do and what should we do and what could the united states be doing as we do with the security issues and how we impact the rest of the world. i think one general theme is agricultural interests are very powerful. here in the u.s. and in most countries. they are disproportionately more powerful to the numbers of people who are in the field. if you look at today united states anywhere between one and a a quarter and one-3/4% of the people are producing food in terms of the larger number of people who are in the business generally. then you look at u.s. policy as it's related to farm programs and related issues. you really see that there is historically a much greater power and interest in agriculture than they are are in the numbers people in this

country. that's not all nature in the u.s. but that's true in western europe and the u.s. and india and i was just in japan and is true in in japan. interest in food disproportionally more powerful than the numbers are an especially when you consider the number veaux in rural settings. in the u.s. this disproportionate power, notice i'm not saying excessive power. i say disproportionate power is baked into our constitution from the fact that each state has two senators. whether it's wyoming with 700,000 people or california with over 50 million people they are each represented by the exact same number of people in our government. the senate is the great protector of agriculture and it has been since the beginning of time and still remains that way whereas the house of representatives may have 40 or

50 members that are predominantly food production districts. every united states senator represents at least some food production and that includes the smaller states like rhode island and delaware to the larger states. historically those interests were dominated by people from the midwest in the heartland states of illinois, indiana, missouri and kansas and the midwest and states in the south where you had members of the united states senate who were elected forever. they accumulated great amounts of power and they were able to influence the political presence significantly to the states of mississippi which is one state that has accumulated a large amount of power. although southern states georgia south carolina north carolina which is called the southern --

and powerful defenders but congress and that's why programs like tobacco cotton and rice got special treatment. even in big states that have big urban populations states like california or the pacific northwest even in the northeast where you tend to have smaller producers, those producers and those interests have very strong senators among their senators. for for example in the state of vermont senator patrick leahy the chairman of the agriculture committee and nobody is more tenacious in defending agriculture. of course they did a good job protecting the dairy industry be those interests particularly in the senate and we still have it in the constitution which is not changed in the last farm bill is the senate for the ultimate

action was taken to facilitate this build to finish. those interests have a lot to do with not only u.s. farm policy that u.s. trade policy and in addition to the variety that we have to deal with. that is 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've been changes of course that the population in this country is not from a population of 40% rural before the second world war two less than 10% today. yet the programs are still widely supported in the congress. about 40 years ago a political calculus was made in this area that this would not last forever and a new equation was needed to add to this coalition to keep

this funding arrangement. smark senators like mcgovern and others decided you know just looking at the demographics at some point there will be people working on farms. we have to broaden the coalition to get these legislative bills through. so a new coalition was developed with people who needed food assistance. that coalition was demonstrated by a snap or the food stamp program school meals go with program women and children and others. that created an alliance between urban and rural interest that grew up largely in the 1960s and 70's in which lasted pretty much until today. there is no question it has frayed. it was almost blown up in the last farm bill that the

coalition between food producers and food consumers who use the federal assistance programs basically cap to farm bill politically alive for a very very long time. ..

>> political theory is merely the rationalization of self interest and farmers have a lot of self-interest that belied their kind of additional west government interventionist beliefs on about everything else. so you will find from supporters and congress supporting these programs and often not supporting other federal programs going in this way. and so the other point i would make is while the president and the executive branch is certainly important in terms of the making of foreign policy and in policymaking generally, but overall it has been congress that has led the decisions on

farm and commodity programs and nutritional assistance and not the white house or the congress. and when i was secretary of agriculture, i was there from 1995 through 2001 and the congress passed the farm bill in 1996 called freedom to farm. i talked to president clinton about this on repeated occasions and it was clear even when i was secretary that the decisions were made and the legislative branch and we implemented them and we could modify them to some degree but probably not since the days of henry walsh has the congress been able to assert itself rather than dramatically in these programs and the last farm bill president obama and his team are not the driving force. it was the congress. this is sometimes very difficult for people outside of the united states understand because

understanding our political systems we have something called separation of powers. where we have checks and balances. or the executive branch is not the head of state. and we actually don't have a head of state like the prime minister. so when we debate farm bill's and we are talking about trade issues and we talk about the role of the congress, it's very difficult for people outside of the united states understand that we have a system that is else upon separation and not working together. and whether they wanted it or not, it was designed that way. so for anyone to work in america you have to get along and it's not like a parliamentary system where that's the leader of his or her party and when they can

generally decide what to do. and so my point in all of this is that congress is the dominant force, the senate is historically the dominant force in the coalition between rule and urban interests has been largely because of shirt nutrition and more traditional farm program levels and especially between rural and urban, they are becoming more freight in the country. the last farm bill and the coalition just about broke. and in large part because it a logical politics dominated rather than the kind of consultant and cooperative politics it has been traditional in farm programs over the years,

congress did finally pass a farm bill and it took nearly three years of delay by a few people, particularly in the senate. and it was largely the people in the congress that got this bill passed. and so i mention all of this because we have to look to the context of politics generally in america. and it's no secret that most people are looking at our political system and even inside of our political system saying this doesn't feel right come it and it's not working the way it should. and this includes engaging the type of tribal politics we're very little legislation can get done. when you look at agriculture and food security and all of these enormous challenges, we kind of

have 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 in bringing the developing world up into more modern ways of coping and dealing with food security issues and humanitarian issues. the united states has been such a driving force, as well as for others as well that what is happening in the big picture right now it doesn't seem to have the act together because it if they don't have the act together it will be very difficult for us to influence issues like research and climate and issues that impact the world at large. so does talking about that for a

second in the context of these issues impacting american politics bipartisanship, stability and working across party lines, which have been a very strong theme throughout the history of american politics. those things are frayed right now and we have to figure out ways to restore those in order for the united states to maintain its leadership in food and security and agriculture and everything else you can think of. i've been at a bipartisan policy center for about 3.5 years and this was started by the last senate majority leader, there are two republicans and two democrat senators. so there are people that would come up and say you have been doing a heckuva job with bipartisan politics and my response is just think how terrible the world would be if i

want the bipartisan politics. we would have a revolution by that and the kinds of themes and trust that is needed and it's so much harder to achieve. and if you look in the area of agriculture and food what you consider 1.5% of the people are actually producing the food and maybe you have up to 10% of the people in the sector, it is so critically important that is religiously built with other parts of the country and that there be some sort of glue to bring the country together to solve the problems and it's harder and harder to solve his and it only works if there is trust. it allows people with different philosophical views to work together. and i repeat this because it's important. the branches of government

between our constitutional system are equal in the congress and the president are equal. and you can't explain why it is that we are having so much trouble right now and we have legitimacy working on problems. and one of those people has to work to get these things done. and i would show you that relationship is an equal relationship. my dad used to say that he always had the last word in our family and my mother with a shut up and he with day okay. but truth is that it takes two to tango with that kind of consensus building that is what is important and we did not want the tyranny of a powerful

executive. so we agreed that a political system would exist where we would be separate and we but have checks and balances and there would be no one place that would have accepted power over another place. but it works only if people could get along and only if the public demands that people get along with each other. and it is just the 15% or so of the driving forces in our political system. and that includes the ads that you see on tv. our system cannot operate like the bricks do or the japanese do or other places do you because of separation of power. so if we tried to operate like a parliamentary system of unanimous and rigid who work together on everything, it is surely going to break down. and we will see what happens in these elections, watching all of

the commentary. and i am hopeful that a lesson from all of this is that the public will have a message of civility and bipartisanship will be heard as a result of this election. i don't know, we have two more years of the presidency in the day after the election starts, the elections of 2016. but again, it's hopeful that we will be able to talk about this. i have spent all of this time in the legislative's national government and i think that one has to understand that before we took an issue at food security and food production and food and health and everything. and it misses the good news. the good news is that agriculture for years was

parochial issues and that includes the people from both parts of the country that produced this. and now agriculture and food security issues are much higher up on the international agenda and it's a global meeting, whether the g8 or g-8 or the g20 or the g7 now is what the russians are out of. and issues of the environment and population and feeding a hungry world and these are much higher worldwide priorities than they used to be. but the downside for arab culture is that some folks are now in this game watching these issues. it used to be just the land-grant schools or the people who represent commodity systems. and they are very interested in

food security, politically there are bigger issues because of their impact on international situations and the destabilization of countries that don't have this. they once said that war is too important to be left to the generals. my theory is that agriculture and food interest are two important and that sometimes is a hard fact for people to accept in agriculture. but the fact of the matter is that is a very high-priority costume and one that is fortunately coming up significantly than i had first gone into politics about 40 years ago. that's good news that i think helps policymakers whether in congress or round the world focus on some of these important long-term issues affecting agriculture. and there is now a realization

and another piece of good news. the bad news is that we have been under funding research in agriculture. but the good news is that there is a realization that there we are under funding research. bob and others and i try to be involved in this and i try to be quite involved and engaged in the fact that the dollars spent on food research have been fallen for the last 20 years and the challenges are getting bigger and the amount of money is getting smaller and in many cases the research being done is not very prioritize and it's not replicative of the research that was done earlier and it doesn't necessarily meet with what things are in the future. the bad news is a little bit is given to the debate on the farm belt. i don't think the they even held one thing to will during research. most of the hearing is going to be on the what the insurance

program is going to look like or what it will take to obtain it and what it will look like. it is important with one what kind of long-term research is needed to make our culture competitive and perceptive of the debates of the future. they are already that critical. where are the gaps in the future of agriculture policy and research? and i will kind of give you a litany of some of these gaps. the first one is the population grows, how do we feed this large group of growing numbers of people, particularly in the developing world. that is a huge problem. however, i'm a little bit of a contrary in on this. because i think that we have just accepted the population will grow another 3 billion people or so. maybe we will get a better handle on population planning and maybe we will get a better

handle on the developing internal policies and we just don't have to meet the assumption. and i know that most people believe that it's kind of a given. but i'm not sure. i hope that i am right about this. but the second challenge is how to feed these people sustainably without ripping up fragile farmland throughout the country. it has been plowed under to take advantage of those higher prices and that is a real serious problem with respect to our natural resources. and so the conservation of natural resources is a big thing. and it's critically important that agriculture understand that the support of this is in large part that agriculture interests

is good stewards of the public land. increasing crop yields and this has been slowing significantly, especially how do we deal with it, sustainably and how do we use technology to increase the yields. dealing with rising food prices and impact on political stability, that's a big factor from the last decade. they have grown in many cases fallen rather dramatically. but it's going to go back up again. the demographics of agriculture is clear that we will have extremely volatile food prices over the next two or three decades. and so issues of climates, global warming, co2 emissions, how that is going to affect agriculture. in this area is where some

recognize this recognized this problem and some in agriculture are fighting this problem, that there is in fact a warming occurring and it could be that agriculture has a role in the cause and prevention of this issue. i spoke not long ago at a big crowd of farmers and i won't tell you exactly which group, but i will tell you that i was just amazed. this is about a year and a half ago and there were about a thousand farmers there and the intensity of negative feeling that encapsulated this issue about the epa and -- i have never seen an american agency so vilified and i've never seen the suspicion especially about climate science so vilified. this is something that we have to figure out how to deal with.

you can't have it both ways in science. the right is very much suspicious, political rights, suspicious of the science of climate change and by and large they embrace the science of biotechnology. the left is very suspicious about the science of biotechnology. and embracing the science of climate change. i remember senator moynihan from new york once said you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. what has happened in the area of science as it affects much of our altar is that people have ideology rather than looking at science and a broader perspective and certainly one of our challenges in the future is how to get some on the same page when it comes to these issues of science and technology, because

ultimately many of the problems are going to be solved and that as well. and so energy, agriculture is perhaps the largest user of energy in this country and that is one place where actually there is a remarkably powerful thing happening. this country is likely to become energy independent in the next decade with the largest producers of natural gas in the world. and in one respect if you are looking at some of the positives of arab altar, it would be the power of energy and energy availability and pricing to make it look a lot more competitive than it has been in the past. and one final thing that i think is important to consider is the whole issue of the rural urban interface in this country. and this is from rural regions especially from china, it had

significant impact on food production and climate. these are our great challenges to the future. the questions include our political system is able to deal with these political challenges. and i work a lot in the foundation world in the corporations are held and they are all very important, but none can provide the scale of government. so if you want to feed a hungry world, no one has been more out in front of this and the gates foundation. but they are small, even bill and melinda gates are small and connection with the scope and size of government to deal with these massive problems. and so i think it's great that the foundation world and the ngo world in the corporate world are all involved, and they are at

the forefront of a lot of these issues and what we need to be to exchange policies. and this includes what others are doing that are emarkable, but we cannot forget that we have the amounts of money in the capital and the influence to help to solve these problems. and i will say this in a chauvinistic sense, no one has that more than the united states of america. it is a great symbol of leadership that we have been able to be a major factor in helping folks develop themselves. the real question is can we continue to do it given the political system that we currently have. mentioning the research establishment, the congress created a 200 million-dollar fund in the last farm bill called the foundation for food and agriculture research. i'm not sure why the secretary

decided to get the least competent person to chair that, so he chose me and we are going to be looking at new and innovative ways to provide agriculture research initiatives that the private sector don't want to find because they don't have a short-term in fact on their bottom line and in many cases that include the state research establishment that haven't taken the risks involved. these could be some slightly more interesting findings that are coming out of the government. the research establishment needs to be given the resource by the government and the private sector to continue to work on these problems. we also need to prioritize research that is being done. a lot of the research that is being done especially in the

public sector is not as focused on basic research and 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 interests has to do with the weather service and how we get spontaneous access to information about rainfall amounts, drought, and other weather variability is and in many cases i think that we could be doing a much better job. what we need to be doing is getting the tools to determine the pricing for commodities and whether related events and the infrastructure and that kind of thing in order to make them more accommodating in the future. 30% of the food is wasted and

thrown in the garbage, and the united states, 30% on in the garbage. we are an affluent country, we produce more than we use and we eat more than we should by and large. and i'm speaking of myself here as well as everyone else. food waste is in large part terrible roads, bad government, intermittent electricity. you know, you sometimes think if we could minimize food waste by 25% we would have a remarkable impact, that much less land that would have to be on. the issues of diet and health, i'm not stuck with this whole ebola situation, the evidence seems to be clear that people who are healthier and more likely to do is survive the disease than those that have a weak immune system and not doing as well. i don't think that we have focused enough on the

relationship between what you eat and how healthy you are. i know the first lady and the president have gotten some flak on that. but to be honest with you, if you believe the french philosopher that you are what you eat, we shouldn't be afraid look much more sophisticated between diet and health and having good science to focus on that. two other issues are water and water availability. the lifeblood of agriculture and using new technologies. we have to figure out better ways to grow crops in raise animals, utilizing less water, the technical capacity to do that. in the area of urbanization where most of the water is going to people to drink that live in urban areas, it's going to be a

bigger and bigger challenge. it is the greatest need of the developing world, where people can move the crops in the united states has a role in doing that kind of thing. finally governments where it's not good, the rule of law is not well appreciated, it is ineffective, it is really hard to build a system of self-sufficient we that we have so locally had in our country. repeating the quotes that we have said before, war is too important to be left to the generals. we all have a stake in these issues whether urban or rule or working in an automobile plant or on a farm. the issues are bigger than traditional agriculture and in my mind these are the biggest issues that we will face in the future. the ability to sustainably produced enough food. we have the well and is our

political system up to the task? not only the american political system of the global political system and hopefully it is. i think it will be with a lot of pushing and pressure and with the help of folks in this room and others, we really have no alternative to that. bob, thank you all very much for listening to me today. [applause] [applause] >> make you very much for that enlightening lecture. if you doing at the table over there, we will take questions from the participants. >> who had the first question? >> right there in the corner back there. and if you can state your name as well. >> hello, i'm in a alumni here from 74. and you mentioned a very

important point is. [inaudible] we can increment that only government can and businesses can have a profit motive. all ngos can do is show the way. where have you seen excellent transmission from ngos showing the way and governments picking up this scale at a rapid pace? >> i will give you an example and i will talk generally. in ethiopia they have always had a problem with pricing. they could never figure out what they were going to get for their product and part of it was a marketing problem. with the efforts of usaid and led by others, they created an exchange. and now there is a mechanism where farmers can, using their cell phones and they're smart

devices can access more current information on prices and the data remarkable effect on income levels. and i think that they are our efforts by the bush administration, which were dramatic. it's funny that a lot of people don't talk about it. in my political circle george bush tends to get the same kind of negative publicity that barack obama gets from the tea party and the right wing. but the bush efforts on health were truly transformational. those had an impact on economic development and allowing people to move up the income chain. and so i think the same way with what president obama has been doing have been really helpful in latin america as well.

and i do think that the foundations and the ngos are often at the cutting edge of what needs to be done. i just have to tell you that what the gates foundation is doing around the world and experimenting. they can experiment and fail and the government, if it fails, congress doesn't like that very well. they will sometimes use failure as an example of why are you even doing this in the first place. so that's why it is important that these related ngos still have the resources to inspire the government. but repeating what you said, only the government can scale these projects back. >> hello, my name is ben hirschman. thank you for speaking to us and thank you for the objectivity and nonpartisanship. a lot of us are appreciative of

that as it's difficult for a former public official to be objective. you touched on energy security and how there's aspects there. i wanted to ask could speak a little more about who security and energy security is, particularly with how they are grown. >> i think my friend could be able to comment better than me. in africa we have this initiative that the goal is to provide enough electricity so that farmers can be relatively independent in terms of their own living standards and production standards. in the area of food waste, to really deal with a lot of those issues will we have to have electricity that comes to this. and this is the ability of government to function in a non-corrupt atmosphere, it can

lead to some successes in this area. my big point overall was the fact that the united states for the first time is becoming energy self-sufficient. and i think that that is going to change her attitude over the next decade or so politically whether it's the middle east or china and we operate in an insecure world in terms of the practicality and that is going to rely and change on the future. the final thing is technology. my prediction is that with the rapid movement of technology we are going to be able to produce devices in this world for small-scale use that will allow them to do things that use far less energy, maybe relying on solar energy, and the things

that we never dreamed of before. we have to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit to develop a small-scale technology >> the only thing that i would add is respect to food crops for which to produce biofuels like ethanol, i'm a technology optimist and believe that if we invest enough in productivity, we can be the world without destroying the environment, but we are not investing enough to congress that. my current estimate is that we need to grow production two thirds between now and the middle of the century. and there's 2% more land and are probably going to have to do with less water because of these will be omitting this for available water. with that, as i say, i'm a technology optimists.

i think we can invest enough in research and raise productivity fast enough to do both, at the moment we are not. so i sense that there is some kind of competition between food and fuel at the moment. the question in the middle and then we will go to the back. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i think that you really touched upon the driving issues surrounding agriculture and food security. and i look back in terms of the idea of crossing partisan lines and creating a coalition that works together across party lines. they're usually needs to be a driving issue that leads the way and i ain't that this law in the 50s sort of was that leading edge that started the working together of urban and rural interests. when i look at the eight or nine issues that you addressed, i

don't 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 that worldwide hunger -- hunger and poverty are extremely important issues. and i do think that there is a bipartisan support for alleviating world hunger and from a humanitarian perspective when there is a drought or famine or something terrible, he flutters nominee, clearly you have bipartisan support. but the question is how do you drill deeper to do the development types things that bring people together. the religious community, both liberal and conservative elites that, the corporate world, the business world is now very engaged in the developing world

and will become more so in the years to come. and, you know, it's difficult in our country with the divisions that exist on so many issues and people not coming together. the sales jobs have not been very well. you tell people, okay, how much do you think that we have spent on foreign assistance to map the average person will say 20%. 50%, 10%, it's less than 1%. by the way, that includes military assistance, foreign military assistance if not economic assistance. you know, agriculture has always been good at recognizing because we had been growing more than we can consume and we are always involved in this ales and humanitarian items the picture and it's an example of that. i think that that is going to continue for a long time to come. now you see when this drop in

commodity prices occurs, i think it's going to happen again. quite honestly this is my area of government. the president of the united states is the only one that represents everybody. the president has to be a leader on these issues. and i think president obama has done a good job on developing this. i think his administrator has been transformational and amazing guy. and in the same way that president bush let this health issue in africa, he was kind of able to trump some of the more conservative forces in the country. but it's in our american interests do this. let's look at the ebola crisis for a moment. this is an issue i suspect that we will get through. i think that everybody kind of ignored it and the minute the guy in dallas -- in new york you see what is happening with the

quarantine issues and everything else, it has become a very big issue. and we just have to continue a better job of explaining that america is part of the world, global the global issues are critical, what happens in food security will impact is very directly. it's a constant battle. you have to hand right here on the back row. >> hello, i'm a former negotiator and i work for bob thompson. working with the global agreement of agriculture. >> what year was that? >> in the 80s. >> i didn't think he was quite battle of. [laughter] >> we haven't had a successful global agreement. and you have talked about the shortage of food and domestic politics and agriculture all around the world and it is positive on that, and that is the way that it works.

the u.s. congress changed the farm program where it may be difficult to abide by commitment in the future of low prices. the question is how can the united states, if you were to violate the commandments and the result of its own domestic program, how can it expect the rest of the world to abide by this to import food. and so this is not farmer nonfarm domestic politics, it's going to face the agriculture community itself. and how are they going to protect the markets if we don't have a system which allows us to abide by our commitment. >> okay, it's like do as i say and not as i do, so to speak. well, i think it's a very important way the race. one nice thing is that this last

farm bill moves us into a direction which is less dependent on what i call surplus raised agriculture programs. and it's more based on risk management systems. so if we get used to that, that's going to be helpful in making sure that the farmers know that trade is something that is critical to their lives and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. when i was secretary, i made a decision to let in can avocados in the united states. and then one day, i discovered the impact of farm politics more directly. one day my wife wakes up and she's nervous and she says, did you see this? and she says, it's a picture of a mexican avocado grower among a call california avocado grower

and i'm pointing a gun at his head. and so traders -- i began to realize that it's an extremely complicated political issue when it comes to agriculture. so we've seen this in brazilian cotton issues, there's a whole litany of it. but i work for a president who really loves trade. this was high priority to him. and it made a difference in terms of this. there are other presidents who have maybe done it. and i remember when i was in congress, i wasn't yet in that cabinet when nafta came up. and he called me and said, this is important, the united states of america from it's one of the most important things we've ever done, i'm not sure that he was hyping it a bit, to be honest with you, but he cared about it very much.

one of the problems with trade is that it becomes too technical, if it's explained in too much lawyerly talked, the commodity groups can get a hold of it and the public is just kind of, they have a mixed reaction to these things anyway. so local government, especially in the white house and the u.s. trade representative's office, they have to look at these issues like they are a very hyper or before the united states and if they don't, it is really hard to sell. >> another hand back here. julie in the second row there. >> julie howard, i'm an independent consultant. thank you so much. thank you for all you have done over the past four years and especially what you have done. i have a question and then a more serious question. the first one is sort of getting beyond the ideological.

do you think that we made a mistake by axing out your marks? because your marks and the horse trading that goes on, i think if we look back provided a trading currency that was more important than we realize. >> homages answer that, yes. so i think that your marks need to be transparent. we are not linking and mounting. the large wealth museum became a big issue. it really costs nothing, but it was an issue. i think it your marks need to be transparent. but it's almost impossible for legislative process to work without people feeling that they have some investment in the system. during my years in congress and i was able to get a few things in the bill, they are usually

not giant things, i voted for the bill. i mean, i was supported and that is just the way that all institutions work and families work. by what why would we think that congress doesn't work that way? >> we look forward to that recommendation two maybe, we will see. [laughter] >> the more serious question, i think that we have a tremendous opportunity with this new research foundation. and i'm really struck by the private sector stepping up in a number of ways, particularly on surveying sustainability issues and trying to think of this foundation might serve a more public platform not just for talking about climate change and those stories of the biotechnology, is important as they are, talking about what are the key issues that are facing a everyday, the droughts come and

the increase and sort of framing research priorities in terms of those immediate problems that people are seeing. and our ability to grapple with them over the next five to 10 or 25 years. so i'm wondering about the priority setting process. when the procedure the foundation. >> are small, secretary vilsack has taken leadership on this. we are going to meet for the first time next week and we have not yet met as a total group and we have do map out our strategy. if you look at the legislative history, it's not real specific on us. but it requires a match and we can't spend money without a match. so i think the implication is that we should deal with the gaps and the knowledge that we don't know. and i'm sensitive to your point

because i have always taught about the asteroids, and the things that can destroy us in some way. so i would be prone to many long-term things. but i think that we can partner with the private sector and with the university community. the fact that we have to match it means that we need their help as well and i hope that that can come and i appreciate your comments. >> over to the other side. >> student here. my question regards the intersection between actor auteur policies and business policies. there's a lot of criticism that the agriculture industry is moving towards higher consolidation and mega-agriculture corporations and the influence that they play, not just on how food is made but things like international trade policy and

sort of the broader arab culture trend. my question is what the uc with producers in the checks and balances the government has or in some cases has not placed upon those corporations to counter that. >> that is a good question. overall, first of all, we've had a trend towards consolidation with almost every industry in the last 50 years in this country. banking, airlines, they fly everywhere in this country, so it's kind of generically true. in hindsight our government probably could've been more forceful and aggressive looking at competitions, perhaps, a more cosmic way and i think they've done it more quickly and prove a lot of these mergers.

but there are some positive trends happening in agriculture as well. the amount of locally grown agricultural entities, growing expeditiously and organic agriculture is growing fast. and if you look at all the supermarkets now, the major food companies, they are developing organic product lines but not just them, but happening around the country. wal-mart is sourcing locally, although perhaps they are not the best example to talk about because they filled a 20% of the food in the united states, but they are sourcing locally and there is a great demand for american people to know where their food comes from. and that creates a counter demand to large-scale agriculture. but i don't think that we're going to go back to mom-and-pop

agriculture. i think the global economy and processing, it takes this to feed people. the public demand to eat, there is a diet that they won't he and not be a supply driven atmosphere. there is a lot more interest in than what they have ever eaten before and people are not as accepting. so i think that that will produce a bit of an anecdote to the concern that you raised. but notwithstanding that i would not look to a phenomenally different structure of agriculture in the future. and i think that there is a trend on consumer demand that never existed before. if you remember the movie field of dreams, i don't think anymore

if we grow it they will buy it, i think that that has changed and people are demanding that they have some input into that process. and that is related. >> another question right here. a lady in the third row. >> hello, i'm from denmark. talk about a new global order to see a new idea for agriculture? i'm thinking of africa, china, the importance of food security and international relations? >> that is a tough question. there are a couple of trends that are happening here and obviously brazil has become one of the most dominant agriculture players in the world, in large

part because our research establishment provided them and the demand of china and india is dramatic and it's changing not only production but climate issues and the other changes include diet. we are now beginning to realize the what you eat has a lot of impact on how long you will live. and that is new. i don't think in all my years of the house or culture committee we ever held at something on how healthy you are an what you eat. so this is a new trend in this process. and i suspect that the global order is going to change. and i think the united states will be a leading force given our productive capability that not a lot of other people have.

the rules are going to be set by huge buyers of food, new producers of food, environment issues, and diet. those are the four things that i would say. >> another question right here. >> thank you very much, secretary, for a very interesting chat this morning. i'm a counselor for agriculture and i mention it is a bit of a question, i suppose. [inaudible] >> it seems to an outside observer that there is a somewhat schizophrenic nature as to why they look at this policy. we are talking about the push to buy local. and yet we also had a huge push from the administration to increase exports as well. wanting us to buy this and the

rest of the world. and looking at that in the way that the policy is at this interest for other countries to understand and i'm interested in any thoughts you have in that area. >> i don't think that it should be too difficult for you. i understand. we will do as i say and not as i do, every country wants it both ways, they want to protect their producers, produces much, not necessarily have to buy as much unless we desperately need a we have an open markets wherever they exist. overall, the u.s. markets have been open and that doesn't mean that there aren't some restrictions in some areas but overall the markets have been by and large. australia, new zealand, you'll have to change your farm programs or other significantly over the last 20 or 30 years and

become much more open in terms of your economy and everything else. the administration has been doing its best to open exports wisely so. i told tom vilsack that he has presided over the largest increase in exports in the history of the united states. part of that is because i think they have done a very good job working with the private sector. and so these tensions are always going to exist. and i just think that they have to be worked out as sensibly as possible. we have to understand that the markets have to be open as well in order for us to continue the pressure to break down the barriers. most of them are outside the united states and quite frankly the barriers are much greater than they are for people to try to get into the markets overall. >> another question.

>> let me exercise this. agriculture figured, motley in the united states and up until the mid-1950s, the minute it went into steep decline and nothing declined more proportionately than agriculture research within that foreign aid to agriculture agenda. members of the house have returns, how do we get research with new technologies and how we get the kind of research commitment that it's going to take, and how do we get to feed the people of today? >> that the great question. somehow we have to link the research to benefit humankind. we did that in the 1950s

including the developing world that were never done before. i think there have been a feeling that the research agenda, over the last 20 or 30 years, hasn't been as innovative and supple and the private sector has been able to produce crops and certain things that i think people found very beneficial. but ultimately you're going to drive people with issues that affect the data. and so they say if you have cancer or heart disease, for alzheimer's, you can pre-much understand why the nih gets more research because it impacts people's lives so directly. so i think that we have to do a better job in relating the benefits, both to agriculture and also to the consuming public. and it's tough to do.

but at least there is a growing recognition led by you and others that this trend does need to change and we will probably never get this is the national science foundation, but we need to be on the upside and so the story needs to be told a lot better than it has been told, shakespeare said play is the thing and it's true in agriculture research or anything ousts. >> is there another question? >> just come over here. in the middle, third row up. >> hello, i have a question about the research priorities, both fronts quantity and quality. you want more research and better prioritization, which i think is important. any thoughts on where that could be, almost hypothetical if you had additional funding, which i

guess maybe two or three of the most promising areas where if we had the money or focus we can put more toward a greater yield. >> again, we need to analyze where are the gaps in the research, folks like bob and others can probably let us know better than we have. and i would like to do in in-depth study to determine how much of that is necessary. and a couple of things, water related resources, utilization of yield increases, how we deal with that. and both plans and animals in this changing world that we have here. but i also think we need ecological research such as how do you develop this faster and

this isn't just the agriculture world but it is the world of high-tech and silken belly as well. we need to think much more broadly than just looking at the kind of traditional agriculture research. the final thing is diet. if there's anything that confuses the american people is this cacophony of information of what you should eat and how it relates to your health. that area is crying out for research. announced just a few that i would mention. ..

you know it's a very good question. i know there is plenty of democratic dysfunction when i was there as well but i would tell you one point in this world answer the question more indirectly than you would like. if the american people do not believe that their government is doing their job competently and ably and functionally they will lose confidence in it and they won't support it anymore. so all of the stuff we have seen about the obamacare rollout or the va hospital thing or katrina or this or that. that makes people think the

system doesn't work. why should they supported at all and i think it's a big problem. there is a guy at usda that i have become close with matt mckenna that works for secretary vilsack they came in from the private sector to help work on some of the problems. i think we need more like him better government that can help. i think it's a great tribute to the secretary that he brought someone like that in here but i mean if your job as an employee is if you see this dysfunction is defined away to root it out and i know it's easier said than done. when i was at usda i used to walk around the hallways and walk into offices and say how are you doing? i think i would intimidate them or they thought it was crazy. why would you do that kind of thing but ultimately leadership has to extract where those things are happening that you can deal with. i still think i must tell you my

experience at usda was pretty -- pretty positive in terms of by and large the employees there who serve the customers in the public pretty well. a lot of these demands were placed by congress and forced their hand into doing things in certain ways better with a member of the house or senate had that on his mind but i don't mean what you are thinking. i worry that our government being able to stand for value and if it doesn't it really turns people off. that's bad news for political dysfunction. >> is there one last question? before we thank the secretary let me announce the next two events in the series. tomorrow at 12:30 across the street room 736 professor professor emeritus jerry nelson of the university of illinois who was the author of the recent chicago council on global affairs climate change on agriculture report is going to

be talking about public secretary of agriculture research priorities for sustainable development in the world of climate change and on december 10 back by popular demand is going to be speaking at 10:30. many of you remember it was the added counselor in washington and the european union and for the last decade or so has been the chief policy analyst to the office of the commissioner of agriculture european commission. so we are looking forward to these next two events in the series and we are already working on 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.