representing. And not all of them have the best interest of the producer. They think they do. But, they don’t, in my opinion. They think just the same of me.
And that means you’ve got a constant battle for the minds of the representatives. And it wasn’t all that long ago that almost everyone in America had a tie back to the farm. First generation, second generation. Today there is almost no one that is within four generations of “on the farm.” I heard someone made the statement — and at first I had a little trouble with it — but then I thought, geez, that’s right. If you haven’t been on a farm or a ranch in the last five years, you do not understand agriculture today.
And that’s why it is so important to participate in the political process with your vote, to educate your Congressmen and women as to what it is you need. And meet the competition in the marketplace.
Did you get on the Ag Committee from the get-go?
Yeah. I started out as the 26th-ranking Democrat out of 26, and in the last eight years I was the first-ranking Democrat. Would be the chairman today, except Mr. Tom Delay and Mr. Karl Rove decided that I was one of those Democrats in Texas that they redrew their lines on, and they got rid of me. Politics is a contact sport. You win some and you lose some. They won, we lost, and otherwise I would be Chairman today.
And people ask me, do you ever have any regrets or was you were there? And I say, some days, about five seconds, I think about, I could have been the Chairman, but it wasn’t to be. And then I get over it. I’m still able to participate.
How was fundraising for you? Was it something that you considered a waste of your time? Something you didn’t like to do?
Well, I preferred not to, but that’s part of our system today. And I always said that I would never do what I see so many of my colleagues — now former colleagues — do, and that’s spend more time raising money for the next election, than actually performing the duties that you were elected. The last two years in the fact that I had, where I was given 465,000 brand new folks that voted 75/25 Republican, paired against a Republican incumbent in the biggest town in the district, if I were going to try to make a competitive race, I had to raise the money, and I did. I had enough money — $2.5 million — which is an obscene amount of money to spend — most people think.
But that’s our system, and if you’re going to be compete, you’ve got play by the rules that everybody else plays by. And so, I did. I spent more money — more time — raising money and campaigning, unsuccessfully. But, I gave it my best shot, had a lot of friends and a lot of supports, both in and out of agriculture. But I got a lot of support from agriculture. And there are those that would say that, that was wrong. Well, I couldn’t ever be more honest. I mean, my reason for running was, I wanted to represent agriculture.
And that’s my special interest. But it also is rather important to all 300 million Americans. Now, here’s the challenge we have on the structure of agriculture, the competitiveness. I think you were referring to the environmental concerns, and certainly, no one wants an environmental nuisance in their backyard. Nobody, including the farmer that is building the hog operation or the dairy.
And so, we’re spending a tremendous amount of effort now on research and making sure that the producers of our food are as environmentally sound and helpful as they possibly can be. And that’s why you’re seeing more and more the location of facilities, certainly, is being considered, and should be considered. And you will find in most instances, in fact, I’d almost say all instances now, is that a tremendous amount of zoning concerns are looked at before you make the kind of investment that you put into a confinement hog or dairy operation today.
And that’s the way it should be. We’re also now already finding that there is no such thing as animal waste. I tried — I have eliminated — tried to eliminate that from my vocabulary. We have surplus animal nutrients. And you can convert those into energy. And you can do a much better job of air and water quality than what we were doing ten years ago. We’re doing it better today, and we’ll be doing better five years from now.
As we said here in Washington, D.C., the Washington D.C. [sur-plant] is within a couple of miles of where we sit. You’d never smell it. You fly over it. You see it. It’s called technology. And, with large animal operations, you have to use that technology. Or, in cases, locate them, where it’s not a problem. And that’s why you’re seeing a lot of confinement hog operations, new dairy is going in to West Texas, Western Okalahoma, the West, where you’ve got spatial requirements and you don’t have the runoff concerns.
All of this needs to be considered. The other point, there are a lot of folks that want to roll back the clock. They believe that big business is bad, big farmers are bad, big hog producers are bad, big dairymen are bad. Well, they overlook that the reason we have business — we made the decision in the United States many years ago, after the Depression, after the Dust Bowl, that we were going to go for efficiency. We were going to feed out people as cheaply as we could, and we were going to reward those that could produce efficiently.
Much of the rest of the world never went that. Europe decided just the opposite. They weren’t interested in efficiency. They were interested in making sure that they had an available supply of food. They’d been through two World Wars. They didn’t want to take a chance on losing it. So, they were willing to pay their farmers through subsidies a heck of a lot more, and to keep farms small. That was their choice. We made a different choice.
Now, there are those today that want us to go back and remake the clock. It would be very expensive, very expensive to do today. And in fact, I think, impractical. But, it doesn’t keep people from believing that that’s what they want to do, and it doesn’t believe-keep them from maybe being right. But we believe in majority rule, and the majority makes the decisions, with the protection for minority rights. And certainly, in the environmental, I don’t know of very many folks today that are not super-sensitive to the environmental rights of the neighborhood.
What do you think about publicly financed campaigns? Do you think votes are influenced by campaign donations?
Well, you’ve got to think it through, particularly with the most recent Supreme Court decision. We tried, and I was sympathetic to some kind of a restraint on the amount of money that can be spent. I have never believed that it is a total free speech issue, because if I’ve got $100 and you’ve got a million dollars, you’ve got more speech than I’ve got, in the modern television world. And I’ve always struggled with that.
But then you get into the practical challenges of saying, okay, let’s say that something like the [Durbin] amendment would pass, and that we would put a limit on what campaigns can spend. How do we limit all the other groups from what they can spend? How do you do that, under the Constitution of the United States that guarantees free speech? That guarantees the right — how do you put a restrain on the talk shows, now, that have a tremendous amount of influence? Good, bad, or ugly. Some of it, I think is very bad. But that’s my difference of opinion and philosophy with some of the folks.
But, that’s a free speech. That’s something that you’ve got to be able to argue. I don’t know how any way under our Constriction that we can restrain the individual’s right to be heard in the world in which we live. Now, if we didn’t have television, if we didn’t have 24-7 news, if we didn’t have hundreds and thousands of individual organizations and groups attempting to influence the way that our legislatures go, maybe you could do it.
But that’s not the world we live in. So, there are some practical challenges to it. I think we ought to be looking in a much different direction. If you want to improve the quality of the legislatures in states — and we’re talking about the Congress — there’s one thing that should be done, and would have the biggest effect immediately. All states should redistrict like Iowa does, and Arizona. Take it out of the political realm and redistrict so that you’ve got large numbers of very competitive districts.
I had a competitive district for 26 years. I was a Democrat getting elected in a district that voted Republican, and heavily Republican, sometimes 3:1 in all other races. That made me sensitive to the issues, and I think made me a better Congressman. Obviously, my people did, because they reelected me. And you look at members who have competitive districts, and you’ll see them agonizing over votes, but usually casting a better vote than a Democratic that never has to worry about a race, that’s got a solid 80%, 90% Democratic — or Republican, solid Republican, don’t every have to worry about anything except keeping the base.
[John Tanner] of Tennessee has got a bill up that he spent a tremendous amount of work on, and at some point I look forward to lobbying in behalf of that. Nobody paying me to do it, it’s just I just believe that’s-that’s would be extremely helpful. Public financing, I just don’t think the American people are going to be willing to put their tax dollars behind the candidate that they don’t necessarily agree to. There’s, it sounds good, but I don’t see how you get there.
Would you ever feel compelled to meet with a local grower versus a Californian one?
No. Usually, you don’t even know who contributed. And I don’t know of any members that check off a list. Now, we had a little problem with that with the way that Tom Delay ran the House when they first took over, in which he was exercising control over the lobbyists, saying that if you contributed to Democrats, don’t expect legislation — that was open, and I still believe that he’s not through with criminal charges regarding some of the activities.
But that’s neither here nor there right now. But you don’t do that. And if you did that, and if that’s really what the people of any district believe is going on, you get organized and enough agree with you, you can un-elect anybody, even in a safe district, if you can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that’s where we hear all of this, all of the complaints of the people that you mentioned.
And we still can barely get a 50% turnout. You look at, Australia has mandatory voting. They get a 98% turnout. Now, do we want to go to mandatory voting? I don’t know. There’s a part of me that says that wouldn’t be all bad. But I think here again, we ought to consider making it easier to vote. Some are doing this now, with mailing, and it’s very, very good, I think, for our system.
And we ought to consider not having to vote during working hours. Europe does a pretty good job of Saturday, and some would say not on Sunday, but that’s a choice that could be made. But weekend voting, and then early voting to get more people to vote.
What is the role lobbyists play in campaign contributions?
Well, if you’re lobbying for Association X, and they have a political action committee, when the calls and you get 435 calls a week for a fundraiser, almost, here today. You go, and you contribute on behalf of avocados, of cotton, of beef. You’re there representing that industry, and talking to that member and their staff, and helping them with their next election.
I’ve advocated that. I probably can safely say, I’ve started more political action committees in my career. Before Congress, was my first one. And then afterwards, encouraging people to participate in the political process. Money is a matter of fact. It’s important in politics. And-and if you’re going to play in the game, you’ve got to play by the rules and helping someone that you believe would do as you would do if you were in the Congress, helping them with voting activity, and then financial, it’s our system.
And you get the Abramoffs of the world, you get the lobbyists that go to jail, you get a handful of Congressman that break the rules. And when you break the rules, you should pay the price. And if you’re in Congress, you need to pay it bigger than anyone else, because you have the sacred trust of representing the people. But by the same token, my vote ever was bought. I mean, it just wasn’t. There’s just no way.
If it was, that is illegal, and you can be prosecuted. It should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Do the lobbyists actually bundle it?
Well, yeah, that’s one of the things that is being proposed to be stopped, now, and that is Charlie Stenholm, and we’ve done this now. We’ll organize a fundraiser for Member X. And we will ask — and I do mostly agricultural work — we’ll ask the various agricultural groups to make contributions to — and come to this breakfast, or this lunch, or this dinner.
And so, that’s a form of bundling. Now, you have another form of bundling, you get into this in Presidential elections, in which you get some very wealthy supporters of all of the candidates, that will go out and call their other very wealthy supporters. And they’ll put up $2,000 each, and 50 of them, and you’ve raised $100,000. And you’ve put that all into one contribution, and suddenly you’re a VIP with the candidates you’re backing. Now, is that wrong? I don’t think it’s wrong, so long as it’s reported. So long as if Charlie Stenholm does that, it ought to be Charlie Stenholm raised $100,000 for Candidate X.
And obviously you report who you raised it from. But, that I raised $100,000. Well, what’s wrong with that, so long as the people know it?
What do you think about the cynicism about the so-called “revolving door?”
Well, again, yeah, I know the cynicism. And there’s a part of me that says, okay, so, you really want someone that knows how the system works, that-that understands the challenges — in this case, we’re talking agriculture — you don’t want them to ever have anything to do with the new crop coming in.
With 2.1 million farmers, 150,000 producing 75% of everything that’s produced, that’s a small minority in 300 million. 435 members of the House and 100 Senators, how are they going to learn about the issues and the multitude — when you get elected to Congress, you’re suddenly on the board of directors of U.S. Inc., a small mom and pop corporation with a $3 trillion budget, that spends our tax dollars and borrows what chunk of money.
And yet, the people kind of want people with no experience to run our country? That gets into the limitation on terms issue. Experience is bad. So to me, sunshine — by that very easy to know who I lobbied for — it’s public record, and I’m perfectly willing to list them off at any time and why, what I’m doing.
And when I contact a legislator, I don’t do anything different now than I did when I was a member of Congress. I lobbied my colleagues because if I wanted them to vote like I did, I had to convince them why I was right. And one of my biggest goals was to develop credibility. And that’s true with lobbying as well as members of Congress.
If you go ask an urban member to vote with you on a rural issue, and it turns out that they can’t explain that real good back to their constituents, they’ll never listen to you again. And you go in and lobby someone, and lobby is not a four-letter word; it’s an educator. If you go in and educate and you don’t tell the whole story, and you mislead, your effectiveness as a lobbyist will be diminished dramatically. And if you do it consistently you’re persona non grata, as you should be. So, if you think it through — or, at least, from my perspective — the revolving door, we have a one-year, you can’t go from a Congress, you can’t have lobbying contact. I think that’s a good window there. But, to prohibit forever having any contact with Congress this is self-serving, but I believe I would have the same answer if I were not a Congressman or did I not have the ability.
I would want people lobbying Congress that knew a little bit about what they were lobbying. And do it in a way that is open, and that people can get as much information as they possibly can.
What’s your take on the people who say subsidies are driving up land prices and cash rent?
Well, a couple of points. First off, on the basic premise, they’re right. Obviously that is correct. My philosophy has always been I don’t think there should be a law that says how big you can get or how much land you can own. But I do think that there has to be a law that says how much subsidy, how much the federal government shall pay you, and that’s where a limitation on payments has always made sense to me.
The problem is that it affects corn growers and soybean growers in Iowa different than it does cotton and rice growers in the South, and therefore you’ve got to find a number that works the same for a 1,500-acre corn grower and a 1,500 dollar acre cotton grower. So that has been the elusive goal, but it needs to be found.
The second point, though, is the price of corn right now, which is finally getting up to where it ought to be, commensurate with cost of production without subsidies. The price of corn is also increasing the value of land; it’s also increasing the cost of rentals because it matters not really in the marketplace whether it comes from the government or from the market.
You’re still going to see that upward movement and those that have the wherewithal are gonna be the ones that are gonna bid up the price of land. I know in my own home country right now it the price of land is just busting out all over, but it’s mainly because of hunters and people that want to buy the land in order to have a place to go hunt.
And you’re seeing pastureland selling for more than number one farmland in my area. So, there’s a combination of factors that go in, all of which are valid to a certain degree.
Some people think subsidies caused the need for subsidies; is there some truth to that?
I haven’t thought about it quite that way, but I guess upon reflection, yeah. It’s like one of the things that I throw out now regularly on the energy, the ethanol energy debate. We’ve got a farm bill being debated, we’ve got an energy bill being debated. We need both. The idea behind the ’02 Farm Bill was that we would have countercyclical protection. If the prices come down, the subsidies go up; if the prices go up, the subsidies go down.
I think we ought to have the same with energy. When you have $88 oil, you don’t need subsidies. But if oil were to drop off to $20, then every alternative energy project on the boards would run into financial difficulty immediately. So, why not use the same concept, a countercyclical approach, because we need all of the alternative energy we possibly can produce.
And when I say all, I mean all. A lot of people say, we want all the alternative energy except let’s not build any more dams, because that bothers the fishes; let’s not build any more windmills, because that ruins the landscape in certain areas; for heavens sakes, let’s not use nuclear, of all things, let’s not drill for any more oil and natural gas in the United States.
That makes no sense. So, as we look at what kind of policies that we need to have a structure that will encourage the development of alternative energy – ethanol, biodiesel – absolutely. But we better keep it as market-oriented as possible, or otherwise we will run into some big problems, as we have in the past, when we get too far away from the marketplace – whether it’s corn, or whether it’s oil and gas, or whether it’s biodiesel or whether it’s ethanol.
What’s the advantage to average citizens that these crops are being subsidized to help with an export market?
Well, you have to look at the fact that all 300 million of us live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world. No other country with their ag policy, with their economic policy, with their energy policy, no other country does as good a job as we do with the policies that we implement.
So, I think you have to look at the end result to answer that question. It’s very difficult for the average consumer to see that, but if you go to another country you will see it immediately. It’s our policies, it’s the overall mix that does a pretty darn good job for all 300 million consumers.
I can understand that things at home are cheaper, but what about the international market, leveling the playing field?
Well, you have to take a look at our exports. We’re selling about $7 billion more into the international marketplace than we’re importing. We’re importing now, the numbers are escaping me right now on the current numbers, but we’re importing a tremendous amount of food, but we’re exporting more. And it’s that balance of the market.
Now, if we were to do as your question suggests, if we were to stop exporting, then you would see a tremendous amount of surplus productive land because there’s no market for it. So, what we have attempted to do with our policy is to keep our government shoulder to shoulder with our producers so that we can stay competitive in that international marketplace with whatever other governments do or do not do.
But, for us to cut back and just produce for the domestic, the price of food would go up, up, tremendously, because you couldn’t produce the volume we’re now producing without bankrupting most of the producers that we have. And you’d see the jobs lost to equipment manufacturers. That’s something that gets overlooked, particularly on the subsidized crops. The number of jobs that are out there – building the tractors, building the harvest equipment, producing the technology – that goes into the production of this food.
If you were to eliminate that, you would have a major economic effect. Now, to some, they say, that’s fine; we don’t want to import anything and we don’t want to export anything. We just want to take care of ourselves. That is totally impractical in the 21st century. But some people believe that that’s a good deal.
In Iowa, some farmers raised the issue of bigger operations making it difficult to be good stewards of the land. Do you see a tendency there?
For the most part, it’s anomaly, but there’s always a certain amount of truth. There are those that, – big farmers as well as little farmers – that are not the best stewards of the land, but that’s the exception, not the rule. And I have no problem this gets down with conservation districts and this gets down with your neighbor; if your neighbor is unhappy with what you’re doing, there are ways that you can bring the proper amount of pressure to an individual within the local law and the local just community good spirit.
Doesn’t always work perfectly, but it’s still the best way to handle it. But I don’t buy the idea that farmers aren’t good stewards of the land, because God’s only made so much of it; he’s not making any more. And we’ve got to think in terms of future generations as well as the current, and for the most part we do a pretty good job at that. Could it be better? Absolutely. But it could be a heck of a lot worse.
This farmer we were last with, 1,500 acres, and he has several different crops. He uses a lot of herbicides and pesticides, and he lost his dad due to his exposure to certain pesticides they were using. He feels he’s operating in a way that’s not contributing to the health of their local drinking water. He wanted to ask you what they are going to create some R&D money in this farm bill to create some machinery that can handle more weeds, or make it possible for him to transition to a healthier direction.
Well, I guess this best expresses what a few farmers, maybe perhaps many farmers would like to see; a return to the good old days in which you had no herbicides. You controlled the weeds in your farm by hoe hands, people actually going out there with a hoe and trimming the weeds from the crop. You had insecticides, but they were not real safe at that time, and we have now transitioned into what most folks say are much safer pesticides.
But they still, if they kill something, they’re still dangerous and need to be respected. This gets into the-the real challenge that we have for ag policy. To those that want to go back to the small, then you’ve got to see how do you get there? There’s a big issue in the Senate right now as they debate the Senate Farm Bill, about packers owning livestock, and feeding livestock.
And there are those that believe that packers ought to be banned from feeding. The question with that that I have is you better think carefully about what you ask for, because if you do that, with the cost of corn today, the risk factor in feeding cattle has gone up tremendously, and the baby boom generation that we talk about is now turning 62. And that means that the age factor of those involved in agriculture is reaching that point to where most folks don’t want to accept more risk.
You’re at that point you’re ready for retirement, you don’t want to risk your retirement on feeding cattle. So, if you say, yep, we’re going to ban packers, you’d better answer the question, who’s going to feed the hogs and who’s going to feed the cattle and who’s going to feed the chickens that are going to feed the people. It’s not a simple answer, as some would like to make it. Specifically on the use of technology I used to have, well, I was opposed to organic.
I didn’t think it made sense in the world that I was living in. But now I’m a very strong supporter of organic. They have a market niche that they’re filling with those people who were ready to pay more for an organically produced product. And that’s the market system, that’s the American way. But it’s a very small niche market, and I do not see how the world can be fed by going away from technology.
When you look at the corn yields that came about as a result of biotechnology just in the last 10 years, without that biotechnology, we would not be producing enough corn to feed the ethanol plants that are there today, and those that are on the drawing board. So, you’ve got to make choices. The one choice you’d never want to make, though, is to use any chemical unsafely. It is a hazard to your health. It is a potential hazard to our water supply if it used improperly.
And therefore, we must constantly look at how do we best protect our soil and our water from them, and we do a much better job than the critics. The major critics are those that saying that everything we’re doing in modern agriculture is wrong and we ought to go back to a mule and 160 acres and hoe hands. They’re the same people that are upset about immigration policy today.
Let’s face it. When we start about changing agriculture back to the good old days without chemicals, then you had better come to grips with the absolute necessity of bringing in millions of more workers into the United States to do the work that we do with technology today. That’s a trade-off that’s not simply answered.
This farmer was saying there should be more R&D into equipment that doesn’t require that you use herbicides. That was his point.
Well, I never thought about it quite that way, and I’ve always been willing to think about something else. But my first reaction is that doesn’t make a lot of sense. I mean, if you’re going to grow weeds and you want machines that will separate the weeds from the corn, then you better find a value for the weeds. I mean, with all due respect to Jim, I don’t think that passes my west Texas tractor seat common sense approach. But if-if there’s a market there for it, somebody will produce that equipment.
You mentioned organics being a niche market. You said when you want more of something, you subsidize it. There are a lot of farmers who wish there was more money in the farm bill that would help them transition to organic. If there’s more organic stuff being grown, it’ll be cheaper. Do you see any wisdom in that?
Yeah. And that’s why the Farm Bill, the ’07 Farm Bill, is going to put more money into organic research and development, not subsidies, and is going to put more money into the specialty crops, which are the fruit and vegetables and it should. That makes good sense. They’re not asking for subsidies, though. They’re asking for R&D, research and development, too and some market access and some ability to export what they’re growing, because you’ve got to balance your supply and demand, and the export market, you’re going to have the import competition, you’ve got to have the export capabilities.
All of this makes good sense. And the question that’s held up this more, and I have yet to find any feed grain producer that says, why do we still insist on keeping a direct payment for a corn producer or a soybean producer or a wheat producer at the current prices. Now, I stopped without cotton because cotton prices are low. Rice prices are low. So, the concept there, but the whole concept of countercyclical means that you shouldn’t be subsidizing with the dollars to crops that are very profitable without them.
But you need to keep a safety net in, because there’s another truism: high prices always bring low prices. Because any time you’ve got a profitable market, I will guarantee you there’s going to be somebody that’s going to produce for it and will overproduce for it. Therefore, the whole concept of countercyclical makes good sense, whether it be for energy or for agriculture. And specialty crops do need special attention.
I’ve worked very hard in my new consulting, lobbying, for just that, on behalf of our states who are the best entities to work with the development of the specialty crops within their own states.
You mentioned Tom Harkin is trying to put some limits on these direct payments. We’ve heard a lot of grumbling about the loopholes that make it possible for the same large operations to get millions of dollars in subsidies. Are these caps real?
They are. They’re much more real in the ’07 Farm Bill than we had it in the ’02 Farm Bill. And, quite frankly we as an industry both our representatives as well as our farm groups and our individual farmers, we winked and nodded for too long regarding ways to bend the law or not to break it, but to bend it. And it hasn’t served us well.
But you can’t put the genie back in the jug. I mean, when Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall, you’ve got to fix the problem as it is. And the House made a good step forward; I will fully expect the Senate will go further. The administration has made the most sweeping recommendation in this, and it would have a dramatic effect in a very short period of time on the way agriculture functions.
The administration believes that that’s what should happen. So, I think you’re going to see the people’s representatives are going to insist on some changes in the manner and how much subsidies are paid to whom. And that’s not bad, so long as it’s done with the recognition that you need to transition into it rather than an absolute cutoff, unless you want to pay the price. And some people are perfectly willing to pay the price because they are just a few family operations that will be affected, and as long as it’s not me, I’m for doing something to old Charlie down the road.
Philip Bowles, a wealthy cotton farmer in the San Francisco area, keeps receiving subsidies even though he obviously doesn’t need it. He just laughed and said he’d take the checks as long as they keep sending them, and he thinks the subsidies are a joke.
No, he’s not crazy. Usually when you hear people expressing that, they usually have enough money that they don’t need the subsidies, and that they’re overlooking the whole the piece that they’re a part of. That’s our challenge today, and that goes back to the basic philosophy that we’ve followed in this country, that we wanted efficiency. Efficiency meant that you got bigger. No matter what your forum, even in organics, as we’ve already talked about.
If you’re going to be efficient, you have got to maximize the utilization of labor and equipment for whatever it is that you’re doing, or otherwise a competitor is going to beat you out. Now, everybody makes a big deal out of where the subsidies go; landowners are entitled to their share of the subsidy, or you go with a cash rent in which the subsidy stays with the producer and the producer pays the landowner cash rent for that which the use of his land.
You can’t separate them. As much as it makes great stories, particularly when somebody like Mr. Bowles makes this statement, everybody seizes on that, but that overlooks the other 149,999 of his fellow producers that are family farmers that without the subsidies would’ve gone broke a long time ago.
Not today; with good prices you don’t need them. But remember, good prices always bring low prices. We’re in an international marketplace, some would like to turn back the clock and take us out of that; not me. That would be one of the most foolish things we could do in this endeavor. But everybody’s entitled to their opinion. What Congress has to do is sort through what is in the best interest of the majority.
And anyone like him that feels so strongly, he can write a check out and give it back.
Let’s talk about cotton a little bit. You were saying that one benefit of subsidies is that it’s lower cost. In California, there’s a lot of chemicals involved with cotton that get into the groundwater, so there’s a lot of environmental costs associated. Where is the plus for subsidizing this crop where it’s a commodity? How is that a benefit to average Americans?
Well, I guess the simple answer is, there’s not any. That cotton is a fiber that is no longer needed, we need to go to synthetics, they make them out of synthetics and just accept the fact that we don’t need a cotton industry. That’s the simple answer.
But let’s make it a little bit more complex than that, because the world is using much more cotton today than ever before. And the consumers in America, they’re not buying our cotton, they’re buying our cotton that has been exported to Mexico, has been exported to China, that’s coming back in the products. And the consumer has voted with their pocketbooks that they like a cotton fiber.
They don’t like a 100 percent synthetic fiber because the cool, comfortable, carefree cotton, which is what we have today. So, it makes for a consumer choice. The United States has led the world in technology in developing the new spinning, the spindles, the manner in which the rest of the world has adapted the technology that we have adapted in this country, to have as efficient a textile industry as we can, and cotton has played a major role in that.
Thanks to the research and the development and the promotion and all of the things that go with it. For us to step back and say, okay, United States, there’s no benefit to us in staying in the cotton business. Let’s let China do it. Now, the Chinese subsidize their cotton producers at least 10 percent – some say 20 percent – more than we subsidize our producers.
The only justification for subsidizing our cotton producers is to maintain a competitiveness in the international marketplace. And, I add, that there is a benefit to the consumer because of the product that the consumer has said they want. And it’s coming from imported fabrics, but it is there because of us, the United States of America. That’s one of those things when you’re a minority voice like we farmers are.
2.1 million of us, 150,000 of us produce 75 percent of everything that’s produced. That means we’re very large. In the world, that means that we’re the targets, just like we’re talking about big farmers in the United States, the rest of the world talks about big United States and we’re the targets for the same reason. And there are those that come up with some very simplistic views of how it ought to all change.
But let’s look at one thing now. As you and I are talking, every 6.7 seconds the world is losing one hectare – two and a half acres – of productive cropland. As you and I have been talking, for every second, the world, we’re increasing the population by three. So, we’ve got land area coming down, population going up. And therefore, whether it’s the fiber that the world is going to need or it’s the food we’re going to need, for us to make the unilateral decision that technology is bad and we’re going to stop it means terrific problems for our children and grandchildren.
Cotton fits within it; whenever cotton doesn’t fit within it. There’s no need for a cotton industry, there’s no need for a food industry when you don’t need food. But you need fiber.
You said last time you were here that you’re a believer in full transparency to see where money is going with regard to campaign finance. Everyone knows that members on the Ag Committees receive a lot of campaign contributions from the ag biz sector. Why is that?
Oh, that’s a very simple question. Because the Ag Committee is where the decisions are made that affect the livelihood of producers and consumers. Remember, the majority of the money that comes out of the Ag Committee in the Farm Bill goes to consumers, the majority. So, it’s not like you’re subsidizing only producers. The food stamps alone goes to consumers, the school lunchroom programs — all of the things that go into it.
So, but why do members of the Ag Committee receive a contributions? Obviously they are coming because they are representing what the producers and our consumers – because there are consumers that are involved in this also, consumer groups, etcetera – that they’re doing what is in the best interest of them and their livelihoods, and ultimately, as I’ve had so many times, I’ve had it in my old district – a very rural district – in which in-invariably someone would stand up in a town hall meeting after we’d been talking about agriculture, because there was a farmer there that asked me the question, somebody would say, “Don’t you understand there’s somebody, Charlie, in your district besides farmers and ranchers?”
And I’d say, “Yeah, 96 percent of you.” My rural district, 96 percent were not farmers. So, the very idea that I could have voted for things that were super-beneficial to the 4 percent to the detriment of the 96 percent — that dog won’t hunt. It just will not, except in the political vernacular, in which it’s very easy to be critical.
But it takes money to run for office. Where are you going to get the money? From people that believe you are doing what’s in their best interest and hopefully in the country’s best interest. But that’s for the people to decide, and they do it every two years. And our system, as imperfect as it is, still is better than most of the rest of the world by far.
In fact, I would say all. But, you get challenged when you say “all” 99.9 percent.
It’s perceived as a conflict of interest when the Ag Committee receives large contributions from the agribusiness sector.
Yeah, again, you have to balance. If we’re speaking in terms of Iowa, let me just say that up until about five years ago, I did not support ethanol. I represented the oil patch as well as the cotton patch, and I couldn’t explain to my independent oil and gas producers why we should be subsidizing competition for $20 oil when they were parking rigs all over Texas, shutting them down because they couldn’t produce, they couldn’t drill, they couldn’t sell profitably oil at $20.
So, I opposed ethanol. But then it suddenly occurred to me, that’s not a good position to be in. We are in a nation that is growing too dependent upon foreign energy sources for our own good. Therefore, let’s produce all of the alternative energy. So, then we changed our philosophy and we became supportive of ethanol. We became supportive of wind.
Nuclear I’ve always been supportive of. But it occurred to me, and I went to my oil and gas producers and I said, “Look, you can’t produce oil and gas without food, feed, and fiber.” Went to my producers and said, “Hey, you can’t produce food, feed, and fiber without oil and gas. We’re both minority interests. All 300 million cannot live without both of us, therefore, can’t we work together?”
And we started and we’re gonna continue this because it’s in all America’s best interest that we do develop all of the oil alternative energy and maintain the food production system and fiber production system that we have. It’s in our best interest to do so. And that means that those who agree with you will contribute to you and work with you, and you with them, in order to accomplish the policies that’s in the best interest of all.
That doesn’t mean you’re going to please 100 percent. We will never get to the point in which we all agree. But we run by 50 percent plus 1.
What do you think of this “pay to play” politics, as detractors call it? Is this what our founding fathers had in mind?
Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It’s the end result that we have to be judged on. And you described very accurately the system. But when I go to see my former colleagues on the Committee, on the Ag Committee, and on behalf of a client in which we are advocating, it’s no different than it was when they came to me.
The idea that you’re pushing forward has got to be perceived by that member that it’s in the best interest of his or her constituents, or it’s not going to happen. It is not going to happen. It’s the perception that these big producers, big industries, folks with money are doing all of these things that are bad for America.
Well, if that were true, or if that is true, then we’re in deep trouble. No question about that. But then I come back to; it’s the same folks that criticize farm programs. The end result is we’re still the best-fed nation in the world. And as, we’ve got some challenges with food safety right now, but we’re still better than the rest of the world. But does that mean we don’t want to improve on it? No. Who is best able to advise a member of Congress? Let’s talk agriculture specifically.
There are not very many people that get elected to Congress that have a basic background and understanding of agriculture, period. It’s not meant as a criticism, it’s meant as a fact. That was the reason I ran, I did have that. But there’s not many like me. And some folks say, thank goodness, there’s not many like me in this. But having a knowledge of it means you have credibility, and the moment you use that credibility in a way that becomes suspect with a majority of the people, then you’re ability to get things done is gone in a heartbeat.
It’s one of the things I’ve talked to young people all throughout my political career, and they always ask about this, lobbying. What’s a good lobbyist? A good lobbyist is one that comes in and tells you what he’s lobbying you for but also answers the question, the folks that are opposed to this, here’s what they will tell you. Here’s what we tell you. You make up your mind which one is right.
It’s a good system. In fact, I couldn’t design a better system. But do you really want people advising Congress that have no knowledge whatsoever of what they’re talking about other than and here it comes, those that criticize it as you have put it forward, never stop to think about, well, if it’s not this one, then who is the one that’s lobbying the Congress? What are they telling the Congress?
So, you’ve got a balance, and in spite of the fact that there are those that feel strongly that money is too prevalent in politics – and I’m not going to argue that one. I’ve got a real problem the idea that money is equal to free speech, because again, I try to put my west Texas tractor seat common sense approach to answering it.
If money is free speech, that means that you who have a million dollars and I who have a 100 dollars are equal? In this world in which television alone is used as it is to tear down so many in the political sense, television is used as negative, to show what’s wrong with the other candidate, what’s wrong with agriculture, what’s wrong with the subsidies, what’s wrong with the way we’re polluting our water.
That means, the more money you got, the more message you get out. And that’s something Congress is going to ultimately have to work its way through.
This secondary role lobbyists have in helping to fund campaigns, what’s your take on that? Is that in the spirit of what the founders had in mind, in your view?
Oh, I don’t think the founders of our country had any premonition of what the United States would look like in 2007, and so obviously it wasn’t, but it was the same when our country was first started, only it was a handful of very wealthy that had all of the political power. That’s the way it was in the good old days. And now with our system, as imperfect as it is, there are many more of the American people that are directly involved in the political process as a result of the changes that have occurred.
But, I-I guess one thing popped into my mind when you talk about lobbying. People are often surprised to find out that I welcome agricultural lobbyists into my office. For what? Because they brought a certain amount of education on an issue that was important to agriculture that I could not be aware of as if you haven’t been on a farm or ranch in the last five years, you don’t understand agriculture in the U.S. today.
And that’s part of our problem, because most people haven’t been on, and, quite frankly, could care less, because that’s not what their concern is, the structure of agriculture. They’re worried about the safety of food and water and the price of what we’re buying. And the quality of it. But, even someone like myself that spent my whole life studying, reading, I wanted to be an ag teacher, that’s what I was for a brief period of time, that I still welcome that educational input.
That I now try to provide to them. And I do believe I have credibility with my colleagues because of my record of 26 years and the knowledge that I do bring to the subject. I’m rather unusual in that; there’s not many like me out there that bring that. But, that’s my life, and educating is important, as you mentioned in Arizona.
But we don’t win ‘em all. Sometimes the majority, I think, are wrong. We have lost thus far the horse slaughter industry in the United States because the folks that believe that horses should not be slaughtered for human consumption and the meat exported to those countries that do, they’re winning. But what is now becoming quite obvious to a lot of people is there is a price to be paid.
When you shut down the three slaughter plants in the United States – those who were processing unwanted horses, we now have a problem of 100,000 unwanted horses, of which there is no place to go. And we’re seeing them backing up now in markets because there’s no buyer for them, we’re seeing their starvation, the deprivation of the horses — all of the things that I predicted was going to happen.
But my colleagues listened to the Humane Society, who had 100 times more money than the horse industry had to spend on this issue. It’s emotional, but the bottom line is, we now are going to see play out over the next several days and weeks and months and years, what do you do with unwanted horses?
What is it that you do? Do you help in some fashion in your new role as a consultant?
Yeah, I contribute personally to candidates that I believe would do what I would do were I still there. I personally contribute. Clients that have political action committees, or even those that don’t, I recommend to my clients, “Oh, so and so is having a fundraiser and he has been very helpful to what we’re trying to get done.” — regardless of the party.
Now, personally, I only contribute to Democrats because I’m a Democrat. But I have clients that contribute to both sides, and I go to a lot of Republican fundraisers on behalf of clients. But we’re always there backing someone – at least from my recommendation – that would do and are doing and would do what I or my clients would do were you sitting there and in that voting position.
And so we raise money, that’s the nature of the beast today. It costs money to stay in office. If you’re in a marginal district, the cost is tremendous. And if you don’t participate on behalf of those that are doing what you would do, then you’re going to get somebody elected that’s going to do what you would not do. It’s our system — again, not perfect, but it still works pretty good.
If you could wave a magic wand as Secretary of the Ag Committee and make any changes you want, what comes to mind? In a political sense, or even with regard to the Farm Bill.
Well, I guess I don’t see the role of the Chairman of the House of the Ag Committee or the Ag Committee or the Secretary of Agriculture being directly involved in the political scene. Other than, much as we’ve talked about — agriculture today is different than it was five years ago, and certainly different than it was 40 years ago when I first graduated from Texas Tech University and married my wife and we moved home to teach Vo Ag and farm with my dad.
It’s changed dramatically. The farm that my son is operating now – we’re in a partnership, my son and I, our middle son – and when I first moved home, 12 families were making a living on what my son is now farming basically by himself. Now, that gets back to the big and the subsidies and all of the other questions, but that’s the world as it is. Now, we’re going to change that. There is no question in my mind that subsidies, as they have been, are on their way out.
And ethanol, biodiesel, alternative energy has been the catalyst that’s allowing that, because the market is the best place. I’ve always said that subsidies are only there for one purpose, and that is to provide a level playing field in the international marketplace. That’s it. You can have other arguments in it, but that’s it. I believe in the international marketplace, I’m concerned about that America is moving away from trade when the rest of the world is moving into trade; that’s not a good sign for us for the future.
I understand the problems of the present. So, the challenge is the ’07 Farm Bill is going to transition us into the 2011 Farm Bill, let’s see where we go. Change is good and therefore, how you react to that change is going to be important to our future.
The one thing that pops into my mind and the one thing that I have lobbied the hardest on, and hopefully successfully but we’ve not done well yet, and that is to bring USDA into the 21st century technologically so that we’re able to do those things that the consumers, all America – farmers and consumers – want USDA to do, that we have got the capability by more efficiently using the technology. We’re not doing that today.
We’re still structured in USDA like we were in the ’30s and ’40s. We need to change; we’re moving slowly, but we’re going to be involved next year in some exciting things, we hope, regarding helping to begin the technology side and the structuring of those who serve agriculture and the consumers in a way that will do a better job on food safety, that will do a more efficient job of delivering the services – more efficient here is less taxpayer cost, more benefit to taxpayers – and maintain America’s rightful role in the world as food producers for a good part of the rest of the world that can’t feed themselves.
That is critical to our policy. But the one thing you’ve got to change is the manner in which we deliver those services, and that’s going to be a political struggle, but one that, to me, the glass is always half full, and I see some things already started in this administration at the USDA that are some good signs that we can make that move.
And whoever is elected president and whoever is the Secretary of Agriculture, we hope we lay the building blocks this next year that will provide that future interviewers and interviewees can always end by saying, “Aren’t we blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world.”
Now, if you can say that – which I can – and without any contradiction by anybody, then what we’ve done in the past is not all bad. And if we do better in the future, our grandkids will thank us.
© 2023 Habitat Media. All Rights Reserved