Iowa Public Television

Iowa Press Transcripts

Iowa Press Links

Borg: EMERGENCY AID IS ON ITS WAY TO FARMLAND AMERICA, EVEN AS THE MERITS OF THE 1996 FREEDOM TO FARM ACT ARE HOTLY DEBATED. WE'LL GET THE PERSPECTIVES OF PRESIDENT OF THE IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ED WIEDERSTEIN, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE IOWA FARMERS UNION, JOHN WHITAKER, ON THIS EDITION OF IOWA PRESS.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, 80,000 MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

THIS IS THE SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24 EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: WHEN WE LAST VISITED WITH TODAY'S IOWA PRESS GUESTS, IT WAS EARLY IN THE SPRING PLANTING SEASON, A TIME WHEN FARMERS SHOULD BE OPTIMISTIC. AT THE TIME, THOUGH, THE FARM RECESSION CLOUDS WERE ABOUT 18 MONTHS OLD AND COMMODITY PRICES HAD FALLEN 30 PERCENT OR MORE. WELL, NOW IT'S HARVEST SEASON, AND THE MOOD AMONG FARMERS, OR THOSE WHO DEPEND UPON AGRICULTURE, ISN'T MUCH BRIGHTER OR THE FUTURE ANY CLEARER. HOWEVER, AN INFUSION OF NEARLY $9 BILLION OF FEDERAL MONEY, IN THE FORM OF MARKETING TRANSITION PAYMENTS, IS COMING, BUT UNCERTAINTY AND DESPAIR LINGER. FOR SOME, THE BAILOUT UNDERSCORES THE SHORTCOMINGS AND THE PROMISE OF THE MARKET-DRIVEN FREEDOM TO FARM ACT OF 1996. WE'LL ASK OUR GUESTS TODAY TO PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE AND TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE. ED WIEDERSTEIN IS PRESIDENT OF THE IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION. JOHN WHITAKER, PRESIDENT OF THE IOWA FARMERS UNION. WELCOME BACK TO "IOWA PRESS."

Wiederstein: THANK YOU.

Whitaker: THANK YOU.

Borg: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT WE DID LAST SPRING. AND ALSO WITH US HERE AT THE IOWA PRESS TABLE, DAVE YEPSEN OF THE DES MOINES REGISTER AND MIKE GLOVER OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Glover: MR. WHITAKER, IF WE COULD START WITH YOU, LET'S STEP BACK FOR JUST A SECOND AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON OUT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. GIVE US YOUR ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE FARM SECTOR NOW.

Whitaker: WELL, IN THE FARM SECTOR, FARMERS ARE LOSING MONEY AND THEY'RE SCARED. AND THE PROBLEM IS RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T SEE A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. THEY BELIEVE SOMEBODY SHUT THE LIGHT OFF BECAUSE THEY DON'T SEE THE SITUATION IMPROVING UNDER THE CURRENT FARM LEGISLATION. WHAT I'M HEARING FROM FARMERS IS "FIX THIS THING AND FIX IT BEFORE WE PLANT THE NEXT CROP BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK."

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, GIVE US YOUR ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT THERE.

Wiederstein: JOHN MAKES A GOOD POINT THERE THAT THERE ARE FARMERS OUT THERE, YES, DEFINITELY, WE'VE GOT SOME PROBLEMS AND WE WOULD CLASSIFY IT AS A CRISIS. THE SOLUTIONS, THOUGH, IS WHAT WE NEED TO BE WORKING FOR. AND WE DO HAVE SOME SOLUTIONS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE FARM BILL THAT WE NEED TO BE WORKING ON, AND SOME OF THOSE HAPPEN TO BE WITH TRADE, THE ASIAN CRISIS. SOME OF THOSE THINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FARM BILL THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, BUT THOSE ARE SOLUTIONS WE NEED TO BE WORKING ON.

Glover: WELL, HOW CAN AN IOWA FARMER DEAL WITH THE ASIAN ECONOMIC CRISIS. I MEAN, ISN'T THAT --

Wiederstein: THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT, QUITE HONESTLY -- I DON'T CARE WHAT KIND OF A FARM BILL WE HAVE, YOU'D HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEM. THE ASIAN ECONOMY, WHEN IT WENT IN THE TANK, YOU KNOW, WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER THAT. STRONG DOLLAR, WE HAVE BASICALLY NO CONTROL OVER THAT. SO THERE ARE THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE FARM BILL THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Yepsen: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, WHO CARES? MOST PEOPLE WATCHING THIS PROGRAM ARE NOT INVOLVED IN FARMING. MOST PEOPLE IN IOWA ARE DOING PRETTY WELL RIGHT NOW. UNEMPLOYMENT LAST WEEK HIT AN ALL-TIME LOW IN OUR STATE. SO, WHO CARES? WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO ANYBODY WHO'S NOT A FARMER?

Wiederstein: WELL, THERE'S 22 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION IN IOWA THAT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO AGRICULTURE. THEY CARE AND THOSE, ESPECIALLY, IN SMALL-TOWN IOWA, UP AND DOWN MAIN STREET, THOSE PEOPLE CARE BECAUSE THEY'RE FEELING THE IMPACT OF THE LOW INCOMES THAT FARMERS ARE RECEIVING RIGHT NOW.

Yepsen: MR. WHITAKER, SAME QUESTION. WHY SHOULD ANYBODY WHO'S NOT INVOLVED IN FARMING CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT?

Whitaker: THEY MAY NOT BE INVOLVED IN FARMING, BUT THEY'RE INVOLVED IN FOOD. I HEARD A SENATOR FROM IOWA, RECENTLY, SAY, "WE'RE NINE MEALS FROM A REVOLUTION." FOOD IS DIFFERENT AND FOOD POLICY HAS TO BE DIFFERENT. WE'VE ALL GOT TO BE CONCERNED. WE LIKE TO EAT.

Borg: MR. WHITAKER, I MENTIONED THE NEARLY $9 BILLION OF EMERGENCY FARM AID THAT'S ON ITS WAY RIGHT NOW. IS THAT CORRECTLY TARGETED?

Whitaker: WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT IS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE TARGETING DONE UNDER THE '96 FARM BILL, A LOT OF THAT MONEY IS GOING TO LAND INVESTORS AND CASH-RENT LANDLORDS -- JUST THROWING OUT THERE, ANOTHER AMPTA PAYMENT REALLY DOESN'T GET AT PRODUCERS. ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS THAT I SAW IN THIS DEBATE WAS THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA, CHAIR OF THE HOUSE -- OR SENATE AG COMMITTEE SAID, "LET'S LOOK AT CROP INSURANCE TOO, BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE DELIVERY SYSTEM SO THAT IT GOES TO THE PRODUCERS WHO ARE PRODUCING." NOW, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION THERE, THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE IN THIS AMPTA PAYMENT SYSTEM, AND THAT'S THE WAY THE MONEY'S BEING SPENT.

Borg: WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. WIEDERSTEIN? IS IT CORRECTLY TARGETED AND CAN ANYTHING BE DONE. AND IF IT'S NOT CORRECTLY TARGETED, IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP MUCH, IS IT?

Wiederstein: THE AMPTA PAYMENTS GO TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PRODUCING AT RISK. NOW, SOME OF THOSE AND HOW IT'S WORKED OUT IN THE FARMLAND ARRANGEMENTS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT'S EVERY INDIVIDUAL, BUT IT STATES THOSE WHO ARE AT RISK ARE THE ONES WHO RECEIVE THE AMPTA PAYMENTS.

Glover: MR. WHITAKER, YOU ARE FOND OF SAYING THAT THE FREEDOM TO FARM ACT IS INADEQUATE, DOESN'T WORK, IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. SPECIFICALLY, WHAT IN THAT BILL NEEDS TO BE CHANGED? WHAT NEW POLICY NEEDS TO BE PUT IN PLACE?

Whitaker: THIS BILL DOESN'T GIVE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OR ANYBODY ELSE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A DOWNTURN OR AN UPTURN IN OUR ECONOMY, TO A WEATHER DISASTER, OR ANYTHING ELSE. THE SECRETARY NEEDS TO HAVE DISCRETION SO THAT WHEN THE ASIAN ECONOMY GOES IN THE TANK, THE SECRETARY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING TO SHORE UP FARM PRICES AND NOT LET THEM COMPLETELY COLLAPSE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE $9 BILLION, ABOUT, APPROXIMATELY, HALF OF THAT GOING TO HELP OUT ON THE INCOME SITUATION. PART OF IT IS GOING TO THE CROP DISASTERS THAT THE EAST EXPERIENCED. WE'VE LOST $12 BILLION IN INCOME THIS YEAR, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE UP, YOU KNOW, NOT EVEN HALF OF THAT. THE SECRETARY HAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A RESERVE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HAVE A WEATHER DISASTER NEXT YEAR? WE ARE, TO FEED OURSELVES, DEPENDENT UPON THE REST OF THE WORLD IN THAT CASE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FOOD RESERVE, NOT EVEN A STRATEGIC ONE.

Glover: WASN'T THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL UNDERPINNING OF THIS BILL IS THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE AWAY GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, GIVE FARMERS FREEDOM TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TAKING AWAY THESE PAYMENTS. I MEAN, THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNING OF THE BILL.

Whitaker: THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNING OF THIS BILL, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. I MEAN WE'RE SEEING THAT.

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, DOES THE BILL WORK? DOES IT NEED TO BE FIXED?

Wiederstein: WELL, JOHN AND I WILL HAVE SOME FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES ON THAT. THE BILL, WE NEVER DID SAY IT WAS PERFECT, BUT THIS BILL IS BUILT FOR A GLOBAL ECONOMY, BUILT FOR GLOBAL INCOME, FOR PEOPLE TO REACT TO THAT. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE IN A DOWNTURN AND WE KNEW AT SOME POINT WE WOULD HAVE SOME SPEED BUMPS ALONG THE WAY, AND NOW WE DEFINITELY HAVE A BIG BUMP. WE DON'T WANT TO RETURN TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAD RESERVES, WHERE WE HAD CROP PRODUCTION TAKEN OUT OF LAND. BASICALLY, WHAT WE DID, WE HELPED OUR COMPETITORS, WE BECAME THE RESIDUAL MARKET. AGAIN, THIS FARM BILL IS BUILT FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.

Glover: MR. WHITAKER, YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD.

Whitaker: NO, THIS BILL WAS BUILT FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, BUT WE WEREN'T THE RESIDUAL SUPPLIERS. YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, WHEN THEY BUMP PRODUCTION, WHEN THEY NEED FOOD. CHINA IMPORTED A LOT OF CORN IN '96... WHY? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE THE ONES THAT RAN OUT OF FOOD. WE SOLD THAT CORN TO THEM. IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD A DISASTER IN '97, GUESS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF FOOD? THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.

Yepsen: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, HOW DOES THIS FARM PROBLEM RIGHT NOW COMPARE TO THE 1980S?

Wiederstein: WELL, FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH IT, AND BELIEVE ME THERE ARE ENOUGH GOING PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THIS THAT IT'S PROBABLY NO DIFFERENT THAN THE MIDDLE '80S. MYSELF, I WENT THROUGH THE MIDDLE '80S AND IT WAS TRAUMATIC. I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE ANYBODY GO THROUGH WHAT I WENT THROUGH IN THE MIDDLE '80S, BUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH TOUGH TIMES RIGHT NOW, IT IS JUST AS BAD.

Yepsen: MR. WHITAKER, HOW DOES IT COMPARE?

Whitaker: THE '80S WAS A DEBT CRISIS, YOU KNOW. WHEN THE DEBT IS PAID OFF OR WRITTEN OFF, THE CRISIS IS OVER, BECAUSE INCOME LEVELS WERE STAYING GOOD OR AT LEAST FIRM BECAUSE OF THE FARM BILL WE HAD. WE HAD A FARM BILL THAT SUPPORTED INCOME. NOW WE'VE GOT A FARM BILL THAT SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT INCOME, REGARDLESS OF DEBT LEVEL, AND THE INCOME HAS FALLEN OUT OF THE BOTTOM OF THIS THING.

Yepsen: WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING HERE. THE ECONOMISTS TELL US THAT FARM INCOME WILL BE A RECORD THIS YEAR, AND YET YOU GUYS SAY YOU CAN'T MAKE IT. IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT NOW, WHEN CAN YOU?

Whitaker: I WOULD DISAGREE WITH ANYONE SAYING THE FARM INCOME WILL BE A RECORD THIS YEAR. IF YOU LOOK BACK AT WHAT IRS FIGURES ARE SHOWING AND WHAT'S BEING REPORTED AS ACTUAL INCOME AND CONSIDER THAT'S MY LABOR AS WELL, IT'S REALLY IN THE TANK. LESS THAN A BILLION DOLLARS SPREAD ACROSSED ALL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS LAST YEAR. THE INCOME IS NOT THERE.

Yepsen: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, WOULDN'T THIS BE A GOOD TIME TO GET OUT OF FARMING? I MEAN, UNEMPLOYMENT, AS I MENTIONED, IS LOW. IF PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE IT IN THIS BUSINESS, WHY DON'T YOU SELL OUT AND MOVE ON?

Wiederstein: EVERYBODY'S GOT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, BUT I LIKE TO LOOK AT, THERE'S STILL ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY IN AGRICULTURE. AND, WHEN I SAY AGRICULTURE, I MEAN ALL OF AGRICULTURE. FARMING IS WHAT I'M INVOLVED IN. I LOVE IT. I STILL THINK THERE'S ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY. AND I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF MY FRIENDS WHO FARM, AND YOU'VE JUST GOT TO USE YOUR IMAGINATION TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A PROFIT. YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME TOUGH TIMES. WE'RE IN SOME TOUGH TIMES RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT KIND OF EXCITING BECAUSE THERE IS OPPORTUNITY AND RISK.

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, BOTH YOU GUYS ARE FARMERS. LET ME ASK YOU A PERSONAL QUESTION... HOW ARE YOU DOING?

Wiederstein: HOW AM I DOING? LAST YEAR WAS A DISASTER, BECAUSE I FEED LOTS OF HOGS. OF COURSE, EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE HOG MARKET DID LAST YEAR. I TOOK A GIGANTIC SHELLACING ON MY EQUITY. THIS YEAR I'M KIND OF HOLDING THINGS TOGETHER, BUT I'M NOT GETTING BACK ANYTHING THAT I LOST LAST YEAR, I'LL TELL YOU THAT.

Glover: MR. WHITAKER, STEP BACK FOR JUST A SECOND ONCE AGAIN AND TELL ME WHAT'S NEW HERE. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LEAVING THE FARM SINCE THE MID 19TH CENTURY. THE TREND HAS BEEN TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE FARM TO THE CITIES. FARMS HAVE BEEN GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER. SO WHAT'S NEW HERE?

Whitaker: A LOT OF THAT'S BEEN DRIVEN BY TECHNOLOGY IN THE PAST. AT WHAT POINT DO WE RUN OUT OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN AGRICULTURE, WHERE YOU PHYSICALLY CANNOT GET THE WORK DONE? AND WHAT RISK DOES THAT PUT US AS A NATION WHEN THE WORK CAN'T BE DONE, THE FOOD CAN'T BE PRODUCED?

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, THE TREND HAS BEEN BIGGER AND BIGGER FARMS. THE TREND NOW IS BIGGER AND BIGGER CORPORATE FARMS. WHY SHOULD MR. OR MS. AMERICAN CONSUMER CARE WHO PRODUCES THE FOOD THAT SHOWS UP IN THEIR GROCERY STORE?

Wiederstein: PROBABLY A LOT OF THEM REALLY DON'T CARE, BUT WE SHOULD CARE BECAUSE --

Glover: WHY?

Wiederstein: -- FAMILY FARMERS CREATE A LOT -- THAT'S PART OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR ECONOMY. AND WE HELP COMMUNITIES MOVE ALONG. WE'RE PART OF THE ECONOMY. AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PEOPLE USING THEIR INITIATIVE TO CREATE A PROFIT.

Glover: WELL, LET ME PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE FOR A SECOND. IF THE MONSANTO CORPORATION CAN GO OUT THERE AND BUY 10,000 ACRES OF FARMLAND AND PRODUCE FOOD MORE CHEAPLY, MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN A BUNCH OF FAMILY FARMERS, WHY AS A CONSUMER SHOULDN'T I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING?

Wiederstein: WELL, MAYBE MONSANTO CAN GO OUT AND DO IT, BUT IT WILL HAVE TO BE THE FAMILY FARMER THAT GIVES UP DOING THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK -- I'M NOT PREPARED TO GIVE UP. I THINK I CAN COMPETE AGAINST ANYBODY.

Whitaker: AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MONSANTO CAN DO IT MORE CHEAPLY, MORE EFFICIENTLY, MORE COST EFFECTIVELY TO THE CONSUMER. IF YOU LOOK AT MIKE DUFFY'S STUDIES FROM IOWA STATE, HE SAYS THE OPTIMUM LEVEL WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU REACH MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY ON COST IS 300 ACRES, IS A HUNDRED HEAD OF SOWS IN THIS STATE, IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THE WORLD. SO WHY DO WE KEEP GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER? I THINK IT'S BECAUSE TOO MANY OF OUR MARKETS HAVE BECOME SO CONCENTRATED, THERE'S NO COMPETITION LEFT IN THEM.

Yepsen: MR. WHITAKER, EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT HOGS. ONE OF THE ISSUES IN IOWA TODAY, THE MERGERS OF SMITHFIELD AND MURPHY FARMS, HOG PRODUCERS. WHY IS THAT BAD? WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT, IF ANYTHING?

Whitaker: I THINK IT'S BAD BECAUSE YOU HAVE SMITHFIELD WHO IS A PACKER, AND THEY WOULD BE OUTLAWED FROM OWNING HOGS IN IOWA, SO THEY'LL FIND SOMETHING THAT'S ARMS-LENGTH SEPARATION AS A METHOD OF DOING THAT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT A PACKER SHOULD OWN HOGS, SHOULD BE PRODUCING HOGS. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A MORATORIUM THAT PREVENTS THOSE MERGERS, THE SMITHFIELD-MURPHY AND THE TYSON.

Yepsen: YOU AGREE?

Wiederstein: I'VE LISTENED TO A LOT OF FARMERS THIS SUMMER. AND THE OVERRIDING CONCERN THAT THEY HAVE HAPPENED TO BE THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS. EXACTLY HOW WE GO ABOUT WORKING ON THAT PROBLEM IS AN ISSUE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. BUT, YEAH, THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THESE MERGERS. WHEN MURPHY SOLD OUT TO SMITHFIELD, THAT'S A BIG CONCERN.

Yepsen: WHAT ABOUT MERGERS IN THE SEED BUSINESSES, PIONEER AND DUPONT, FOR EXAMPLE. DR. HARL WAS OUT HERE ON THIS PROGRAM AND EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN ABOUT THOSE KIND OF MERGERS AS WELL. SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT MERGERS IN THE SEED BUSINESS?

Wiederstein: I THINK WE SHOULD BE BUT, THEN, ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE MERGER, THEY NEED TO BE DOING A BETTER JOB OF TELLING THE FARMER HOW IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THEM BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M NOT HEARING TOO MANY OF THOSE BENEFITS, AT LEAST FROM THE FARMER'S STANDPOINT BEING EXPRESSED.

Yepsen: DO WE NEED SOME TOUGHER ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT OR LEGISLATION?

Wiederstein: THE ENFORCEMENT, THE ONLY THING WE CAN GO BY IS WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS TELLING US, AND THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE ENFORCING IT. THE NEXT AVENUE WILL BE LEGISLATION. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S AN EDUCATION PROCESS THAT OUR MEMBERS AND FARMERS WILL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND BEFORE WE GO AHEAD AND REALLY PROPOSE SOMETHING.

Glover: MR. WHITAKER, LET'S MOVE TO THE STATE LEVEL. THAT'S A FEDERAL ISSUE, ANTITRUST LAWS. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE STATE OUGHT TO BE DOING TO PROMOTE THE COMPETITIVENESS WITHIN THE AGRIBUSINESS INDUSTRY?

Whitaker: SURE. WE SHOULD BE, AS A STATE, TAKING A LOOK AT ANTITRUST LAWS, HAVING STATE ANTITRUST LAWS. IN MANY CASES, THE STATES ARE THE LEADERS IN MOVING AN ISSUE FORWARD. WE DID THIS IN OUR STATE LAST YEAR WITH THE PRICE REPORTING, THE LIVESTOCK, AND EVENTUALLY THAT WORKED. IT MOVED CONGRESS TO ENACT PRICE REPORTING. WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT ANTITRUST AND SAYING, "LOOK, IN OUR STATE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER". AT OUR CONVENTION, RECENTLY, WE PASSED A RESOLUTION SAYING NOBODY SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OF MORE THAN 5 PERCENT OF ANYTHING IN PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT SMITHFIELD MERGER WITH MURPHY AND TYSON, THEY'RE GOING TO BE UP CLOSE TO 11, 12, 13 PERCENT OF PORK PRODUCTION. THEY'RE GOING TO OWN 75 PERCENT OF THEIR SLAUGHTER. THERE'S NO COMPETITION LEFT IN THAT MARKET.

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, WHAT SHOULD THE STATE BE DOING IN THIS WHOLE COMPETITIVENESS AREA IN AGRIBUSINESS? IS THERE A ROLE FOR THE STATE TO PLAY?

Wiederstein: OH, DEFINITELY. IT'S REALLY INTERESTING. A MONTH AGO THE GOVERNOR LED A TRADE GROUP OVER TO CHINA, JAPAN, HONG KONG, TAIWAN. AND WHEN YOU SEE THE POSSIBILITIES, THE POTENTIAL THAT WE HAVE FOR TRADE WITH THOSE COUNTRIES, IT'S AMAZING. I MEAN, THAT REALLY IS A REASON FOR OPTIMISM. BESIDES THAT, THE STATE CAN BE INVOLVED IN PROMOTING VALUE-ADDED PROCESSES, WHICH THE GOVERNOR IS REALLY TRYING TO DO A BANG-UP JOB ON IT.

Glover: BUT THOSE ARE PROMOTION ISSUES. IS THERE SOMETHING THE STATE CAN DO AS FAR AS COMPETITIVENESS AMONG THE INDUSTRY?

Wiederstein: I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT. WE WANT TO GET THE PROCESSING -- AS MUCH OF THE PROCESSING DONE HERE IN IOWA, WHICH IT CREATES COMPETITION, IT CREATES NEW USES FOR OUR PRODUCTS. THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO PROMOTE HERE IN IOWA, DO HERE IN IOWA.

Yepsen: GENTLEMEN, I WANT TO LOOK AT A BIGGER PICTURE IN AGRICULTURE. IT'S INTERESTING. I GOT A LETTER FROM ONE OF OUR VIEWERS, FELLOW BY THE NAME OF BOB STAFFORD FROM MOUNT PLEASANT, IOWA. HE HAS AN INTERESTING QUESTION HERE. "HOW ARE YOU ANY DIFFERENT THAN A HARDWARE STOREOWNER IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE? IF A HARDWARE STOREOWNER GETS IN A BIND, THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T COME IN AND BAIL HIM OUT". SO, MR. WIEDERSTEIN, WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT COME IN AND BAIL YOU OUT WHEN YOU MAKE BAD A BUSINESS DECISION OF GROWING TOO MUCH?

Wiederstein: THAT IS A QUESTION A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD -- YOU KNOW, IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE. I WANT TO STEP BACK AND TALK ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE WE HAVE IN FARMING AND ALL THAT, AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS TO THE SECURITY OF THIS NATION AS FAR AS FOOD SUPPLY. I THINK THAT'S ONE THING WE NEED TO HAVE. AND I DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THAT HARDWARE STORE BECAUSE, YEAH, THEY'RE IMPORTANT. AND I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD COME IN AND STEP IN AND MAKE UP FOR SOME OF THE BAD DECISIONS THAT I MAKE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING THAT AFFECT ALL FARMERS. THEY NEED TO HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE THAT CREATES OPPORTUNITY.

Yepsen: MR. WHITAKER, SAME QUESTION.

Whitaker: AGRICULTURE IS DIFFERENT IN THAT ASPECT. A HARDWARE STOREOWNER WHEN HE MAKES A BAD DECISION, HE OR SHE, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THAT DECISION MAYBE IN TWO WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS, TWO MONTHS, AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR OPERATION. WE GET ONE SHOT AT IT EVERY YEAR. AS WE SAID EARLIER, WE WERE DOING THIS RIGHT BEFORE PLANTING TIME, RIGHT WHEN THE OPTIMISM WAS OUT THERE. WE GET ONE CHANCE AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES FOOD DIFFERENT, IS THAT ONE CHANCE, AND WE'RE RELYING ON THE WEATHER. EIGHTY PERCENT OF OUR PRODUCTION IS BASED ON THE WEATHER. IT'S NOT BASED ON WHAT WE DO, AND THAT MAKES THAT DIFFERENCE RIGHT THERE.

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, YOUR GROUP'S INVOLVED A LOT IN LOBBYING BOTH IN CONGRESS AND IN THE LEGISLATURE. ISN'T ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS THAT FARMERS FACE THESE DAYS THAT YOU'VE LOST CLOUT IN CONGRESS, THERE ARE FEWER AND FEWER FARMERS, AND YOU HAVE LESS INFLUENCE OVER WHAT HAPPENS THERE?

Wiederstein: WELL, WE'RE A SMALLER PORTION OF THE POPULATION, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING CLOUT, I THINK THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU IS RATED AS THE 14TH MOST POWERFUL LOBBYING GROUP ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL. AND I'M SURE ON THE IOWA LEVEL, I THINK, THE IOWA FARM BUREAU IS RIGHT UP THERE TOWARD THE TOP. AS FAR AS LOSING CLOUT, I DON'T THINK WE'VE LOST A LOT OF CLOUT. YOU JUST GOT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE FARM BILL THAT WE JUST GOT THROUGH AND THE EXTRA AID THAT'S IN THERE FOR FARMERS. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SOME CLOUT, WE WOULD HAVE NEVER GOT THAT.

Glover: MR. WHITAKER?

Whitaker: I THINK THAT WE HAVE LOST SOME CLOUT, BUT I WAS IN WASHINGTON JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. WE HAD WHAT WE CALL A NATIONAL FLY-IN, WHERE MEMBERS FROM ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY COME IN AND LOBBY CONGRESS. THE DAY AFTER THAT, THE DAY AFTER OUR ORGANIZATION LEFT, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE AG COMMITTEE, REPRESENTATIVE COMBEST FROM TEXAS, CAME OUT AND SAID SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THIS FARM BILL. WE'VE GOT TO START HEARINGS RIGHT AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, OPEN THIS THING UP AND CHANGE IT. YEAH, IOWA FARM BUREAU WAS THERE THE SAME WEEK BECAUSE I RAN INTO SEVERAL MEMBERS, AND THEY CAME OUT AND SAID, "SOMETHING'S WRONG, LET'S FIX IT".

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, PUT ON YOUR CRYSTAL BALL HERE JUST FOR A SECOND. IS THE FREEDOM TO FARM LAW GOING TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE OF THAT KIND OF SITUATION?

Wiederstein: I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE CHANGED. I THINK IT MIGHT BE TINKERED WITH A LITTLE BIT.

Glover: IN WHAT WAY?

Wiederstein: WELL, ONE THING THAT'S JUST COME UP WITHIN THE LAST, WELL, MONTH OR SO, I KNOW CONGRESSMAN STENHOLM FROM TEXAS HAS A PROPOSAL OF CALLING SOMETHING CALLED A "COUNTERCYCLICAL", WHICH COULD BE USED TO ENHANCE FARM INCOME UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. ONE THING I DIDN'T MENTION EARLIER IS THAT WE'VE HAD EXTRAORDINARY EVENT AROUND THE WORLD AS FAR AS WEATHER, WHICH HAS ENHANCED THE SUPPLY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. COMPUTER MODELS CAN'T EVEN COME UP WITH WHAT WE'VE HAD FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY EVENT... ALMOST FOUR YEARS OF STRAIGHT GOOD WEATHER AROUND THE WORLD. THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE CREATED THE PROBLEMS, BUT TO CHANGE THE FARM BILL TO GO BACK TO WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT LOSING FARMERS, WE HAD A GREAT EXODUS UNDER THE LAST FARM PROGRAM WE HAD.

Glover: MR. WHITAKER, YOU'D LAKE TO SEE THE FREEDOM TO FARM ACT CHANGED. WILL IT BE?

Whitaker: I THINK IT WILL BE. I THINK IT WILL BECAUSE IT'S A FAILURE. IT'S FREEDOM TO FAIL.

Borg: OKAY. AREN'T YOU REALLY ASKING THERE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOU? I GO BACK TO NEIL HARL, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY ECONOMIST, WHO WAS ON THIS PROGRAM A FEW WEEKS AGO. HE SAID THE ONE THING THAT MAY BE PART OF THE SOLUTION FOR AGRICULTURE IS A UNIFIED DECISION-MAKING -- I HEARD HIM SAY ALMOST "UNIONIZATION". WELL, N.F.O. TRIED THAT BACK IN THE 1960S AND DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH SUCCESS. BUT AREN'T YOU ASKING FOR GREATER GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION? AREN'T YOU SUBSTITUTING THAT FOR UNIONIZATION?

Whitaker: NO, NO, WE'RE NOT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PAST FARM BILL WHEN WE WERE, QUOTE, TOLD WHAT WE COULD PLANT, AND YOU LOOK AT FREEDOM TO FARM, YOU CAN PLANT WHATEVER YOU WANT. AMAZING THING IS, PLANTING ACREAGES, PERCENTAGES HAVEN'T CHANGED THAT MUCH. WE PLANT BASICALLY THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF CORN; BASICALLY THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF SOYBEANS; YOU GO OUT INTO THE PLAINS, BASICALLY THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF WHEAT. WE REALLY DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. WE JUST SAID PLANT IT WHEREVER YOU WANT. AND I DON'T SEE THAT WE'VE GOT ANY CHANGES. NO ONE IN THE PREVIOUS PROGRAM WAS TELLING ME YOU HAVE TO PLANT THIS FIELD TO CORN TODAY.

Wiederstein: IF I MAY REACT TO THAT. IN THE CORN SOYBEAN BELT, YOU'RE RIGHT, JOHN, WE PROBABLY HAVEN'T HAD THE TREMENDOUS SHIFT IN CROPS. YOU GET AROUND THE FRINGE AREAS THOUGH. AND I HAVE FRIENDS UP IN NORTH DAKOTA, AND THEY SAY FREEDOM TO FARM HAS BEEN THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THEM BECAUSE THEY CAN REACT TO WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR GROUND. THEY'RE PLANTING DIFFERENT CROPS, NOT JUST THE SAME CROPS. THEY'RE EVEN PLANTING SOME CORN AND SOYBEANS, BUT IT USED TO BE WHEAT.

Borg: WHAT ABOUT SOME UNITY IN DECISION-MAKING, CAN THAT BE ACHIEVED?

Wiederstein: UNITY AND DECISION-MAKING, FARMERS CAN NOW REACT TO THE MARKETS, TO WHAT THE MARKET IS TELLING THEM TO PLANT. NOW, WHEN IT COMES TO UNITY AND DECISION TO MARKET, MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE THE UNITY THAT WE HAVE. BUT TO GO BACK -- FARMERS I TALK TO DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO HAVING THE GOVERNMENT TELL US WHAT TO PLANT ON OUR GROUND.

Yepsen: AREN'T YOU YOUR OWN WORST ENEMIES BECAUSE YOU'RE SO INDEPENDENT THAT YOU CAN'T WORK TOGETHER?

Wiederstein: IN A SENSE YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT INDEPENDENCE IS ONE OF THE THINGS I ENJOY ABOUT FARMING. AND I DON'T THINK FARMERS WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT INDEPENDENCE, EVEN THOUGH AT TIMES IT CAN BE HARMFUL TO US.

Whitaker: YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY. BUT AS A BUSINESS DECISION, THE MARKET WAS TELLING US DON'T PLANT CORN, DON'T PLANT BEANS, DON'T PLANT WHEAT, DON'T RAISE HOGS, DON'T RAISE CATTLE. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, ED, GO TO THE RIVER?

Wiederstein: NO.

Whitaker: THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE. [ SPEAKING AT ONCE ]

Yepsen: FOR THE NEXT 90 DAYS IN OUR STATE, WE'VE STILL GOT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES? MR. WIEDERSTEIN, WHAT QUESTION SHOULD IOWANS BE ASKING THE CANDIDATES? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD BE HEARING FROM THESE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IN OUR STATE?

Wiederstein: WELL, NUMBER ONE, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT VALUE THEY PUT ON AGRICULTURE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY NEED AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED.

Yepsen: OF COURSE, WHEN THEY'RE IN IOWA IT'S ALWAYS A GREAT THING.

Wiederstein: AND THEY WILL, BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS, TOO, AS FAR AS REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, OR POTENTIAL REGULATIONS THAT WE DEAL WITH. ESPECIALLY, VICE-PRESIDENT GORE... RIGHT NOW HE'S GOT SOME CLOUT IN THE GOVERNMENT. HE CAN HAVE AN IMPACT ON SOME OF THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS THAT WE MAY BE DEALING WITH. THAT'S ONE AREA. BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE, I THINK, THAT'S ONE THING THEY REALLY NEED TO BE CONCENTRATING ON.

Yepsen: MR. WHITAKER, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM CANDIDATES?

Whitaker: I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR VISION IS. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY PERCEIVE OUR AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM AND OUR NATION TO LOOK LIKE TEN YEARS FROM NOW, TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW. AND I'VE GOT TWO SONS THAT WENT TO WASHINGTON WITH ME, AND I READ A LETTER FROM MY YOUNGER SON WHO'S FIFTEEN, THAT HE WAS LEARNING TO WRITE LETTERS IN HIGH SCHOOL. AND I READ THIS LETTER "WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO;" THAT WAS HIS ASSIGNMENT. AND HE SAID, "I WANT TO BE A FARMER, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE UNLESS THIS THING CHANGES."

Glover: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, ONCE AGAIN, LET'S STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE. COUNTRIES PROTECT THEIR FOOD SUPPLIES. THAT'S NATURAL AND NORMAL. IN AMERICA WE HAVE PROTECTED OUR FOOD SUPPLY BY A POLICY CALLED CHEAP FOOD, WHERE WE SUBSIDIZE FOOD PRODUCTION SO FOOD IN THE SUPERMARKET IS CHEAP. IS THAT THE PROPER POLICY?

Wiederstein: I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN DONE COGNIZANTLY TO MAKE FOOD CHEAP, BUT THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT'S GONE. BUT, I THINK ONE THING WE WANT TO DO -- I'M GOING TO REFER BACK TO WORLD TRADE, THERE ARE CROPS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE IMPORT SENSITIVE BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE IN A GLOBAL MARKET AND THE -- WE HAVE TO REACT TO WHAT OUR COMPETITORS ARE DOING BUT -- AS LONG AS THERE IS PEOPLE GOING TO BED HUNGRY AT NIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FOOD IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THIS WORLD.

Glover: CHEAP FOOD, IS THAT A GOOD POLICY?

Whitaker: I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD POLICY. I THINK THAT WE HAVE REASONABLY PRICED FOOD IN THIS COUNTRY. WHAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE IS THE INCOME THAT CONSUMERS ARE LAYING OUT THERE FOR FOOD DOESN'T FILTER BACK TO THE AMERICAN FARMER. IT'S KIND OF STRAINED OUT IN AN HOUR-GLASS FORM BECAUSE WE'VE GOT OUR MARKETS SO TIGHTLY CONCENTRATED THAT THEY CAN SHUT THAT MONEY SUPPLY OFF. BUT I WANT TO LOOK AT THAT WORLD TRADE THING JUST A MOMENT, AND GOING BACK TO THE DELEGATION FROM IOWA THAT DID GO TO THE FAR EAST AND ASK THOSE FOLKS, THEY SAID, "SURE, WE'LL IMPORT FOOD BUT WE WANT TO FEED OURSELVES FIRST."

Borg: GENTLEMEN, WE'VE GOT JUST A MINUTE LEFT, AND I WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF SCIENCE. MR. WHITAKER, DOES SCIENCE CHANGE THIS DEBATE? I'M THINKING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS THAT ENABLE YOU TO GROW MORE AND USE FEWER INPUTS, LESS -- FEWER CHEMICALS, PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. HOW WILL SCIENCE CHANGE THE FARM DEBATE IN AMERICA?

Whitaker: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CHANGES EVERYTHING, EVERY TIME WE LOOK AT THE SITUATION. WHAT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE, THOUGH, IS SCIENCE THAT'S CONSUMER-DRIVEN NOT SCIENCE DRIVEN. AND, I THINK, WE SAW THAT IN THE G.M.O DEBATE, WAS THIS WAS SOMETHING I LIKE BUT DO MY CONSUMERS LIKE THIS?

Borg: MR. WIEDERSTEIN, ABOUT 30 SECONDS. HOW IS SCIENCE GOING TO CHANGE THIS?

Wiederstein: JOHN MAKES A GOOD POINT. IT'S TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY REALLY DOES DRIVE A LOT OF HOW WE REACT TO THINGS. THE CONSUMER, WE'RE GOING TO -- THE CONSUMER WILL RULE IN THE END, BUT THESE NEW ITEMS THAT COME ALONG, LIKE THE G.E.O., OR GENETICALLY ENHANCED ORGANISM, FARMERS WILL ADAPT THEM, BUT IF THE CONSUMER DOESN'T ACCEPT THEM, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT TECHNOLOGY.

Borg: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE AT THE END OF THE PROGRAM, AND I HOPE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOU BACK TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING IN ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. BUT IT'S BEEN A JOY HAVING YOU HERE TODAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," OUR FOCUS RETURNS TO THE CAMPAIGN OF 2000 AND WITH THE NEW DATES NOW SET FOR THE IOWA CAUCUS. WE'LL GET AN UPDATE FROM IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR, ROB TULLY, NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND 7:00 HERE ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION. AND A FINAL THOUGHT AS WE CLOSE THIS BROADCAST TODAY. TOO MANY TIMES WE'RE FORCED TO SAY FAREWELL AND GOOD-BYE TO A FRIEND WAY TOO SOON. WELL, THAT HOUR IS WITH US NOW FOR ALL OF US HERE AT IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION. EARLIER THIS WEEK OUR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE AND IOWA PRESS CREW CHIEF, P.W. McRAE, HAD HIS LIFE ENDED FAR TOO SOON. HE IS LAID TO REST THIS WEEKEND. P.W. WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS CAREER AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH. HE WAS A CAMERA OPERATOR BY PROFESSION, ONE OF THE BEST, AND HE BECAME OUR STUDIO LIGHTING EXPERT... EVENTUALLY, CREW CHIEF. HIS LOSS AS A PRODUCTION COORDINATOR AND STAFF SCHEDULER LEAVES A HUGE VOID IN OUR CREW TO SERVE OUR VIEWING PUBLIC... A MISSION THAT P.W. TOOK VERY SERIOUSLY. BUT PERHAPS, MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, THERE'S A VOID BECAUSE WE'VE LOST A SINCERE, WELL-LIKED COLLEAGUE WHO SET HIGH STANDARDS FOR HIMSELF AND, BY EXAMPLE, SERVED US ALL VERY WELL. WE'RE SADDENED BY THE LOSS OF OUR FRIEND P.W. McRAE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN P.W. PERSONALLY, AS WE DID, BUT YOU DID BENEFIT FROM HIS TALENT AND EXPERTISE, AND WE'LL ALL MISS HIM GREATLY. THAT CLOSES THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF IOWA PRESS. WE'LL BE BACK NEXT SUNDAY AT NOON AND 7:00. I HOPE YOU'LL WATCH. UNTIL THEN, I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, 80,000 MEMBERS SUPPORTING QUALITY PUBLIC TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.



1