Down to the plains from the top of the mountain inspired the poetry and inspired the images that are captured in that poetry of the United States. Watch all of our events from Colorado Springs throughout the andon cspan 2s book tv, sunday on American History tv on cspan 3. Formeror agricultural secretary dan glickman discusses Food Security. Topics include past agriculture issues and the types of action that could be taken in future to improve food supply, access, and sanitation. From the Johns Hopkins school of advanced international studies, this is a little more than an hour. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Im bob thompson, visiting scholar here working to develop a problem in agriculture and a program in agriculture and Food Security. Teaching a couple courses in that area. Im delighted that in continuing our seminar in International Agriculture topics that today we have former secretary of agriculture dan glickman here to talk about Food Security and government dysfunction. Can progress be made in the current environment . Dan is executive director of the Aspen Institute congressional program, a nongovernmental, nonpartisan Educational Program for members of the United States congress. Hes also senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center which promotes bipartisanship in addressing the key challenges that confront the United States. At bpc, he cochairs the commission on political form, democracy project, nutrition and physical activity initiative, and the taskforce on Defense Budget and strategy. Secretary glickman was secretary of agriculture from 1995 to 2001. Before that he represented kansas Fourth District in the United States house of representatives for 18 years. During that time he served on the ag committee. He was chairman of the subcommittee responsible for our farm programs for six years. He also was an active member of the House Judiciary Committee and served as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. Two other interesting features of dans cv, he served as chairman of the Motion Pictures association of america from 2004 to 2010, and he also served as director of the institute of politics at Harvards Kennedy school from 2000 to 2004. Dan, were delighted to have you here today and welcome to the podium. [applause] well, thank you, bob. And im most appreciative, bob thompson is my hero. If you had to ask me the smartest man in the world or the person i think is the smartest person in the world on agriculture policies, this man who just introduced me. And many are privileged to have him in your class. Hes been dean of agriculture at purdue, usda when i was a congressman and he i think he still likes me. Even though i think it was probably it was during the reagan years and i wasnt always the most friendly member of the legislative body during that time period. Any event, im just delighted to be here. Listening to my biography, it sounds like i cant keep a job. Remember the Frank Sinatra song, ive been a poet, a pauper, a pawn, and a king . Ive been about 19 Different Things in my life, but my interest in food and farm issues and related Global Agriculture issue and my interest in the u. S. Congress and how it operates and our government kind of ties these issues together. And so i but i dont think theres a lot of experts in food and farm policy, Global Agriculture policy. I want to give a slightly more Political Science perspective today, because we have an election coming, if you havent noticed if you watch tv all the time and cant turn off these very enlightening and constructive advertisements being run by candidates for office. But i think you have to look at our political system and how it functions. Im going to talk mostly about the u. S. Political system today , even though i know there are people from overseas here, because i think it has a lot to do with what food and agriculture and farm and global policies are all about. I think and you got to understand the politics of this country, specifically, and also the politics of agriculture and food, to get a picture about what can we do, what should we do, what should be the United States be doing as we deal with Food Security issues and how we impact the rest of the world. I think one general theme is that production agriculture interests are very powerful here in the u. S. And in most countries. And they are disproportionately more powerful than the numbers of people who are in the field. So if you look at today in the United States, anywhere between 1. 75 are working for food and working on the farm. Then when you look at u. S. Policy as it relates to farm programs and related issues, you really see that there is historically a much greater power in the interest of agriculture than there are in the numbers of people in this country. Thats not only true in the u. S. , thats true in western europe and u. S. , india. And i was just in japan. Its true in spades in japan , where the interest of Food Producers is disproportionately more powerful than their numbers are, and especially when you consider the numbers of folks in rural and agrarian settings. Now, in the u. S. , this disproportionate power notice im not saying excessive power. Im saying disproportionate power compared to population is baked into our constitution by the fact that each state has two senators. So whether its wyoming with 700,000 people or california with over 50 million people, theyre each represented by the exact same number of people in our government. And the senate is the great protector of agriculture. Has been since the beginning of time and still remains that way. Whereas the house of representatives may have about 40 or 50 members that are predominantly Food Production districts, every United States senator represents at least some Food Production. That includes the smallest states of rhode island and delaware to, of course, the largest states. And historically those interests were dominated by people from the midwest in the heartland states, so illinois, indiana, missouri, my own state of kansas , and the midwest up through the dakotas, and states in the house the south, where you had members of the congress and the United States senate who were elected forever. And they accumulated great amounts of power and they were able to influence the political process rather significantly so the states of mississippi, which is one state that has accumulated a large amount of power over the years, but all the southern states, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, what you call the southern crop, had very, very powerful defenders in the congress. And thats why programs like tobacco, cotton, and rice, you know, were got special treatment. But even in big states that have big urban populations, states like california or in the pacific northwest, even in the northeast where you tend to have smaller producers, those producers and those interests have very strong defenders in and among their senators. So, for example, in the state of vermont, senator Patrick Leahy had been chairman of the agriculture committee, and nobodys more tenacious defending agriculture in vermont , which had a population of about 650,000 or 700,000 people. And, of course, did a very good job protecting the dairy industry in all those years. Ok, so those interests, particularly in the senate and we still have it. Our constitution has not changed. And even in the last farm bill it was the senate where the , ultimate action was taken to facilitate this bill getting actually finished, those interests have a lot to do with not only u. S. Farm policy but u. S. Trade policy. And you know, in addition to the variety of commodity programs that we have to deal with. So thats certainly a given right now. The senate is a big factor in why u. S. Farm policy has remained largely unchanged since the great depression. There have been changes, of course, but the population of this country has gone from a population about 40 rural before the Second World War to less than 10 rural today, and yet the programs are still very widely supported in the congress. Now, in the about 40 years ago, a political calculus was made in this area that this wouldnt last forever. And that a new equation was needed to add to this coalition to keep this funding arrangement. Smart senators like senators dole and mcgovern and others decided, you know, just looking at the demographic, at some point there wouldnt wont be livinge wont be people in rural america, working on farms. A new coalition was developed with people who needed food assistance. And so that coalition was demonstrated by attention to snap or the old food snap program, school meals, the wic program, women, infans, and children, and others and that created an alliance between urban and rural interests that grew up largely in the 1960s and 1970s and which lasted until pretty much today. That coalition is frayed. Its no question it was frayed. It was almost blown up in the last farm bill. But the coalition between Food Producers and food consumers who use these federal assistance programs basically kept this farm bill politically alive for a very, very long time. As i mentioned, people like dole and mcgovern and leahy, largely in the senate, although there were some in the house, largely a senate thing that brought these people together to bring a n almost impenetrable coalition between the house and the senate. The irony in all of this is that rural and farm interests are largely more conservative politically than the country as a whole. And historically lean republican. And yet were reliable voters for farm legislation which included large amounts of government payments for both farmers and nutrition programs, as well as supporting International Assistance and exports and anything to benefit the farm economy. So under the theory that political theory is merely the rationalization of economic selfinterest, farmers had a lot of economic selfinterest that kind of belied their kind of traditional republican, Less Government interventionist beliefs on about Everything Else. So you would find farm supporters in Congress Supporting these programs and often not supporting other federal programs that had the government, you know, growing in this way. So the other point i want to make in this is, while the president and the executive branch is certainly important in Foreign Policy and in policymaking generally, but in farm and agriculture programs, overall since the depression it has been congress which has led the decisions on farm and commodity programs and nutritional assistance programs. Not the white house, but the congress. Its one when i was secretary of agriculture, i was there from 1995 to 2001, and the Congress Passed a farm bill in 1996 called freedom to farm. And i talked to president clinton about this on repeated occasions but it was clear even when i was secretary that the decisions were made in the legislative branch. We implemented them. We could modify them to some degree, but probably not since the days of henry waltz has congress had been able to assert itself rather the president has been able to assert himself dramatically in these programs and thats been true of clinton, it was true of bush and obama. President obama and his team were not the driving force behind this farm bill. It was the congress. This is sometimes very difficult for people outside the United States to understand, because understanding our political systems, we have something called separation of powers. Where we have checks and balances, where the executive branch is not the head of state. We actually dont have a head of state formally like a Prime Minister. So when we debate farm issues and trade issues and talk about the role of the congress, its very difficult for people outside the United States to understand that we have a system thats built on separation, not working together. Our system, political system, was built on basically having one foot on the brake and one foot on the accelerator at all times. Thats what the Founding Fathers designed, and whether they wanted it or not, it was designed that way. So for anything to work in america, you have to get along. And its not like a parliamentary system where the Prime Minister is the leader of his or her party and can generally decide can generally decide what to do. So my point in all of this is that congress is the dominant force. The senate is historically been the dominant force. The coalition between rural and urban interests has been forged over the years largely between because of the coalition of nutrition and more traditional farm program levels, and that has been the case until the current time. But the coalitions, especially between rural and urban and conservative and liberal are becoming more frayed in this country. The last farm bill, the Coalition Just about broke up and dissolved. It took over two years. The bill was around two years late, and in large part because ideological politics dominated rather than the kind of consultative and cooperative politics that has been traditional in farm programs over the years. The congress did finally pass a farm bill. It took nearly three years of delay and pulling teeth by a few people, particularly in the senate, and the house chairman. There were people in both houses of congress, but, again, it was largely people in the congress that got this bill passed. So i mention all this because then i got you got to look to the context of politics generally in america right now. And its no secret that most people are looking at our political system, even inside our political system, and seeing it just doesnt feel right. Its just not working the way it should. People do nothing but fight and kill and scream and or engage in kind of tribal politics where very little can get very little future legislation can get done. So when you look at agriculture and Food Security and all these enormous challenges that ill touch on toward the end of my remarks, kind of got to look at our political system. The reason why is because america has been a driving force behind so many things to deal with the rest of the world and bringing developing world up into more modern ways of coping and dealing with Food Security , issues and humanitarian issues. Other countries are engaged too, but the United States has been such a driving force for these programs, as well as for others as well, that you wonder whats happening in the big picture right now. What is it that the country doesnt seem to have its act together . Because if we dont have our act together, it will be very difficult for us to influence issues Like Research and climate and yields and a whole source of litany of issues that impact the world at large. So i want to just talk about that for a second. In the context of these large issues affecting american politics, bipartisanship, civility, and working across party lines, which has been a very strong theme throughout the history of american politics, those themes are frayed right now, and weve got to figure out ways to restore those in order for the United States to maintain its leadership in food, Food Security, agriculture, and Everything Else that you can think of. Ive been at a place called the Bipartisan Policy Center for about 3. 5 years now. It was started by the last four Senate Majority leaders, senators dole, dashle, mitchell , and baker. Two republicans, two democrats. So people will come up to me and say, boy, youve been doing a hell of a job at this Bipartisan Policy Center the last 3. 5 years and my response is just how just think how terrible it would be if i was not at the Bipartisan Policy Center. We would have a revolution by now. The point is that the kinds of themes and trust that are needed to make our country function better are so much harder to achieve. And if you look in the area of agriculture and food, where you consider 1. 5 of the people are actually producing the food and maybe you have up to 10 in the whole sector, that it is so critically important that these bridges be built with other parts of our country and that there be some sort of glue to bring the country together in order to solve the problems. They are becoming harder and harder to solve, and as i said, our system only works if theres trust. Trust is the grease that allows people of different philosophical views to Work Together. And i repeat this, because i think its important. The branches of government between our within our constitutional system are equal. So the congress and the president and the courts are equal, and if you dont get that then you cant explain why it is that were having so much trouble right now. Because when you have people of equal authority and legitimacy working on problems, one of those people has to work to give a bit in order to get the other thing done. It reminds me of the relationship between me and my wife. I will tell you that the relationship is an equal relationship. My dad used to say he always had the last word in my family. My mother would say shut up and hed say ok. The truth of the matter is is that it takes two to tango and that kind of consensus building is whats important. We did not want the tyranny of a too powerful executive so we agreed that this political system would exist where we would be separate and wed have checks and balances and no one place in our government would have excessive power over another place. But it works only if people could get along. It works only if the public demands that people get along with each other. My own belief is 80 , 85 of the American People want the system to work better. Its just the 15 or so that are the driving forces in our political system. Theyre the ones that are pushing politicians to the edge. And theyre the ones i think in some part responsible for the kind of ads that you see on tv. We our system cannot operate as a parliamentary system like the brits do, or the japanese do, or other places, because of separation of powers. And if we try to operate like a parliamentary system so the parties are unanimous and rigid and Work Together on everything, then its surely going to break down. So well see what happens in these elections on tuesday. Watching all the commentary speak about them, you know, im hopeful that a lesson from all of this is that the public will speak and a message of civility and bipartisanship will be heard as a result of this election. I dont know. We have two more years of a presidency and, of course, the day after this election starts the elections of 2016. But, again, im hopeful that we will be able to resolve this. Now, how does this all i talked a little bit about our political system, because i spent all this time in the legislative branch of government, and i think one has to understand it before you take a look at the issues of Food Security and Food Production, food and health and everything. So i start with the basic principle in this whole area, and this is the good news. The good news is that agriculture and food issues for years were pretty much parochial issues and they were part of the people from those states or those parts of the country that produced the food. And now agriculture and Food Security issues are much higher up on the international agenda. They are integral topics in these meetings whether the g8 or the g20 or g7 1 2 or g8 i cannot remember whether the russians are in or out of it and issues of the environment, of water, of population, of feeding the hungry world in a sustainable way, these are much higher worldwide priorities than they used to be. The downside for some in agriculture means that some folks are now in this game watching these issues. It used to be just, lets say, the land grant schools, or just the people who represent commodity groups. Now you have consumers, economists, the nonagriculture sector is very interested in Food Security issues. Politically they are bigger issues because their impact on International Situations and the destabilization of countries that are dont have access to an adequate food supply. Napoleon once said that war is too important to be left to the generals. And my theory is agriculture and food interests are too important just to be left to the people in agriculture. That sometimes is a hard fact for people who spent their lives in traditional production agriculture to accept. But the fact of the matter is that feeding a hungry world is a very high political priority, and its one that fortunately has come up significantly since i first got into politics about 40 years ago. So thats good news. And that good news i think helps policymakers, whether theyre in congress or around the world, focus on some of these important longterm issues affecting agriculture. There is now a realization, another piece of good news bad news. The bad news is weve been underfunding research in agriculture. The good news is there is a realization that were underfunding research. Bob and others and i tried to be involved in this have been quite involved and engaged in talking about the fact that dollars spent on agriculture and Food Research have been falling in real terms for the last 20 years and the challenges are getting bigger, and the amount of money going into research is getting smaller. The research thats being done is not very prioritized. In my judgment, a lot of it is the Research Done earlier and does not necessarily meet where the gaps are in the future. The bad news a little bit is that very little attention was given to research during the debate on the farm bill. I dont think that Congress Even held one hearing during the farm bill on research. Most of the hearings are going to be on what the Crop Insurance program will look like or the payment level to farmers will look like. Its important if you live in that part of the country. But what kind of longterm research is needed to make our agriculture competitive, with respect to the debates of the future, are already that critical. So where are the gaps in the future of agriculture, Agriculture Policy, Agriculture Research . Ill give you a litany of some of these gaps. The first gap, of course, is as population grows, how do we feed this large group of growing numbers of people, particularly in the developing world . Now, that is a huge problem. However, im a little bit of a contrarian on this problem. Because i think we just accepted that the population will grow another three billion people or so. Maybe. Maybe well get a better handle in population planning. Maybe we get a, you know, a better handle on the developing world internal policies as they grow, and we just dont have to meet those assumptions. I know that most people believe that population growth figures are a given. I am not sure. I hope that im wrong i mean, i hope im right about this. Not that i am wrong about this. The second challenge is how to feed these people sustainably without ripping up fragile farmland around the country. There has been a fair amount of farmland at high farm prices that has been plowed under. That is a real serious problem with respect to our National Resources. Forests and fragile land. So the conservation and National Resources is a big thing. Politically, it is critically important to agriculture to understand that the support of the future of farm programs is a large part dependent on the public believing that agriculture interests are, in fact, good stewards of the public land. Increasing crop yields is another issue. The rate of the yield increase has been slowing significantly, especially with respect to the row crops. How do we deal with it . How do we deal with it sustainably and how do we use technology in the way to increase yields . Dealing with rising food prices. That was a big factor in the last decade. Farm prices in many cases have fallen rather dramatically. It is going to go back up again. The demographics of agriculture are clear that we will have extremely volatile food prices over the next two or three decades. The whole issue of climate weather variability, Global Warming, co2 emissions how that is going to affect agriculture. This is an area where i think that some in agriculture recognize this problem. Some in agriculture are fighting this problem that there is, in fact, Global Warming occurring. And it could be that agriculture has a role in both cause and prevention of this issue. I spoke not long ago to a big crowd of farmers i wont tell you exactly which group, but i was just amazed this was about a year and half ago. There were about 1000 farmers there, and the intensity of negative feelings about this issue, about epa. The epa was almost i have never seen an American Agency so vilified as i saw the epa. I have never seen the suspicion, about science, especially about climate science, so vilified. This is something that we in agriculture have to figure out how to deal with. You cannot have it both ways in science. I am the right is very much suspicious, politically wise of about the science of Climate Change. But, by and large, they embrace the technology. The left is very suspicious about the science of biotechnology, and embraces the science of Climate Change. I remember senator moynihan said, you can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts. What has happened in the areas of science is people have facts with ideology. Certainly, one of our challenges in the future is how to get people on the same page when it comes to these issues of science and technology. Because many of the problems are going to be solved. Energy okay, agriculture is perhaps the largest perunit user of energy in this country. That is one place where there is a remarkably positive thing happening. I mean this country is likely to , become Energy Independent in the next decade. We are the largest or will be producers of natural gas in the world. Respect, if you are looking at some of the positives of agriculture, it would be the power of energy and energy availability, energy pricing, to make agricultural a lot more competitive. More competitive than it has been in the past. One final thing which i think is important to consider is the issue of the ruralurban interface in this country and the world as a whole. Large parts of the world moved from rural regions, especially in china, it has Significant Impact on Food Production, water utilization, and climate. These are great challenges of the future. The question is are our , political systems able to deal with these political challenges . And, you know, i work a lot in the foundation world, with corporations and ngos. And they are all very important, but none can provide the skill scale of government none. If you want to feed a hungry world nobody has been more out in the front of this than the Gates Foundation. I work a lot with them. But they are small. Even bill and Melinda Gates are small in connection with the scope and size of government to deal with these massive problems. So i think it is great that the foundation world, the ngo world, and the corporate world are all involved. And by the way, they are the forefront of a lot of the issues and what we need to be doing to change policy. What gage and rockefeller and ford and other foundations are doing in africa and the developing world are remarkable. But we cannot forget that governments have the amount of money, the capital, and the influence to help solve these problems. I will say this in a bit of a chauvinistic sense. No one has this more than the United States of america. It is a great symbol of leadership that we have been able to be, historically, a major factor in feeding hungry people and helping folks develop themselves. The real question for us is, can we continue to do it given the political system that we currently have. I mentioned our Research Establishment. Some of you may know that congress created a 250 million fund in the last farm bill called the foundation for food , and Agriculture Research. Im not sure why the secretary of agriculture decided me to decided to get the least Competent Person to chair that, so he chose me to chair that fund. We are going to look at new and innovative ways to provide Agriculture Research initiatives that the private sector cant seem to or dont want to fund because they dont have a shortterm impact on their bottom line. And in many cases, the other parts of our federal Research Establishments dont want to or havent taken the risks involved. There may be some slightly more interesting and less shortterm funding that is going to come out of the government, but our Research Establishment needs to be given the resources by the government and by the private sector to continue to work on these problems. And we also need to take a look internally and prioritize the kind of research is being done. Because quite frankly, a lot of the research being done in especially in the Public Sector is not as focused on basic research. It is replicative in many cases. It is not very well prioritized. That is my little editorial comment there. We need to figure out how to use new Information Technologies to help farmers around the world cope with pricing and weather. One of my real interests has to do with the Weather Service and how we get farmers worldwide instantaneous access to rainfall amounts, droughts, and other weather variability. And in many cases, i think we could be doing a much better job. What we need to be doing is giving farmers the tools to determine what pricing they are getting for their commodities and weatherrelated events and infrastructure, roads, that kind of thing, in order to make them more accommodating to the future. Food waste 30 of food is wasted. In the United States, too, believe it or not. Thrown in the garbage. We are an affluent country, we produce more than we use, and we eat more than we need. Then we should, by and large. Im speaking for myself as well as everybody else. World,the rest of the food wasted is in arge part a in large part a function of terrible roads, bad governance, intermittent electricity. Sometimes you think that if we could minimize food waste by 25 it would have a remarkable impact on our ability to view the world. That much less soil erosion, that much less land that has to be planted on. The issues of diet and health im struck with this whole ebola situation. The evidence seems to be clear that people who are healthier and better fit are more likely to survive the disease. More than people who have weak immune systems, not doing as well. I do not think that we have focused enough on the relationship between what you eat and how healthy you are. And i know the first lady and the president have gotten some flack for focusing on that but , to be honest with you, if you believe the old philosophy you are what you eat, then we shouldnt be afraid producers of food should not be afraid to look at the relationship between diet and health and having good science that gives us focus on that. Three other quick issues before i conclude. Water, water resources, water availability. Water is the lifeblood of agriculture and, you know, new technology we have to figure out better ways to grow crops and raise animals utilizing less water. I think we have the capacity to do that, but in the area of urbanization, when most of the water is going for people to drink who live in urban areas, it is going to be a bigger and bigger challenge all the time. I mentioned roads and transportation. Infrastructure. The greatest need of the developing world is a road system where people can move across. The United States have a role in doing that kind of thing. Finally, governance if overseas governance is not good. Not good, if the rule of law is not appreciated, if contract compliance is ineffective, it is really hard to build a system of selfsufficiency. I repeat the quote that i said before, war is too important to be left to the generals. We all have a stake in these issues. Whether you work in an automobile plant, whether you work in a farm. The issues are bigger than traditional ag and food issues. The ability of sustainability to produce enough food. The question is, do we have enough will . Is our political system up to that . Hopefully it is. I think it will be with a lot of tugging and pushing and pressure. With the help of folks in this room and others, we really have no alternative to that. Bob, thank you. Thank you all very much for listening to me today. [applause] thank you very much, dan, for that enlightening lecture. If you will join me at the table over there we will take , questions from the participants. Who has the first question . Right here in the corner. Lets start there. If you can state your name, too. An alum here from 1974, a student again. You mentioned a very important point. I am involved with an ngo in india. We can increment, but we cannot scale up. Only government can, and businesses can with a rough it motive. s and nonprofits can do is show the way. Where have you seen excellent transitions from ngos showing the way and governments picking up the scale at a rapid pace . Well, i will give you one example. Then i will talk more generally. In ethiopia, they have they always had a problem pricing coffee. Farmers who grew coffee could never figure out what they were going to get for the product and how part of it was a marketing problem. So with the efforts of usaid and led by some foundations and others they created a coffee , exchange. Now there is a mechanism where farmers can, using their cell phones and their smart devices, can access more current information on coffee prices. I understand it has had a remarkable effect on their income. That is one small example. I do think the administrations efforts in feed the future, and the bush administrations efforts on the pepfar which were dramatic. It is funny, a lot of people dont talk about it. In my political circles, george bush tends to get the same sort of negative views that barack obama does from the tea party. The truth is, the bush policies on health in africa were truly transformational. Those policies then had an impact on Economic Development and allowing people to move up the income chain. The same way with how president obama has been doing with feed the future and usaid have been really helpful. Not only in south africa, but latin america as well. But i do think the foundations and the ngos are often at the cutting edge of what needs to be done. You know, and i i have to tell you at the Gates Foundation is doing around the world in experimenting. See, they can experiment and fail. The government, if it fails, congress does not like that very well. They sometimes use the failure as an example. Why are we even doing this in the first place . So that is why it is so incredibly important that these foundations and related ngos still have the resources to be out there to inspire the government to do their work. But i repeat what you said, only the government can scale these projects up. Another question right here in the corner. And then we will come over to the middle. Hi, i am ben hirschman. I am a student here. First of all thank you for , coming to speak to us and thank you for the bipartisanship. A lot of us are appreciative of that, for a former public official to be that objective. You touched on Energy Security and how there is some positive aspects there. I wanted to ask if you could speak more about the intersection of Food Security and Energy Security, particularly with regard to how certain crops are grown, both for food and for energy. I think my friend bob thompson may be able to better comment than i can. I know that in africa we had this initiative to provide enough electricity so that farmers can be relatively independent in terms of their own living standards, as well as small production facilities. For example in the area of food , waste to really deal with a lot of those issues, you have to have electricity that country to that comes right to the farm gate. So it is a struggle, but it is an area where the ability of governments to function in an uncorrupt atmosphere can lead to some real successes in this area. My big point overall was the fact that the United States, for the first time, is becoming energy selfsufficient. And i think that that is going to change our attitude over the next decade or so, politically, in terms of how we approach whether it is the middle east or whether it is china. We operate in a relatively insecure world, in terms of our attitudes and practicality. In terms of energy and that, it is going to reliably change in the future. The final thing as technology. My prediction is that with the Rapid Movement of technology, we will be able to produce devices in this world for smallscale use that will allow them to do things that will use far less energy. Maybe relying on solar energy, i am not exactly sure what else than we ever dreamed of before. We just have to encourage that entrepreneurial spirit. Particularly in the developing world, to develop that smallscale technology. The only thing i would add is in respect of food crops that are used as feedstocks from which to produce biofuels like ethanol, i am a technology optimist. I believe that if we invest enough in productivity, we can feed the future better than today, at reasonable costs, without destroying the environment. Were not investing enough in Research Today to accomplish that. My estimate is that we need to grow production 2 3 by the end of the century. There is 10 less lands to grow on without cutting trees and well probably have to do it with less water because it is our outbidding farmers for water. So with that, as i said, i am a technology optimist. We can raise productivity fast enough to do both. At the moment we are not. So i sense there is some competition between food and fuel. The question here in the middle. Then we will go to the back. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Rob, with International Fertilizer development center. I think you really touched on the driving issue surrounding agriculture, Food Security, and i look back in terms of the idea of crossing partisan lines and creating a a coalition that works across party lines. There needs to be, usually, a driving issue that leads the way. 480 law in the 1950s was that sort of leadingedge that started a the working together of urban and rural interests. When i look at the eight or nine issues that you addressed, i do not see any of them as being the leading issue which gives the opportunity for both sides of the aisle to cross lines in this environment. Give me some hope that there is one that we might focus on. Well, i think hunger worldwide hunger is an issue. Hunger and poverty are extremely important issues and i do think there is a bipartisan support for alleviating world hunger. From a humanitarian perspective, when there is a drought or flood or tsunami, there, you clearly have bipartisan support. The question is how you drill deeper to do the Development Type things to bring people together. I sense it is there. The religious community believes that. Both liberal and conservative. The corporate world is now Business World is now very engaged in the developing world and will become more so in the years to come. And you know it is difficult in our country with the divisions that exist on so many issues, and people not coming together. The sales job has not done very well. You tell people, okay, how much do you think we spend on foreign assistance . The average person will say 20 , 50 , 10 . It is 1 less than 1 . And that includes military assistance. Not just economic assistance. Agriculture has always been good at recognizing because we grew more than we consumed, so we were always very much involved in the sales and humanitarian side of the picture. Pl480 is an example of that. I think that is going to continue for a long time to come. Now you see when the big chasm drops in Commodity Prices i think is going to happen again and, quite honestly, this is my theory of government the president of the United States is the only one who represents everybody. The president has to be a leader on this issue. I think president obama has done a good job on feed the future and i thinkng aid, his administrator of a. I. D. Has been incredible. In the same way that president bush led the health issue in Subsaharan Africa and he was able to trump the more conservative forces in this country by saying it is in our american interests. Lets look at the ebola crisis for one moment. This is a crisis that i think we will get through. I think everybody kind of ignored it, it is happening somewhere else. The minute a guy in dallas gets it, and he dies, in new york, you see what is happening to quarantine issues. It has become a very big issue. We just have to continue a better job of explaining to people that america is part of the world, these issues are critical, and what happens to Food Security will impact us directly. It is just a constant battle. There is a hand there is a hand on the aisle in the back row. Im a former u. S. Trade negotiator. I worked with bob thompson on the last successful global agreement and agriculture. What year was that, by the way . In the 1980s. Okay, i didnt think he was guess itt old, but i is. We have not had an agreement since then. You have posited a world in there is Food Security. But agriculture all around the world is posited on the opposite. That is that we have overproduction and price declines. We negotiated several commitments during the go around, but then the u. S. Congress changed our form farm program where it may be difficult to abide by our commitments in the future cycle of low prices. My question is, how can the United States, if it were to violate its commitments as a result of its own domestic program, expect the rest of the world to abide by your by their commitments to import our food . Has anybody and this is not an issue of farm, not farm domestic politics how are they going to protect their export markets if we do not have a system which allows us to abide by our commitments . So it is like do as i say, not as i do, so to speak. I think it is a very important point. Is,one nice thing, i think, this last farm bill moves us into a direction which is less dependent on, what i call, suplusbased agriculture programs. And it is more based on Risk Management systems. If we get used to that, it will be helpful in making sure farmers know that trade is something that is central to our lives, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When i was secretary, i made a decision to let in mexican avocados into the United States. Then one day i have i have discovered the impact of farm politics more directly, because one day my wife wakes up nervous and she says, did you see this. I said, what is it . There is a picture of a mexican avocado grower a californian avocado grower, and im pointing a gun at the guys head because i allowed more mexican avocados into the country. So i began to realize that trade is an extremely complicated issue when it comes to agriculture. We have seen this battle with the brazilian cotton issue. There is a whole litany of it. You know, i worked for a president who really loved trade. This is a high priority to him and it made a difference there are other president s, im just talking about my own experience i remember when i was in congress, in the cabinet when nafta came up. He called me personally and said this is important to the united , states of america. It is one of the most important things we have ever done. I am not sure he was hyping it a bit, to be honest with you. But he cared about it very much. So i think one of the problems with trade is that if it becomes too technical, if it is explained in too much lawyer talk, then the commodity groups get a hold of it and the public is just has a mixed reaction to these things, anyways. The whole government, especially the white house and the u. S. Trade representatives office, has to look at these issues like they are very high priority to the United States. If they dont, it is really hard to sell. There is another hand back here. In the second row. Julie howard. I now an independent consultant. Ami was with usaid and feed the future. Thank you for all you have done over the past years and for a done to layou have the foundation for the future. I have a question, and then a more serious question. The first one is on this getting beyond the ideological lines do you think we made a mistake by, essentially, xing out earmarks . I think if we look into the horse trading that goes around money for particular district, i think if we look back, it provided sort of a trading currency that was maybe more important than we realized. That is one. Let me answer that. Yes. I think that earmarks need to be transparent. , we can find the Lawrence Welk museum, that became a big issue in one of my campaigns. It really cost nothing, but it was a big issue. So i think that earmarks need to be transparent. I think it is almost impossible for a legislative process to work without people feeling that they have investment in the system. During my years in the congress when i was able to get a few , things in a bill, they were usually not giant things, i voted for the bill. I supported the whole that is just the way all institutions work, thats the way family works. Why would we think that a congress does not work that way . So, yes is my answer. We look forward to that the partisann from policy foundation. We will see. My more serious question is that we have a tremendous opportunity with this research foundation. I am really struck by private sector stepping up in a number of ways, particularly on sustainability issues and, sort of, moving beyond trying to think how this foundation might serve as a more public platform for, not just Climate Change and those sorts of, and biotechnology, as important as they are polarizing issues. And really talking about what are the key issues that are facing us every day the droughts in the west, the increase in insects and pests Framing Research priorities in terms of those immediate problems and our ability to grapple with them over the next five, 10, 20 years. Im wondering about the prioritysetting process that you perceive for the foundation. First of all, secretary has vilsack has taken a leadership on this and appointed this committee. Were going to meet for the first time next week. We have not met yet as a total group. We have to map out a strategy and what our investments are going to be. If you look at the legislative history, it is not really specific on this. The only thing is that it requires match to match. We cannot spend money on our own without a match. I think the implication is that we should deal with gaps knowledge that we dont know. And i am sensitive to your points because i have always talked about the asteroids, the things that could come and hit us and destroy us in some way. So i would be prone to not wanting to do too many real longterm things. But i do think that we can partner with the private sector, partner with the University Community the fact that we have to match it means that we need their help as well. I expect and hope that will come. But i appreciate your comments. There was another hand over here, wasnt there . Okay, over to the other side. Student here. My question regards the intersection between Agriculture Policy and what we can call business policy. There is a lot of criticism that the agriculture industry is sort of moving towards higher consolidation, larger squeezing of megaagriculture programs, and the influence that they play not just on how food is made, but International Food policy and sort of the broader agriculture frame. My question is what role do you , see consolidation in agriculture producers and the checks and balances government has, or in some cases, has not placed on those corporations . That is a good question. First of all, we have consolidation generically in almost every industry in the past 50 years in this country. Airlines four a irlines that fly everywhere in this country. It is kind of generically true. In hindsight, the government could of been more forceful and aggressive and looking at competition perhaps in a more cosmic way. I think they have done it rather clinically improved a lot of this. There are some positive trends happening in agriculture. Grownount of locally agricultural entities is growing exponentially. Organic agriculture is growing fast. Walmart is sourcing locally now. Walmart is perhaps not the best example to talk about what you are talking about because they sell over 20 of the food in the United States. They are trying to build a local market as well. There is a great demand for American People to know where their food comes from and that creates a counter demand to largescale agriculture. I dont think we are going to go back to mom and pop agriculture. I think the Global Economy with marketing, transportation, processing it takes size in many cases to feed people. The counter argument to that is public demand to eat and choose a diet they want to eat and not necessarily be a supply driven atmosphere, but a demand driven atmosphere. There is a lot more interest by average consumers and what they eat today. People are not accepting it. I think that will produce a bit of an antidote to the concern that you raise. Notwithstanding that, i would not look to a different structure of our culture agriculture. I do think there is a trend on consumer demand that never existed before. Remember the movie field of it,ms if they build they will come . I think that has changed and people are demanding they have some input into that process. That is really good. The other question down here in the third row. I am from the embassy of denmark. The last five to 10 years has been a lot of talk about a new global order within World Economy and its relations. Do you see a new global order within agriculture . I am thinking about the countries china is buying land in africa and the importance of Food Security in international relations. That is a tough question. There are a couple of trends that are happening. Obviously, brazil has become one of the most dominant players in the world. In large part because of the establishment we provided them which is another reason why we need to make sure ours is not secondary but primary in the country. The demand of china and india is dramatic. Thes changing not only course of production but climate issues, demand issues. The other change his diet. We are now beginning to realize that what you eat has a lot of impact on how long you will live. That is new. I dont think in all my years on the House Agriculture Committee we ever held a hearing on the relationship between how healthy you are and what you eat. Those are all kind of new trends in this process. I suspect a global order will change. I think the United States will be a leading force in that global order no matter what happens given our productive capability of producing food that not a lot of other people have. It no longer can we set the rules. They will be set by huge buyers of food, new producers of food, environment issues and diet. Those other four things. I think that is good. There is another question right here. Chris . Thank you very much, secretary, for really interesting chat this morning. I am from the us trailing embassy australian embassy. It is a bit of a knotty question. Naughty question. Observer,tside agriculture there is a somewhat ow thephrenic way th h u. S. Looks at Agriculture Policy. You talked about this push to buy local there is also a huge push to increase exports. Wanting us to buy u. S. Products. That is the schizophrenic nature the way policy is being pursued at the moment by u. S. Agriculture interest is often difficult for other countries to understand. I would be interested in any thought to have in that area. I dont think it should be too difficult for you to understand. Do as i say, not as i do so to speak. Every country wants it both ways. They went to protect their producers, produces much, sell as much. Not necessarily buy as much unless we definitely have what you want. Historically, overall the u. S. Markets have been open. Doesnt mean there are not some restrictions in some areas but overall, our markets have been more open. Although, australia, new zealand you all have changed your farm programs rather significantly over the last 20 years and become much more open in terms of your economies and Everything Else. I think the administration has been doing its best to open exports wisely so. I have told tom bill sacked that tom bill sacked that he is presided over tom bilgsafpart is because they did a very good job working with the private sector and getting exports moving. These tensions are always going to exist. I think that they have to be worked as sensibly as possible. We have to understand that our markets have to be open as well in order for us to continue to pressure to break down barriers to does of them are outside the United States. The barriers to our agriculture products are much greater than they are for people trying to get into our market overall. Another question. With one. Rcise agriculture will figure prominently in the agendas of the United States. Most other high in countries. Up until the 1950s and then it went into a steep decline and nothing declined to more than proposal he then Agriculture Research within that foreign aid agriculture agenda. Of the house have twoyear terms and members of have twoyear terms. How do we get to the fact that station a sin that just the just station gest ation periods are higher. That is a great question. I would say that somehow we would have to link the research to benefits to humankind. We did that in the 1950s in terms of research for the vast segments of the developing world. I think there has been a feeling that the Research Agenda over the last 20 or 30 years has not been as innovative and supple and productive in the Public Sector. In the private sector, they have been able to produce certain benefits to crops and other things that people are found beneficial. You are going to drive people. Some people said it is terrible for the nih to get so Much Research and agriculture does not. You have cancer or Heart Disease or alzheimers, you can pretty much understand why the nih gets more research because it impacts peoples lives so directly. I think we have to do a better job of that and relating the both to agriculture but also to the consuming public. But at leasto do there is the growing recognition led by you and others, this trend does need to change. We will probably never get the nih but we need to be on the upside rather than a downside. The story needs to be told a lot better than it has been told. Shakespeare said the play is the thing. It is true and selling Agriculture Research and anything else. Collects is there another question is there another question . Yes . I had a question about the Research Priorities you are mentioning in both fronts. Quantity and quality. You want more research and you want better prioritization which is important. Any thoughts on where that might be . Almost like a hypothetical if you had additional funding today which with this new foundation you will. Maybe two or three most promising areas where if we had the money and we can put more for greater yields . Analyze where are the gaps in the research. Folks like bob and others can let us know better than we have. I would like to do an indepth study of the duplicative research being done by agriculture institutions and determine how much of that is necessary or not. A couple of things water related resources, utilization of water, yield increases and how we deal with that. Past and disease pest and disease. Plants and animals in this changing world, the weather we have. I think we need Technological Research like developing devices that give information to farmers faster. This is not just the agriculture world. It is the world of hightech and Silicon Valley as well. When you to think much more broadly than just looking at traditional Agriculture Research. The final thing is diet. If there is anything that confuses the American People is this cacophony of information out there about what you should eat and how it relates to your health. That area is crying out for research. Many other areas but just a few i would mention. Yes, over here . I was wondering if you could comment you talked a lot about political dysfunction. As an employee of the u. S. Government, i see a lot of bureaucratic dysfunction as well. Is there anything that can be done to make a more direct connection between the political decisionmaking and the larger objectives that are made in congress and how those are transmitted to the bureaucracy and encourage efficiency rather than responding that must be all nuisance. It is a very good question. Dysfunctionnty of when i was there as well. I will tell you one point this will answer your question a bit more indirectly. If the American People do not believe their government is doing their job competently and ably and functionally, they will lose confidence in it and not supported anymore. All the stuff we have seen about obamacare rollout or the va hospital thing or katrina were this or that, that makes people think the system does not work. Why should they supported at all . I think it is a big problem. There is a guy at usda that have become very close with who works for secretary vilsack. He came from the private sector to help work some of the problems. I think we need more people like him throughout the government that can help i think it is a great tribute to the secretary that he brought somebody like that in. Employee ifas an you see this dysfunction is to find a way to root it out i know it is easier said than done. When i was at usda, are used to walk around the hallways and walk into offices and say how are you doing . I think i either intimidated them or they thought i was crazy. Extract where to those things are happening that you could deal with. My experience at the usda was actually pretty positive in terms of the employees there serve the customers and the public pretty well. A lot of these demands were given by congress and forced their hand to do things a certain way because a member of the house or senate had it in his mind. I do not demean what you are thinking. A really worry about our government being able to stand and if it does not, it really turns people off. That is bad news for political dysfunction. Ok. One last question . The secretary, let me announce the next two events. Tomorrow at 12 30 p. M. Across 736,treet at room Professor Emeritus nelson of the will bety of illinois talking about publicsector Agriculture Research priorities for sustainable development. On december 10, back by popular demand, you will be speaking at 10 30 a. M. He was the counselor here in washington at the European Union and for the last decade or so he has been the chief policy analyst in the office of the commissioner of agriculture and european commission. We are looking forward to these next events in the series. We are already working the schedule for the Spring Semester from the beginning of february until may. Thanks to all of you for coming today and join me in thanking secretary glickman. [applause] on the next washington journal, we will talk about what to expect in the final days withng up to election day Abby Livingston of rollcall and paul singer of usa today. Also a look at how candidates are obtaining voter information and using it to encourage turnout. Michael beach and jim walsh will join us. We will take your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. It begins live at 7 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Throughout campaign 2014, cspan has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress. This tuesday night, watched cspans live Election Night coverage to see who wins, who loses and which party will control the house and senate. The coverage begins at 8 p. M. Eastern with the results and analysis. You will see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely watched senate races across the country throughout the night and into the morning. We want to hear from you with your calls, Facebook Comments and tweets. Campaign 2014 Election Night coverage on cspan. In his weekly address, president obama discusses issues facing women and working families. And u. S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell delivers the republican response. Everybody. On friday, i had a discussion with working women in rhode island about the economic challenges they face in their own lives. Challenges shared by many of you. Thanks to the work we have all put in, our economy has come a long way these past six years. Over the past 50 months, the businesses have added 10. 3 million new jobs. For the first time in six years, the Unemployment Rate is below 6 and on thursday, we learned over the past six months, our economy has grown at its fastest pace since 2003. But, the gains of a grown economy are not yet felt by everyone. We have to harness this momentum and make the right choices so everyone that works hard can get ahead. In recent weeks, i have talked about the choices from raising the minimum wage to creating new jobs in construction and manufacturing. Today, i want to focus on what i discussed with those women. The choices we need to make to get more women to get ahead in the got in the economy. Women make up almost half of our workers today. More women are their families main breadwinner than ever before. The civil truth is when women succeed, america succeeds. We should be choosing policies that benefit women because that benefits all of us. Women deserve fair pay. Even though it is 2014, they are women still learning less than men for doing the same work. We dont have 7 second class citizens in this country and we should not in the workplace either. Lets make sure women earn equal pay for equal work and have a fair shot at success. To takeserve to be able time off to take care of a new baby, an ailing parent or take a sick day for themselves without running into hardship. Lets make sure all americans have access to paid family leave. Pregnant workers deserve to be treated fairly. Even today, women can be fired for taking too many bathroom breaks or force on unpaid leave for being pregnant. That is wrong. We have to choose policies that ensure pregnant workers are treated with dignity and respect. New parents deserve quality affordable childcare. There is nothing like the peace of mind that comes with knowing your kids are safe while you are at work. The benefits that children get can pay off for a lifetime