At the Bismarck Tribune's and Farm & Ranch Guide's public forum on a new farm bill - held in Bismarck Aug. 6 - audience members submitted more questions to a panel of 12 participants than time allowed to be answered.

Two of the participants were North Dakota's U.S. senators, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan.

A selected few of the remaining questions were submitted to the senators for their response.

What are your thoughts on taking money away from corporate agribusiness and putting it back into family farms, which was the intent when the Environmental Quality Incentives Program was first added to the 1996 Farm Bill?

Sen. Conrad: My first priority is to look out for the best interests of our farm families. I want to ensure that the benefits of EQIP are widely available to them, not concentrated on a few very large corporate farmers.

Sen. Dorgan: The reason we have a farm program is to support family farmers, not giant corporate agri-factories. I support limiting farm program payments so that federal support goes to family farmers to provide a safety net during tough times. Sen. Grassley and I have introduced legislation that will cap farm program payments at $250,000, and we will be pushing to get this proposal included in the new farm bill in the coming months.

A ban on meat packers owning cattle - the packers are putting independent feeders out of business and are controlling the meat industry. What do you think?

Conrad: I am in favor of a more competitive livestock market. In the last farm bill I supported a ban on packer ownership. Ultimately, Congress did not adopt that provision in the farm bill. Then (in July), the House failed to include any competition provisions in their draft of the new farm bill. It is unclear if the Senate will have enough support for a packer ownership ban in its version.

Dorgan: I am an original co-sponsor of S.305, legislation introduced in the Senate to make it unlawful for a packer to own, feed or control livestock for more than seven days prior to slaughter. I have also cosponsored S.1017, the Captive Supply Reform Act, which would limit meat packer control of the cattle market. These two bills seek to address the unbelievable concentration of meat packer firms, which has been devastating to our independent producers. I think it is time for strict enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, as well as some reforms that will break up the monopolies and give independent producers a decent opportunity to compete. It's long past the time for independent producers to expect the administration will take action against unfair, deceptive and discriminatory practices.

How do you answer the ethical dilemma of using our farm land to "grow" energy, rather than food, when there are many people in this country and third-world countries who go hungry?

Conrad: There is a tension between using cropland to produce energy and to produce food. Because we have millions of acres that are used for neither, we need to look to those acres and to have a balanced policy that recognizes both the need for ample food supplies and the importance of sustainable energy production.

Dorgan: American farmers are capable of growing far more than enough food to feed our population, as well as enough to supply a substantial portion of that, which is necessary for the global marketplace. But, in addition, the development of ethanol and bio-fuel industry presents a genuine opportunity for our family farmers to help supply our national energy needs and promote domestic energy security. The choice does not need to be either/or. Our family farmers can produce an abundant food supply, as well as produce substantial renewable energy. I recently saw in one corn field in southeastern North Dakota a substantial corn crop that included wind turbines in the middle of the field, which gave that piece of ground the opportunity to produce renewable energy in the form of both ethanol and wind power. That is a substantial contribution to our country's energy security.

How will the farm bill protect family farmers and their markets from the corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland? How will the farm bill protect the family farmer from damage caused by the corporations?

Conrad: I'm not sure the farm bill is a place where farmers can be protected from large suppliers of farm production inputs - seed, fuel, fertilizer. On the other hand, I don't believe the farm bill should be a place to provide an advantage to these suppliers either.

Dorgan: The farm bill itself will not fully address the problems that the farmers face both upstream and downstream from increased corporate concentration of those that provide their inputs and those who purchase the raw product from farmers. We need much more aggressive enforcement of anti-trust laws to protect farmers from predatory pricing by those corporations who have the economic muscle to do it. That includes pricing from the railroads that have retreated into near monopolies and overcharge North Dakota shippers by $100 million per year. It includes the chemical companies and the grain companies that sell to and buy from farmers as they flex their economic muscle, much to the detriment of farmers. When our farmers produce wheat and find out those who "puff it" and turn it into breakfast food called Puffed Wheat make more from puffing it than farmers do from growing it, there is something wrong with our system. Our farmers need to be given the economic opportunity and incentives to engage in value-added agriculture, in which the farmer has an equity position to benefit from adding value to their products.

Will the Senate version of the farm bill have a Sodsaver amendment (and what will it look like) so as to save our grasslands, and therefore, family ranches in North Dakota?

Conrad: I have indicated my support for a provision in the Farm Bill to reduce or eliminate farm program incentives to break virgin prairie for the purpose of crop production. I anticipate the Senate bill will include something to address this situation.

Dorgan: Protecting native grasslands is a priority that is not reflected in current policies. The new Senate farm bill will likely include some type of Sodsaver provision that will limit farm program benefits in some way to acres that have a previous cropping history. In addition, the Senate bill will likely have conservation provisions that continue in the direction of the Conservation Reserve Program and other programs to protect the land.

(Questions were selected by Opinion Page Editor Stephen Eastin. Reporter Jonathan Rivoli assisted in posing the questions to the senators.)