[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF U.S. FARM POLICY: FORMULATION OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
MARCH 9, 2012, SARANAC LAKE, NY
MARCH 23, 2012, GALESBURG, IL
MARCH 30, 2012, STATE UNIVERSITY, AR
APRIL 20, 2012, DODGE CITY, KS
----------
Serial No. 112-30
----------
Part 1
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
THE FUTURE OF U.S. FARM POLICY: FORMULATION OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 9, 2012, SARANAC LAKE, NY
MARCH 23, 2012, GALESBURG, IL
MARCH 30, 2012, STATE UNIVERSITY, AR
APRIL 20, 2012, DODGE CITY, KS
__________
Serial No. 112-30
__________
Part 1
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-371 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
STEVE KING, Iowa MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JOE BACA, California
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama PETER WELCH, Vermont
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina Northern Mariana Islands
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
______
Professional Staff
Nicole Scott, Staff Director
Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
ii
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Friday, March 9, 2012
Gibson, Hon. Christopher P., a Representative in Congress from
New York, opening statement.................................... 6
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Owens, Hon. William L., a Representative in Congress from New
York, opening statement........................................ 5
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 6
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Witnesses
Ooms, Eric, dairy producer; Partner, Adrian Ooms & Sons, Inc.,
Old Chatham, NY................................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Rea, Neal, dairy producer; Chairman of the Board, Agri-Mark Dairy
Cooperative, Salem, NY......................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Verratti, Jeremy L., dairy and crop producer, Verratti Farms,
LLC, Gasport, NY............................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Ledoux, Michele E., beef producer, Adirondack Beef Company,
Croghan, NY.................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Eckhardt, Larry, vegetable, field crop, and beef producer;
President, Kinderhook Creek Farm, Inc., Stephentown, NY........ 38
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Osborn, Scott, wine grape producer; President, Fox Run Vineyard,
Inc., Penn Yan, NY............................................. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Child, Ralph, seed potato and leafy greens producer; Owner/
Operator, Childstock Farms, Inc., Malone, NY................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Sullivan, Adam F., apple producer; Orchard Foreman, Sullivan
Orchards, Inc., Peru, NY....................................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Friday, March 23, 2012
Boswell, Hon. Leonard L., a Representative in Congress from Iowa,
opening statement.............................................. 73
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 71
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 77
Schilling, Hon. Robert T., a Representative in Congress from
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 75
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Witnesses
Erickson, David C., corn and soybean producer, Altona, IL........ 78
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Moore, Deborah L., corn, soybean, and beef producer, Roseville,
IL............................................................. 81
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Mages, John, corn and soybean producer, Belgrade, MN............. 85
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Gerard, Blake, rice, soybean, wheat, and corn producer, McClure,
IL............................................................. 87
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Adams, Craig, corn, soybean, wheat, hay, and beef producer,
Leesburg, OH................................................... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Williams, John, sorghum, corn, wheat, and soybean producer,
McLeansboro, IL................................................ 108
Prepared statement........................................... 110
Asay, Gary, pork, corn, and soybean producer, Osco, IL........... 112
Prepared statement........................................... 113
Davis, Terry, corn and soybean producer, Roseville, IL........... 118
Prepared statement........................................... 120
Howell, David W., corn, soybean, pumpkin, and tomato producer,
Middletown, IN................................................. 122
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Weber, Jane A., specialty crop producer, Bettendorf, IA.......... 125
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Friday, March 30, 2012
Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'', a Representative in Congress
from Arkansas, opening statement............................... 141
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 139
Witnesses
Brantley, L. Dow, rice, cotton, corn, and soybean producer,
Brantley Farming Company, England, AR.......................... 142
Prepared statement........................................... 144
Veach, Randy, cotton, rice, corn, wheat, and soybean producer,
Manila, AR..................................................... 148
Prepared statement........................................... 151
Combs, Paul T., rice, soybean, cotton, corn, and wheat producer;
President, Sunrise Land Company, Kennett, MO................... 153
Prepared statement........................................... 155
Flowers, Jr., Richard Bowen, cotton, corn, soybean, wheat, and
rice producer, Clarksdale, MS.................................. 159
Prepared statement........................................... 160
Burch, Tim, cotton and peanut producer, Burch Farms, Newton, GA.. 162
Prepared statement........................................... 164
Hundley, David C., rice, corn, and soybean producer, Jonesboro,
AR............................................................. 173
Prepared statement........................................... 174
Freeze, Thomas Michael ``Mike'', aquaculture producer; Co-Owner,
Keo Fish Farm, Keo, AR......................................... 176
Prepared statement........................................... 178
Stewart, Dan, cow/calf producer, Mountain View, AR............... 184
Prepared statement........................................... 185
Owen, John E., rice, soybean, corn, and cotton producer, John and
Annie Owen Farms, Rayville, LA................................. 186
Prepared statement........................................... 188
Corcoran, Jr., Walter L., cotton, corn, peanut, soybean, grain
sorghum, and cow/calf producer, Eufaula, AL.................... 191
Prepared statement........................................... 193
Friday, April 20, 2012
Huelskamp, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Kansas,
opening statement.............................................. 205
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 203
Witnesses
Harshberger, Gary, corn, wheat, milo, soybean, and cow/calf
producer, Dodge City, KS....................................... 206
Prepared statement........................................... 208
Miller, Keith, wheat, sorghum, corn, soybean, and cow/calf
producer, Great Bend, KS....................................... 210
Prepared statement........................................... 211
Vaughan, Dee, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybean, and wheat producer,
Dumas, TX...................................................... 214
Prepared statement........................................... 215
Neufeld, Scott, wheat, sorghum, canola, alfalfa, and cow/calf
producer, Fairview, OK......................................... 220
Prepared statement........................................... 222
Swanson, Terry, corn, wheat, sorghum, sunflower, and cow/calf
producer, Walsh, CO............................................ 226
Prepared statement........................................... 227
Harper, Frank, corn, soybean, wheat, sorghum, and cow/calf
producer, Sedgewick, KS........................................ 236
Prepared statement........................................... 238
Hodgson, Kendall, wheat, soybean, corn, sorghum, alfalfa, and
cow/calf producer, Little River, KS............................ 243
Prepared statement........................................... 244
Giessel, Thomas ``Tom'' Gerard, wheat, corn, sorghum, soybean,
alfalfa, and cow/calf producer, Larned, KS..................... 246
Prepared statement........................................... 247
Anderson, Woody, cotton and wheat producer, Colorado City, TX.... 258
Prepared statement........................................... 260
Hunnicutt, Zachary, corn, soybean, and popcorn producer, Aurora,
NE............................................................. 262
Prepared statement........................................... 264
Appendix
Compilation of Responses to Farm Bill Feedback Questionnaire, 2012
Ms. Maya..................... 275 Abate, 275
Christina.
Abbott, Debra................ 275 Abersold, 275
Barbara.
Abeyta, Santos............... 275 Abrahamson, Jon 276
B..
Abrams, Beth................. 276 Acker, Bonnie.. 276
Acker, Sheila J.............. 276 Ackoff, Sophie. 277
Actor-Thomas, Roberta........ 277 Acuzzo, Richard 277
Adams, Audrey................ 278 Adams, Brenda.. 278
Adams, Constance............. 278 Adams, Glory... 279
Adams, Joyce................. 279 Adams, Judith.. 279
Adams, Lisa.................. 279 Adams, Marina.. 280
Adams, Martha................ 280 Adams, Nancy... 280
Adams, Shirley............... 281 Adams, Tiffany. 281
Adamsky, Kathryn............. 281 Adell, 281
Balthasar.
Adels, Jonah................. 281 Adessa, Carolyn 282
Adirondack Council,.......... 282 Adkin, John.... 283
Adkins, Janet................ 283 Adler, Stephen. 283
Agnew, Louis D............... 284 Aguilar, Ann... 284
Aguilar, Isabel.............. 285 Ahmad, 285
Basheerah.
Ahmed, Maimoona.............. 285 Ahring, Tracey. 285
Aiken, Debbra................ 286 Ainslie, James. 286
Aja-Sigmon, Rev. David....... 287 Albach, Fred... 287
Albarado, Carrie............. 287 Albee, Robert.. 287
Alcoba, Jaime................ 288 Alexander, Dawn 288
Alexander, Elizabeth......... 288 Alexander, 288
Simone.
Alexandra, Peseri............ 288 Alford-Hodges, 288
Suzanne.
Alioto, Michelle............. 289 Allemier, Mary. 289
Allen, Barbara............... 289 Allen, 289
Christina.
Allen, Diann................. 290 Allen, Jerrold 290
E..
Allen, Jonathan.............. 290 Allen, Lynn.... 290
Allen, Marie K............... 291 Allen, Matt.... 291
Allen, Mitchell.............. 291 Allen, Trisha.. 291
Allen, Whitney............... 291 Alloway, Dr. 292
John.
Allred, Miriam............... 292 Almeida, 292
Katherine.
Altemose, Mike............... 292 Altman, Andrew. 292
Altman, Armand............... 292 Altom, Billy... 292
Alvarado, Jose............... 293 Alvarado, Jose 294
D..
Alvarez, Ana................. 294 Alvarez, 294
Margarita.
Alvarez, Veronica............ 295 Amdahl, Erv.... 295
Ame, Sharilyn................ 295 American Jewish 295
World Service,
et al..
Ammirati, Gary............... 297 Amory, James... 297
Amsler, Laurie............... 298 Amyx, September 298
Anderson, Amy................ 298 Anderson, 298
Caroline.
Anderson, Carolyn............ 299 Anderson, 299
Christopher J..
Anderson, Dae................ 299 Anderson, 299
Elizabeth.
Anderson, Eric............... 299 Anderson, Gail. 300
Anderson, Glen............... 300 Anderson, Joy.. 301
Anderson, Leonora............ 301 Anderson, 301
Marilyn.
Anderson, Mark............... 301 Anderson, 301
Nathanial.
Anderson, Raymond............ 302 Anderson, 303
Regina.
Anderson, Robert............. 303 Anderson, 303
Sharon.
Anderson, Shel............... 303 Anderson, 304
Sylvia.
Andis, Corlissa.............. 304 Andreas, Darian 304
Andrews, Caroline............ 304 Andrews, David. 304
Andrews, Elaine.............. 304 Andrews, Yvonne 305
Angel, Jan................... 305 Angell, Donald. 305
Angstadt, Karen.............. 305 Angstreich, 306
Natalie.
Anson, Jennifer.............. 306 Anthony, Cheryl 307
Antone, Jamie................ 307 Appel, Beth.... 307
Applegate-Rodeman, Sally..... 307 Arbuckle, Lisa. 307
Arends, Lisa................. 308 Argue, Robert.. 308
Arie, Alto................... 308 Arjuna, Shivani 309
Arlt, Andrew................. 309 Arman, Casey... 309
Armijo, Ken.................. 310 Armstrong, 310
Katharine.
Armstrong, Robin............. 310 Armstrong, 310
Stanley.
Armstrong, Susan............. 310 Armstrong, 310
Vivienne.
Armstrong, Wanda............. 311 Arnold, Gail... 311
Arnold, Laura................ 311 Arns, Matt..... 311
Aronson, Adam................ 311 Arpin, Nancy... 312
Arra, Melissa................ 312 Artzt, Alice... 312
Arvidson, LTC Mark........... 312 Arwen, Elicia.. 312
Jasmin Arzate................ 313 John Asadourian 313
Ash, Muareen................. 313 Asher, Evelyn.. 313
Ashley, Margaret............. 313 Ashton, Gerrard 314
Ashwood, Janice.............. 314 Askew, Michael. 314
Association of Kansas Food 314 Atherlay, Mark. 317
Banks.
Atkinson, Mary............... 317 Atwal, Gurunam. 317
Aubrey, Frances.............. 317 Auerbach, 317
Marisha.
Augello, Darcy............... 318 Aulicino, 318
Richard.
Auman, Rick.................. 318 Austin, Carol.. 318
Austin, Lesley............... 318 Austin, Richard 318
Austin, Shelly............... 319 Avanti, 319
Annemarie.
Avidor, Roberta.............. 319 Ayers, Frank... 319
Ayers, Harold................ 319 Ayoob, Carol... 320
Azagoh-Kouadio, Benoit....... 320 B., Tatiana.... 320
Babb, Yvonne................. 321 Babin, Michelle 321
Babitch, Lia................. 322 Bach-Mitchell, 322
Bonnie.
Backup, Peggy................ 322 Bacon, Crystal. 323
Bacon, David................. 323 Bacon, Pat..... 323
Bacon, Taylor................ 323 Bacon, Willard. 323
Baehr, Birke................. 323 Baehr, Patricia 324
Baer, Nancy.................. 324 Baginski, Ron.. 324
Bagwell, Hayley.............. 324 Bahl, Freddah.. 324
Bailey, B.................... 325 Bailey, Larissa 325
Bailey, Marcia............... 325 Bailey, Melissa 325
Bailey, Tina................. 325 Bailey, Vicki.. 325
Bailin, Bobbi................ 326 Baird, Alta.... 326
Baird, Martha................ 326 Baise, Michael. 326
Baker, Anita................. 326 Baker, 327
Catherine.
Baker, Cynthia............... 327 Baker, Jennifer 327
Baker, Kathleen.............. 327 Baker, Keith... 327
Baker, Melanie............... 327 Baker, Nancy... 328
Baker, Patricia.............. 328 Baker Ingham, 328
Rosalyn.
Baker-Trinity, Jennifer...... 328 Bakhsh, Jeri... 328
Bakke, Susan................. 328 Balduff, Nora; 328
on behalf of
Lisa Hamler-
Fugitt.
Baldwin, Mary................ 331 Ballard, Bessie 331
Ballentine, Eusebius......... 331 Bandfield, Anna 332
Banham, Betty................ 332 Banister, Gene. 332
Banks, Brian................. 332 Bannerman, 333
Carter.
Bannion, Lynnet.............. 333 Bansfield, 333
Matthew.
Banta, Margaret G............ 334 Barach, Daniel. 334
Barbara, Marsh............... 334 Barber, Kyle... 334
Barbero, Kiley............... 334 Bardo, Jeannine 334
Barile, Genevieve............ 335 Barker, Cate... 335
Barker, Dwinna............... 335 Barksdale, 335
Timothy R..
Barnett, Claire.............. 336 Barnett, Tracy. 336
Barney, Tom.................. 336 Barr, Debbie... 336
Barr, Roger.................. 336 Barre, Lisha... 336
Barrio, Carlos............... 337 Barry, Barbara. 337
Barry, Kathryn............... 337 Barta, Kenneth. 337
Bartell, Bob................. 337 Bartell, Lee... 337
Bartels, Richard............. 338 Barton, Kathy.. 338
Baruch, Duncan............... 338 Baruth, Alma... 338
Basche, Andrea............... 338 Basden, Stuart. 338
Basler, Jane................. 339 Bason, Carol... 339
Bastone, Virginia............ 339 Batchelor, 339
Annette.
Bates, Diane................. 339 Battreal, 340
Jackie.
Bauer, Berenice.............. 340 Bauer, Chante.. 340
Bauer, Katya................. 340 Bauer, Leslie.. 340
Bauer, Rachel................ 341 Baum, Helen C.. 341
Bauman, Gail................. 341 Baumann, Joseph 341
Baumgartner, Susan........... 342 Baumstein, Jenn 342
Baxter, Adrienne Moore....... 342 Baxter, Jessica 342
Bayes, Sandra................ 343 Beach, Laura... 343
Beane, David................. 343 Beattie, George 343
Beaubien, Kathleen........... 343 Beaubier, 343
Gretchen.
Beaudreau, Mallory........... 344 Beaulieu, Kathy 344
Beazlie, Janet............... 344 Beck, Daniel... 345
Beck, Marylin................ 345 Becker, Diane.. 345
Becker, Elaine............... 345 Beckman, 345
Elizabeth.
Bednar, Deanne............... 345 Bedwell, Barry. 346
Bee, Dianne.................. 349 Beebee, Kara... 349
Beers, Judy & Doug........... 349 Beetz, Alice... 349
Beg, Linda................... 349 Behrend, Bill.. 350
Behrens, Carla............... 350 Behrens, Kate.. 350
Beirise, Peggy............... 350 Belanger, 350
Michelle.
Belgum-Blad, Daniel.......... 351 Bell, Judith... 352
Bellini, Cynthia............. 353 Belseth, 353
Stephanie.
Belveal, Barrett............. 353 Bembenek, Anne. 353
Ben-David, Roni.............. 356 Bender, Emily.. 357
Bender, Nancy................ 357 Bendrah, Oebm.. 357
Benedict, Crista............. 357 Benner, Al..... 358
Bennett, Allisa.............. 358 Bennett, 358
Matthew.
Bennett, Stacey.............. 358 Bennett, 358
Virginia.
Benoit, Peyton............... 359 Benson, Erle... 359
Benson, Gaynell.............. 359 Benson-Merron, 359
Josh.
Bent, Charles................ 359 Bentley, Mary.. 360
Berbatov, Dimitar............ 360 Berd, Linda.... 360
Bereczki, Patricia........... 360 Beresniewicz, 360
Alex.
Berg, Abigail................ 361 Berg, Pamela... 361
Berg, Paula.................. 361 Berg, Peter.... 361
Berger, By................... 361 Berger, 362
Christine.
Berger, Janna................ 362 Bergeron, 362
Janice.
Bergman, Audra............... 362 Bergman, 362
Deborah.
Berkowitz, Henry............. 363 Berlepsch, 363
Janice.
Berman, Marcia............... 363 Berman, Susan.. 363
Bernhardt, Hannah K.......... 363 Bernson, Janet. 364
Bernstein, Simon............. 364 Berrt, Sharon.. 364
Berry, Amanda................ 364 Berry, Ana..... 364
Berry, Ben................... 365 Berry, 365
Catherine.
Berry, Michael............... 365 Berryhill, J. 365
Ellen.
Best, Bill................... 365 Best, Cheryl... 366
Best, Vicki.................. 366 Bethel, Linda.. 366
Bethel, Skye Lindanne........ 366 Beville, Ramona 366
Bianco, Sally................ 367 Bias, Ronnie... 367
Bicking, Andy................ 367 Bidstrup, 369
Elaine.
Biedermann, Laurel........... 369 Biedron, Lauren 369
Bienvenu, Wendy.............. 370 Biergiel, Jody. 370
Bierko, Elizabeth............ 370 Bierle, Kory... 370
Bierma, Daniel............... 370 Biernbaum, John 371
Bigler, John................. 371 Bigman, Jeff... 371
Bilger, Mike................. 371 Biliske, 373
Elizabeth.
Billbrough, Kelly............ 373 Billings, 373
Lauren.
Bingham, Charles............. 373 Bingham, John.. 374
Birch, Harold................ 374 Birdwell, 374
Walter.
Bischoff, Jason.............. 374 Bishop, Melissa 375
Bishop, Scott................ 375 Black, Janet... 375
Black, Laurie................ 375 Black, Paul.... 375
Black, Sylvia................ 375 Blackburn, 376
Taneeka.
Blackowiak, Alloise.......... 376 Blake, Carolyn. 376
Blakemore, Sally............. 376 Blanc, Kathleen 377
Blanchard, Lydia............. 377 Blank, Kathleen 377
Blanning, Nancy.............. 377 Blau, Richard & 377
Valarie.
Blaustein, Philip............ 378 Blaustein- 378
Rejto, Daniel.
Blauw, Donna................. 379 Blevins, Brenda 379
Blindow, Melissa............. 379 Bliss, Charles 380
D..
Blitzstein, Lear............. 380 Blomquist, 380
Laurel.
Blood, Larry................. 380 Bloom, Cheryl.. 380
Bloom, William............... 381 Blovits, 381
Jeffrey.
Blow, Elizabeth.............. 381 Blumer, Jared.. 381
Blyweiss, Megan.............. 382 Bneolken, Mark. 382
Boatner, Natalie............. 382 Boaz-Shelley, 382
Sarah.
Bobick, Roxanne.............. 382 Bobo, Clare.... 383
Bochantin, Leona............. 383 Bodde, Mary.... 383
Boe, Catherine............... 383 Boeke, Diana... 383
Boettcher, Robert............ 384 Bohr Jacob, 384
Jill.
Boles, Samuel................ 384 Bolognani, 384
Christy.
Bolz, Mary................... 384 Bona, Victoria. 385
Bond, Elizabeth.............. 385 Bond, S........ 385
Bonilla, Michael............. 385 Bonini, Allen.. 386
Bonk, Angela................. 386 Bonney, Patty.. 386
Bonsignore, Andrea........... 386 Boone, Barbara. 386
Booth, Malcolm............... 386 Boothman- 387
Shepard,
Nicole.
Booz, Martha................. 387 Bordagaray, 387
Margaret.
Border, Nathan............... 387 Bordin, Claudia 388
Boreyko, Andrew.............. 388 Borgerding, Joe 388
Borgerding, Joyce............ 388 Borkton, 388
Raymond.
Borrell, Geraldine........... 388 Bosch, Michael 389
Angelo.
Bosch, Pamela................ 389 Bosschieter, H. 389
Adam.
Bostian, Heather............. 389 Botticello, 389
Luke.
Boucher, Victoria............ 390 Bouillon, 390
Dominique.
Boulay, Katherine............ 390 Bourdon, Paul.. 390
Bova, Steve and Cynthia...... 391 Bowen, Andrea.. 391
Bowen, Laura................. 391 Bowers, Kathryn 391
Bowler, Sarah................ 392 Bowman, Andrew. 392
Bowman, Cecilia.............. 392 Bowron, Alice.. 393
Boyajian, Polly.............. 393 Boyce, Nancy... 393
Boyer, Allen................. 393 Boylan, 393
Elizabeth.
Boyle, Stephen............... 393 Boynton, Alanna 394
Braathen, Kent............... 394 Bracken-Hodge, 394
Denise.
Bradbeer, Wilma.............. 394 Bradeen, Jaska. 395
Braden, Les.................. 395 Braden, Lynne.. 395
Bradford, Kathryn............ 396 Bradshaw, 396
Eileen.
Brady, Susan................. 396 Brahmbhatt, 396
Yasmin.
Brain, Amy................... 396 Brainerd, Tim.. 396
Brake, Angie................. 397 Braley, Doris.. 397
Brandariz, Anita............. 397 Brands, Carissa 397
Brandt, Emma................. 397 Brandt, 398
Kimberly.
Brandt, Nancy................ 398 Brannigan, 398
Jeanne.
Brannin, Mike................ 398 Bransford, Tami 398
Brantley, Lynn............... 399 Bratton, 399
Katherine.
Braun, Joan.................. 399 Braun, K....... 399
Braun, Stephan............... 400 Brauner, Jim... 400
Braun-Greiner, Kolya......... 400 Braverman, 400
Jennifer.
Brazell, Denise.............. 400 Brazil, Allison 400
Breeden, Robert.............. 401 Brees, April... 401
Breneman, Nadine............. 401 Brennan, Don... 401
Brenner, Rick................ 401 Brennick, 402
Judith.
Bresnan, L................... 402 Bressie, 402
Jeannine.
Bressler, Alexis............. 402 Breton, Nina... 403
Brewster, Marcie............. 403 Briand, Roger.. 403
Brians, Ella................. 403 Brietzke, 403
Adrienne.
Brigham, Cathy............... 404 Brigham, Daniel 404
Brill, Gail.................. 404 Brines, Shannon 407
Brinkman, Kathi.............. 407 Brinkmeier, 407
Gail.
Broadhead, Susan............. 408 Brodersen, 408
Bonnie.
Broerman, Kimberly........... 408 Bronkhorst, 409
Dianne.
Brooke, Indee................ 409 Brooks, Robert. 409
Brooks, Serena............... 410 Brooks, T.J.... 410
Broome, Claire............... 410 Brouillet, 410
Louis.
Broussard, James R........... 410 Browdy, Lisa... 411
Brower, Ryan................. 411 Brown, Angela.. 411
Brown, Bonnie................ 411 Brown, Cameron. 411
Brown, Carl.................. 412 Brown, Carol... 412
Brown, Cynthia M............. 412 Brown, Gary.... 413
Brown, Heather............... 413 Brown, Inga.... 413
Brown, Jami.................. 414 Brown, Jennifer 414
Brown, Kimberly.............. 414 Brown, Nicole.. 414
Brown, Roderick.............. 414 Brown, Sheila.. 414
Brown, Theresa............... 415 Brown, Victoria 415
Browne, R.J.................. 415 Browne, Timothy 415
Browning, Brenda............. 415 Brown-Patrick, 416
Lori.
Bruinsma, Patricia........... 416 Bruns, 416
Christina.
Bruynseels, Eric............. 417 Bruynseels, Leo 417
Bruynseels, Louise........... 417 Bryan, Alex.... 417
Bryan, Marjory............... 418 Bryan, MaryAnn. 418
Bryant, Brit................. 418 Bryant, Ellen.. 418
Bryant, Emily................ 418 Bryant, Russell 419
Bryen, Bedzaida.............. 419 Bryenton, Helen 419
Buchanan, Betty.............. 419 Buchanan, Wade. 420
Buck, Cathy.................. 420 Buck, Sherman.. 420
Buckley, Alexis.............. 421 Buckner, Paula. 421
Buczynski, Beth.............. 421 Budde, Susan... 422
Buford, Jennifer............. 422 Buhn, Elise.... 422
Buhr, Rita................... 422 Bulger, Michael 423
Bulleit, Jennifer............ 423 Bullock, 423
Lindsay.
Bultedaob, Jane.............. 423 Bulten, Penny.. 423
Bunker, Suzanne.............. 423 Bunkers, Laurel 424
Burbridge, Jim............... 424 Burd, Melinda.. 424
Burden, Henry................ 424 Burden, Susan.. 424
Burger, Janis................ 424 Burgess, Ben... 425
Burgess, Sharron............. 425 Burkard, Peter. 425
Burke, Frances............... 425 Burke, Moira... 426
Burley, David................ 426 Burnett, Retha. 426
Burns, Deborah............... 426 Burns, Edward.. 427
Burns, George................ 427 Burns, Jeff.... 427
Burns, Scott................. 427 Buron, Sr., 428
IHHP, Michael
R..
Burrell, Kelly............... 428 Burrow, Kathy.. 428
Burrows, Mary................ 428 Burstein, Alan. 429
Burstein, Mimi............... 429 Burton, Gerri.. 429
Burton, Kate................. 429 Burwinkel, Mark 429
Bush, Jeff................... 430 Bush, Sarah.... 430
Bushley, Bryan............... 430 Bushnell, 430
Martha W.D..
Busler, Niles................ 430 Buswell, Justin 431
Butler, Alison............... 431 Butler, 431
Christin.
Butler, Elizabeth............ 431 Butler, Lisa... 431
Butler, Rebekah.............. 431 Butler, Shelby. 432
Butterfield, Lisa............ 432 Buzzard, Lisa.. 432
Byers, Robert................ 432 Byrne, Dorothy. 432
Byrne, Mary Jane............. 433 C., M.......... 433
C., R........................ 433 Cabanaw, Judith 433
Cadorette, Sarah............. 433 Cady, Deborah.. 433
Cafferata, Elisa............. 434 Caldwell, Ariel 434
Caldwell, Constance.......... 434 Callaway, James 434
Callow, Tracy................ 434 Calloway, 435
Roderick.
Caltvedt, Lester............. 435 Calvani, 435
Dorothy.
Camera, Christopher.......... 435 Cameron, Annika 436
Cameron, Christopher......... 436 Cameron, Karen. 436
Cameron, Sally............... 436 Cammon, C.H.... 436
Camp, David.................. 437 Campbell, 437
Benita.
Campbell, C. Martin.......... 437 Campbell, Holly 438
Campbell, Sue................ 438 Campbell, Susan 438
Camper, Cleraine............. 439 Canright, Mark. 439
Canter, Margaret............. 439 Cantor-Navas, 440
Judy.
Cantwell, Pat................ 440 Caplan, Elise.. 440
Caponi, Nancy................ 440 Capriotti-May, 440
Carole.
Carden, Noel................. 440 Cardenas, Katie 441
Cardenas, Melina............. 441 Cardwell, Tonya 441
Carey, Anne.................. 441 Carey, Doris... 442
Carlat, Theodore............. 442 Carlile, Andrew 442
Carlson, Drew................ 442 Carlson, Gwenna 442
Carlson, Stacey.............. 443 Carnahan, 443
Florence.
Carney, Starr................ 443 Carolan, 443
Barbara.
Carolus, Kenneth............. 443 Caron, Dr. 444
Lorraine.
Carosella, Deborah........... 444 Carosella, John 444
Carpenter, Amy............... 445 Carpenter, Sue. 445
Carr, Carol.................. 445 Carr, Irene.... 446
Carr, Sarah.................. 446 Carrier, 446
Cynthia.
Carrillo, Shekinah........... 446 Carroll, Linda. 447
Carroll, Mike................ 447 Carroll, Scott. 447
Carroll, Susan............... 447 Carta, Andrea.. 447
Carter, Beth................. 447 Carter, Kathy.. 448
Carter, Marjorie............. 448 Cartwright, 448
Marion.
Caruso, Beth................. 448 Casale, Kate... 449
Casper, Kim.................. 450 Cassels, Jen... 450
Casteel, Tammy............... 450 Castellini, 450
John.
Castillo, Julie.............. 450 Castle, K.A.... 450
Castleforte, Brian........... 451 Castner, 451
Elizabeth.
Castro, Laura................ 451 Catalina, 452
Morgan.
Catalino, Anthony............ 452 Catrambone, 452
Elizabeth.
Caudill, Richard............. 452 Causey, Mark... 452
Cavender, Lisa............... 452 Caya, Toni..... 453
Cecena, Rebecca.............. 453 Cecil, Emily... 453
Cederlind, Amy............... 453 Cenatiempo, 454
Mona.
Center for Rural Affairs..... 454 Cerino, Noreen. 490
Cernie, Sally................ 490 Chaisson, 490
Barbara.
Chamberlain, Beverly L....... 490 Chamberlain, 491
Donna.
Chamberlin, Erika............ 491 Chambers, Dave. 491
Champagne, MarshaLee......... 492 Chang, Claire.. 492
Chang, D..................... 492 Chang, Patricia 492
Chang-Zahn, Lizettea......... 492 Chapman, John.. 493
Chapman-Renaud, Heidi........ 494 Chappell, Sally 494
Charis, Barbara.............. 494 Charnet, Tavia. 494
Chasan, Mark................. 495 Chasin, Barbara 495
Chatham, Matthew............. 495 Chattelle, 495
Eugene.
Chauncey, Bonnie............. 496 Checca, Tim.... 496
Chen, Rhonda................. 496 Chenette, Peter 496
Cheng, Tim................... 496 Cherry, Philip. 496
Chichester, Carol............ 497
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chico Country Day School Students: Cardin, Troy............... 497 Hopson, 497
Morgen.
Hyder, Emily............... 497 Lane, Molly.. 497
Lantz, Lucas............... 498 Murray, Regan 498
Nichols, Mikayla........... 498 Polosky, Ty.. 498
Schroth, Erika............. 498 Scott, 498
Richard.
Sunderman, Maddie.......... 498 Winter, 499
Sophia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child, Robert................ 499 Childs, Nat.... 499
Chin, Caroline............... 499 Chiotis, 499
Melissa.
Chirinos, William............ 499 Choi, Etsuyo... 500
Chord, Melody................ 500 Chorush, Evelyn 500
Christensen, Karen........... 500 Christensen, 500
Margaret.
Christian Parks, Andrea...... 501 Christopher, 501
David.
Chun, Cynthia................ 501 Church, Janet.. 501
Church, Janice............... 501 Church, Rebecca 502
Churchill, Joe............... 502 Chval, Jessica. 502
Cipullo, Colette............. 503 Cirlone, Jane.. 503
Clancy, Bonnie............... 503 Clark, 503
Bernadette.
Clark, Catherine............. 503 Clark, David... 503
Clark, Kevin................. 504 Clark, Maxine.. 504
Clark, Pamela................ 504 Clark, Sheri... 504
Clark, Thomas................ 504 Clark, Tom..... 504
Clarke, David................ 504 Clarke, Jen.... 505
Clarke, Marcia............... 505 Clark-Kahn, 505
Lisa.
Clary, Katelyn............... 505 Clary, Wanda... 505
Claus, Grace................. 506 Claus, Julia 506
Ruth.
Clausen, Suzan............... 506 Clay, Gretchen. 507
Clay, Laura.................. 507 Clement, 507
Stephenie.
Clement, Valerie............. 507 Clement, Wade.. 507
Clements, Charles............ 508 Clemons, Teddy. 508
Climer, Donna................ 508 Clough, Allison 509
Clough, Carter............... 509 Clowers, Amy... 509
Cloyed, Connie............... 509 Cobb, Dianne... 510
Cobine, Andrew............... 510 Cochran, Brenda 510
Cochran, Dasha............... 512 Cochran, Joyce. 512
Cochrane, Meg................ 513 Cockerha, Joyce 513
Marie.
Cockrell, Connie............. 513 Coffman, R. Ray 513
Cofrin-Shaw, Bryna........... 513 Cohen, Elana... 514
Cohen, Howard................ 514 Cohen, Louisa.. 514
Coil, Meghan................. 514 Colakovic, 514
Dragan.
Colaprete, Miles............. 515 Colberg, Lesley 515
Colburn, Kendra.............. 515 Cole, Debbie... 515
Coleman, Frank............... 516 Coleman, Laura. 516
Coleman, Maryalice........... 516 Coleman, Win... 516
Collar, Diane................ 517 Collett, Monica 517
Colling, Sara................ 518 Collins, Ann... 518
Collins, Kristi.............. 518 Collins, Linda. 518
Collins, Preston............. 518 Collner, J.D... 518
Collomb, Janie............... 519 Colson, Richard 519
E..
Colwell, Rev. Pat............ 519 Comanar, Ann... 519
Combes, Maureen.............. 519 Comfort, Mary 520
(ID).
Comfort, Mary (MI)........... 520 Commerford, 520
John.
Como, Samantha............... 520 Compston, 520
Michael.
Conine, Dan.................. 521 Conklin, Paul.. 521
Conklin, Susan............... 521 Conley, Gail... 522
Connaughton, Hilary.......... 522 Connell, Casey. 522
Conrardy, Joanna............. 522 Conroy, Peggy.. 522
Constantine, Paul............ 523 Constantino- 523
Martin, Patti.
Contestabile, Gabriella...... 523 Contreras, Emma 523
Cook, Christopher............ 523 Cook, Don...... 523
Cook, LTC Lenny.............. 524 Cook, Margaret. 524
Cook, Michael................ 524 Cooke, John.... 525
Cooke, Katherine............. 525 Cooley, Monica. 525
Coolidge, Anita.............. 525 Cooper, Barbara 525
Cooper, Caroline............. 525 Cooper, Deanne. 526
Cooper, Diane................ 526 Cooper, John... 526
Cooper, Nancy................ 526 Cooper, Orion.. 527
Coram, Jessica............... 527 Coram, Shannon. 527
Corbett, Mary Lou............ 527 Corbin, Linda.. 528
Corcoran, Mary............... 528 Cordell, Ruth.. 528
Corder-Agnew, Lonney......... 528 Cordova, Floyd. 528
Cordray, Janie............... 528 Cormier, Rick.. 529
Cornell, Linda............... 529 Cornell, Sandy. 529
Cornia, Gina................. 529 Corrado, Susan. 529
Corzine, Nicole.............. 529 Cosenza, Jules. 530
Cosgrave, Brona.............. 530 Coshow, Jr., 530
Charles.
Cosimano, Pat................ 530 Cost, Anita.... 530
Costa, Demelza............... 530 Costanzo, Chris 531
Costello, Shawndeya.......... 531 Cotter, Tish... 531
Cottle, Lawrence............. 531 Cotton, Andrew. 531
Cotton, Nancy................ 532 Couche, Stephen 532
Coulon, Christian............ 532 Council, Nina.. 532
Courter, George.............. 532 Cowen, Dave.... 533
Cowles, Ph.D., Ann........... 533 Cowling, Janet. 533
Cox, Leslie.................. 533 Cox, Linda..... 534
Cox, Maury................... 534 Coy, D. Sid.... 535
Cpordas, Lowell.............. 535 Craft, Delight. 535
Craft, Helen................. 535 Cragnolin, 535
Janice.
Craig, Geraldene............. 536 Craig, Jan..... 536
Craig, Jason................. 536 Craig, Jean.... 537
Craig, Karl.................. 537 Craig, Kathy... 537
Craig, Margaret.............. 537 Crail, Kimberly 537
Crain, Janet................. 537 Cramer, Dana... 538
Crandall, Lynn............... 538 Crandall, Neal. 538
Cravens, Joshua.............. 538 Crawford 538
O'Brien, Jana.
Creasy, Rosalind............. 539 Crew, Tsandi... 539
Crider, Rhonda............... 539 Crisco, Judy... 539
Crock, Steven................ 539 Crocker, Joanna 539
Croft, Stan.................. 540 Cronin, Terese. 540
Crosby, James................ 540 Cross, Lynn.... 540
Crouch, Sondra............... 540 Crowley, Dan... 541
Crump, Erin.................. 541 Crump, Ruth.... 541
Crusha, Connie............... 541 Crutchfield, 541
Christine.
Cruz, Johnny................. 542 Crymes, Lili... 542
Csencsits, Brenda............ 542 Cu, Helen...... 542
Cuenod, Piliana.............. 542 Cuffman, Nancy. 542
Cullipher, Annette........... 543 Cullum, Vernon. 543
Culver, Molly................ 543 Cummings, Brian 544
Cummings, Nancy.............. 544 Cummings, 544
Thomas.
Cunningham, Carolyn.......... 544 Cunningham, 544
Gary.
Cunningham, James............ 544 Cunningham, 545
Paul.
Cunningham, Sarah............ 545 Cupp, Jerry.... 545
Curley, R.N., B.S.N., Darcie. 545 Curlin, Beth... 546
Currier, Constance........... 546 Curry, Harvey.. 546
Curry, Kathy................. 546 Curry, Lori.... 547
Cushing, Margaret............ 547 Cushman, Robert 547
Cutter, Justin............... 547 Cutter, Karin.. 547
Cuviello, Joe................ 547 Cyr, Tim....... 548
d'Carrone, Louise............ 548 D'Auria, 548
Richard.
Daane, Tere.................. 548 Dagg, Sarah.... 548
Daigle, Abbie................ 548 Dailey, Jim.... 549
Dale, Barbara and Jim........ 549 Dalenberg, 549
Kathryn.
Dally, Leta.................. 549 Dalmeida, 549
Cathleen.
Dalton, Lynn................. 550 Daly, Judith... 550
Damian, Kevin................ 550 Damman, Lauren. 550
Dancer Schwartz, Kat......... 550 Daniels, 551
Jessica.
Daniels, M.A................. 551 Danielson, Amy. 551
Danielson, Teri.............. 551 Dankerlin, L. 552
Renee.
Danneman, Deb................ 552 Dappert, Janis. 552
Darnall, Linda............... 552 Darner-Redburn, 552
Debra.
Darrow, Susan................ 553 Das, Ranjna.... 553
Dashielle, Alegra............ 553 Davenport, 553
Riley.
Davidow, Soni................ 554 Davidson, 554
Kristina.
Davidson, Sheilah............ 554 Davila, Manny.. 555
Davis, Adrianne.............. 555 Davis, Alice... 555
Davis, Carolyn............... 556 Davis, D.J..... 556
Davis, Diana Verne........... 556 Davis, Pastor 556
Dick.
Davis, Karen K............... 556 Davis, Kathy... 557
Davis, Katrina............... 557 Davis, Liora... 557
Davis, Marilyn............... 557 Davis, Mary.... 557
Davis, Nancy................. 557 Davis, Patricia 557
Davis, Rian.................. 558 Davis, S.K..... 558
Davis, Terry................. 558 Davis, Ph.D., 558
Ronald G..
Davol, Catherine............. 558 Davol, Sarah... 558
Dawan-Newborn, Daaiyah....... 558 Dawkins, Hazel. 559
Dawley, Nancy................ 559 Dawn, Shelton.. 559
Dawson, Lorenzo.............. 559 Day, Hannah.... 559
Day, Karen................... 560 Dayvie, Liz.... 560
Dazey, William............... 560 de Cuba, 560
Natalia.
de Greve, Beatrix............ 561 De Korne, Haley 561
de Lorenzo, Carolyn.......... 561 De Nicola, 561
Franco.
De Sa, Elizabeth............. 562 De Wys, 562
Margaret.
Deacon, Linda................ 562 Dean, Jeff..... 562
Dean, Joanne................. 562 Dearborn, 562
Jeffrey.
DeBoer, Elisa................ 563 DeCabooter, 563
Maria.
DeCastro, Diana.............. 563 DeDieu, Valda.. 563
Deeds, Darla................. 564 Deems, Elanora. 564
Deen, Kara................... 564 DeFelice, 564
Angela.
DeFilippo, Carly............. 565 Deif, Nadine... 565
Del Bosque, Joe.............. 565 Del Grosso, 566
Michael.
DeLamatre, Isaac............. 566 Delaney, 566
Maureen.
Delar, Valerie............... 566 Delgadillo, 566
Steve.
Delgado, Dru Ann............. 567 Delgado, Jr., 567
Victor.
Dell, E...................... 567 DeLong, Kenneth 567
Delorey, Kathleen............ 567 deLorge, Ann... 568
DelRosso, Carol.............. 568 DeMaggio, Julie 568
Demetri, Darlene............. 568 Demi, Carol; 569
Laura Lupovitz.
Deming, Linda................ 569 DeMo, Charle... 569
Demuria, Gary................ 569 Denenberg, 570
Harold.
Dengel, William.............. 570 Denham, Isabel. 570
Denis, Sarah................. 570 Denman, Sara... 570
Dennis, Marianne............. 570 Dennison, Jane. 570
Depew, Jerry................. 571 Depner, Stacie. 571
Derksen, Gloria.............. 571 Deroko, Renee.. 571
DeRolf, Kerstin.............. 572 Deshotels, 572
James.
Dessler, David............... 572 DeSutter, Randy 572
Detmers, Peggy............... 573 Dettlinger, 573
Malisa.
Deutsch, Lauren.............. 573 Devine, Carole. 573
Dezendorf, Andrea............ 573 Di Tosti, 574
Carole.
Diaz, Barbara................ 574 Diaz, Daily.... 574
Diaz, Margarita.............. 574 Dibbell, 575
Kenneth.
Dickerson, Babette........... 586 Dickerson, Sara 586
Dickinson, Nancy............. 586 Dickmann, Maria 587
Didrichsen, Susan............ 587 Diehl, Cathy M. 587
DiGiacomo, Mark.............. 587 Dillard, Jerry. 587
Dilley, Christopher.......... 588 Dillon, 589
Elizabeth.
Dillon, Sherry............... 589 Dilworth, 589
Alexandra.
DiNardo, Judith.............. 590 DiPuma, Susan.. 590
Dirnbach, Boris.............. 590 Disney, Ann and 590
Walt.
DiVicino, Roseann............ 591 Dixon, Meghan.. 591
Djernes, Tami................ 591 Dlugonski, 592
Melba.
Dobbs, Michael............... 592 Dobkin, Joan... 592
Dobrow, Angel................ 592 Dobsevage, Tina 593
Dobson, Kim.................. 593 Dockery, Sean.. 593
Dodson, Sara................. 593 Doell, Laura... 593
Doering, Amy................. 593 Doino, Mary.... 594
Dolan, Elaine................ 594 Dolan, Julia... 594
Doll, Rebecca................ 594 Dombek, Betty 595
J..
Domenick, Sarah.............. 595 Donley, Blake.. 595
Donnelly, Michael............ 595 Donnelly, 595
Robert.
Donohue, Jean................ 596 Donovan, Elaine 596
Donovan, C.S.J., S. 596 Doonan, Shelley 596
``Marguerite'' E.,.
Dorais, Terri................ 596 Dorais, Tom.... 597
Dorety, Naoma................ 597 Dorfman, Ellen. 597
Dotter, Don.................. 597 Dougherty, J. 598
Kelly.
Doughty, Joyce............... 598 Douglas, Carol. 598
Douglas, Dianne.............. 598 Douglas, 598
Doretha.
Dowd, Therese................ 598 Dowdy, Perry... 599
Dowell, Maria................ 599 Downer, Kevin 599
W..
Downey, John................. 599 Doyle, Margaret 599
Drake, Gillian............... 600 Drapkin, 600
Christiane.
Drechsler, Anna.............. 600 Drehfal, Anne.. 600
Dreibelbis, Carol............ 602 Dresher, Merlin 602
Dresner, Randi............... 602 Dressel, Gail.. 603
Drew, Linda.................. 603 Driscoll, Kelly 603
Drivon, Theta................ 603 Droz, Ben...... 604
du Bois, Julie............... 604 Duay, Federico. 604
Dubs, Thomas................. 604 Dudley, 604
Rosemary.
Duffy, Connor................ 604 Duffy, Merci... 605
Dugan, Michelle.............. 605 Dugar, Alice... 605
Duggan, Eric................. 605 Dujon, Phyllis. 605
Duke, Kimberly............... 605 Dunaj, Michele. 606
Dunaway, Vicki............... 606 Dundee, Kathy.. 606
Dungan, Allison.............. 606 Dunham, 606
Patricia.
Dunlap, Ginger............... 607 Dunleavy, 607
Timothy.
Dunlop, Hollis............... 607 Dunn, Cheryl... 607
Dunn, Wesley................. 608 Dunnagan, Shawn 608
Duster, Jennifer............. 608 Duvall, Mary... 608
Dux, Clara................... 609 Dvorsky, Sandy. 609
Dybdahl, Ryan................ 609 Dyer, Donna.... 609
Dyer, Doug and Susanne Hesse. 610 Dyke, Robert W. 610
Dykoski, Dr. William ``Skip'' 610 Dykstra, Pamela 610
Dyvine, Padma................ 610 Dzialek, Iwona. 611
Eads, Claudia................ 611 Earnst, John... 612
Easley, Faye................. 612 Easter, Anne... 612
Easterday, Cynthia........... 612 Eaton, Darla... 613
Eaton, Edna.................. 613 Eaton, Kathleen 613
Eaton, Tyler................. 613 Eaton, M.D., 613
Christian T..
Ebel, Kenneth................ 614 Eberle, Martha. 614
Ebright, Matthew............. 614 Echele, Alise.. 614
Echevarria, Rebecca.......... 615 Eckroth, 615
Cynthia.
Edain, Marianne.............. 616 Eddington, Anna 616
Claire.
Eelstein, Amy................ 617 Edgel, Lyn Eric 617
Edgett, Karin................ 617 Ediger, Evelyn. 617
Edmonson, Michelle........... 617 Edmunds, Steve. 618
Edwards, Ann................. 618 Edwards, Karen. 618
Edwards, Mark V.............. 618 Efraimson, 618
Barbara.
Eichelberger, Carol.......... 619 Eisbach, David. 619
El, Mira..................... 619 Elandt, 619
Virginia.
Eldridge, Sara............... 619 Elfering, 619
Marlene.
Elliott, Andrea.............. 620 Ellis, Angele.. 620
Ellis, Cathy................. 620 Ellis, Kathryn. 620
Ellis, Molly................. 620 Ellis, Zandra.. 620
Elmore, James................ 621 Embry, Obiora.. 621
Emerson, Karen............... 621 Emery, Heather. 621
Emery, Jason................. 622 Emlinger, Wendy 622
Emrich, David................ 622 Enfield, Susan. 622
Eng, Erica................... 622 Engdahl, Anna.. 623
Engels, Lisa................. 623 England, Gail.. 623
England, Kathleen............ 623 England, 624
C.E.C.,
C.F.S.E.
Thomas.
Engle, Richard............... 624 English, 624
Carroll.
Engstrom, Doris.............. 625 Enser, Suzanne. 625
Ensign, Diane................ 625 Enzmann, 625
Narcissa.
Epshteyn, Svetlana........... 626 Eran, Nadia.... 626
Erceg, Julian................ 626 Ergo, Dave..... 626
Erickson, Christine.......... 626 Erickson, Sara. 626
Erlanger, Joan............... 627 Ernissee, Terri 627
Ero, Ivy..................... 627 Eschenlauer, 627
Arthur.
Esquerra, Ronald............. 628 Essex County 628
Estrella, Susan.............. 629 Soil and Water
Conservation
District.
Estrello, Angela............. 629 Etter, Leilani. 629
Ettinger de Cuba, Stephanie.. 630 Evans, Alvin... 631
Evans, Dianne................ 632 Evans, Jessica. 632
Evans, Joy................... 632 Evans, Morgan.. 632
Evatt, Josephine............. 632 Evenson, 633
Marilyn.
Everett, Beth................ 633 Everett, Ed.... 633
Fabing, Keith................ 633 Facey, Laurel.. 634
Fahsel, Brad................. 634 Fairchild, 634
Kathy.
Fairweather, Erin; Sperling, 634 Farace, Robert. 635
Timmy.
Farley, Candace.............. 635 Farley, Eugene 635
S..
Farmer, Fran................. 636 Farnsworth, Stu 636
Farrar, Alonna............... 636 Farrelly, James 636
Farrington, Carl............. 636 Farris, Patti.. 636
Farris, S.N.S., Julie G...... 636 Farrow-Bowen, 637
Patricia.
Fasenfest, Harriet........... 637 Fassanella, Jim 637
Fath, Barbara................ 637 Faurote, 638
Jennifer.
Fauvell, Teresa.............. 638 Favre, Tracy... 638
Fay, Bob..................... 639 Fazzi, Michael. 639
Fee, Penny................... 639 Feibel, Theodor 639
Feinberg, John............... 640 Feissel, John.. 640
Feldt, Shela................. 640 Felger, Andrew. 640
Felix, Lindy................. 640 Felt, Brian.... 640
Felter, Linda................ 640 Felton, Susan.. 641
Fenn, Suzanne................ 641 Ferguson, Chris 641
Ferguson, Jim................ 641 Ferrari, Gerard 642
Ferrell, David............... 642 Ferrier- 642
Johnson, Donna.
Ferro, Kathy................. 643 Ferroggiaro, 643
Suzanne.
Ferry, Rita.................. 643 Feusner, Robin. 643
Fiedler, Alicia.............. 643 Field, 644
Catherine.
Fies, M.D., Robert........... 644 Fifer, Nancy... 644
Fink, Penelope............... 644 Fink, Richard.. 645
Finley, Mary Miho............ 645 Finley-Shea, 645
Barbara.
Finneran, Tom................ 645 Finney, Vanessa 645
Fischel, Marya............... 646 Fischer, 646
Elizabeth.
Fischer, Heather............. 646 Fisher, Barbara 646
Fisher, David................ 647 Fisher, Karen.. 647
Fisher, Melody............... 647 Fisher, 647
Stephanie.
Fisher Kern, Madeleine....... 648 Fiske, Colin... 648
Fitch, Jr., Michael.......... 648 Fitzgerald, 648
Macleod.
Fitzner, Erin................ 649 Flagg, 649
Gwendolyn.
Flanagan, Marianne........... 649 Flate, David... 649
Fleming, Judy................ 649 Fleming, S.F... 650
Fletcher, Christine.......... 650 Fletcher, Erin. 650
Fletcher, Ian................ 651 Flickinger, 651
Nathan.
Flitter, Danielle............ 651 Florek, Janyse. 651
Flores, Margaret............. 652 Flores, Sharon. 652
Flores, Yomei................ 652 Flournoy, Ruth. 652
Flynn, Ruthie................ 653 Flynn, Sarah... 653
Foegen, Joseph............... 653 Fogarty, Dan... 653
Fogel, Jean.................. 654 Fogel, Ken..... 654
Foley, Kyle.................. 654 Folsom, Therese 654
Fonk, Ted.................... 654 Fonooni, Candis 655
Fonti, Theesa................ 655 Foote, Torie... 655
Forbes, Reese................ 655 Ford, Leeann... 655
Ford, Steve.................. 655 Forehand, Nancy 655
Forino, Christina............ 656 Forlie, Kai 656
Mikkel.
Formo, Aimee................. 656 Forster, 656
Michael.
Fosdick, Helen............... 656 Foss, Pauline.. 657
Fossett, Lee................. 657 Foster, Elaine. 657
Foster, Karen................ 657 Foster, Michael 657
Foumberg, Leslie............. 657 Fowler, Sesame. 658
Fox, Agnes................... 658 Foy, M.A., 658
R.D., C.D.E.,
Masha.
Frame, Kristen............... 658 Francis, Lelia 658
Ann.
Franck, Faith................ 659 Franco, Amy.... 659
Frankel, Leroy............... 659 Frankenstein, 659
Jean.
Franklin, Barbara............ 659 Franklin, 660
Cheryl.
Franks, Allan................ 660 Franks, Jeanne. 660
Fraser, James................ 660 Frazee, Christa 660
Frazer, Patty and Bob........ 660 Frazier, Carol. 660
Frazier, Kimberly............ 661 Frazier, Ruth.. 661
Freckmann, Chad.............. 661 Fredenthal, 662
Ruth Ann.
Freedman, Luis............... 662 Freel, Susan... 662
Freeman, Geri................ 662 Freeman, 663
Jacqueline.
Freeman, Joseph.............. 663 Freeman, Mary.. 663
Freeman, Sandy............... 663 Freeman, Thomas 663
Freese, Jan.................. 663 Freid, David... 664
Freitag, Lynn................ 664 Freitas, Amanda 664
French, J.................... 665 French, Jim & 665
Lisa.
French, Rodney............... 666 Fretz, Lynne... 666
Friar, Susan................. 666 Fridgen, Pamela 666
Friedland, Fiona............. 666 Friedly, 667
Krystal.
Friedman, Rebecca............ 667 Friend, Doug... 667
Frisco, Christine............ 667 Fritsch, 667
Charles.
Frodel, Ann.................. 668 Frompovich, 668
Catherine J..
Fry, Marian.................. 668 Frye, Mahala... 668
Fugitt, Christina............ 669 Fuhrman, Andrea 669
Fullen, Charles E............ 669 Fuller, Chris.. 669
Fuller, Kathie............... 669 Fuller, 670
Victoria.
Fulsome, Susan............... 670 Fulton, Will... 670
Fung, Sherman................ 670 Funkhouser, Nan 670
Furrow, Eric................. 671 Gabriel, Sally. 671
Gabrielsen, Barbara.......... 671 Gadsby, 671
Patricia.
Gaffney, William............. 671 Gafouri, Yana.. 672
Gagnon, Sandra............... 672 Gaignard, 672
Theresa.
Gaines, Brenda............... 672 Gaines, Katrina 672
Galarneau, Louise............ 672 Galas, Robin... 673
Gale-Gonzalez, Rebecca....... 673 Galen, Ron..... 673
Gallagher, Kevin............. 673 Gallaher, Peggy 673
Gallinger, Rob............... 673 Gallivan, Jason 674
Gallo, Paula................. 674 Gancher, Susan. 674
ganMoryn, Croitiene.......... 674 Gannon, Dan.... 675
Gannon, Peggy................ 676 Gannon, Thomas. 676
Garcia, Celin................ 676 Garcia, Joshua. 676
Gardiner, John............... 676 Gardner, Angela 677
Gardner, Arnie............... 677 Gardner, Elias. 678
Gardner, Gail................ 678 Garlette, 678
William.
Garms, Ellen................. 678 Garodia, M.D. 678
Prachi.
Garrison, Grace.............. 679 Garvett, Esther 679
Garza, Armando............... 679 Gasperini, 679
Jennifer.
Gast, Paul................... 680 Gatz, Cheryl... 680
Gaus, Christine.............. 680 Gautier, 680
Roberto.
Gawlikoski, Jay.............. 681 Geaci, Suzanne. 681
Gebhardt, Peter.............. 681 Geist, Katrin.. 682
Gemar, LaVerne............... 682 Gendron, Marya. 682
Genest, Karen................ 682 Genin, Merideth 682
Gensheimer, Greg............. 683 George, Carol.. 683
George, Chris................ 683 George, Darien. 683
Georger, Michael............. 683 Geraci, Dr. 688
Robert M..
Gerdes, Cynthia.............. 686 Gershgorn, 686
Laurie.
Gesch, E'Lonna............... 686 Geyer, Carol... 686
Ghicks, Patsy................ 686 Ghirla, Leslie. 686
Giammattei, Victor........... 687 Gibbon, Barbara 687
Gibbons, Jo.................. 687 Gibbs, Rozanne. 687
Gibellina, Glen.............. 687 Gibson, 688
Marshall.
Gibson, Michael.............. 688 Giesy, Theo.... 688
Gifford, Dawn................ 688 Gifford, 689
Richard.
Giglio, Bernadette........... 689 Gilbert, Marsha 689
Gilbert, Valerie............. 690 Gilchrist, 690
Claire.
Gill, L.F.J.................. 690 Gillanders, J. 690
David.
Gillespie, Bob............... 690 Gillett, Erin.. 691
Gilman, Christina............ 691 Gilman, Steve.. 691
Gilmore, Jamie............... 694 Gilroy, David.. 694
Gilson, Erinn................ 694 Gimmeson, 695
Michael.
Ginn, Anne; on behalf of 695 Ginsberg, 697
Susan Ellis Goodell. Caroline.
Giordano, Deborah............ 697 Giorgi, Justin. 698
Giovannini, Karen............ 698 Girvin, 698
Jennifer.
Gish, Diedre................. 698 Given, Steve... 699
Givens, Nancy................ 699 Givens, Roger 699
G..
Givers, David................ 699 Glascock, 699
Katherine.
Glaser, Aviva................ 699 Glaser, Jean... 704
Glaston, Joe................. 704 Glatter, 704
Katherine.
Glaub, Ted................... 704 Gleason, Laura. 709
Gleeson, Donna............... 709 Gleeson, Karen. 709
Glennon, Allison............. 709 Glines, Jessica 709
Glomski, Catherine........... 710 Glos, Jackie... 710
Glover, April................ 710 Gnat, Michael.. 710
Gocher, Mary................. 710 Gockel, Galen.. 711
Godich, Marcia............... 711 Goebel, Judy... 711
Goebel, Michael.............. 711 Goeckermann, 711
John.
Goedken, Martin.............. 711 Goertz, 712
Elizabeth.
Goetz, Linda................. 712 Goguen, Laurie. 712
Goldberg, Gary............... 712 Goldberg, 712
Halina.
Goldberg, Sarah.............. 712 Golden, Birdee. 713
Golden, Gabe................. 713 Goldenberg, 713
Helen.
Goldenberg, Laura............ 713 Goldman, Paul.. 713
Goldsberry, Ray.............. 714 Goldsmith, 714
Bruce.
Goldsmith, Cathy............. 714 Goldstein, Joan 714
Golightly, Susan............. 714 Gomez, Carissa. 714
Gomez, Hilda................. 715 Gontard, Caren. 716
Gonzales, Anthony............ 716 Gonzales, 716
Christine.
Gonzales, Crystal............ 716 Gonzales, Jr., 716
Frank.
Gonzalez, Aida............... 716 Gonzalez, 717
Cynthia.
Gonzalez, Katie.............. 717 Gonzalez, 717
Nicole.
Gonzalez, William G.......... 717 Good, Aimee.... 717
Good, Philip A............... 718 Goodman, Anne.. 718
Goodman, Arifa............... 720 Goodman, Ellen. 720
Goodman, Margaret............ 720 Goodwater, 721
Heather.
Goodwin, Karen............... 721 Gordon, 721
Alexandra.
Gorko, Gloria................ 721 Gornick, Janet. 721
Gorski, Joe.................. 721 Goss, Harlyene. 722
Gosson, Grace................ 722 Goubert, Debrin 722
Gouge, Deborah............... 722 Gouveia, 722
Christine.
Gozdzialski, John............ 722 Grabbe, 723
Alexandra.
Grabow, Tom.................. 723 Grace, Harry... 723
Graf, Richard................ 724 Graff, Gail G.. 724
Graham, Bonnie Jones......... 724 Graham, Diana.. 724
Graham, Jon.................. 725 Graham, Laura 725
and Carl.
Graham, Nancy................ 725 Grames, 725
Patricia.
Grandstaff, Lisa............. 725 Granning, 726
Anders.
Grant, Ann................... 726 Grant, Marsha.. 726
Gratsch, Grace............... 726 Graves, Tammy.. 726
Graves, Terrell.............. 726 Graves, Jr., 726
Herbert
``Herb'' R..
Gray, Jeff................... 727 Gray, Mary..... 727
Gray, Natalie................ 728 Gray, Pamela... 728
Gray, Pilar.................. 728 Gray, Sue...... 728
Gray, Sylvia Ruth............ 729 Gray, Yuriko... 729
Graziano, Mary............... 729 Grebanier, 729
Marian.
Grecchi, Giulio.............. 729 Greco, Loris A. 730
Green, Carol................. 730 Green, David... 730
Green, Mary.................. 730 Greenbaum, 731
Dorian.
Greenberg, Joyce............. 731 Greene, Harry.. 731
Greene, Jane................. 731 Greene, Vaughan 731
Greenia, Anne................ 732 Greenland, Alan 732
Greenstein, Barry............ 732 Greenstein, 732
Cindy.
Greetham, Alex............... 733 Gregg, Sara.... 733
Gregoire, Chris.............. 733 Gregor, Carol.. 733
Gregory, Andrew.............. 733 Gregory, Claire 734
Gregory, Ellen............... 734 Gregory, 734
Jennifer.
Gregory, T................... 734 Grey, Doris.... 735
Greymoon, Deborah............ 735 Grier, Audrey.. 735
Griffin, Brwyn............... 735 Griffin, Hon. 735
Robert T..
Griffin, Kasandra............ 748 Griffin, 749
Stephanie.
Griffith, Linda.............. 749 Griffiths, 749
Frances.
Griggs, Richard.............. 749 Grimaldi, Lynne 749
Grimm, R..................... 749 Groell, Jacob.. 750
Groen, Jen................... 750 Groff, Stan.... 750
Grosch, Judy................. 751 Gross, Cheryl.. 751
Gross, Dena.................. 751 Grossman, Stacy 751
Grove, Earl.................. 751 Grove, Jennifer 752
Grove, Nancy................. 752 Groves, Linda.. 752
Grubaugh, Janet.............. 752 Gruenstein, 753
Catherine.
Guare, Sarah................. 753 Gubman, Joanna. 753
Gubman, Michelle............. 753 Guenther, Jean. 753
Guerra, Michael.............. 754 Guerrero, 754
Ricardo.
Gugich, George............... 754 Guignard, 754
Lilace.
Guillemard, Claude........... 754 Gungor, Saniye. 754
Gunter, Karlene.............. 754 Guntert, Alice. 755
Gustafson, Judi.............. 755 Gustafson, Rae 755
Ann.
Guston, Joseph............... 755 Guthie, Sharyn. 755
Gutierrez, Nancy............. 755 Guzzon, 756
Georgina.
Gwartney, Abra............... 756 H., Jennifer... 756
Haas, Bill................... 757 Haber, Martha.. 758
Hachey, Suzanne.............. 758 Hachfeld, 758
Christine.
Hacker, Cherie............... 758 Hackney, Laura. 758
Hadda, Ilse.................. 759 Haddad, 759
Stephanie.
Hadfield, Ron................ 759 Hadley, Robert. 759
Hadlock, Mark................ 759 Haff, Harry.... 759
Hafiz, Saeeda................ 760 Hage, Cassandra 760
P..
Hager, Alexandra............. 760 Haggard, 761
Gabrielle.
Haining, Alice............... 761 Hakun, Karen... 761
Hale, Jeanette............... 761 Hales, Jennifer 761
Hales, Jil................... 761 Halfaker, James 762
Hall, Anthony................ 762 Hall, Camille.. 762
Hall, Denny.................. 762 Hall, Dr. John 762
R..
Hall, Marianne............... 762 Hall, Michele.. 762
Hall, Pamela................. 763 Hall, Sarah.... 763
Hallett, Shannon............. 763 Hamer, Nancy... 763
Hamill, Janet and Geoffrey... 763 Hamilton, Bruce 764
Hamilton, Kerri.............. 764 Hamilton, Laura 764
Hamilton, Tricia............. 764 Hamilton, 764
William.
Hamlin, Deborah.............. 764 Hamlin, Thomas. 767
Hamm, Louise................. 768 Hamman, Tami... 768
Hammerman, Sally............. 768 Hammersley, 768
Ross.
Hampton, Holly............... 769 Hampton, Steve 769
& Mary.
Hance, Judith................ 769 Hand, Judith... 769
Handly, Neal................. 770 Hanna, Helen... 770
Hanneken, Avery.............. 771 Hannemann, 771
Tracy.
Hannigan, Margaret........... 771 Hannum, Joyce.. 771
Hansard, Robert.............. 771 Hansen, Amy.... 772
Hansen, Jan.................. 772 Hansen, Jeremy 773
A..
Hansen, Jerry and Joyce...... 773 Hansen, Matthew 773
Hansen, Mitch................ 773 Hansen, Yvonne. 774
Hanson, Anne................. 774 Hanson, Laurie. 774
Hanson, Melissa.............. 774 Hanson, 775
Michelle.
Hanson, Paul R............... 775 Harad, Allyn... 776
Hardenbergh, Sabrina......... 776 Harder, Susan.. 776
Hardy, Fran.................. 777 Hardy, Ingrid.. 777
Harkness, Jim................ 777 Harmet, Lynn... 778
Harper, Katherine............ 778 Harr, Terry.... 779
Harris, Cathy................ 779 Harris, Jack H. 779
Harris, John................. 779 Harris, Karen.. 779
Harris, Melissa.............. 780 Harris, Myra... 780
Harris, Peggy................ 780 Harris, Rebecca 781
Harris, Sharon............... 781 Harrison, Megan 781
Harrison, Richard............ 781 Harriss, 781
Patricia.
Harrs, Maggie................ 782 Hart, Carole... 782
Hart, Dannie................. 782 Hart, Jessica.. 782
Hartke, Spring............... 783 Hartley, Kara.. 783
Hartzell, Will............... 783 Harvest, Lucy.. 783
Hasara, Michael.............. 783 Hash, Zachary.. 783
Haskamp-Gebhardt, Denise..... 784 Haskins, Mark.. 784
Hatfield, Joyce.............. 784 Hatfield, Laura 784
Hathaway, Ross............... 784 Hatok, Sharon.. 784
Haugen, Robert............... 785 Hauter, Sonja.. 785
Havener, Kevin............... 785 Havens, Adrian. 785
Hawkes, Courtney............. 785 Hawkey, Eileen. 785
Hawkins, Blanche............. 786 Hay, Mark...... 786
Hayakawa, Mitsuko............ 786 Hayden, Gerard. 786
Hayden, Jeannette & James.... 786 Hayden, Sara... 787
Hayes, Aisha................. 787 Hayes, Kim..... 787
Hayes, Linda................. 787 Hayes, Michelle 787
Hayes, Tim................... 788 Haynes, M.P.A., 788
Michael W..
Haytmanek, Maryann........... 789 Hayward, James. 789
Hayward, Merle............... 790 Healy, Craigen. 790
Healy, Elizabeth............. 790 Healy, Robyn... 790
Hearsey-McComas, Peta........ 790 Heart, Jewel... 790
Heathcote, Susan............. 790 Heaton, Kristi. 791
Hebel, Sylvia................ 791 Hebenstreit, 791
Lyn.
Heckel, Susan................ 791 Hedlund, Laura. 791
Hedstrom, Dwayne............. 792 Hee, Wynnie.... 792
Heehs, Jeff.................. 792 Heeringa, Jamie 792
Heeringa, Kelsey............. 793 Heffelfinger, 793
Reed.
Heft, Mary................... 793 Hegelman, Gena. 794
Hegeman, George.............. 794 Heggestad, 794
Susan.
Heidt, Jeff.................. 794 Heil, Doris.... 795
Heimdal, Kari................ 795 Heinlein, 795
Malley.
Heinlin, Donna............... 796 Heiwns, Rosalie 796
Held, Laura.................. 796 Helle, Lynette. 796
Helliwell, Gigi.............. 796 Helm, Hannah... 797
Hemenway, Gayle.............. 797 Hemesath, 797
Daniel.
Hemesath, Phil............... 797 Hendershott, 797
Carmen.
Henderson, Ella.............. 797 Henderson, 797
Heather.
Henderson, Janice............ 798 Henderson, 798
Jeanette.
Henderson, John.............. 798 Henderson, 798
Nancy.
Henderson, Paige............. 799 Henderson, 799
Sherry.
Hendricks, Kate.............. 799 Hendrix, Jean.. 799
Hendrix, Linda............... 799 Henriksen, 799
James.
Hensley, Michelle............ 799 Henson, Karen.. 800
Hepner, April................ 800 Herbert, Joseph 800
Herd, Nicole................. 800 Hernandez, 800
Cynthia.
Hernandez, GlendaRae......... 800 Hernandez, Joe. 801
Hernandez, Michelle D........ 801 Hernday, Ann... 802
Hero, Irmine................. 802 Herold, Annique 802
Herr, John................... 802 Herrick, P.A., 803
Nancy; Roger
Morrison, M.D..
Herron, Amy.................. 803 Herron, Andria. 803
Herron, Pamela............... 803 Hertz, Barbara 803
J..
Hess, Don.................... 804 Hess, Phyllis.. 804
Hesse, Karl.................. 804 Hewett, Suzette 805
Hibbard, Angela.............. 805 Hicks, Alison.. 805
Hicks, Brian................. 805 Hicks, Molly... 805
Hiebel, Harvey............... 806 Higgins, Alison 806
Higgins, Bruce............... 806 Higgins, Laurie 806
Higgins, Susan............... 806 Hiland, Mike... 806
Hilburn, Amanda.............. 806 Hildebrand, 807
Cindy.
Hildenbrand, Nita............ 807 Hill, Allison.. 807
Hill, Steve.................. 807 Hinahara, 808
Gabrielle.
Hinds, Sandra................ 808 Hinely, Aren... 808
Hinely, Robert............... 809 Hinrichs, Brant 809
Hipp, Ruth................... 809 Hirsch, Russell 810
Hirschinger, Jerry........... 810 Hirschman, 810
Wendy.
Hirth, Carol................. 810 Hirthler, Jamie 810
Hirtle, John................. 811 Hladun, Barbara 811
Hocevar, Michael............. 811 Hochanadel, 811
Susan.
Hocking, Amy................. 811 Hodges, 811
Claudine.
Hodges, Sueyama.............. 812 Hodges, Susan.. 812
Hoeke, Heinz................. 812 Hoff, Linda.... 813
Hoffman, Antonia............. 813 Hoffman, 813
Carleton.
Hoffman, Marc................ 813 Hoffman, 813
Pauline.
Hoffmann, Janet.............. 813 Hoffmann, Kyle. 813
Hogan, Mary.................. 814 Hogan, Sabrina. 814
Holbrook, Laura.............. 814 Holbrook, 815
Stephanie.
Holcomb, Bill, Margot & Scott 815 Holder, Chris.. 815
Holder, Rebecca.............. 816 Holeton, Kim... 816
Holford, Sharon.............. 816 Holland, Del... 816
Holland, Sage................ 816 Hollar, Jeffrey 816
Hollens, Kim................. 817 Holley, Eutrina 817
Hollingsworth, Elizabeth..... 817 Hollis, 817
Christopher.
Hollis, Judith............... 817 Hollopeter, 818
Alicia Joy.
Holloway, Wilbur............. 818 Holmes, Delores 818
Holmes, Diane................ 818 Holmes, Tyler.. 818
Holste, Nancy................ 818 Holsten, 819
Chandra.
Holt, Kendra................. 819 Holtey, Ana.... 819
Holtz, James................. 819 Holtzman, Jake. 819
Holtzman, Margot............. 819 Holzman, 820
Michael.
Holzworth, Kelly............. 820 Homer, Deanna.. 820
Hommel, Kady................. 820 Hong, Yunie.... 820
Honold, Wendy................ 821 Hoobing, Stan.. 821
Hood, Gregory................ 821 Hoos, Margaret. 821
Hoover, Kim.................. 821 Hope, Rev. 822
Glenda.
Hopkins, Brittany............ 822 Horan, Robert.. 823
Horjus, Maika................ 823 Horn, Jane..... 824
Horner, Deborah.............. 824 Horsman, Joanne 824
Hosek, Ruth.................. 824 Hotaling, Nancy 824
Houben, Evelyn............... 824 House, Dixie... 825
Houseal, Brian L............. 825 Houseman, Alan 826
W..
Houseman, David.............. 827 Houston, Susan. 827
Houston, Tanya............... 827 Houtakker, 827
Catherine.
Hovis, Kris.................. 828 Howard, 828
Christine.
Howard, Dale................. 828 Howard, Lori... 828
Howard, Mike R............... 828 Howard, Vernon. 829
Howe, James.................. 829 Howell, Amanda. 829
Howell, Jo Anne.............. 829 Hoyle, James... 830
Hoyt, Alleyne................ 830 Hoyt, Linda.... 830
Hoyt, Robin.................. 831 Hoyt, Virginia. 831
Hubbard, Eric................ 831 Hubbard, Margot 831
Huber, Carolle............... 831 Hubler, Michael 831
S..
Huck, Christie............... 832 Hudson, Amy.... 832
Hudson, Charles.............. 832 Hudson, 832
Michelle.
Hufford, Joseph.............. 833 Huff-Sandstrom, 833
Athena.
Hugenschmidt, Kitty.......... 833 Huggins, 833
Abigail.
Hughes, Brother & Sister J.R. 833 Huh, Loma...... 834
Huig, Gerrit................. 834 Huisenga, 834
Joshua.
Huismam, Gene................ 834 Hulbert, Ned... 834
Hulett, Lisa................. 835 Huls, Robbin... 835
Hulse, Dean.................. 835 Hultgren, Karen 835
Humburg, Judith.............. 835 Humphrey, 836
Matthew.
Humphreys, Kim............... 836 Humphreys, 836
Roberta.
Hundley, Sally............... 836 Hunt, Joni..... 836
Hunter, Amy.................. 836 Hunter, Gene... 837
Huntington, Barbara.......... 837 Hurd, Lindsey.. 837
Hurley, Brion................ 837 Hurst, Pauline. 838
Huston, Lisa................. 838 Hutchinson, 838
Julie.
Hutchison, Amber............. 838 Hutchison, Leah 838
Hwoschinsky, Paul............ 838 Hybner, Laura.. 838
Hyde, Jennifer............... 839 Hyland, 839
Margaret.
Ianarelli, Monica............ 839 Iatrides, Joan. 839
Ickes, Henry................. 839 Ievins, Janet.. 839
Ifert-Miller, Katie.......... 840 Ihm, Mary Ann.. 840
Ihrig, Glen.................. 840 Ijams, Lucy.... 840
Ingersoll, Kate.............. 840 Inglima, Laura. 841
Ingraham, Claudia............ 841 Ingram, Martha. 841
Ingram, Mrill................ 841 Intilli, Sharon 841
Irish, Kenneth............... 842 Irons, Edie; 842
Elanne Kresser.
Irvine, Jeffrey.............. 842 Isely, Laura... 842
Isensee, Michael............. 843 Isse, Antonio.. 843
Iyog, Carlo.................. 843 Izaguirre, 843
Celia.
Jack, Allison................ 843 Jackson, Amy... 844
Jackson, Barbara............. 844 Jackson, David. 844
Jackson, Kent................ 845 Jackson, Lisa.. 845
Jackson, Martha.............. 845 Jackson, 846
Maureen.
Jacobs, Deborah (WI)......... 846 Jacobs, Deborah 846
(MN).
Jacobson, Elizabeth.......... 846 Jacobson, 846
Michael.
Jacobson, Sarah.............. 847 Jacobson, 847
Shirley.
Jacoby, Ben.................. 847 Jaeger, Brian.. 847
Jaffe, Kaitlin............... 847 Jagiello, Carol 848
Jaillet, Susan............... 848 Jamerson, Susan 848
James, Lauren................ 848 James, Lynda... 848
James, Stacy................. 849 James-Cupp, 849
Abigail
``Abbe''.
Jammer, Danette.............. 850 Jankus, Murray. 850
Janowski, Jon................ 850 Janson, Elaine. 851
Janus, Joan.................. 851 Janzen, Gayle.. 851
Jarvis, Michelle............. 852 Jasienowski, 852
Cathy.
Jawa, Raj.................... 852 Jay, Bonnie.... 852
Jayne, John.................. 853 Jeffries, Jamie 853
Jena, Joy.................... 853 Jenkins, Nancy. 853
Jenkins-Sherry, Corliss...... 854 Jenney, Dina... 854
Jennings, Barbara............ 854 Jennings, Mimi. 854
Jennings, Susan.............. 854 Jensen, Erin... 855
Jensen, Sharlene............. 855 Jerrells, 855
Patricia.
Jervis, Lisa................. 855 Jevitt, Gar.... 855
Jiannacopoulos, Julia........ 856 Jimenez, 856
Lizzette.
Jimmerson, Glinda............ 856 Jitchotvisut, 856
Donna M..
Johansson, Donald............ 857 Johnson, Ann... 857
Johnson, Bettemae............ 857 Johnson, Carol. 857
Johnson, Chris............... 857 Johnson, Dean.. 857
Johnson, Elizabeth........... 858 Johnson, George 858
Johnson, K.L................. 858 Johnson, Karl.. 858
Johnson, Kathryn (TX)........ 858 Johnson, 859
Kathryn (MN).
Johnson, Leslie.............. 859 Johnson, 859
Michael.
Johnson, Michele............. 859 Johnson, Robyn. 859
Johnson, Ron................. 861 Johnson, Sharon 862
Johnson, Tim................. 862 Johnston, Bud.. 862
Johnston, Rona............... 862 Johnston, Signa 862
Johnston, Veronica........... 862 Johnston, Vicki 863
Johnston-Keane, Kathy........ 863 Jones, 863
Alexander.
Jones, Anthony............... 863 Jones, Diane... 863
Jones, Kris.................. 864 Jones, Marilyn. 864
Jones, Maxine & Ralph D...... 864 Jones, McKenzie 865
Jones, Morgan................ 865 Jones, Nancy... 865
Jones, Nina.................. 865 Jones, Paula... 865
Jones, Rosemary.............. 866 Jones, R.N., 866
Karen.
Jordan, Callie............... 866 Jordan, Camille 866
Jordan, John................. 866 Jordan, JoLynn. 867
Jordan, Melissa.............. 867 Jordan, Michele 867
Jordan, Patricia............. 868 Jordan, 868
Stephanie.
Joslin, Aaron................ 868 Joslin, Harriet 868
Joy, Nancy................... 869 Joyce, Cheryl.. 869
Jozef, Paul.................. 869 Judd, Lilia.... 869
Judge, Pandora............... 869 Judkins, Lyn... 870
Juhlin, Mailyn............... 870 Julia, Kathryn. 870
Jung, Courtney............... 870 Junge, Roxanne. 871
Jurczewski, Carol............ 871 Justice, 871
Cynthia.
Kaczerski, Wendy............. 871 Kafka, Mo...... 871
Kagan, Lucy.................. 871 Kagel, 872
Katharine.
Kaiser, Jessica.............. 872 Kaiser, Natasha 872
Kakuk, Shawn................. 872 Kaley, Jeff.... 873
Kalifowicz-Waletzky, Roslyn.. 873 Kalish, 873
Benjamin.
Kalita, Brad................. 873 Kalscheur, 873
Sandra.
Kambak, Kim.................. 874 Kania, John.... 874
Kann, Barbara................ 874 Kansas, Sharon. 874
Kaperick, Paul............... 875 Kaplan, Adam... 875
Kaplan, Anne................. 875 Kaplan, Barry.. 875
Kapoor, Caitlin.............. 875 Kapuler, Ph.D., 875
Alan.
Karabelnikoff, Sally......... 876 Karbaumer, 876
Klaus.
Karen, Brown................. 876 Karhu, Vicky... 876
Karie, Piper................. 876 Karim, Samantha 877
Karnecki, Theresa............ 877 Karnezis, Jason 877
Karr-Segal, Patricia......... 877 Kasbergen, 878
Cornell.
Kasdin, Stefani.............. 879 Kaseman, 879
Stephen.
Kassner, Kathryn............. 879 Kastle, Lindsay 879
Kathy, Wallenta.............. 879 Katinsky, 879
Matthew.
Katz, Barb................... 880 Katzenmeyer, 880
Paula.
Kaufman, Lucy................ 880 Kavanagh, 880
Andrew.
Kavanagh, Maureen............ 880 Kawa, Judith... 881
Kaye, Sheila................. 881 Keane, Meghan.. 881
Kearnon, Landis.............. 881 Keasbey, Edie.. 881
Keating, Suzanne............. 882 Kegerize, Carol 882
Kegler, Lori................. 882 Keller, Karen.. 882
Kelley, Dorinda.............. 882 Kelley, Erin... 883
Kellogg, Jane................ 883 Kellogg, Tracey 883
Kelly, Ann................... 883 Kelly, C....... 883
Kelly, Daniel................ 883 Kelly, Jessica 884
and Kasey.
Kelly, Margaret.............. 884 Kelly, Patricia 884
Kelly, Thomas................ 884 Kelly, William 886
H..
Kelly Wright, Monica......... 890 Kempe, Vickie.. 890
Kennedy, Christy............. 890 Kennedy, 890
Richard.
Kennedy, Samuel.............. 890 Kennedy, 890
Tangela.
Kennenwood, Evelyn........... 891 Kennis, Lois... 891
Kent, Diane.................. 891 Kent, Rebecca.. 891
Kent, Zach................... 891 Kepner, Susan.. 891
Keramaty, Valery............. 892 Kerr, Susan.... 892
Kershaw, Lucas............... 892 Kertess, 892
Margaret.
Kidd, Chestina............... 893 Kierstead, 893
Susan.
Kiger, Chip.................. 893 Kilchenstein, 893
Kim.
Kiley, Patrick............... 893 Killeen, Maggie 894
Killinger, Deborah........... 894 Killingsworth, 894
Carol.
Kilpatrick, Michael.......... 894 Kim, Julie..... 896
Kimball, Clark............... 896 Kimball, 897
Marlene.
Kimble, Kim.................. 897 Kim-Geyer, 897
Raena.
Kimmes, Sarah................ 897 Kimsey, Rebecca 897
King, Elisa.................. 897 King, Gayle.... 898
King, Jean................... 898 King, Melanie.. 898
King, Richard................ 898 King, Wes...... 898
Kinnaman, Rasha.............. 898 Kinnie, Yannick 899
Kintner, Christine........... 899 Kinziger, Paula 899
Kiplinger, Sutton............ 899 Kipp, James.... 899
Kiritsis, Justin............. 900 Kirkilis, 900
Alexandra.
Kirkpatrick, Mark............ 900 Kirsanow, Lily. 900
Kirsch, Alison............... 900 Kirschbaum, 901
Saran.
Kirschenman, Merlin.......... 901 Kirtz, Harold.. 901
Kissel, John................. 902 Kitrel, Andrea. 902
Kitsmiller, Janet............ 902 Kittredge, Kim. 902
Kittrell, Donna.............. 902 Kjono, Pamela.. 902
Klahn, Sandra................ 903 Klauer, Helmut. 903
Kleckler, Jan................ 903 Klee, Amy...... 903
Klee, Marjorie............... 903 Kleihauer, 903
Paula.
Klein, Ann................... 904 Klein, Henry... 904
Klein, John.................. 904 Klein, Judith 905
E..
Klein, Kirsten............... 905 Klein, Molly... 905
Kleinwolterink, Lisa......... 905 Kleisinger, 905
Laurie.
Klemp, Kenneth............... 906 Kliewer, Dr. 906
R.H..
Kline, Larry................. 906 Klock, Angel... 906
Kluson, Robert............... 907 Knight, Renee.. 908
Knoll, Anne.................. 908 Knollenberg, 908
Kimberly.
Knox, Connie................. 908 Knox, Kate..... 908
Knuth, Margaret.............. 909 Knutson, 909
Rosemary.
Knutzen, David and Betty..... 909 Kocsis, Joan... 909
Koda, Sperie................. 909 Koegel, Amy.... 910
Koelsch, Matthew............. 910 Koenig, Ron.... 910
Kokai, Elaine................ 910 Kolber, Regina. 910
Kollar, Susan................ 911 Konigsbauer, 911
Steve.
Konkus, Claudia.............. 911 Koon, Kitty.... 911
Koplo, Harv.................. 911 Kopp, Marilyn.. 911
Korn, Meryle A............... 912 Koschmeder, 912
Teresa.
Kosek, Kate.................. 912 Koshik, Debi... 912
Kovitz, Johanna.............. 912 Kowalewski, 913
Douglas.
Kowalski, Kelly Ann.......... 913 Kozak, Michael. 913
Kozel, Constance............. 913 Kozlowski, 913
David.
Kozma, John.................. 914 Kraemer, 914
Marylou.
Kraft, Diane................. 914 Kraker, Marylin 915
Kramer, Ann.................. 915 Kramme, Joel... 915
Kran, Bruce.................. 915 Kranz, Greta... 915
Krasner, Michael............. 915 Krause, C.E.... 916
Kravitz, Harold.............. 916 Kreiter, 916
Clarence.
Krieger Cottingham, Rebecca.. 916 Krivin, Susan.. 917
Kromminga, Geri.............. 917 Kronenberg, 917
Esther.
Krosnoff, Cam................ 918 Krueger, Dianne 918
Krueger-Jackson, Frances..... 918 Krug, Ryan..... 919
Kruger, Robert............... 919 Krupnick, Wendy 919
Kruse, Scott................. 919 Kuehl, William. 919
Kuhns, Sara.................. 920 Kukla, Hilary.. 920
Kukla, Pamela................ 920 Kukuczka, Jerry 920
Kumiega, Walter.............. 920 Kunde, Amy..... 921
Kunisch, Harold J............ 921 Kurland, Mike 921
and Miriam.
Kurtz, Steven................ 921 La Course, 921
Michael.
Lack, Deanna................. 922 Ladd, Barbara.. 922
LaDuc, Ryan.................. 922 Laduke, Shawn.. 923
Lafaye, Michelle............. 923 LaFreniere, 924
Jioanne.
Laing, Barbara............... 924 Lakoff, George. 924
Lam, Theresa................. 925 L'Amarca, Joe.. 925
Lambert, Gwen................ 925 Lambert, Kris.. 925
Lambrecht, Ida............... 926 Lamers, Vanessa 926
Lamkin, Tara................. 926 LaMothe, Tanya. 926
Lampi, Michael............... 926 Lampman, Gary.. 927
Lampman,R.N., Marilee........ 927 Landes, Rosanne 927
Landfried, Lauren............ 927 Landis, Molly.. 928
Landon, Joann................ 928 Landry, Arthur. 928
Landry, Gisele............... 929 Landusky, Paul. 929
Lane, Abbie.................. 929 Lane, Craig.... 929
Lane, Daryn.................. 929 Lane, Ginny.... 930
Langer, Ph.D., Barb.......... 930 Langford, 931
Charles.
Langham, Shannon............. 931 Langhans, 931
Judith.
Langhorne, Elizabeth......... 931 Langteau, 931
Margaret.
Lannin, Susan................ 931 Lanton, Ruth... 932
LaPorta, Angela.............. 932 Larimore, Anna 933
Lee.
Larkin, Gloria............... 933 Larrabee, Sarah 933
Larrieu, John................ 933 Larsen, Denise. 933
Larsen, Winifred............. 934 Larson, Linda.. 934
LaSalla, Linda............... 934 Lasensky, 934
Elizabeth.
LaSister, Coy M............. 934 Laster, Jr., 935
Ira.
Lauchlan, Jennifer........... 935 Laudenslager, 935
John.
Lauder, Maureen.............. 935 Laughingheart, 936
Angela.
Laughlin, Rose............... 936 Lavine, Suzanne 936
Law, Suzanne................. 936 Lawrance, Liana 936
Lawrence, Chris.............. 936 Lawrence, 937
Tracey.
Lawry, Trina................. 937 Layer, Linda... 937
Layne, Betty................. 937 Layne, Linda... 938
Lazarski, Steve.............. 938 Le Du, Holly... 938
Lea, Andrea.................. 939 Leaf, Lucy..... 939
Leahy, Michael............... 939 Leahy, Nancy 939
and Gary.
Leanza, Victoria............. 939 Leard, Lane.... 940
Leavy, Jacqueline............ 940 LeBer, Richard. 940
LeBlanc, Elaine.............. 940 Ledden, Dennis. 941
Ledoux, Michele E............ 941 Lee, Anthony... 943
Lee, Gloria.................. 943 Lee, Rena...... 943
Lee-Andersen, Charlotte...... 944 Lee-Hazelton, 944
Cavana.
Legault, Tina................ 944 Legene, Anne... 944
Lehecka, Emily............... 944 Lehman, Heather 945
Lehman, Marian............... 945 Lehman, Steve.. 945
Lehrer, Silvia............... 945 Leigh, Avra.... 945
Leigh, Gary.................. 945 Leikas, Len.... 945
Leite, Susan................. 946 Lemieux, Joseph 946
Lemke, Janie................. 946 Lemon, Edward.. 946
Lemons, Christa.............. 946 Lempart, Lukasz 947
Lenert, Heidi................ 947 Lennox, 947
Patricia.
Lentz, Kelly................. 947 Leon, Nick..... 948
Leonard, Billie.............. 948 Leonard, Joan.. 948
Leonard, Rita................ 948 Leopold, Sam... 948
Lepore, Lorraine............. 948 Lescher, Gail.. 949
Lester, Daniel............... 949 Lester, Laura.. 949
Lester, Russ; Jennifer 949 LeVasseur, 950
Moffitt. Courtney.
Leve, Joslyn................. 950 Levin, David... 950
Levin, Deborah............... 950 Levin, Gordon.. 950
Levin, Penny................. 951 Levine-Small, 951
Donna.
Leviton, Peggy............... 951 Lewis, Corinna. 952
Lewis, Donald................ 952 Lewis, Graham.. 952
Lewis, Jill.................. 952 Lewis, Lawrence 952
Lewis, Patrick............... 953 Lewis, 953
Priscilla.
Lewis, Vicki................. 953 Lewman, 953
Marianne.
Leyton, Oliva................ 954 Lia, Barry..... 954
Liang, Linda................. 954 Libert, Wendie. 954
Libow, Robin................. 954 Lichatz, 955
Julianna.
Lichtenberg, Regan........... 955 Lieberman, 955
Yehudit.
Lillie, Michael.............. 955 Lilliquist, 955
Michael.
Limperes, David.............. 956 Lindekugel, 956
Laura.
Lindenmayer, Justin.......... 956 Lindow, Denise. 956
Lindstrom, Annie............. 956 Linebaugh, 956
Andrea.
Lines, Julian................ 957 Link, Noah..... 957
Linton, Adrian............... 957 Lipham, Rita... 958
Lipkin, Suzanne.............. 958 Lish, Vicki.... 958
Liston, Lynn................. 958 Littaua, Merci. 958
Littell-McWilliams, Kara..... 959 Little, Anthony 959
Livermore, Shanna............ 959 Livingston, 959
Helen.
Livingston, Richard.......... 959 Livingston, 960
R.D., Sally.
Lizanich, Beverly............ 960 Lizer, Deja.... 960
Lloyd, Jane.................. 961 Lloyd, Kurt.... 961
Loar, Anna................... 961 Lobdell, James. 961
LoBue, Margaret.............. 961 Locker, Georgia 962
Lockhart, Trent.............. 962 Lockington, 962
Cory.
Lockspeiser, Diane........... 962 Loeffler, 962
Edward.
Loftfield, Anne.............. 962 Logan, Corinne. 963
Logan, Shane................. 963 Logan Smith, 963
Kathleen.
Lohrmann, Sharon............. 965 Loken, Rebecca. 965
Lombardo, Robert............. 965 LoMonico, 965
Scheryl.
Lomp, Donna.................. 966 Long, David.... 966
Long, Dwight................. 968 Long, Gloria... 969
Long, Holly.................. 969 Long, John..... 969
Long, Valerie................ 969 Longley, Toni.. 969
Longley, P.E., B.C.E.E., Dr. 970 Loomis, Adam... 971
Karl.
Loos, Jennifer............... 971 Lopes, Loren... 971
Lopez, Elleri................ 972 Lopez, Laura... 972
Lopez, Stacia................ 972 Lopez, Thomas.. 973
L'Orange, April.............. 973 Loren, Wen..... 973
Loring, Lloyd................ 974 Lorio, Joe..... 974
Louise, Sabrina.............. 974 Love, Kathryn.. 974
Love Lippman, Arlene......... 974 Loveday, George 974
Low-Beer, Sheila............. 975 Lower, Stephan. 975
Lowery, Rebecca.............. 975 Lowrance, Sanna 975
Lowrey, Emma................. 976 Lowry, Lyn..... 976
Lowry, Sarah................. 976 Lubetkin, Carol 976
Lubin, Jill.................. 976 Luca, Michael.. 977
Lucchesi, Krista............. 977 Luce, Barbara.. 977
Luckert, Ursula.............. 977 Lueders, Nancy. 977
Luib, Dr. Catherine.......... 977 Luley, Caroline 978
Lumbard, Neil................ 978 Lumpkin, Kirk.. 978
Lundin, Rhonda............... 978 Lundy, Kathleen 978
L..
Lunemann, Patrick............ 979 Lung, James.... 979
Lunn, Christopher............ 980 Luongo, Joanne. 980
Lupher, Grant................ 980 Luria, Mayra... 980
Luscomb, Deborah............. 980 Lussier, Marc.. 980
Lutes, Essie................. 981 Luton, Harry... 981
Luttrell, Laura.............. 981 Lux, Patricia.. 982
Lux-Kosiewicz, Lynnea........ 982 Luzwick, Aimee. 982
Lyle, Deborah................ 982 Lynch, David... 982
Lynch, Jill.................. 983 Lynch, Martha.. 983
Lynch, Megan................. 983 Lynn, Marcy.... 984
Lynn, Matthew................ 984 Lynn, Meghan... 984
Lyon, Brenda................. 984 Lyon, Janet.... 985
Lyons, Curt.................. 985 Lyons, Shannon. 985
Ma, Charles.................. 985 MacDonald, Joan 985
and Wallace.
Macdonald, JoAnn............. 985 MacDonald, Leo. 985
MacDonald, Myra.............. 986 MacDonald 986
Hawke, Shaun.
MacDougall, Marie............ 986 MacGregor, Adam 986
MacGregor, Susanna........... 986 MacKenzie, 987
Therese.
MacLeod, Deb................. 987 MacLeod, Dianna 987
Maciborka, Margaret.......... 987 Maciel, 987
Christine.
Macy, Nancy.................. 987 Maddox, Tia.... 988
Mader, Monica................ 988 Madigan, 988
Carleen.
Madsen, Rebecca.............. 988 Maehr, Jeff.... 988
Maeroff, Rachel.............. 989 Magee, Jon..... 989
Magiasis, Jimmy.............. 990 Maglione, 990
Jennifer.
Magnuson, Angela............. 990 Maguire, Jeanne 990
Mahamdi, Cynthia............. 990 Mahler, 991
Margaret.
Mahoney, Kate................ 991 Maille, Valerie 991
Main, Claudette.............. 991 Maine, Gretchen 991
Mains, Donna................. 992 Maiurro, 992
Christopher.
Major, Judy.................. 992 Makarevich, 992
Iggy.
Maker, Janet................. 993 Malcore, Anne.. 993
Malin, Edith................. 993 Mallery, Robin. 993
Malloy, Janie................ 993 Malnati, Peggy. 994
Malone, Ann.................. 994 Manalili, 994
Barbara.
Manalo, Paula................ 994 Manasia, Florie 995
Mancuso, William............. 995 Mandel, Melissa 995
Mandell-Rice, Bonnie......... 995 Mangan, Niall.. 996
Mann, Michelle............... 996 Mann, Patti.... 996
Manno, Sarah................. 996 Mansell, 996
Callista.
Mansfield, Steven............ 996 Manus, Deborah. 997
Maquilan, Al Francis......... 997 Maram, 997
Nathaniel.
Marchioli, Marc.............. 997 Marcus, Merle 997
Ziporah.
Margolis, Jean............... 997 Mariano, 998
Jennifer.
Marie, Lorraine.............. 998 Marinkovich, 998
Mart.
Mark, Carole................. 998 Marko, Lynne... 998
Markowicz, Bertha............ 999 Markowitz, 999
Laura.
Marks, Joan.................. 999 Marner, Eugene. 999
Marsh, Mary.................. 999 Marsh, Nancy... 999
Marshall, Carolyn............ 1000 Marshall, Lisa. 1000
Marshall, Thomas............. 1000 Marsman, Amy... 1001
Martens, Brian............... 1001 Martens, Klaas. 1001
Martin, Amy.................. 1001 Martin, Avril.. 1002
Martin, Barbara (NY)......... 1002 Martin, Barbara 1002
(MA).
Martin, Byron................ 1002 Martin, Cody... 1003
Martin, Emilie............... 1003 Martin, Holly.. 1003
Martin, Jeff................. 1003 Martin, 1003
Katherine.
Martindale, Gayla............ 1004 Martin-Errick, 1004
Rena.
Martino, Lisa................ 1004 Martinovic, 1004
Lisa.
Martucci, Janet.............. 1004 Marvin, Tamar.. 1004
Masanz, Timothy.............. 1005 Masilko, 1005
Michael.
Mason, Kathryn............... 1005 Mason, Kirby... 1005
Mason, Marilyn............... 1005 Mason, Richard. 1006
Masoner, Barbara............. 1006 Masters, Areta. 1006
Mastro, Jim.................. 1006 Mastrostefano, 1006
Cassandra.
Mateen, Haneefa.............. 1007 Matejcek, Lynne 1007
Mateo, Beatriz Ivelisse...... 1007 Mathews, Adam.. 1008
Mathews, Christine........... 1008 Mathews, 1008
Jennifer.
Mathews, Lillian............. 1008 Mathews, 1008
Millard.
Mathis, Bruce................ 1009 Matoian, 1009
Richard.
Matsuda, Laurel.............. 1010 Matthes, Janus. 1011
Matthews, Thomas............. 1011 Mattson, Judith 1011
Maurer, Scott................ 1011 Maurer, Yevette 1011
Mawji, Debora................ 1012 Maxon, Dawn.... 1012
May, Andrew.................. 1012 May, Emily..... 1012
May, Tammy................... 1013 Mayberry, 1013
Sheila.
Mayer, Corey................. 1013 Mayer, Glenna.. 1013
Mayerat, Robin............... 1014 Maynard-Bible, 1014
Lisa.
Mayo, Nancy.................. 1014 Mays, Linda.... 1014
Mazer, Rochelle A............ 1014 Mazeroll, 1014
Heather.
Mazzaferro, Deb.............. 1015 Mazzitello, 1015
M.S.W.,
L.I.C.S.W.,
John.
McAdam, Gloria............... 1015 McAndrew, Dr. 1016
Philip.
McArthur, Kris............... 1016 McAuliffe, 1016
Cynthia.
McBride, Lynne............... 1016 McBride, M..... 1017
McBride, Virginia............ 1017 McCabe, Jeff... 1017
McCabe, Jody................. 1017 McCabe, 1018
Michelle.
McCaffrey, Marie............. 1018 McCague, Audrey 1018
McCammon-Hansen, Nancy....... 1018 McCann, Annika. 1019
McCann, Sheri................ 1019 McCarron, Andy. 1019
McCarter, Maureen............ 1019 McCarthy, Caly. 1019
McCarthy, James.............. 1020 McCarthy, 1020
Suzanne.
McCartney, Kim............... 1020 McCausland, 1020
Rachel.
McChesney, Larry............. 1020 McClain, Mikel. 1021
McClave, Lois M.............. 1021 McClave, 1021
Richard.
McClave, Robin............... 1021 McClave, Scott. 1021
McCleave, Jeff............... 1022 McClellan, 1022
Michael.
McClelland, Frances.......... 1022 McClintock, 1022
B.A..
McCluskey, Sue and Brian..... 1023 McConnell, Karl 1023
McCool, Melissa.............. 1023 McCormack, Kim. 1023
McCormick, Sarah............. 1023 McCracken, 1024
Gloria.
McCracken, Grant............. 1024 McCullah, 1024
Connie.
McCullah, Dennis............. 1024 McCulley, Karen 1025
McCulloch, Martha............ 1025 McDaniel, Abbi. 1025
McDaniel, Colleen............ 1025 McDermott, 1025
Pamela.
McDonnell, Margaret.......... 1026 McFadden, 1026
Miriam.
McFadden, Steven............. 1026 McFarland, Pat. 1026
McGill, Melissa.............. 1027 McGillivary, M. 1027
McGinley, Kristine........... 1027 McGlashan, 1027
Marie.
McGlynn, Richard............. 1027 McGowan, 1027
Katherine.
McGowan, Laura............... 1028 McGrath, 1028
Elisabeth Ann.
McGrath, Michelle............ 1028 McGraw, Sarah.. 1028
McGreevy, Donna.............. 1029 McGregor, Molle 1029
McGuire, Donna-Christine..... 1029 McGuire, Mary.. 1029
McGuire, Russell............. 1029 McHold, Sharon. 1029
McHugh, Patricia............. 1030 McIndoo, 1030
Rachael.
McInerney, Matt.............. 1030 McIntosh, Leah. 1031
McIntyre, Rene............... 1032 McKeen, 1032
Katherine.
McKeown, Mary................ 1032 McKiernan- 1032
Allen, Genesis.
McKim, Mark.................. 1033 McKinney, 1033
Martha.
McKnight, M.S., R.D., L.D., 1034 McLachlin, 1034
Pat. Mariella.
McLean, Alex................. 1034 McLean, L...... 1034
McLellan, Dr. R.G............ 1034 McLinden, 1034
Robert.
McMahon, Betsy............... 1035 McManus, Dennis 1035
McManus, Megan............... 1035 McMichael, Ryan 1035
McMullin, Marnie............. 1036 McMurray, Jean 1036
G..
McNabb, Patricia............. 1038 McNair, Amy.... 1039
McNeely, Claire.............. 1039 McPeak-LaRocca, 1039
Trish.
McPhail, Tristian............ 1039 McPhee, Marnie. 1039
McPherson, Holly............. 1040 McQuade, Pat... 1040
McSherry, Susan.............. 1040 McTague, 1040
Winston.
McTeer, Elizabeth............ 1040 McVey, Jan..... 1040
McWaters, Trisha............. 1041 Mead, Morgan... 1041
Mead, Nathaniel P............ 1041 Meader, Pao.... 1041
Meadows, Anne................ 1041 Meadows, Claire 1041
Meadows, Teri................ 1042 Medina, A.E.... 1042
Mednick, Hale................ 1042 Medved, Lex.... 1042
Meek, Leonor................. 1042 Meghani, Humera 1042
Meier, Diane P............... 1043 Meigs, Jane.... 1043
Meisler, Miriam.............. 1043 Mellentine, 1043
Debra.
Melli, Rosemary.............. 1043 Meltzer, Gwenn. 1044
Melvin, Nancy................ 1044 Memhardt, 1044
Joanne.
Mena, Patricia............... 1044 Menard, Marcy.. 1044
Mendoza, Joseph.............. 1045 Mensing, Max... 1045
Mercado, Elizabeth........... 1045 Merchant, Leone 1045
Merhar, Robert............... 1046 Merlino, 1046
Lawrence.
Merook, Robyn................ 1046 Merriman, 1046
Edward.
Merton, Timothy.............. 1046 Messick, Gene.. 1047
Metz, John................... 1047 Meyer, Karen B. 1047
Meyer, Melanie............... 1048 Meyer, Patricia 1048
Meyer, Ronald................ 1048 Micek, Ben..... 1048
Michaels, Alexis............. 1048 Michaels, Dale 1049
Ekahi.
Michelli, Nancy.............. 1049 Mickel, Kathy.. 1049
Mickelson, Charles........... 1050 Middlebrook, 1050
Melissa.
Middleton, David............. 1050 Miflin, Clare.. 1050
Migeot, Christine............ 1050 Mike, Jared.... 1051
Milcarek, Thomas............. 1051 Milcowitz, 1051
Robin.
Millard, Michael............. 1051 Miller, 1051
Antoinette.
Miller, August............... 1052 Miller, Ben.... 1052
Miller, David................ 1053 Miller, Debra.. 1053
Miller, Jennifer............. 1053 Miller, Jerre.. 1053
Miller, Jessica.............. 1053 Miller, Joan... 1054
Miller, Kathryn.............. 1054 Miller, Kieru.. 1055
Miller, Leah................. 1055 Miller, Linda.. 1055
Miller, Lissa................ 1055 Miller, Mark J. 1056
Miller, Nancy................ 1056 Miller, Pam.... 1056
Miller, Patricia............. 1056 Miller, Robert. 1056
Miller, Steve................ 1057 Miller, Tamra.. 1057
Miller, Tara................. 1057 Miller- 1057
Nogueira,
Ehren.
Miller-Stigler, Susan........ 1058 Millete, Kari.. 1058
Milliren, Pat................ 1058 Millis, Henry.. 1058
Mills, Andrea................ 1058 Mills, Beverly. 1059
Mills, Igalious.............. 1059 Mills, Kerry... 1059
Mills, Michael............... 1059 Mills, Saskia.. 1060
Mills, Wanda................. 1060 Milosevich, 1060
Karla.
Minde, Peter................. 1060 Minder, Marilyn 1060
Miotto, Madeline............. 1060 Mirabal, Tess.. 1061
Mires, Rich.................. 1061 Mitchel, Teresa 1061
Mitchell, Alexander.......... 1061 Mitchell, Brent 1061
Mitchell, Clint.............. 1061 Mitchell, 1061
Edward.
Mitchell, Joan............... 1062 Mitchell, John. 1062
Mitchell, Robin.............. 1062 Mitro, Eileen.. 1062
Mittelberger, Alison......... 1062 Mittenberg, 1063
Mike.
Mlynczak, Raymond............ 1063 Moaton, Anthony 1063
Moe, Valerei................. 1063 Moellering, 1063
Ph.D., Doug.
Mohbacher, Alex.............. 1064 Mohen, Anthony. 1064
Molatch, Kathleen............ 1064 Mole, Sally.... 1064
Moller, Peter G.............. 1065 Moller, Renee.. 1065
Moloney, Kathy............... 1065 Moltzen, Kelly. 1065
Mondor, Shannon.............. 1066 Mone, Carol.... 1066
Money, Barbara............... 1067 Mongoven, Ann.. 1067
Monjoy, Kim.................. 1067 Monroe, Gloria. 1067
Monroe, Richard.............. 1067 Monserrat, 1067
Ariel.
Monson, Ruth................. 1068 Montano, 1068
Julianne.
Montanus, Lisa............... 1068 Monteiro, 1068
Darrin.
Montgomery, Chris Ellen...... 1070 Montgomery, 1070
Deborah.
Montgomery, Edith............ 1070 Montgomery, 1070
Lanelle.
Montgomery, Lynn............. 1070 Montgomery, 1070
Patti.
Moodie, Jane................. 1071 Moody, Allen... 1071
Moomaw, Nathan............... 1071 Mooney, 1072
Elizabeth.
Mooney, Len.................. 1072 Moore, Alissa.. 1072
Moore, Brian................. 1073 Moore, Carrie.. 1073
Moore, Emilie................ 1073 Moore, Emily... 1073
Moore, Lauren................ 1074 Moore, Leslie.. 1074
Moore, Lorraine.............. 1074 Moore, Lynn.... 1074
Moore, Michele............... 1075 Moore, Terri... 1075
Moorman, Rachel.............. 1075 Moose, Mary 1075
Etta.
Moran, Jana.................. 1075 Morford, 1076
Patrica.
Morgan, Alexandra............ 1076 Morgan, Angel.. 1076
Morgan, Bill................. 1076 Morgan, 1076
Christopher.
Morgan, William.............. 1077 Morgese, 1077
Richard.
Morin, Toochis............... 1077 Morley, Robert. 1077
Morner, Gabriel.............. 1077 Morotti, Gloria 1078
Morretta, Rosemary........... 1078 Morrigan, 1078
McKenna.
Morris, Chrys................ 1078 Morris, 1078
Elizabeth.
Morris, Gary................. 1078 Morris, John... 1079
Morris, Mary................. 1079 Morris, Nancy.. 1079
Morris, Peter................ 1079 Morris, Shirley 1079
Morrison, Chad............... 1080 Morrison, 1080
Cheryl.
Morrison, Daniel............. 1080 Morrison, 1081
Leslie.
Morrison, M.D., Roger; Nancy 1081 Morrissey, 1081
Herrick, P.A.. Bernard C..
Morrissey, Christine......... 1081 Morrissey, 1081
Doredn.
Morrow, Samantha............. 1082 Morse, Anne 1082
Juniper.
Morse, Elizabeth............. 1082 Morse, Linda... 1082
Morse, Stacy................. 1082 Mosca-Clark, 1083
Vivianne.
Moscarella, Linda............ 1083 Moser, Rich.... 1083
Moshier, Melanie............. 1083 Moskowitz, 1084
Robert.
Moss, Andrew................. 1084 Mosser, Laura.. 1084
Motenko, Stephanie........... 1084 Moton, Jerome.. 1084
Moughalian, Sato............. 1085 Moulder, Linda. 1085
Moxley, Laurie............... 1085 Moyer, Wayne... 1085
Mucklow, David............... 1085 Mueller, Dawn.. 1086
Mueller, George B............ 1086 Mueller, Mark.. 1086
Muhly, Ernest J.P............ 1086 Mukasa, Haruko. 1087
Mulcare, James............... 1087 Muller, June... 1087
Muller, Kris................. 1087 Mulligan, Renee 1087
Mullins, Cathleen............ 1088 Mullins, M.J... 1088
Muniz, Beatriz............... 1088 Murakami, 1088
Hideyuki.
Murdoch, Terri............... 1088 Murdock, Sara.. 1088
Murnen, Rian................. 1089 Murphree, Sandy 1089
Murphy, Brian................ 1090 Murphy, Erica.. 1090
Murphy, Joy.................. 1090 Murphy, Maureen 1090
Murray, Juan................. 1090 Murti, Vasu.... 1091
Musella, Chris............... 1093 Musil, Natasha. 1093
Mussen, Alan................. 1094 Mutch, Mary.... 1094
Myer, Georgia................ 1094 Myers, Connie.. 1094
Myers, David................. 1094 Myers, Kermit.. 1095
Myers, Rene.................. 1095 Myers, Sheri... 1095
Mysliwiec, Renee............. 1095 Nachazel-Ruck, 1095
Jane.
Nagel, Ulrike................ 1096 Nagy, Alexandra 1096
Nakos, Aristides............. 1097 Nance, Kathy... 1097
Naramore, Raven.............. 1097 Nardo, Lisa.... 1097
Nardone-McDonough, Diane..... 1097 Nash, Charlene. 1098
Nash, Janet.................. 1098 Nason, Robin... 1098
Nassar, Gretchen Brooks...... 1098 Nather, Christy 1099
Nava, Camille................ 1099 Naylor, Kelsey. 1100
Neal, Karen.................. 1100 Needham, Kyle.. 1100
Neeser, Tawni................ 1100 Neher, Martia.. 1100
Nehl, Helga.................. 1101 Nehl, Jenna.... 1101
Neifert, Terri............... 1101 Neiman, Carol.. 1101
Nelms, Zachary............... 1102 Nelson, David.. 1102
Nelson, Greg................. 1102 Nelson, Jon.... 1103
Nestaval, Nancy.............. 1103 Neuger, Judy... 1103
Neville, Marcy............... 1103 Newberry, James 1103
Newcomer, Ariana............. 1103 Newcomer, Dawn. 1104
Newell, Shellie.............. 1104 Newmark, Leone. 1104
Newton, Cecelia.............. 1104 Newton, Heather 1104
Newton, Joe.................. 1104 Newton, Marilyn 1105
Nichols, Jeannie............. 1105 Nichols, Jenny. 1105
Nichols, William............. 1105 Nicholson, 1105
Margaret
``Ka'imi''.
Nicholson, Norma............. 1106 Nicol, John.... 1106
Nicola, Nikki................ 1106 Nicolson, Anne. 1106
Niemann, Valerie............. 1107 Nienhaus, 1107
Steven.
Nierrernard, Robert.......... 1107 Nihart, Alison. 1107
Nikolaiev, Katherine......... 1107 Nishihara, June 1108
Noble, Denise................ 1108 Noble, June.... 1108
Nodell, Nancy................ 1108 Noel, Susan.... 1108
Nolen, Travis................ 1109 Nordin, Kristof 1109
Nordmann, Katharina.......... 1109 Nordquist, 1109
Susan.
Norquist, Raun............... 1109 Norris, 1110
Kaleopono.
Norris, Patricia............. 1110 Norris, Scott.. 1110
Northrop, Kim................ 1110 Norton, Dean... 1110
Nothdurft, Anja.............. 1116 Notkin, Debbie. 1116
Notz, Phillip................ 1116 Novell, 1116
Christine.
Novick, Renae................ 1117 Nowlin, Helen.. 1117
Noyce, Michael............... 1117 Noyola, 1117
Angelica.
Nudelman, Olga............... 1117 Null, Kathryn.. 1118
Nunes, Sandy................. 1118 Nuschler, Jr., 1118
Gary.
O'Brien, Donald.............. 1119 O'Brien, 1119
Floretta.
O'Connell, Jen............... 1119 O'Connor, 1119
Joseph.
O'Brien, Colleen............. 1119 O'Brien, James. 1120
O'Brien, Maureen............. 1120 O'Callaghan, 1120
Patti.
O'Connell, Daniel............ 1120 O'Connor, B.... 1121
O'Connor, Lauretta........... 1122 O'Leary, 1122
Cornelia.
O'Malley, Margaret........... 1122 O'Nan, 1122
Elizabeth.
O'Neal, Julia................ 1123 O'Neil, Rory... 1123
O'Neill, Patrice............. 1123 Oaden, Arthur.. 1125
Oakes, John.................. 1125 Oakes, Vinnie.. 1125
Oberlin, Rebecca............. 1125 Oedel, Grace... 1125
Oehldrich, Jenny............. 1126 Oehler, Clark.. 1126
Ogden, Alison................ 1127 Ohlinger, Merle 1127
Ojeda, Alex.................. 1127 Okun, Lewis.... 1127
Olenik, Lance................ 1128 Olexa, Emery... 1128
Olive, Diane................. 1128 Oliver, Lauren. 1128
Oliver, Leesa................ 1129 Olivier, Paula. 1129
Olles, Amy................... 1129 Olsen, K....... 1130
Olsen, Karen................. 1130 Olsen, Lisa.... 1130
Olson, Diane................. 1131 Olson, Judith.. 1131
Olson, K..................... 1131 Olson, Kerwin.. 1132
Olson, Lori.................. 1132 Olson, Pam..... 1132
Onderdonk, Carole............ 1132 Ordonez, 1132
Elizabeth.
Ordway, Penny................ 1133 Orecchio, C.N., 1133
H.H.C.,
Christa.
Orfanakis, Nick.............. 1133 Oriard, Pamela. 1133
Orlich, Dana J............... 1133 Orlinski, 1133
Patricia.
Orlowsky, Mark............... 1134 Orr, Mary...... 1134
Ortiz y Pino, Jerry.......... 1135 Orton, Joan.... 1135
Osborne, Tony................ 1135 Oshiro, Alex... 1135
Oswald, Rudy................. 1135 Ott-Davis, 1135
Kathleen.
Overall, Marie............... 1136 Overlock, Ashle 1136
Overstreet, Romy............. 1136 Overton, 1136
Barbara.
Owens, Sheila................ 1136 Oxborough, 1136
Jennifer.
P., Miranda.................. 1137 Pacifico, 1137
Kimberly.
Padilla, Monica.............. 1137 Page, Alice.... 1137
Page, C. Jay................. 1137 Page, Nick..... 1138
Painter, Katherine........... 1138 Paisley, Lorna. 1138
Pakradooni, Jennie........... 1138 Palm, Laura.... 1138
Palmer, Deborah.............. 1139 Palmer, 1139
Paulette.
Palmer, Reed................. 1139 Palmer, Tim.... 1140
Palo, Nimai.................. 1140 Palomino, R.N., 1140
Brita.
Palthe, Penni................ 1140 Paltin, Sharon. 1141
Pancake, Colleen............. 1141 Panciera, 1141
Jeffrey.
Pangborn, Della.............. 1141 Papale, Victor. 1141
Papandrea, John.............. 1142 Papell, Tom.... 1142
Pappas, Nicholas............. 1142 Paprocki, David 1142
Papsdorf, Elizabeth.......... 1142 Paquette, Wayne 1142
M..
Parchen, Terra............... 1143 Parfrey, Laura. 1143
Paris, Bruno................. 1143 Paris, Danette. 1143
Parisi-Shaw, Eleanor......... 1144 Parisot, Debora 1144
Park, Soohyen................ 1144 Parker, Deborah 1145
Parker, Jennifer............. 1145 Parker, Mary Jo 1145
Parker, Rana................. 1146 Parker, Richard 1146
Parker, Steve................ 1146 Parker, Susan.. 1149
Parker, Tammy................ 1149 Parker 1149
Stellato,
Robert.
Parkes, Emmy................. 1149 Parman, Nancy.. 1150
Parra, Pinito................ 1150 Parrette, Joe.. 1150
Parris, Jack................. 1150 Parry, Michael. 1150
Parsons, Patricia............ 1150 Party, Deena... 1151
Pasekoff, Dorene............. 1151 Pasichnyk, 1151
Richard.
Paskowicz, Dawn.............. 1151 Pasquariello, 1151
James.
Passmore, Joanne............. 1152 Pasternack, 1152
JoAnn W..
Pastin, Susan S.............. 1152 Patent, Greg... 1152
Patnode, Angela.............. 1152 Patrick, 1153
Cynthia.
Patterson, Donnyl............ 1153 Patterson, Jona 1153
Patterson, Skye.............. 1154 Pattison, Erik. 1154
Patton, Chris................ 1154 Patton, Marlene 1154
Patton, Robert............... 1155 Pauker, 1155
Morgaine.
Pauksta, Diana............... 1155 Paul, Brittany. 1156
Paul, Cherie................. 1156 Paul, Rosalie.. 1156
Pauley, Stephen.............. 1156 Pauls, Deborah. 1157
Paulson, Jerry............... 1157 Pawlacyk, Laura 1157
Paxton, Dr. Jack............. 1157 Paxton, Laramie 1158
Payne, Carol................. 1158 Payne, Lia..... 1158
Pea, Colleen................. 1159 Peachey, Sue... 1159
Pealstrom, Hannah............ 1160 Pearlman, 1160
Patricia.
Pearson, Donna............... 1160 Pearson, Ellen. 1160
Pearson, Michelle............ 1160 Pearson, Rae... 1161
Pearson, Robyn............... 1161 Peck, Angela... 1161
Peck, Gloria................. 1161 Peck, Kevin.... 1161
Pecoraro, Victoria........... 1161 Peel, Donna.... 1162
Peele, Randy................. 1162 Peeler, 1163
Patricia.
Peet, Joan................... 1163 Pehlke, Robert. 1163
Pelkey, Clare................ 1163 Pelletier, John 1163
Pennington, Joni............. 1163 Pennington, 1164
Sharla.
Perez, Leah.................. 1164 Perez, Lilia... 1164
Perez, Martha................ 1167 Perez, Veronica 1167
Perkins, Joseph.............. 1167 Perkins, Karen. 1167
Perkins, Marie............... 1168 Pernyeszi, Joe. 1168
Pero, Joseph................. 1168 Perrette, 1168
Julien Yannick.
Perricelli, Claire........... 1168 Perrin, Anne... 1168
Perrine, Nancy............... 1168 Perry, Heath... 1169
Perry, Linda................. 1169 Peters, Nancy.. 1169
Petersen, Haley.............. 1169 Petersen, Kelly 1170
Petersen, Sarah.............. 1170 Peterson, 1170
Andrew.
Peterson, Elizabeth.......... 1170 Peterson, 1171
Heather.
Peterson, Kelly.............. 1171 Peterson, Lauri 1171
Peterson, Linda (CA)......... 1171 Peterson, Linda 1171
(OH).
Peterson, Mark............... 1172 Peterson, 1172
Ronald.
Petruszak, Alexander......... 1172 Petty, Carlene. 1173
Pham, Irene.................. 1173 Phelan, William 1173
Phelps, Benneth.............. 1173 Phelps, Luellen 1174
Phillips, James.............. 1174 Phillips, Susan 1174
Phinney, Cynthia............. 1174 Phipps, Holly.. 1174
Phipps, JoAnna M............. 1175 Phipps, Leana.. 1175
Phyle, Chad.................. 1175 Picciuca, 1175
Sebastiano.
Pickard-Richardson, Jana..... 1175 Picton, Rebecca 1176
Pieper, Christine............ 1176 Pierce, Megan.. 1176
Pierret, Dorothy............. 1176 Piersimoni, 1177
Anna Marie.
Pieslak, Suzanna............. 1177 Pietro, Cheryl. 1177
Pile, Edward................. 1177 Pilon, Killeen. 1177
Pincince, Lucille............ 1177 Pineda, Melisa. 1177
Pinedo, Damaris.............. 1178 Pings, Martha.. 1178
Pinkham, Carolyn............. 1178 Pinsky, 1178
Charlotte.
Pintar, Matthew.............. 1178 Pip, Reynolds.. 1179
Piper-McClure, Amanda........ 1179 Pisano, Tony... 1179
Pitcher, Patti............... 1179 Pitts, Cathie.. 1179
Pizarro, Judy................ 1179 Pjesky, Hope... 1180
Plain, Michelle.............. 1180 Plaisance, 1180
Desiree.
Plourde, Monica.............. 1181 Plumb, Kate.... 1181
Plummer, Donna............... 1181 Pocius, Felicia 1181
Podoll, Theresa.............. 1182 Pohlschneider, 1182
Margie.
Pokorny, Jeff................ 1182 Poliquin, 1182
Martha.
Pollard, Lisa................ 1182 Pomeroy, Alaina 1183
Pomrenke, M.D., M.P.H., 1198 Pontillo, Louis 1198
M.A.T.S., Stefan.
Poole, Carol................. 1198 Pope, Anne..... 1198
Popolow, Robert.............. 1198 Porter, Donald 1198
J..
Porter, Karen................ 1198 Porter, Maya... 1199
Portman, Anne................ 1199 Posever, 1199
Natalie.
Posey, Edye.................. 1199 Potamites, 1200
Katherine.
Potter, Erin................. 1200 Potter, Nancy.. 1200
Potts, Clifton............... 1200 Poulsen, 1200
Rebecca.
Powell, Michael.............. 1200 Powell, William 1200
Powers, Ann.................. 1201 Powers, Bruce.. 1201
Powers, Heather.............. 1201 Powers, Janet.. 1202
Powis, Robin................. 1202 Poyant, Andrew. 1202
Prado, Jim................... 1202 Prather, Beth.. 1202
Pratt, Christine............. 1202 Praus, Shannah. 1203
Pravda, Stewart.............. 1203 Precopio, Donna 1203
Preston, Will................ 1203 Price, Caitlin. 1203
Price, Jennifer.............. 1203 Price, Ph.D., 1204
John.
Price, Judy.................. 1204 Price, Kent.... 1204
Price, Laurie................ 1204 Price, Traer... 1204
Price, Wayne................. 1205 Priebe, 1205
Elizabeth.
Priest, Wanda................ 1205 Prileson, Eric. 1205
Prillaman, H. Bruce.......... 1206 Prindle, Pamela 1206
Pringle, Bruce............... 1206 Pringle, Stacy. 1206
Prinz, Johni................. 1206 Pritchard, 1207
Gralin.
Probasco, Brenda P........... 1207 Probst, Kelly.. 1207
Prochaska, Tom............... 1207 Proctor, Chris. 1207
Proctor, Geraldine........... 1208 Proctor, John.. 1208
Proffitt, Dennis............. 1208 Proffitt, Robin 1208
Propster, Diane.............. 1208 Public, Jean... 1208
Puch, Debbie................. 1209 Puckett, Susan 1209
Lang.
Puente, Martha............... 1209 Pugh, Rene..... 1209
Puhl, Debbie................. 1209 Purdon, Andrea. 1210
Putnam, Barbara.............. 1210 Putz, Ph.D., 1210
Herbert.
Pyle, Pennie................. 1211 Quaid, Charlie. 1211
Quattro, Susanne............. 1211 Quattrochi, 1211
Gina.
Quattrochi, Lisa............. 1211 Quest, M.A..... 1212
Quick, James................. 1212 Quillio, Susan. 1212
Quinn, Jennifer.............. 1212 Quintal, Laurie 1212
Quirk, M.D., Ninu-Alexandri.. 1212 R. de Miranda, 1213
Ph.D., Yvonne.
Raabe, Seth.................. 1213 Rabey, John.... 1213
Rabkin, Sarah................ 1213 Race, Adam..... 1214
Rachels, Raymur.............. 1214 Rackley, Sean.. 1214
Racoosin, Esther............. 1214 Radei, Alison.. 1214
Rahbari, Carol............... 1215 Rains, Pat..... 1215
Raiser, A. Lynn.............. 1215 Raisor, Kelly.. 1215
Rajagopalan, Ravi............ 1215 Raker, Suzanna. 1215
Rakowski, Katherine.......... 1216 Ramaci, Lisa... 1216
Ramaker, Julianne............ 1216 Ramirez, Maja.. 1216
Ramos, Patricia.............. 1216 Ramsay, Sylvia. 1217
Ramsburgh, John.............. 1217 Ranauro, 1217
Brandon.
Rand, Katherine.............. 1217 Randall, Eliza. 1218
Randallo, Crystal............ 1218 Ranney, Earl... 1218
Rapp, Neville................ 1218 Raschke, Lisa.. 1219
Raskin Rosenthal, Judith..... 1219 Rather, Sarah.. 1219
Ratliff, Donna............... 1219 Raulerson, 1219
Teresa.
Rawlings, Maureen............ 1220 Ray, Cindy..... 1220
Ray, Darryl.................. 1220 Ray, Hilary.... 1220
Ray, Katrina................. 1220 Ray, Linda..... 1220
Ray, Susan................... 1221 Ray, Turner.... 1221
Razza, Carl.................. 1221 Reardib, 1221
Patricia.
Reavey, Sandy................ 1221 Record, Laura.. 1221
Redding, Carmen.............. 1222 Redig, Ann..... 1222
Redig, Robert & Kathy........ 1222 Redman, Monique 1222
Redwine, Marilyn............. 1223 Reeck, Nancy... 1223
Reed, Anita.................. 1223 Reed, Geoffrey. 1223
Reed, Jane................... 1223 Reed, Lois..... 1223
Reed, Rebecca................ 1224 Reed, Robin.... 1224
Reers, Michelle.............. 1224 Rehorn, Rebecca 1224
Reichert, Christine.......... 1225 Reid, Debra.... 1225
Reida, Audrey................ 1225 Reidy, Thomas.. 1225
Reiff, Cheryl................ 1225 Reiland, Jeanne 1225
Reilingh, Nick............... 1226 Reilly, Donna 1226
Segreti.
Reilly, Erica................ 1226 Reilly, Joanne. 1226
Reis, Jackie................. 1226 Reis, Matthew.. 1226
Reischman, Shirley........... 1227 Rempas, Amy.... 1227
Renea, Stephanie............. 1227 Rennacker, Ann. 1227
Repp, Sharon................. 1227 Respalje, Terri 1228
Rex, Linda................... 1228 Reyher, David.. 1228
Reynaldo, Pilar.............. 1228 Reynolds, Gary. 1228
Reynolds, Lisa............... 1228 Reynolds, Peter 1229
Rhea, Abagail................ 1229 Rhoads, 1229
Jennifer.
Rhoads, Kevin................ 1229 Rhodes, Harry.. 1229
Rhule, Dalia................. 1230 Riccio, Frank.. 1230
Rice, David.................. 1230 Rice, Ronda.... 1230
Richard, Andrus.............. 1231 Richard, Lester 1231
Richards, Vanessa............ 1231 Richardson, 1231
Debra.
Richardson, John............. 1231 Richardson, 1232
Kevin.
Richel, Tamara............... 1232 Richison, Susan 1232
Richland, Shea............... 1232 Richmond, 1233
Eileen.
Riddell, Sally............... 1233 Ridgard, Andrea 1233
Riersen, Louise.............. 1234 Ries, Daniel... 1234
Ries, Shelley................ 1234 Rietmann, Marie 1234
Riggins, Patricia............ 1234 Riley, David... 1234
Riley, Diane................. 1235 Riley, Michelle 1237
Riley, Russell............... 1237 Riley, Pys. D., 1238
Inger K..
Rion, Michael................ 1238 Rist, Julie.... 1238
Ritchie, Steven.............. 1238 Ritland, 1239
Jessica.
Ritter, Cathy................ 1239 Rittmeyer, 1239
Wendy.
Ritzau, Kristin.............. 1239 Rizoli, 1240
Constance.
Robben, Carol................ 1240 Robbins, Boz... 1240
Roberson, Ruth............... 1240 Roberson, 1240
William.
Robert, Lisa................. 1241 Roberts, Dawn.. 1241
Roberts, Dianne.............. 1241 Roberts, 1241
Katherine.
Roberts, Mason............... 1241 Roberts, Rachel 1242
Roberts, Teresa.............. 1242 Robertson, 1242
Patricia.
Robin, Vicki................. 1242 Robins, Rick... 1244
Robinson, Allie.............. 1244 Robinson, Carol 1244
Robinson, D.................. 1244 Robinson, 1245
Frances.
Robinson, Gail............... 1245 Robinson, 1245
Jeremiah.
Robinson, Kathleen........... 1245 Robinson, 1245
Luetta.
Robinson, Lynn............... 1246 Robinson, Sean. 1246
Rocap, Kendra................ 1247 Roche, Abby.... 1247
Roche, Ken................... 1247 Roden, Greg.... 1247
Rodgers, Laura............... 1247 Rodgers, Martha 1248
Rodgers-Clark, Bethany....... 1248 Rodman, Heather 1248
Rodriguez, Michael........... 1248 Roeck- 1248
Akarkarasu,
Iderah.
Roewe, Clarissa.............. 1248 Rogers, Brianna 1249
Rogers, Terry................ 1249 Rogers, Thomas. 1249
Rogowsky, Nina............... 1249 Roh, Kwanho.... 1249
Rohrer, Cheryl............... 1250 Rojack, Carmen. 1250
Roland, Tanya................ 1250 Roller, Sheryl. 1250
Roman, Nora.................. 1250 Romano, Juliet. 1250
Romans, Lynne................ 1251 Rome, Jonathan. 1251
Romero, Christina............ 1251 Ronk, Anna..... 1251
Rontal, Howard............... 1251 Rooth, Thomas.. 1251
Rose, Ammathyst.............. 1252 Rose, Gail..... 1252
Rose, Hollis................. 1252 Rose, Sarah.... 1252
Rose, Sheryl................. 1253 Rose, Victoria. 1253
Rose, M.D., Lawrence......... 1253 Rosen, Adele... 1253
Rosen, Andrea................ 1253 Rosen, Barbara. 1253
Rosenberg, Diane............. 1254 Rosenberg, Jeff 1254
Rosenberg, Lisa.............. 1254 Rosenthal, 1255
Eleanor.
Rosenthal, Gregory........... 1255 Rosin, Carla... 1255
Ross, Angela................. 1256 Ross, Christy.. 1256
Ross, Douglas................ 1256 Ross, Jodi..... 1257
Ross, Ollie.................. 1257 Ross, Robert... 1257
Rossi, Karen................. 1257 Roth, J. Ronald 1257
Roth, Stan................... 1258 Rothrock, 1258
Janice.
Rothstein, Jennifer.......... 1258 Rougeau, Pat... 1258
Rowan, Cathy................. 1259 Rowan, Thomas.. 1259
Rowin, Sophia................ 1259 Rowland, Karen. 1259
Rowlett, Kimberly............ 1259 Rowley, Genny.. 1260
Rowley, Marjorie............. 1260 Roy, Monika.... 1260
Roy, Pam..................... 1260 Royal, Sharon.. 1261
Royse-Flora, Roxanne......... 1261 Rubin, Deborah. 1261
Rubin, Mary-Beth............. 1262 Rubin, Melissa. 1262
Rubio, Gail.................. 1262 Rubley, Ruby... 1262
Ruck, Claudia................ 1262 Rucker, Kelly.. 1262
Rudiger, Donna............... 1263 Rudnick, Luan.. 1263
Rudnicki, Susan.............. 1263 Rueb, John..... 1263
Ruf, Jonathan................ 1263 Ruff, Victoria. 1264
Rufo, Lisa................... 1264 Ruiz, Chris.... 1264
Rule, Colter................. 1264 Rumson, Rachel 1264
Lyn.
Runnels, Marye............... 1265 Running, Shelly 1265
Runyan, Shannon & Kim........ 1265 Ruprecht, John. 1266
Rush, Mackenzie.............. 1266 Russ, Jeremy... 1266
Russ, Mark................... 1267 Russell, James. 1267
Russell, Julia............... 1267 Russell, Trevor 1267
Ryan, Anne................... 1268 Ryan, Donna.... 1268
Ryan, Kate................... 1268 Ryan, Peter.... 1268
Ryckebusch, Francoise........ 1268 Saarikoski, 1268
Kimberly.
Sabatini, Theresa............ 1269 Sabol, Paul.... 1269
Sackler, Laurie.............. 1269 Sadler, Jim.... 1269
Sadowsky, Jesse.............. 1270 Sager, Thomas.. 1270
Saito, Don................... 1270 Sakala, Steve.. 1270
Salamon, Mark................ 1271 Salans, Josh... 1271
Salazat, RayAnn.............. 1271 Saleem, Teresa. 1272
Salomon, Mary................ 1272 Salus, Penny... 1272
Salvage, Dr. Joyce........... 1272 Salz, Deborah.. 1272
Sambor, Daniel............... 1273 Sample, 1273
Christine.
Sampson, Kristina............ 1273 Sampson, Rhys.. 1273
Samuelson, Diane............. 1273 Sanborn, 1274
Jennifer.
Sanchez, Marta............... 1274 Sandeen, Judith 1274
Sandel, Morris............... 1274 Sanders, 1274
Jennifer.
Sanders, Julie............... 1275 Sanders, 1275
Kendall.
Sangster, Wayne.............. 1275 SanMiguel, 1275
Dagny.
Santora, Sarah............... 1276 Santos, Janice. 1276
Santos, Omar................. 1276 Saravia, Jimena 1276
Sarbiewski, Stephen.......... 1277 Sarnat, Marlene 1277
Sarraille, Marijeanne........ 1277 Sarrazin, Tara. 1277
Sartor, Michelle............. 1277 Sasha, San Malo 1278
Satterwhite, Brian........... 1278 Sauer, Brian... 1278
Sauerhagen, Eric............. 1278 Saunders, Lois. 1278
Savarese, Christine.......... 1279 Sawdon, 1279
Rosemarie.
Sawtell, Cynthia............. 1279 Sawyer, Caryl.. 1279
Saxton, Martha............... 1279 Saylor, Joni... 1279
Scalera, Lindsey............. 1279 Scanlon, 1281
Deirdra.
Schad, Michael............... 1281 Schantz, 1281
Cynthia.
Schechter, Alea.............. 1281 Scheffler, 1282
Bruno.
Schefter, Ken................ 1282 Scheidler, 1282
Jacob.
Schein, Donna................ 1282 Schell, Sue.... 1283
Schenkelberg, Doug........... 1283 Scherer, Amy... 1284
Scherick, Carol.............. 1284 Schermer, 1284
Robert.
Schiewe, Patricia............ 1284 Schilk, Valerie 1284
Schiller, Lisa............... 1285 Schilling, 1285
Francis.
Schlaff, Jarret.............. 1285 Schlangen, 1285
Alvin.
Schmall, Eric................ 1285 Schmalstieg, 1285
Linda A..
Schmidt, Donald.............. 1286 Schmidt, Megan. 1286
Schmitt, Beth................ 1286 Schmitt, James. 1286
Schmitz, Kristen............. 1286 Schneider, 1286
David.
Schneider, Richard........... 1287 Schneiderhan, 1287
Kelly.
Schoech, Dick................ 1287 Schoenfeld, 1287
John.
Schofield, Meg............... 1287 Schofield, 1287
Stephen.
Scholes, Aaron............... 1287 Schonbeck, Mark 1288
Schoneman, Amy............... 1293 Schorr, Meagan. 1294
Schrack, Diane............... 1294 Schraven, 1294
Hendrikus.
Schriebman, Judy............. 1295 Schroeder, Jack 1295
Schroeder, Theresa........... 1295 Schuch, Andrew. 1295
Schultz, Jennifer............ 1295 Schwalb, Cindy. 1296
Schwartz, Amy................ 1296 Schwartz, 1296
Burton.
Schwartz, Elizabeth.......... 1296 Schwartz, Jeff. 1296
Schwartz, Julie.............. 1296 Schwartzenhauer 1297
, Robbin.
Schwartzman, Tamsen.......... 1297 Schwarz, Penny. 1297
Schwarzlander, Patricia...... 1297 Schweizer, 1298
Raphael.
Scofield, Shari.............. 1298 Scott, Barbara. 1298
Scott, Cameron............... 1298 Scott, D....... 1298
Scott, Emily................. 1298 Scott, K....... 1298
Scott, Sherri................ 1299 Scotto, James.. 1299
Scrimenti, David............. 1300 Scripter, Marla 1300
L. & Morris D..
Scudder, T................... 1300 Seales, Jessica 1300
Searle, Newell............... 1300 Sears, Cindy... 1302
Seaton, Anton................ 1302 Seaver, Linda.. 1302
Secretan, Lance.............. 1302 Sedgwick, Sarah 1302
Seidel, Karl................. 1303 Seim, Michelle. 1303
Seiniger, Breck.............. 1303 Seiz, Debra.... 1303
Selby, Joy................... 1303 Sellars, 1304
Stefanie.
Serra, Gabrielle............. 1304 Serveson, Susan 1306
Sessions, Robert............. 1306 Sessions, 1306
Sharon.
Seth, Savita................. 1306 Sethi, Ankur... 1306
Sexton, Mike................. 1306 Seyferlich, 1307
Helen.
Shaber, Anne................. 1307 Shaber, Joel... 1307
Shad, Conrad................. 1307 Shaffer, 1307
William.
Shamley, Kendra.............. 1307 Shanks, Linda.. 1307
Shapiro, Sara................ 1308 Sharp, Cynthia. 1308
Sharpe, Dora................. 1308 Sharpe, Michael 1308
Sharry, Jean................. 1309 Shaub, George.. 1309
Shaub, Kimberly.............. 1309 Shaver, Mel.... 1310
Shaw, Justin................. 1310 Shaw, Norman... 1310
Shaw, S...................... 1310 Shea, Shannon.. 1310
Shearer, N. Lillian.......... 1311 Shearon, Lynn.. 1311
Sheeley, Harriet............. 1311 Sheely, Ted.... 1311
Sheer, Stephen............... 1313 Sheffield, John 1313
& Jane.
Sheldrew, Michael............ 1313 Shelley, 1314
Kathleen.
Shelly, Charles.............. 1314 Shelton, David. 1314
Shelton, Melissa............. 1314 Shepard, 1315
Marlene.
Sheresh, Richard............. 1315 Sherman, 1315
Dorothy.
Sherman, Valerie............. 1315 Sherrill, Inga. 1315
Sheskin, Felisa.............. 1315 Shields, Alice. 1316
Shin, Doorae................. 1316 Shindel, Marci. 1316
Shiner, Elaine............... 1316 Shoemaker, 1317
Diane.
Shoemaker, Dorea............. 1318 Shollenberger, 1318
Lori.
Shook, Cindy................. 1318 Shore, Billy... 1318
Shore, Michael............... 1320 Shortness, 1320
Ernie.
Shottenhamer, Carol Lynne.... 1321 Shoup, 1321
Cassandra.
Shropshire, Lee.............. 1321 Shudde, Gerry.. 1321
Shumaker, Anita.............. 1322 Shumsky, Sheryl 1322
Shunn, Brenda................ 1322 Shuster, Anne.. 1322
Shuster, Diana............... 1322 Shuster, Helen. 1323
Shute, Janet M............... 1323 Shyshka, Mary.. 1324
Sial, Aisha.................. 1324 Sibley, Kathryn 1324
Sicard, Kevin Gershom........ 1324 Siebach, Sarah. 1325
Siebert, Arlie............... 1325 Siebert, Dan... 1326
Sieberts, Heidi.............. 1326 Siegelbaum, 1326
Heidi.
Sieger, Anja................. 1326 Sigmans, Dan... 1326
Sigstedt, Ling............... 1327 Silber, Susan.. 1327
Silberschmidt, Amy........... 1327 Silliman, 1327
Thomas.
Silva, Patricia.............. 1327 Silva, Sandra.. 1327
Silverman, Louise............ 1328 Simkanin, 1328
Dorothy.
Simmons, Connie.............. 1328 Simmons, 1328
Katrina.
Simmons, Keri J.............. 1328 Simmons, Liz... 1329
Simms, Jeff.................. 1329 Simoneaux, Lois 1329
Simonson, Audrey............. 1329 Simonson, 1329
Michelle.
Simpkins, Dulcey............. 1330 Simpliciano, 1330
James.
Simpson, Heather............. 1330 Simpson, 1330
Meaghan.
Sims, Gina................... 1331 Sims, Sandra... 1331
Sims, Sascha................. 1331 Singer, Andrew. 1332
Singlestad, Kristy........... 1332 Sipe, Joy...... 1332
Sittle, Cheryl............... 1332 Sively, Susan.. 1333
Siverson, Nels............... 1333 Sketch, Mary... 1333
Skinner, Jennifer............ 1333 Skjersaa, Su... 1333
Sklar, David................. 1334 Skog, Judy..... 1334
Skrdlant, Lindsey............ 1334 Skybak, 1334
Courtney.
Slabach, Ruth................ 1334 Sladek, 1335
Marianne.
Slayton, Deborah............. 1335 Sloane, Pam.... 1335
Slobod, Ann.................. 1335 Slocum, Ceciley 1335
Slomovits, Helen............. 1336 Slotnick, Quinn 1336
Slouthworth, William......... 1336 Slugg, Roger... 1336
Small, Sally................. 1336 Small, R.N., 1337
Marya.
Smith, C.M.S., Al............ 1337 Smith, Barton.. 1338
Smith, Bruce................. 1338 Smith, Carolyn. 1338
Smith, Cecily................ 1338 Smith, 1339
Christine.
Smith, Heather............... 1339 Smith, Jan..... 1339
Smith, Jeremy................ 1340 Smith, Julianne 1340
Smith, Julie (WV)............ 1341 Smith, Julie 1341
(UT).
Smith, Kathy................. 1341 Smith, Kristine 1341
Smith, Laura................. 1342 Smith, Lee..... 1342
Smith, Leilani............... 1342 Smith, LeVar... 1342
Smith, Lori.................. 1343 Smith, Lucy.... 1343
Smith, Madleine.............. 1343 Smith, Mary.... 1343
Smith, Michele............... 1343 Smith, Polly... 1343
Smith, Robert A.............. 1344 Smith, Sandy... 1346
Smith, Sheila................ 1346 Smith, Shelby.. 1346
Smith, Stacie................ 1347 Smith, Stefanie 1347
Smith, Terra................. 1348 Smith, Theresa. 1348
Smith, Traci................. 1348 Smith, Tracy... 1348
Smith, Victor................ 1348 Smith, Ph.D., 1348
Patryce A..
Smollett, Molly.............. 1349 Snader, Gregory 1349
Snedic, Ruth................. 1349 Snider, William 1349
Snipes-Wells, Susan.......... 1349 Snively, James. 1350
Snodgrass, Jerry............. 1350 Snow, Janet R.. 1351
Snyder, Ann.................. 1351 Snyder, Denise. 1351
Snyder, Patrick.............. 1351 Sobczyk, 1352
Patricia.
Sok, Stephanie............... 1352 Solomon, Linda. 1352
Sommers, Samantha............ 1352 Soren, Joanna.. 1352
Sossong, Mary................ 1352 Sotelo, Roxanne 1352
Southard, Michael............ 1353 Souza, David... 1353
Spangler, Lyn................ 1353 Sparks, Suanne. 1353
Spear, R. Scott.............. 1353 Speers, Laura.. 1354
Speirs, Juanita.............. 1354 Spence, Martha. 1355
Spencer, Brenda.............. 1355 Spencer, 1355
Melissa.
Spica, Sarah................. 1355 Spicer, 1355
Patricia.
Spier, Carolyn............... 1355 Spillane, 1356
Melanie.
Spinazzola, Linda............ 1356 Spinks, Gayle.. 1356
Spires, Alodie............... 1356 Spitaletto, 1356
Katie.
Spitalnik, Meredith.......... 1357 Spitz, Sarah... 1357
Spor, Linnie................. 1357 Spoto, Cathy... 1357
Spottiswoode, Michael........ 1357 Sprague, Sarah. 1358
Spring, Tai.................. 1358 Sprinkle, Judy. 1358
Srinivasa, Kunuthur.......... 1358 St. Clair, Eric 1358
St. Clair, Janice............ 1358 St. Pierre, 1359
Marguerite.
Staas, Bonita................ 1359 Stalter, 1359
Matthew.
Stamps, Judith............... 1359 Stancil, Jeanne 1359
Stanley, Alan................ 1360 Stanley, Sharon 1360
Stapler, Suzanne............. 1360 Stark, Karen... 1360
Starke, Dawn................. 1360 Starkman, 1361
Phyllis.
Starr, Georgi................ 1361 Starrett, 1361
Evelynn.
Starzel, Mary Beth........... 1361 Stathatos, 1361
Denise.
Stauffer, Michael............ 1361 Stearns, Judy.. 1361
Stebner, Michael............. 1362 Stedwell, Kegan 1362
Steger, Ralph................ 1362 Steichen, 1362
Florence.
Stein, Dr. Karen............. 1362 Steinberg, Anne 1363
Steinberger, Jillian......... 1363 Steiner, Steve. 1364
Steinfeld, Caroline.......... 1364 Steinkamp, 1364
Suzanne.
Stelse, Val.................. 1364 Stenlund, 1365
DeeAnn.
Stephan, Chris............... 1365 Stephen, David. 1365
Stephens, Gail............... 1365 Stephens, Greg. 1365
Stephenson, Laura............ 1366 Stergis, Sharon 1366
Stevenson, Jan............... 1366 Stevenson, Jane 1366
Steward, Scott............... 1366 Stewart, 1367
Barbara.
Stewart, Cynthia............. 1367 Stewart, Donna. 1367
Stewart, Lisa................ 1367 Stiegmeier, 1367
Donna.
Stillman, Ann................ 1368 Stimac, Michael 1368
Stireman-Beyer, Alisha....... 1368 Stirling, Jenny 1368
Stith, Shirley............... 1369 Stockdale, Ann. 1369
Stockwell, Dr. Sarah......... 1369 Stokes, Marilyn 1369
Stolar, Sarah................ 1369 Stoley, Janet.. 1370
Stombock, Janora............. 1370 Stone, Beverly. 1370
Stone, Karen................. 1371 Stone, Mary.... 1371
Stone, Michelle.............. 1371 Stoneburner, 1371
Carol.
Stones, Chuck................ 1371 Stopek, Sara... 1372
Stopler, Marina.............. 1372 Storlazzi 1373
Torpey, Susan.
Storm, Michael............... 1373 Stormont, Kayla 1373
Stout, Mary Jo............... 1373 Stoute, Karen.. 1373
Straley, Christine........... 1374 Strand, Sally.. 1374
Strangio, Linda.............. 1374 Straub Vorse, 1374
Lindsay M..
Stredny, Diane............... 1374 Streitburger, 1375
Jan.
Strle, Andrea................ 1375 Strombom, 1375
Amanda.
Strother, Christina.......... 1375 Stubbe, Frieda. 1375
Stuckey, Melissa............. 1375 Sturdevant, 1376
Jason.
Sturm, Jordan................ 1376 Styrcula, 1376
Kathleen.
Sudduth, Suzanne............. 1376 Suever, Mike... 1376
Sugarman, Lor................ 1377 Sugarwala, 1378
Laura.
Sukow, Gretchen.............. 1378 Sullivan, B.... 1378
Sullivan, Carol.............. 1378 Sullivan, 1378
Colleen.
Sullivan, Dr. Patrick........ 1378 Sullivan, 1378
Eileen.
Sullivan, Elaine............. 1379 Sullivan, Terry 1379
Sullivan, Thomas............. 1379 Sullivan, M.D., 1379
Robert.
Summerfelt, Robert........... 1379 Summers, Dakota 1380
Sumner, Jennifer............. 1380 Sundance, 1380
Juniper.
Sundell-Guy, Cindy........... 1381 Sunderland, 1381
Violet.
Suplee, Judy................. 1381 Supowitz, Terri 1381
Susan, Knose................. 1381 Suter, Nancy... 1382
Sutton, Beverley............. 1382 Sutton, Chelsea 1382
Sutton, Ellyn................ 1382 Svirsky, Ph.D., 1382
Janet.
Svitko, Lin.................. 1383 Swain, Edward.. 1383
Swanson, Elaine.............. 1383 Swanson, Joe... 1383
Swarthout, Elizabeth......... 1384 Swearingen, 1384
Margaret.
Sweeney, Shelly.............. 1384 Sweeny, Peter.. 1384
Swegan, Janice............... 1384 Swicegood, Jane 1384
Swidler, Lawrence............ 1385 Swift, Joan.... 1385
Swinford, Sheila............. 1385 Switzer, Sharon 1385
Sword, Carol................. 1385 Sytsma, Emily.. 1386
Sytwu, Renee................. 1386 Szamosi, Anna.. 1386
Szymkowiak, Shannon.......... 1386 Szymkowicz, 1386
Raymond.
Tabili, Paul................. 1387 Tackett, 1387
Benjamin.
Tackett, Paula............... 1387 Tacon, Juliette 1387
Takakjian, Elizaabeth........ 1387 Takayama, Kai.. 1388
Tallman, Viviane............. 1388 Tam, Lisa...... 1388
Tanata, Nicole............... 1388 Tankersley, 1389
Scott.
Tant, Christina.............. 1389 Tapp, Yvette... 1389
Tarbox, Margaret E........... 1389 Tarlton, Bianca 1389
Tartaglia, Barbara........... 1390 Tarttier, 1390
Bonnie.
Tate, Beverly................ 1390 Tavoularis, 1391
Melindria.
Taylor, Constance............ 1391 Taylor, David.. 1391
Taylor, Dean................. 1391 Taylor, Derek.. 1391
Taylor, James................ 1392 Taylor, Joshua. 1392
Taylor, Judy................. 1392 Taylor, Karen.. 1392
Taylor, Kirk................. 1392 Taylor, Melvin. 1393
Taylor, Patricia............. 1393 Taylor, Ronni.. 1393
Teeter, Martha............... 1393 Teixiera, John. 1393
Teller, Amy.................. 1394 Tellez, Frank.. 1394
Tenaglio, Robert............. 1395 Tengenber, 1395
Myrtle.
Teninty, Sasha............... 1395 Terhaar, Tim... 1395
Terry, Clara................. 1395 Terry, John.... 1395
Terziotti, Annette........... 1396 Tesch, Anna.... 1396
Testa, Joseph................ 1396 Tevelow, Carla. 1397
Tevlin, Michael.............. 1397 Tewksbury, 1398
Arden.
Thacker, Cheryl.............. 1420 Thaw, Karen.... 1420
Thayer, Gary................. 1420 Thema, Linda... 1420
Theodoru, George............. 1421 Theoharris, 1421
Michele.
Theresa, Daley............... 1421 Thew, Janet.... 1421
Thill, Randy................. 1421 Thistlethwaite, 1421
Rebecca.
Thomas, Barbara W............ 1422 Thomas, Ella... 1422
Thomas, Margaret............. 1422 Thomas, Mary... 1422
Thomas, Robert and Lillian... 1423 Thomason, Mary. 1423
Thompson, Ben................ 1423 Thompson, Cindy 1423
Thompson, Colleen............ 1423 Thompson, Gayle 1424
Thompson, Heather............ 1424 Thompson, James 1424
Thompson, Linda.............. 1424 Thompson, Scott 1424
Thompson, Tara............... 1424 Thompson-Bull, 1425
Myra.
Thoms, Michelle.............. 1425 Thor, D. Iris.. 1425
Thorman, Tess................ 1425 Thornburg, 1425
Melanie.
Thornton, Sara............... 1426 Thrash, Deborah 1426
Thurston, Lynn............... 1426 Tibbits, Clark. 1426
Tidwell, Jackie.............. 1427 Tiers, Sarah... 1427
Tiger, David................. 1427 Tildahl, Karla 1427
and Brent.
Tillman, Terry............... 1427 Timbo, Aaron... 1427
Timer, Heidi................. 1427 Ting, Samuel... 1428
Tinkham, Nicole.............. 1428 Tippens, 1428
Rebecca.
Tirben, Helen................ 1428 Titus, Ann..... 1429
Titus, Kathryn............... 1429 Tobias, Janet.. 1429
Tobias, John................. 1429 Tobin, Cynthia. 1429
Todd, Alice.................. 1429 Tokuda, Jasmine 1429
Tolley, Diane................ 1430 Toman, Julie... 1430
Tomczyszyn, Michael.......... 1430 Tomei, Barbara. 1430
Tonn, David.................. 1430 Toolan, 1431
Patricia.
Tormoen, Sandra.............. 1431 Tosado, Stacey. 1431
Toshalis, Barbara............ 1431 Tovey, Kathleen 1431
Townsend, Marjorie........... 1432 Townsend, Scott 1432
Toy, Alaric.................. 1432 Tracey, Carmen. 1432
Tracy, Ellen................. 1433 Trafford, Susan 1433
Tragesser, Sharon............ 1433 Tredeau, Rabia. 1433
Trenkamp, Gina............... 1433 Trice, Patricia 1433
Trick, Daniel................ 1434 Trione, Kristy. 1434
Tripi, John.................. 1434 Troiano, 1434
Melissa.
Trotchie, Marcia............. 1434 Trott, Connor.. 1435
Trotter, David Wesley........ 1435 Trotter, 1436
Kathleen.
Trotter, Jr., Thomas......... 1436 Trueblood, 1436
Molly.
Truempy, Thomas.............. 1437 Truitt, Darla.. 1437
Trumpp, Leon................. 1437 Trupin, Joel... 1437
Tschaggeny, Camille.......... 1437 Tubbs, Ann..... 1438
Tuccillo, Christina.......... 1438 Tuck, Frederick 1438
Tucker, Jeffrey.............. 1438 Tugadi, Denise. 1438
Tuggey, Victoria............. 1438 Tumak, Laura... 1439
Turnbull, Susan.............. 1439 Turner, 1439
Christiane.
Turner, Joan................. 1439 Turner, Warren. 1439
Turzo, Laura................. 1440 Two-Hawks, Rob. 1440
Tybahl, Malin................ 1440 Tyler, Julia... 1441
Tyler, Lorrayne.............. 1441 Tyll, Laura.... 1441
Tyroler, S................... 1441 Tyson, Linda... 1441
Ufkin, Jim................... 1442 Uhe, Shawn..... 1442
Ujcic, Susan................. 1442 Unilever North 1442
America.
Unsworth, Nathan............. 1444 Urban, 1444
Stephanie.
Usher, Sharon................ 1444 Ustjanauskas, 1445
Ada.
Uusitalo, Kelly.............. 1445 Valdes, Imena.. 1445
Valenzuela, Abel............. 1445 Valenzuela, 1445
Jacqueline.
Valikov, Ena................. 1446 van de Kamp, 1446
Alexandra.
Van Derrick, Michele......... 1446 van Dommelen, 1446
Annelies.
Van Hooser, Tracey........... 1446 Van Leeuwen- 1447
Vega, Lesley.
Van Loo, Ginny............... 1447 Van Sicklen, 1447
Isabel.
Van Soelen, Eileen........... 1447 Van Twyver, 1447
Patricia.
Van Valin, Mary.............. 1447 VanArsdale, 1448
Nike.
VanBuskirk, Patrician........ 1448 Vance, Patricia 1448
Vandegriff, Paulette......... 1448 Vanden, Greg... 1448
Vandenberg, Noelle........... 1449 Vanderhoof, 1449
Jane.
VanderKnyff, Rick............ 1449 VanDerzee, 1450
Susan.
Vann, Naomi.................. 1450 Varellas, Barb. 1450
Varner, Veronica............. 1450 Varvaro, 1450
Carmela.
Vasquez, Jennifer............ 1451 Vaughan, Carey. 1451
Vaughan, Laura............... 1451 Vaughan, Susan. 1451
Vaughn, Z.................... 1451 Veal, Jennifer. 1452
Veghte, George Arthur........ 1452 Venner, Marie.. 1452
Venturelli, Ava.............. 1452 Venugopalan, 1452
Vasan.
Verbeke, Joelle.............. 1453 Vergo, Bobbie.. 1453
Vergun, Pam, Rob, Miko, and 1453 Vermeulen, Mary 1454
Isaac.
Vidrine, Emily............... 1454 Viele, Daniel.. 1454
Vierra, Dawn................. 1454 Viggiano, Alyse 1454
Vignocchi, John.............. 1455 Villadoniga, 1455
Richard.
Villamil, R.N., Mirtha L..... 1455 Villasenor, 1455
Teresita.
Villavicencio, Lara.......... 1455 Vincent, Karen. 1455
Virtudazo, Angela............ 1456 Vitale, Ben.... 1456
Vitiello, Ellyse Adele....... 1456 Vitovitch, Ann. 1456
Vizzard, T................... 1456 Vogt, Susan.... 1457
Volk, Kevin.................. 1457 Volk, Rachel... 1457
Volker, Molly................ 1457 Vollinger, 1457
Pamela Rose.
Vollmer, Max................. 1458 von Borstel, 1458
Carol.
von Duering, Rebecca......... 1458 Vorass, Melany. 1458
Vorosmarty, Laszlo........... 1459 Voss, Carol.... 1459
Voss-Andreae, M.D., Ph.D., 1459 Vranka, Janice. 1459
Adriana.
Vrazel, Caroline............. 1460 Vresilovic, 1460
Kelly.
W., Marilyn.................. 1460 W., Trisha..... 1460
Wade, Frances................ 1460 Wade, Nancy.... 1461
Wadkins, Terry............... 1461 Waggle, James.. 1461
Wagner, Deborah.............. 1461 Wagner, Mark... 1461
Wagner, Michael.............. 1462 Wagoner, Robyn. 1462
Wahler, David................ 1462 Walas, Diane... 1462
Waldecker, Karen............. 1463 Waldorf, 1463
Matthew.
Wales, Charlotte............. 1463 Walker, Jamie.. 1463
Walker, Jenny................ 1463 Walker, Joan... 1463
Walker, Lee.................. 1464 Walker, 1464
Margaret.
Walker, Medoh................ 1464 Wall, Maureen.. 1464
Wallace, Bob................. 1464 Wallace, 1464
Brigitte and
John.
Wallace, Garry............... 1465 Wallace, James. 1465
Wallace, Margaret............ 1465 Wallace, Ryan.. 1465
Wallace, Sondra.............. 1465 Wallack, Annie. 1465
Waller, Kathy................ 1466 Wallin, 1466
Nicholas.
Wallof, Hunter............... 1466 Walls, Judy.... 1466
Walls, Karen................. 1466 Walmsley, Dora. 1466
Walsh, Caitilin.............. 1467 Walsh, 1467
F.S.P.A.,
Sister Julia.
Walsh, Mary.................. 1467 Walsman, Betty 1467
Lou.
Walters, Marie............... 1467 Waltke, Pat.... 1468
Walton, Jon.................. 1468 Walvatne, Gary. 1468
Walzem, Lisa................. 1468 Wang, Ruby..... 1468
Ward, Albert................. 1469 Ward, Linda.... 1469
Ward, Terri.................. 1469 Wardell, Gerard 1469
Ware, Nicholas............... 1470 Warfield, Jason 1470
Warner, Dr. Carole A......... 1470 Warner, Sara... 1470
Warner, Tim.................. 1470 Warner Nyren, 1471
Sheree.
Warren, Bess................. 1471 Warren, Brandi. 1471
Warren, Penny................ 1471 Warren, Peter.. 1471
Warren, Ruby................. 1471 Warren, Tomi... 1472
Warshawer, Nancy............. 1472 Washburn, 1472
Thomas.
Wassell, Kelly............... 1472 Wasser, Brent.. 1473
Waterman, Paula Squire....... 1474 Waters, Julia.. 1474
Waters, Kristine............. 1474 Watkins, Carl.. 1474
Watkins, Paul................ 1474 Watson, Bruce.. 1474
Watson, Jan.................. 1475 Watson, Jeri... 1475
Watson, Julie................ 1475 Watson, Marilyn 1475
Watson, Paul................. 1475 Watson, Phil... 1475
Watters, Ann................. 1476 Watts, Nancy... 1476
Waugh, Ann................... 1476 Way, Nathan.... 1476
Waymire Rooks, Cathy......... 1476 Weathersby, 1476
Lynn.
Weatherup, Cat............... 1477 Weaver, Andrew. 1477
Weaver, Becca................ 1477 Weaver, David.. 1477
Webb, Gene................... 1478 Webb, Patricia. 1478
Webster, Jeff................ 1478 Webster, Kevin. 1478
Weckman, Shannon............. 1479 Weeden, 1479
Jennifer.
Weems, Darrell............... 1479 Weems, Patricia 1479
Weems, Tyson................. 1480 Wehmeyer, 1480
Melanie.
Weigel, Edna................. 1480 Weiler, Donna.. 1480
Weinberg, Larry.............. 1480 Weinberg, 1480
Leslie.
Weiner, Margaret............. 1481 Weingeist, 1481
Carol.
Weinshilboum, Sharyl......... 1481 Weintrob, Chris 1481
Weisberg, Anna............... 1482 Weisman, Jean.. 1482
Weiss, Charlie............... 1482 Weiss, Gabriel. 1482
Weiss, Gregg................. 1483 Weiss, Rike.... 1483
Weiss-Fried, Nancy........... 1483 Welch, Kerri... 1483
Welland, P................... 1483 Wellington, 1484
Carly.
Wells, Barbara............... 1484 Wells, Collin.. 1484
Wells, Dawn Anne............. 1484 Wells, Jim..... 1485
Wells, Rachel................ 1485 Wells, Ruth.... 1485
Wells, Shannon............... 1485 Welsh, Mark.... 1485
Welters, Sjon................ 1486 Wend, Silvia... 1486
Wensman, Edwin............... 1486 Wentworth, 1486
Rebecca.
Wenzlaff, Frederick.......... 1486 Wermes, Sylvia. 1486
Werneke, Angela.............. 1486 Wesley, Charles 1487
Wesley, Janette.............. 1487 West, Eric..... 1487
West, Heidi.................. 1487 West, Norman... 1488
West, Penny.................. 1488 West, Sybil.... 1488
West, Virginia............... 1488 Westberry, 1488
Serena.
Westman, Tara................ 1488 Weston, 1489
Cathleen.
Wetmore, Les................. 1489 Whatcott, Kim.. 1489
Wheeler, Wilma............... 1489 Whitaker, 1489
William.
White, Billie................ 1490 White, 1490
Christine.
White, Denise................ 1490 White, Jan..... 1490
White, Jennifer.............. 1490 White, John.... 1490
White, Karen................. 1491 White, Kathleen 1491
White, Leigh................. 1491 White, Lisa.... 1491
White, Marcia................ 1491 White, Shawn... 1492
White, Valerie............... 1492 White, Victory. 1492
Whited, Tamara............... 1493 Whitehouse, 1493
Alton.
Whitehouse, Judy............. 1493 Whiteley, Nikki 1493
Whiteman, Pauline............ 1493 Whitford, Erin. 1493
Whiting-Broeder, Pamela...... 1494 Whitlow, Glenn. 1494
Whitman, Art................. 1494 Whitson, Andrea 1495
Whitt, Michael............... 1495 Whitten, Diane. 1495
Whittington, Linda........... 1496 Whittredge, 1496
Karen.
Wholey, Louise............... 1496 Wiant, Jean.... 1496
Wiberg, Daniel............... 1496 Wick, Volinda.. 1496
Wickham, Allen............... 1497 Wicks, Debra... 1497
Wickwire, Meg................ 1497 Widhalm, Evelyn 1497
Wiercioch, John.............. 1498 Wight, 1498
Christine.
Wilbur, Ken.................. 1498 Wilcher, Maya.. 1498
Wilcox, Dorothy.............. 1498 Wilde, Lynn.... 1498
Wilder, Flo.................. 1499 Wilds, Eric.... 1499
Wilhite, Alan................ 1499 Wilke, Gail.... 1499
Wilkerson, Chalice........... 1499 Wilkes, Samuel. 1499
Wilkins, JoAnne.............. 1500 Wilkins, 1500
Shannon.
Wilkinson, Carol............. 1500 Wilkinson, 1500
James.
Will, Julianne............... 1501 Willey, Chris.. 1501
Williams, Alice.............. 1501 Williams, 1501
Amanda.
Williams, Bernadette......... 1501 Williams, 1502
Beverly.
Williams, Carol.............. 1502 Williams, Cyndy 1502
Williams, D., (NC)........... 1502 Williams, D., 1502
(CA).
Williams, Debora............. 1503 Williams, Elsie 1503
Williams, Emelie............. 1503 Williams, Jacki 1503
Williams, Jenna.............. 1503 Williams, Kelly 1503
Williams, Penelope........... 1504 Williams, 1504
Precious.
Williams, Sara............... 1504 Williams, 1504
Victoria.
Williamson, Andrea........... 1504 Williamson, 1505
Theresa.
Willis, Diane................ 1505 Willis, Judith. 1505
Willis, Paul................. 1505 Willis, Penny.. 1505
Willis, Walt................. 1505 Willits, 1506
Margaret.
Willmore, Yolanda............ 1506 Wills, Rachel.. 1506
Willson, Sean................ 1507 Wilson, Ariel.. 1507
Wilson, Connie............... 1507 Wilson, David.. 1507
Wilson, Deborah.............. 1507 Wilson, Delilah 1508
Wilson, Devin................ 1508 Wilson, Doris.. 1508
Wilson, Dorothy.............. 1508 Wilson, Jan.... 1509
Wilson, Jane................. 1509 Wilson, Joan... 1509
Wilson, John................. 1509 Wilson, Lindsay 1509
Wilson, Marc................. 1509 Wilson, Martha. 1510
Wilson, Robert............... 1510 Wilson, Stacie. 1510
Wilson, Ward................. 1510 Wilson-Seppa, 1510
Regina.
Winegar, Ann................. 1510 Wingate, Sally. 1511
Winholtz, Betty.............. 1511 Winn, Geoff.... 1511
Winn, Trisha................. 1511 Winter, Sandra. 1511
Winzig, Francis.............. 1512 Wirth, Randy... 1512
Wirzba, Norman............... 1512 Wise, Ken...... 1512
Wiseman, Jowanda............. 1512 Wisniewski, 1512
Jeanette.
Wiszowaty, Walter............ 1513 Withers, Lon... 1513
Witowski, Helen.............. 1513 Witte, John.... 1513
Woehrlin, Molly.............. 1513 Woelk, Nikki... 1513
Wojciechowski, Patricia...... 1514 Wolbach, Nancy. 1514
Wolf, Jillian................ 1514 Wolf, Todd..... 1514
Wolfe, Alissa................ 1514 Wolfe, Ashley.. 1515
Wolff, Dennis C.............. 1515 Wolkowitz, Lee. 1515
Wollenman, Tommy............. 1515 Wollman, 1517
Barbara.
Wolverton, Susan............. 1517 Won, Laetitia.. 1517
Wood, Christine.............. 1517 Wood, Emmy..... 1518
Wood, Kristine............... 1518 Wood, Stephanie 1518
Woodard, Sarah............... 1518 Woodbury, Nola. 1518
Woodruff, Margaret........... 1518 Woods, Kenneth 1519
A. ``Jack''.
Woods, Lora.................. 1519 Woods, Tara.... 1519
Woodward, Jill............... 1519 Wool, Joel..... 1519
Woolley, Barbara............. 1519 Wootan, Cathy.. 1520
Wootten, Ruth................ 1520 Worman, Jenny.. 1520
Worstell, Jim................ 1521 Wright, Denise. 1521
Wright, Jeff................. 1521 Wright, Jim.... 1521
Wright, Miki................. 1521 Wright, Nadine. 1522
Wright, Nancy................ 1522 Wright, Wynetta 1522
Wrightsman, Dwayne........... 1523 Wrinn, Chris... 1523
Wroblewski, Robert........... 1523 Wurm, Jane..... 1523
Wurster, James............... 1523 Wuthrich, 1524
Katherine.
Wyatt, Jeffrey............... 1524 Wyberg, Bryan.. 1524
Wyland, Nancy................ 1524 Wyman, Lois.... 1524
Wymola, Phillip & Hannah..... 1525 Wynn, Steveanna 1525
Wyre, Peedee................. 1525 Xakellis- 1525
Chapman, Mary.
Xavier, Zita................. 1525 Yadav, Sangita. 1526
Yaffe, Artemas............... 1526 Yahnke, Sr., 1526
Tom.
Yamaguchi, Lydia............. 1526 Yamashiro, Kyo. 1526
Yanish, Rev. M............... 1527 Yarbrough, Finn 1527
Yarrobino, Erin.............. 1527 Yates, Sharon.. 1527
Yates, Virginia.............. 1527 Yee, Alejandra. 1527
Yoches, Jeff................. 1528 Yoder, David... 1528
Yon, Jac..................... 1528 Yoshida, Yuki.. 1528
Youness, Andrea.............. 1528 Young, Anne.... 1528
Young, Carol................. 1529 Young, 1529
Catherine.
Young, Jennifer.............. 1529 Young, Julie... 1529
Young, Kristofer............. 1529 Young, Marc.... 1530
Young, Matthew............... 1530 Young, S....... 1530
Young, Sharon................ 1530 Young, Thomas.. 1531
Young-Holt, Carol Lou........ 1531 Yousef, Saad... 1531
Yuen, Eleu................... 1532 Yuenger, Arthur 1532
Yurchuck, Ruth............... 1532 Zak, Julie..... 1532
Zambrano, Michelle........... 1532 Zampieri, Janet 1532
Zang, Keith.................. 1532 Zapotocny, 1533
Douglas.
Zastrow, Jesse............... 1533 Zavala, Debra.. 1533
Zawacki, Jenna............... 1533 Zecca, 1533
Christine.
Zehr, Judy................... 1533 Zeineddine, 1534
Shaddy.
Zelko, Michael............... 1534 Zenker, 1534
Elizabeth.
Zerbel, Janet................ 1534 Zeri, Natalie.. 1535
Zerilli, Jamie............... 1535 Zeutzius, David 1535
Zezima, Carolyn.............. 1535 Zhang, Adrienne 1535
Ziegler, Jacqueline.......... 1535 Ziek, Barbara.. 1536
Zigich, Linda................ 1537 Zimmmerman, 1538
Adam.
Zimmerman, Audrey............ 1538 Zimmerman, 1538
Cindy.
Zimmerman, Joan.............. 1539 Zink, Tracey... 1539
Zirger, Jean................. 1539 Zito, Vincent.. 1539
Zocher, Marc................. 1540 Zoeller, 1540
Chetanaa.
Zondorgh, Honz............... 1540 Zorn, Gretta... 1540
Zourarakis, Ph.D., GISP, CMS, 1540 Zuber, Anne.... 1540
Demetrio P..
Zucchi, Robert............... 1541 Zuchowski, Pam. 1541
Zucker, Isabel............... 1541 Zuckerman, 1541
Richard.
Zurakowski, Michele.......... 1541 Zuyber, Chad... 1542
Form Letters *............... 1542* Editor's note: Where possible the form letters submitted have been
attributed to the originating organization. Signatories to the letters
are in alphabetic order. However, due to printing constraints the
signatories are not listed in this Table of Contents.
THE FUTURE OF U.S. FARM POLICY: FORMULATION OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
----------
FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Saranac Lake, NY.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m. (EST), at
the Sparks Athletic Complex, North Country Community College,
23 Santanoni Avenue, Saranac Lake, New York, Hon. Frank D.
Lucas [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Lucas, Goodlatte, Conaway,
Gibson, David Scott of Georgia, Owens, and Pingree.
Staff present: John Goldberg, Tamara Hinton, Nicole Scott,
Debbie Smith, Pelham Straughn, John Konya, Margaret Wetherald,
Keith Jones, Mary Knigge, Jamie Mitchell, and Caleb Crosswhite.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
entitled, The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation for 2012
Farm Bill, will come to order. I'll speak into the microphone
and try to make that work.
Good morning, thank you all for joining us today for our
first farm bill field hearing of 2012.
Field hearings are one of the most important parts of the
farm bill process. Not only do they allow the Members of our
Committee to hear directly from farmers and ranchers, but they
give us a chance to see the diversity of agriculture across
this great country.
These field hearings are a continuation of what my good
friend and Ranking Member Collin Peterson started in the spring
of 2010. Today we'll build upon the information we've gathered
in those hearings as well as the 11 farm policy audits we
conducted this past summer.
We used those audits as an opportunity to thoroughly
evaluate farm programs to identify areas where we could improve
efficiency.
The field hearings serve a slightly different purpose.
Today we're here to listen.
I talk to producers all the time back in Oklahoma. I see
them in the feed store. I meet with them in my town hall
meetings. And of course, I get regular updates from my boss,
Linda Lucas, back on our farm in western Oklahoma. But the
conditions and crops in Oklahoma are different from what you'll
find in New York or Illinois or California, for that matter.
That's why we hold field hearings, to meet farmers and
ranchers from different regions who produce a broad range of
products.
New York is a fitting place to kick off these hearings
because of the variety of food produced here.
New York farmers produce a wide range of specialty crops
that generate $1.34 billion annually and make up \1/3\ of the
state's total agriculture receipts. New York ranks second in
apple production, third in wine and grape juice production, and
among the top vegetable producing states in the country. New
York is also among the nation's top dairy states, and I'm
pleased we'll hear from representatives of each of those
commodities this morning.
While each sector has unique concerns when it comes to farm
policy, I'd like to share some of my general goals for the next
farm bill. First and foremost, I want to give producers the
tools to help you do what you do best and that is to produce
the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply
literally in the history of the world.
To do this we must develop a farm bill that works for all
regions and all commodities. We've repeatedly heard that a one-
size-fits-all program will not work. The commodity title must
give producers options so that they can choose the program that
works best for them.
And I'm also committed to providing a strong Crop insurance
program. The Committee has heard loud and clear about the
importance of crop insurance and we believe it is the
cornerstone of the safety net. Today we hope to hear how we can
improve crop insurance, especially for specialty crops.
Last, we'll work to ensure that producers can continue to
use conservation programs to protect our natural resources. I'm
interested to hear how producers in this area of the country
use the conservation programs. I'm particularly curious as to
your thoughts on how to simplify the process so they are easier
for our farmers and ranchers to use.
Beyond those priorities, I know there are a number of
universal concerns facing agriculture across the country.
For instance, my producers in Oklahoma are worried about
regulations coming down from the Environmental Protection
Agency and how they must comply with those regulations.
I'm also aware that the death tax is creating difficulties
for farming operations. I want to hear how these Federal
policies are affecting producers in the Northeast, but the main
concern of our hearing will be how the farm bill affects
specialty crops and dairy producers.
While specialty crops do not participate in traditional
commodity programs, there are other Federal programs that play
an important role in helping American fruit, vegetable and
nursery crop growers to stay competitive.
These programs give specialty crop growers access to vital
research programs and help protect their crops from pest and
disease. Additionally, they provide assistance in maintaining
and opening international markets and increasing consumption of
the best fruits and vegetables in the world. I look forward to
hearing your perspective on those programs.
For dairy producers, the ongoing discussion of dairy reform
is of particular importance. The recent decline in prices
coupled with rising production costs have once again
demonstrated the need to improve and modernize our dairy safety
net. While I do not expect unanimity among dairy industry
participants, we never get unanimity among farmers in general,
I do encourage all industry participants, producers and
processors alike, to find some level of consensus regarding the
type of reform that is needed.
The exact nature of the reform we include in the next farm
bill will rely heavily on input we receive today and in future
hearings. While there are several proposals that have been
introduced, and we have had some level of agreement on a
starting point for discussion, we do not claim to have all the
answers.
With your help and guidance, we would hope to develop a
comprehensive package of reforms that are fiscally responsible
and balanced with regards to size and region.
Today we'll hear from a selection of producers.
Unfortunately, we just don't have time to hear from everybody
who would like to share their perspective, but we have a place
on our website where you can submit your comments in writing to
the House Agriculture Committee. You can find that--well, visit
agriculture.house.gov/farmbill to find that place. And I
believe we have, at the back of the room, some post cards that
have that e-mail address on it so you can send your comments
in.
As I said before, we don't have an easy road ahead of us,
but I'm confident that by working together we can craft a farm
bill that continues to support the success story that American
agriculture is.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress
from Oklahoma
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today for our first
farm bill field hearing of 2012.
Field hearings are one of the most important parts of the farm bill
process. Not only do they allow Members of our Committee to hear
directly from farmers and ranchers, but they give us a chance to see
the diversity of agriculture across this great country.
These field hearings are a continuation of what my good friend and
Ranking Member Collin Peterson started in the spring of 2010. Today,
we'll build upon the information we gathered in those hearings, as well
as the 11 farm policy audits we conducted this past summer.
We used those audits as an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate farm
programs to identify areas where we could improve efficiency.
The field hearings serve a slightly different purpose. Today, we're
here to listen.
I talk to producers all the time back in Oklahoma. I see them in
the feed store and I meet them at my town hall meetings. And of course,
I get regular updates from my boss back on our ranch. But the
conditions and crops in Oklahoma are different than what you'll find in
New York or Illinois or California.
That's why we hold field hearings--to meet farmers and ranchers
from different regions who produce a broad range of products.
New York is a fitting place to kick off these hearings because of
the variety of food produced here.
New York farmers produce a wide range of specialty crops that
generate $1.34 billion annually and make up \1/3\ of the state's total
agriculture receipts. New York ranks second in apple production, third
for wine and grape juice production, and is among the top vegetable
producing states in the country.
New York is also among the nation's top dairy producers. I am
pleased we will hear from representatives of each of these commodities
this morning.
While each sector has unique concerns when it comes to farm policy,
I'd like to share some of my general goals for the next farm bill.
First and foremost, I want to give producers the tools to help you
do what you do best, and that is to produce the safest, most abundant,
most affordable food supply in the world.
To do this we must develop a farm bill that works for all regions
and all commodities. We have repeatedly heard that a one size fits all
program will not work. The commodity title must give producers options
so that they can choose the program that works best for them.
I also am committed to providing a strong crop insurance program.
The Committee has heard loud and clear about the importance of crop
insurance and we believe it is the cornerstone of the safety net.
Today, we hope to hear how we can improve crop insurance, especially
for specialty crops.
Last, we'll work to ensure that producers can continue using
conservation programs to protect our natural resources.
I'm interested to hear how producers in this area of the country
use the conservation programs. I'm particularly curious as to your
thoughts on how to simplify that process so they are easier for our
farmers and ranchers to use.
Beyond those priorities, I know there are a number of universal
concerns facing agriculture across the country.
For instance, my producers in Oklahoma are worried about
regulations coming down from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and how they must comply with those regulations.
I'm also aware that the death tax is creating difficulties for
farming operations. I want to hear how these Federal policies are
affecting producers in the Northeast.
But the main focus of our hearing will be how the farm bill affects
specialty crops and dairy producers.
While specialty crops do not participate in traditional commodity
programs, there are other Federal programs that play an important role
in helping American fruit, vegetable and nursery crop growers stay
competitive.
These programs give specialty crop growers access to vital research
programs and help protect their crops from pest and disease.
Additionally, they provide assistance in maintaining and opening
international markets and increase consumption of the best fruits and
vegetables in the world. I look forward to hearing your perspective on
these programs.
For dairy producers, the ongoing discussion of dairy reform is of
particular importance.
The recent decline in prices coupled with rising production has
once again demonstrated the need to improve and modernize our dairy
safety net.
While I do not expect unanimity among dairy industry participants,
I do encourage all industry participants--producers and processors
alike--to find some level of consensus regarding the type of reform
that is needed.
The exact nature of the reform we include in the next farm bill
will rely heavily on the input we receive today and in future hearings.
While there are several proposals that have been introduced, and we
have had some level of agreement on a starting point for discussion, we
do not claim to have all of the answers. With your help and guidance,
we would hope to develop a comprehensive package of reforms which are
fiscally responsible and balanced with regards to size and region.
Today, we'll be hearing from a selection of producers.
Unfortunately, we just don't have time to hear from everybody who would
like to share their perspective. But we have a place on our website
where you can submit those comments in writing. You can visit http://
agriculture.house.gov/farmbill to find that place. You can also find
that address on the postcards available on the table here.
As I said before, we don't have an easy road ahead of us. But I'm
confident that by working together, we can craft a farm bill that
continues to support the success story that is American agriculture.
The Chairman. With that, I turn to my Ranking Member today,
a gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for his comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and I'd just like to say, at the outset, what a
wonderful part of the country this is. My first time into the
Lake Placid, Saranac Lake area, and I must say it is a
beautiful and very interesting visit. I certainly also want to
say how great it is to be in the home and the districts of my
fellow Representatives, Representative Owens and Representative
Gibson, both of whom are just doing a marvelous job for you
back in Washington.
As the Chairman clearly stated, we're here to hear from
you. This is very important for us to hear. We are engaging in
this farm bill at a very, very challenging time. Because we not
only have to go back through to the 2008 Farm Bill, but we have
to do it at a time when we're also faced with significant
budget constraints. At the same time, we want to hear on the
many areas of dairy, conservation, specialty crops, which are
very, very important for this area of New York.
And also we want to hear from you about some of the
regulations. All regulation is not bad, but at the same time we
can sit in Washington in our wonderful offices and we can make
great policy, but you have to let us know how it is working. We
want to make sure that policies and regulations from the EPA
and others are done in a way that allows our farmers and
ranchers to be able to be productive, to be able to be
profitable and not be over-burdensome. So we look forward to
hearing from you on that.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and we look
forward to a wonderful hearing.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and as is the
custom, we will listen to very brief opening statements from
our two colleagues who represent New York on the House
Agriculture Committee. I will first recognize Mr. Owens.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. OWENS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK
Mr. Owens. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me say that
I, and I think everyone in attendance here, is extraordinarily
excited at this opportunity. This is unique and it allows
northern New York and much of Vermont and other states that
surround us to have an opportunity, as you said, to listen to
the other side. And I think that that's very important.
As I was explaining to some of the folks I was talking to
before the hearing, this is unique in that we have the
opportunity to talk to people from throughout the country. This
is very important that we get all perspectives into this farm
bill.
You know, people don't recognize how important ag is in
northern New York. It is an extraordinarily important part of
what we do and what happens in our communities. It affects
everything. It affects real property taxes, it affects the farm
dealers. It has real impact on all of our lives on a daily
basis.
I can only tell you how thankful I am that you are here,
that we are here collectively. And in particular, I'd like to
thank Mr. Gibson for his participation and his assistance in
this process. And let me also say that I hope that as we listen
today, we take those skills back to Washington with us. Thank
you very much.
The Chairman. With that, the chair now recognizes Mr.
Gibson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just echo
the comments of my colleague, Bill Owens. This is a historic
day for this part of the state and indeed for our state in
general. You know, the Chairman listed some of the data, that
second in the nation with regard to dairy, second in the nation
with regard to apples, third in the nation with regard to
grapes, fifth in the nation with regard to specialty crops. We
are a leader in the nation when it comes to farming in the
agriculture sector of the economy.
And what Bill Owens mentioned is absolutely correct, it's
that we're here today to listen and to work together. And you
turn on the news today, doesn't matter what channel that you
happen to turn on, whether it's Fox or MSNBC, you hear all this
negativity about the status of the country and the Democrats
and Republicans won't work together. Let me just tell you that
I really value my friendship and the work that I do with Bill
Owens. What we're doing here today, with regard to farming, is
critically important.
As the Chairman mentioned, we're here today to make sure
that we have the right input, because we're getting ready to
write a bill this year that's going to impact this sector of
the economy for the next 5 to 6 years and we need to get it
right.
And so, Mr. Chairman, thank you for--you're only doing four
of these across the entire United States of America, and the
fact that you chose to come here, right here to Saranac Lake
and into the Adirondack region, that really means a lot to me,
and I want to thank you personally and professionally. I look
forward to this hearing. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony and to ensure there's ample time for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
As we begin writing the next farm bill, we will hear directly from
farmers and ranchers across the country on the issues they face every
day.
Writing a new farm bill will not be an easy task most notably due
to budget constraints. Everybody is being asked to do more with less
and, it seems to me, that agriculture is being asked to cut even more
than others.
The agriculture economy is the shining success of our nation's
economy. We should not let those outside of agriculture try to mess up
the only part of the economy that's actually working.
It is my hope that everyone in agriculture--producers in all
regions, representing all commodities--come together. We need to be
united to pass a good farm bill.
I thank the witnesses for making the time to testify hear today.
The Chairman. With that, I'd like to welcome our first
panel of witnesses to the table: Mr. Eric Ooms, a dairy
producer, Partner in Adrian Ooms & Sons, Incorporated, Old
Chatham, New York. We also have Mr. Neal Rea, dairy producer,
Chairman, Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative, Salem, New York. We also
have Mr. Jeremy Verratti, a dairy and crop producer, Verratti
Farms, LLC, Gasport, New York. And with us also is Ms. Michele
Ledoux, a beef producer, Adirondack Beef Company, New York.
With that, Mr. Ooms, begin when you're ready, please.
STATEMENT OF ERIC OOMS, DAIRY PRODUCER; PARTNER, ADRIAN OOMS &
SONS, INC., OLD CHATHAM, NY
Mr. Ooms. Thank you. I would like to start by thanking the
Chairman, and Congressmen Peterson, Gibson and Owens for the
opportunity to testify here today.
My father, two brothers and I are partners in a 450 cow
dairy farm in Kinderhook, New York. We raise approximately
1,800 acres of corn, alfalfa and various grasses for our own
herd as well as for cash crops. In 2011, we erected a grain
dryer and storage to further diversify our business. My wife,
Catherine Joy, and I have two children, Arend who is 4, Grace
who is 2, and it's my goal as a farmer and a dad that my kids
have the same opportunities to work on a farm like I did with
my dad.
Dairy farming has been on a veritable roller coaster for my
family and everyone else in the dairy industry for quite some
time. Dairy prices in 2009 caused indescribable pain in the
industry. I think you all know this. While the past 2 years
brought considerably better dairy prices to farmers, high
inputs have tempered the average dairy farmer's optimism. This
year's forecast shows softening prices paid to farmers, but our
inputs are not going down. In fact, the price of fuel is
rising. This is very concerning.
As we look forward, it's imperative to remember that we are
now in a new paradigm of higher feed prices, so as policy
makers and farmers, we need to keep this in mind as we build
our farm business plans as well as formulate policy. It's also
important to remember that while 2009 was a horrible
experience, we cannot set policy for the next 5 years based
solely on 1 year, but rather look at long-term trends. It is
vitally important, as we go through this farm bill process,
Congress not make things worse through their action or
inaction.
While there are some programs and structural pricing
aspects that need to be changed, some programs are working for
dairy farmers. For instance, the Federal Order System has been
working. To dramatically change or eliminate the Federal Order
System would result in pricing and market chaos that is not
needed. EQIP has proven itself to be a valuable and effective
program and funding should be maintained at adequate levels in
the next farm bill. The vision of Capper-Volstead may have not
worked a hundred percent perfectly, but overall, my cooperative
has played a key role in helping my farm market my product as
well as working with my neighbors in filling its market while
balancing those farms' production. We need to protect this
relationship.
Credit is vital to any dairy farm. The cooperative
structure of the Farm Credit System is in the long-term best
interest of agriculture across the country. I urge no new
regulatory burdens on Farm Credit. These are some policies that
work reasonably well.
Here are some items that could be reworked: In a perfect
world with perfectly balanced budgets, we should work to
improve MILC as a safety net. However, if we eliminate MILC,
what are we putting in its place? Margin insurance programs
have promise. LGM is very effective, although it has a critical
flaw of being inaccessible due to severe under-funding. If MILC
is eliminated, there must be something workable and equitable
to replace it.
Price discovery remains a concern. Theoretically, the CME
and NAS Survey should work. However, with so little trading on
the CME, producers are skeptical. Competitive pay price modeled
after the former M-W could be a way to go here. USDA's recent
rule on electronic price reporting is a step in the right
direction. I appreciate the Committee's work in bringing this
reform to reality. We will see in the next few months or years
what tweaking is needed. The Price Support Program seems to
have outlived its usefulness and it seems as though there is a
national industry consensus to eliminate it. These savings
could be used to bolster whatever safety net replacement
vehicle the farm bill puts in place.
There are also some initiatives that we are not doing that
we should be doing, such as since the 1960s, California has
been fortifying milk with higher solids, non fat. With study
after study showing that kids are not getting enough calcium,
this is a common sense idea that we should have been doing for
years.
The Dairy Security Act should be a major focus of farm bill
discussions. Farm Bureau supports the Dairy Security Act
because the supply management component of this proposal is
voluntary. A voluntary supply management plan gives producers
the freedom to make the best decision for their farm free of
D.C. bureaucrats.
Before I close, I would not be doing my job if I did not at
least mention the need for labor in agriculture, not just
dairy. In addition to the DOL's proposed regulations for youth
labor, just need to point out if there is to be an E-Verify
bill there needs to be an agricultural guest-worker component.
Overall, we need immigration and H-2A reform. While this is not
in the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee or the farm
bill, I urge each of you as Members of Congress to remember
that we have a choice in America to import labor or import
food.
I applaud those Members of the Committee like Congressman
Gibson and Congressman Owens, who are working toward that end
and would urge all of you to help us in this endeavor.
Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to comment
here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ooms follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Ooms, Dairy Producer; Partner, Adrian Ooms &
Sons, Inc., Old Chatham, NY
Good morning. I would like to start by thanking Chairman Lucas,
Congressman Peterson, Congressman Gibson and Congressman Owens for the
opportunity to testify here today.
My name is Eric Ooms. My father, two brothers and I are partners in
a 450 cow dairy farm in Kinderhook, NY. We raise approximately 1,800
acres of corn, alfalfa and various grasses for our own herd as well as
for cash crops. In 2011, we erected a grain dryer and storage to
further diversify our business. My wife Catherine Joy and I have two
children, Arend who is 4 and Grace who is 2. It is my goal as a farmer
and a father that my kids have the same opportunities to work on the
farm with their dad, like I did with mine.
In my role as Vice President of New York Farm Bureau, I would like
to thank the Committee for holding one of its farm bill field hearings
here in the Empire State where the economic impact of agriculture is
well over $4 billion to our state's economy. New York can boast about
its diversity in food products as well as its national rankings for
certain commodities. We are the second largest apple producer, third
largest grape producer, fourth largest dairy producer and sixth largest
vegetable producing state.
In addition, New York has become the new hot destination for yogurt
processing with our local milk supply and proximity to major east coast
populations. You are probably familiar with the recent success stories
of Greek yogurt manufacturers Chobani and Fage, but New York has also
recently welcomed the international corporations of Alpina and Mueller
to our Genesee Valley Agri-Business Park in Batavia. Our own Upstate
Niagara Milk Cooperative is also revitalizing the former Kraft plant in
St. Lawrence County for Greek yogurt production. All this yogurt
activity brings opportunity for more sourcing of local milk which New
York farmers hope to meet.
I have been asked to talk about dairy policy as it pertains to the
farm bill and I am happy to do so. Dairy farming has been a veritable
roller coaster for my family and everyone else in the dairy industry
for quite some time. Dairy prices in 2009 caused indescribable pain and
suffering in the dairy industry, I think you all know this. While the
past 2 years brought considerably better dairy prices paid to farmers,
high inputs have tempered the average dairy farmers' optimism. This
year's forecast shows softening milk and cheese prices paid to farmers,
but our inputs are not going down. In fact, the price of fuel is rising
. . . this is very concerning.
As we look forward, it is imperative to remember that we are in a
new paradigm of higher feed prices. So as policy makers and farmers, we
need to keep this in mind as we build our farm business plans as well
as formulate policy. It is also important to remember that while 2009
was a horrible experience for all of us, we cannot set policy for the
next 5 (or fifty) years based solely on one year, but rather look at
long term trends.
It is vitally important as we go through this farm bill process
that Congress not make things worse through their action or inaction.
While there are some programs and structural pricing aspects that need
to be changed, some programs are working for dairy farmers (even if
they are imperfect):
The Federal Order System has been working and to
dramatically change or eliminate the Federal Order System would
result in pricing and market chaos that is NOT needed. I would
further add, that component pricing in the Federal Orders has
worked as well.
In regards to the Federal pricing formula, the current Class
I price differentials are working. As a New Yorker, I would
always like to see them a little higher and would welcome
decoupling of Class I from manufacturing milk for price
determination. I do realize that this is not politically
realistic and would recommend Congress not adjust them
significantly.
The continued inclusion and importance of dairy products in
the School Meals Program. There is no better source of calcium,
potassium, protein and vitamins A, D and B12. This
is a win for kids and farmers.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has
proven itself to be a valuable and effective program that has
helped every dairy farmer in one form or another meet their
environmental regulatory obligations. These EQIP dollars are a
smart and cost-efficient investment of taxpayer money for
agriculture and the environment. EQIP funding should be
maintained at adequate levels in the next farm bill.
The vision of the Capper-Volstead Act may have not worked
out 100% perfect, but overall my Cooperative has played a key
role in helping my farm market my product as well as working
with my neighbors in filling niche markets while balancing
those farms production. We need to protect this relationship.
Credit is vital to any dairy farm. Over 65% of ag credit in
the Northeast is provided by the Farm Credit System. The
Cooperative structure of the Farm Credit System is in the long-
term best interest of agriculture across the country. I urge no
new regulatory burdens on Farm Credit.
Those are some of the policies and programs that work reasonably
well. Here are some items that could be re-worked:
Milk Income Loss Contract Program (MILC). In a perfect world
with perfectly balanced budgets, we should work to improve MILC
as a safety net for producers, but we are faced with real-world
fiscal issues where money does not grow on trees. If we
eliminate MILC, what are we putting in its place? Margin
insurance programs have promise, and the Livestock Gross Margin
insurance program (LGM) is very effective although it has the
critical flaw of being highly inaccessible due to severe under-
funding. Many producers would like to take advantage of LGM
only to find themselves shut out of the program. If MILC is
eliminated, there must be something workable and equitable to
replace it.
Price Discovery remains a concern. Theoretically, using the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange and National Ag Statistics Survey
should work; however with so little trading on the CME,
producers are skeptical, rightly or wrongly there is a real
lack of faith. A competitive pay price modeled after the former
Minnesota-Wisconsin pricing formula could be a way to go here.
USDA's recent rule on auditing and electronic price reporting
is a step in the right direction. I appreciate the Committee's
work in bringing this reform to reality and we will see in the
next few months or years what tweaking is needed.
Dairy Price Support Program (DPSP). DPSP seems to have
outlived its usefulness and it seems as though there is
national industry consensus to eliminate it. The savings could
be used to bolster whatever safety net replacement program
vehicle the farm bill puts in place.
Import assessment for dairy promotion. We certainly
appreciate the inclusion of a $.075 per cwt assessment on
imported dairy products in the most recent farm bill. I would
just remind the Committee that domestic producers are still
paying $.15 per cwt for the same promotion.
There are also some initiatives that we are not doing that we
should be doing:
California Standards for Fluid Milk. Since the 1960's
California has been fortifying milk with higher solids non fat.
With study after study showing that kids are not getting enough
calcium, this is a common sense idea that we should have been
doing for years.
Farm Savings Accounts. This tax strategy tool helps farmers
manage risk voluntarily by shifting income during profitable
years via tax-deferred deposits into a savings account for
withdrawal during less profitable years.
To comment on the Dairy Security Act, a proposed bill to reform
existing pricing and safety net policies which should be a major focus
of farm bill discussions. Farm Bureau supports the Dairy Security Act
because the supply management component of this proposal is voluntary.
If an individual producer chooses to limit production and the Federal
Government wants to incentivize this, that is the producer's decision
and we support that. Earlier, I mentioned the rapid growth of the
yogurt sector here in New York and the opportunity it brings for more
sourcing of local milk. A voluntary supply management plan gives
producers the freedom to make the best decision for their farm
operation--whether that is to enroll in the voluntary supply
management/margin insurance program or increase production to meet new
market demand from yogurt processing.
Before I close, I would not be doing my job if I did not at least
mention the need for labor in agriculture (not just dairy). One of the
most serious issues facing farmers today is the U.S. Department of
Labor's (DOL) proposed youth agricultural labor regulations. Despite a
re-proposal of the parental exemption, farmers have no indication that
our concerns will be addressed. Also, the hazardous occupations orders
are set to be finalized in August and the original proposal places
serious restrictions on the activities youth can do on the farm--things
that are safe and part of the learning process on farms. How these will
be finalized is a major concern. It is important that the Committee
remain vigilant on both these issues to protect our family farms.
Similarly, if there is to be an E-Verify bill, there needs to be an
agricultural guest-worker component. Overall, we need immigration
reform and H-2A reform. While this is not in the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture Committee or the farm bill, I urge each of you as Members
of Congress to remember that we have a choice in America to import
labor or import food. I applaud those Members of the Committee like
Congressmen Gibson and Owens who are working toward that end and would
urge all of you to help us in this endeavor.
I know the road to a new farm bill is long and time is short. NYFB
stands ready to help you and Committee staff craft a thoughtful and
workable farm bill to serve our family farms. Thank you again for
giving me the opportunity to comment here today. I would be happy to
answer any questions you have at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Rea, proceed when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF NEAL REA, DAIRY PRODUCER; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
AGRI-MARK DAIRY COOPERATIVE, SALEM, NY
Mr. Rea. Thank you. Chairman Lucas and House Agriculture
Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to testify today
about dairy policy as it impacts me, my family, my farm, and my
cooperative.
I'm Neal Rea. I own a dairy farm with my wife Carol, our
two sons Thane and Travis, and our daughter-in-law Karen. Our
dairy is located in Washington County, New York, and has been
in our family for more than 200 years. It is because of the
unselfish dedication of my family to the success of our dairy
that I am able to serve as the Chairman of the Board for my
cooperative, Agri-Mark, and on the Board of Directors for NMPF.
Agri-Mark is a dairy cooperative here in the Northeast with
more than 1,200 members in New York and the New England States.
Our members are proud owners of McCadam cheese, an award-
winning cheddar produced in Chateaugay, New York, only a short
distance from here. Our members also own our fabulous flagship
brand, Cabot of Vermont. The 2012 Farm Bill is discussed at
nearly every monthly Agri-Mark board meeting. Today's hearing
is timely and greatly appreciated.
First, I would like to share our farm experiences of 2009
and the progression of events leading up to today. Our farm has
very little new equipment. We rely on good used equipment which
we maintain ourselves. We have milk cow facilities to house
about 190 cows. Construction of these facilities was
accomplished over many years with some approaching 45 years
old. Our most recent addition was completed during the winter
of 2010 and 2011. Our milking center is housed in our original
stanchion barn.
As 2009 progressed, we've joined the thousands of dairy
farm operations that became victims of negative cash flow. Our
milk checks were considerably less than the corresponding
bills. There were tears, sleepless nights, frustration and
tension. Carol's philosophy was, and still is, that we must pay
for cows' feed, we must pay for electricity, and we must pay
for herd health. All other creditors will be paid as possible.
Some months we would only pay a hundred dollars on a bill that
was over a thousand dollars. Our own pay was delayed by months.
It was extremely difficult to face our agriculture supply and
service providers with partial payments knowing they too had to
borrow huge sums of money to cover their operating expenses and
deficit income.
When the situation became overwhelming, we went to Farm
Credit for operating capital. This had a residual effect
through much of 2010 and even into 2011 because of the need to
pay back borrowed money. Our margins were squeezed.
The difference between the farm milk price and feed cost
are often referred to as dairy margins. These margins determine
if a dairy can pay its bills and stay in business. Severely low
or even negative margins in 2009 and 2010 made capital and land
investments impossible. The average margin in 2009 was $3.66.
Even when margins improved in 2010, they were insufficient to
cover costs. Margins did a fair recovery to a degree in 2011 to
$7.59, but are shrinking as we speak and are projected to be
about $5.80 this year.
Given this dire situation on our farm, I was extremely
proud to be selected to the NMPF task force several years ago
whose goal was to develop a new dairy policy for 2012 Farm
Bill. I truly believe it was the affirmation of adversity that
brought dairy farmers from New York and New England together
with dairymen from all over the country to design policy that
would provide a better safety net, reduce extreme volatility
and cost less to government. I have gained friends and
confidants from all across the country with the same goal.
Margin protection is the key to a successful national dairy
policy. This is exactly why Agri-Mark designed a marginal milk
pricing plan, which later became a vital part of Foundation for
the Future and eventually today's Dairy Security Act. Combined
with an adequate Margin Insurance Program, dairy farmers will
have a key management tool to navigate the current and future
extreme farm milk and feed price volatility climates.
Margin insurance should allow farmers to chose their level
of participation as well as be affordable and encourage all
sizes and types of operations to be protected. However, a break
in premium for producers would be greatly appreciated.
The secret ingredient, from my perspective, is compromise,
consensus and commitment. Remarkably, farmers representing
about 80 percent of U.S. milk production have come to a
consensus, and we urge you to support the principles of the
Dairy Security Act. Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rea follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neal Rea, Dairy Producer; Chairman of the Board,
Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative, Salem, NY
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson and House Agriculture
Committee Members: thank you for allowing me to testify today about
dairy policy as impacts me, my family, my farm, and my co-op.
I am Neal Rea. My wife, Carol, and I own a dairy farm with our two
sons, Thane and Travis, and daughter-in-law Karen. Our dairy is located
in Washington County, and has been in our family for more than 200
years. It is because of the unselfish dedication of my family to the
success of our dairy that I am able serve as the Chairman of the Board
for my cooperative, Agri-Mark and on the board of directors for
National Milk Producers Federation.
Agri-Mark is a dairy cooperative here in the Northeast with more
than 1,200 members in New York and the New England states. We have many
member farms north of us along the St. Lawrence River basin; from the
Vermont border to Lake Ontario. Our members are the proud owners of
McCadam cheese, an award winning cheddar produced in Chateaugay, NY--
only a short distance from here. Our members also own our fabulous
flagship brand Cabot of Vermont.
Very seldom does an Agri-Mark monthly board meeting conclude
without the 2012 Farm Bill debate being mentioned, so on my own behalf
as well as on the farmers I represent through Agri-Mark, we sincerely
appreciate the House Agriculture Committee Members and staff traveling
to New York to hear from dairy producers like myself.
First, I would like to share our farm experiences from 2009, and
the progression of events leading up to today's very timely House
Agriculture Committee hearing. We have very little new equipment on our
farm; we rely on good used equipment which we maintain ourselves. We
have milk cow facilities to house about 190 cows. Construction of these
facilities was accomplished over many years; some of our housing is 45
years old. Our most recent addition was completed during the winter of
2010/11. Our milking center is housed in the original stanchion barn;
the equipment was used and expanded over the years to a current double
9 herringbone.
As the terrible conditions of 2009 played out (progressed) we
became the victim of negative cash flow. Our milk checks were
considerably less than the corresponding bills. There were tears,
sleepless nights, frustration and tension. Carol's philosophy was and
still is: we must pay for the cows feed, we must pay for electricity,
and we must pay for herd health. All other creditors were on an
allotment program. Some months we could only pay $100 on a bill that
was over $1,000. Sometimes our own pay was delayed by months. It was
extremely difficult to face your agriculture supply personnel with
partial payments, knowing they themselves had to borrow huge sums of
money to cover their own operating expenses and deficit income. When
the situation became overwhelming, we went to Farm Credit for operating
capital. This had residual effects through much of 2010, because of
extended credit and the need to pay back borrowed money.
Dairy farmers are a resilient breed, and I have a deeper
appreciation for those who survived 2009.
Margins (the difference between the feed costs and the milk price)
became ever so important. This is exactly why Agri-Mark designed a
program which later became a vital part of the National Milk Producers
Federation's Foundation for the Future, which is now the basis for the
Dairy Security Act.
What has become clear to the dairy producer community from this
extraordinary strain is that we need a combination of approaches to
deal with the current situation. To address the underlying problems
that caused this crisis and the many industry factors that contributed
to its depth and protracted nature, we need to focus on solutions that
avoid recurrences of this situation in the future.
Toward that end, NMPF created a Strategic Planning Task Force to
seek consensus across the dairy producer community and create a solid
``Foundation for the Future.'' I and my co-op, Agri-Mark, have been an
integral part of this process. The goal of the Strategic Planning Task
Force was to analyze and develop a long-term strategic plan for
consideration by the NMPF Board of Directors that would have a positive
impact on the various factors influencing both supply and demand for
milk and dairy products. It is extremely important to develop workable
and realistic solutions that will garner broad support from dairy
producers nationwide in order to unify behind an approach as this
Committee begins to consider the next farm bill.
I was extremely proud to be selected to the NMPF task force,
designed to develop a new dairy policy for the 2012 Farm Bill. I truly
believe it was the aforementioned adversity that brought dairy farmers
from NY and Vermont together with dairymen from all over the country to
design a dairy policy that would be less costly to the government and
with the ability to correct the extreme volatility that caused the
wreck of 2009. Throughout the process, I have gained friends and
confidants from other major milk-producing regions of the country
including New Mexico, California, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska
and Indiana.
Margin protection is the key to the success of a dairy policy. The
secret ingredient from my perspective now is compromise, consensus and
commitment.
Rather than offering just one solution, dairy policy must be multi-
faceted: it must refocus existing farm-level safety nets; create a new
program to protect farmers against low margins; and establish a way to
better balance dairy supply and demand. I would like to touch on each
aspect of this approach.
1. Refocusing Current Safety Nets
Both the Dairy Product Price Support Program and the MILC program
are inadequate protections against not just periodic low milk
prices, but also in confronting the destructively low profit
margins that occur when input costs, especially feed prices,
shoot up. The Dairy Product Price Support Program, in
particular, has outlived its usefulness and hinders the ability
of U.S. and world markets to adjust timely and effectively to
supply-demand signals.
Discontinuing the Price Support Program (DPPSP) would allow
greater flexibility to meet increased global demand and shorten
periods of low prices by reducing foreign competition in the
marketplace. Additionally, shifting resources from the Price
Support Program toward a new margin protection program would
provide farmers a more effective safety net.
As the Chairman and Ranking Member may recall, NMPF vigorously
defended the importance of the price support program, albeit
modified to make improvements in certain respects, in the 2008
Farm Bill process. But at the end of the day, it is clear that
the dairy product price support program is not the best use of
Federal resources to establish a safety net to help farmers
cope with periods of low prices and is not the most effective
way of achieving this goal.
The DPPSP reduces total demand for U.S. dairy products
and
dampens our ability to export, while encouraging more
foreign im-
ports into the U.S.
The price support program effectively reduces U.S.
exports, by diverting some of our milk flow into
government warehouses, rather than to commercial buyers
in other nations. It creates a dynamic where it's
harder for the U.S. to be a consistent supplier of many
products, since sometimes we have products to export,
and at other times, we just sell our extra production
to the government.
The Program acts as a disincentive to product
innovation.
It distorts what we produce, i.e., too much nonfat dry
milk, and not enough protein-standardized skim milk
powder and whole milk powder as well as specialty milk
proteins such as milk protein concentrate, that are in
demand both domestically and internationally. Because
the price support program is a blunt instrument that
will buy only nonfat dry milk--and because that's what
some plants have been built to produce, as opposed to
other forms of milk powder--it puts the U.S. at a
competitive disadvantage to other global dairy vendors.
DPPSP supports dairy farmers all around the world and
disadvan-
tages U.S. dairy farmers.
Further aggravating measures, the current program helps
balance world supplies, by encouraging the periodic
global surplus of milk products to be purchased by U.S.
taxpayers. Dairy farmers in other countries,
particularly the Oceania region, enjoy as much price
protection from the DPPSP as our own farmers. Without
USDA's CCC buying up an occasional surplus of dairy
proteins in the form of nonfat dry milk, a temporarily
lower world price would affect our competitors--all of
whom would be forced to adjust their production
downward--and ultimately hasten a global recovery in
prices.
The DPPSP isn't effectively managed to fulfill its
objectives.
Although the DPPSP has a standing offer to purchase
butter, cheese and nonfat dry milk, during the past 12
years, only the last of that trio has been sold to the
USDA in any significant quantity. In essence, the
product that the DPPSP really supports is nonfat dry
milk. Even at times when the cheese price has sagged
well beneath the price support target, cheese makers
choose not to sell to the government for a variety of
logistical and marketing-related reasons, such as
overly restrictive packaging requirements. We have
tried to address these problems, but USDA has to date
been unwilling to account for the additional costs
required to sell to government specifications. Once
purchased, powder returning back to the market from
government storage also presents challenges, and can
dampen the recovery of prices as government stocks are
reduced.
The price levels it seeks to achieve aren't relevant to
farmers in
2012.
Even though the $9.90 per hundredweight milk price
target was eliminated in the last farm bill, the
individual product price support targets: $1.13/lb. for
block cheese, $0.85 for powder, and $1.05 for butter--
essentially will return Class III and IV prices around
$10/cwt. But in an era of higher cost of production,
that minimal price isn't acceptable in any way, shape
or form.
In summary, discontinuing the DPPSP would eventually result in
higher milk prices for U.S. dairy farmers. By focusing on
indemnifying against poor margins, rather than on a milk price
target that is clearly inadequate, we can create a more
relevant safety net that allows for quicker price adjustments,
reduced imports and greater exports. As a result of our DPPSP,
the U.S. has become the world's balancing plant--and dairy
suppliers in other countries know this all too well. As time
marches on, so, too, must our approach to helping U.S. farmers.
It is because of this that America's dairy producers and coops
are focused upon a transitional process that shifts the
resources previously invested in the dairy product price
support program and the MILC program, to a new producer income
protection program.
2. Dairy Producer Margin Protection Program
As mentioned above, existing safety net programs (the price
support program, and the MILC program) were created in a
different era. Neither was designed to function in a more
globalized market, where not just milk prices, but also feed
costs and energy expenses, are more volatile and trending
higher. In the future, the solvency of dairy farms will depend
more on margins than just the milk price alone. In order to
address this dilemma, dairy farmers and cooperatives are
supporting a revolutionary new program called the Dairy
Producer Margin Projection Program. It will help insure against
the type of margin squeeze farmers experienced not only in
2009, and also at other points in the past when milk prices
dropped, feed costs rose--or both conditions occurred in
tandem.
In developing the Dairy Producer Marge Protection Program, a few
important principles have been followed:
Losses caused by either low milk prices or high feed
costs need to be cov-
ered.
A farmer's cost for basic protection must be kept low or
nonexistent.
The level of protection available should be flexible,
and producers should
be able to purchase a higher level of protection if they
choose.
The program should be voluntary, national in scope, and
open to all dairy
farmers, regardless of size.
The program should not provide incentives to create
artificial over-produc-
tion.
The program must be easy to access by all producers
through a simple ap-
plication process or through the assistance of their
cooperative.
3. Market Stabilization
Farmers have worked together since 2003, through the Cooperatives
Working Together (CWT) program, to address both the supply and
the demand sides of the equation that ultimately determines
milk prices. But more is needed.
The Dairy Security Act contains a market stabilization program
that prompts dairy farmers, only when absolutely needed, to
adjust their milk output during periods of low margins.
To prevent steep and prolonged price declines--the likes of which
we suffered from literally every day in 2009--the stabilization
program encourages farmers to trim their milk output. This
allows supply and demand to more quickly align, prevents
dramatic price volatility, and avoids a prolonged l-margin
environment. It also contains provisions that would make the
program export-sensitive, meaning that if the U.S. risks losing
its share of world dairy sales because of a misalignment of
prices, the market stabilization program will trigger back out.
And it's also important to remember that in the absence of the
price support program, U.S. and world milk prices will
naturally be in much greater alignment.
Now, this type of system is not for everyone, and the best part
is, it's voluntary. Only those producers who opt for the margin
protection program would have to reduce their output. Those who
don't want any government safety net won't be subject to the
stabilization program.
All of these potential changes will ultimately require a new way of
thinking about dairy economics. The dairy farmers I know recognize
something has to be done before all the farms are gone and if there is
one lesson to be learned from 2009; it's that change is needed.
Thank you again for your time and attention.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Verratti, when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY L. VERRATTI, DAIRY AND CROP PRODUCER,
VERRATTI FARMS, LLC, GASPORT, NY
Mr. Verratti. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jeremy
Verratti. I'm a dairy and crop farmer from Gasport, New York,
in Niagara County. I received my 4 year bachelors of science
degree in business administration from the University of
Buffalo. I'm a member of the Asset Liability Committee at
Cornerstone Community Federal Credit Union and an active member
of the Lockport Alliance Church. I have also been a leader of
the Young Cooperators Program at our dairy cooperative, Upstate
Niagara, along with my late wife, Stephanie, who passed away in
a car accident a bit over a year ago.
Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to testify about the future of family farms in
America. The farm policies that guide your formulation of the
2012 Farm Bill will have a major impact on sustaining family
farms such as ours.
We are a fourth generation farm called Verratti Farms. At
the moment, my father Dan, my two brothers Daniel and Ben, and
I support our families by working on our farm. To help all of
our families do all of the work on the farm, we have seven
full-time employees and about two part-time employees. We milk
over 450 cows. This means that there about 50 cows to generate
enough income for each family that is depending on our farm for
their livelihood.
Our farm's main source of income comes from milking cows.
We feed our cows corn and hay that we grow on our own farm. In
addition, we generate cash by selling some of our corn,
soybeans and wheat. We grow these crops on about 1,400 acres of
land that our farm owns and rents.
Verratti Farms has been recognized as a dairy of
distinction for 20 years and has won various awards for the
high quality of milk we produce. Our farm has been a member of
a cooperative for decades. As our cooperative has grown, so has
the markets for our milk, both in terms of geography and in
terms of the numbers and types of customer.
For example, instead of just selling fluid milk to retail
chains in western New York, as we did successfully for decades,
nowadays our cooperative sells many different products
throughout the United States and overseas. Among these products
are traditional dairy products such as yogurt, cottage cheese,
chip dip and ice cream mix as well as a number of shelf-stable
innovative products such as sports drinks and dairy-based
alcoholic beverages. It is essential that the 2012 Farm Bill
help cooperatives and farms such as ours continue to benefit
from these growing markets for dairy products in the United
States and overseas.
The package of ideas called Foundation for the Future
achieves this goal and is the basis for the Dairy Security Act.
The package of ideas set forth in Foundation For the Future is
being supported by National Milk Producers Federation and many
others including myself, Verratti Farms, and my cooperative,
Upstate Niagara.
In my brief time with you today, I want to emphasize one of
the essential policies advocated by the Foundation for the
Future that should guide your formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill
sustaining family farms such as Verratti Farms.
Why do I care so much about sustaining family farms? Our
farm in Gasport is now supporting its fourth generation of
Verrattis. We want to stay dairy farmers and we want to stay in
Gasport. Not only is western New York our home and a great
place to live, but our family is heavily invested financially
and emotionally in this farm that has been our home for 75
years.
Financially, here are some of the keys to sustaining family
farms: In the long run, the price level of milk depends on
demand growing for dairy products in the United States and
overseas. But in the short run, from time to time, there are
bumps in the road in pricing that cause great financial and
emotional stress on family farms. Sometimes these bumps are the
price we are paid for our milk, sometimes these bumps are the
price we must pay for feed, fuel and fertilizer.
A key part of the Foundation for the Future is to focus on
the margin between milk prices and input cost such as feed.
Margin insurance that is promoted and partially subsidized by
the Federal Government would be very helpful in weathering
these bumps in the road that disrupts normal market pricing. In
fact, sometimes, as in 2009, these bumps are more like a
boulder in the field you're plowing, a seismic shake, or even a
widespread earthquake that threatens the foundation of an
entire industry. As a young dairy producer, I will never forget
the financial hardship of 2009.
However, sustaining family farms is more than a matter of
good financial policy. Sustaining family farms is a matter of
good public policy in the broadest sense of the term. We must
work to keep our farms in the communities they are in and we
must do it now.
Being widowed at the age of 26 changed my view of life and
time. Time is short. God gives us days to work as farmers and
He gives us days to work as elected officials. However, none of
us knows how long that particular opportunity will present
itself.
I want to marry again, have children, and be able to raise
those children around the farm. Members of this Committee,
please move forward with meaningful change so that I may
realize these dreams. Thank you for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Verratti follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeremy L. Verratti, Dairy and Crop Producer,
Verratti Farms, LLC, Gasport, NY
My name is Jeremy Verratti. I am a dairy and crop farmer from
Gasport, New York near Lockport.
I received my 4 year Bachelor's of Science Degree in Business
Administration from the University at Buffalo. I am a member of the
Asset Liability Committee (ALCO) at Cornerstone Community Federal
Credit Union and an active member of the Lockport Alliance Church.
I have also been a leader of the Young Cooperators program at our
dairy cooperative, Upstate Niagara, along with my late wife, Stephanie,
who passed away in a car accident a bit over a year ago.
Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity
to testify about the future of family farms in America. The farm
policies that guide your formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill will have a
major impact on sustaining family farms such as ours.
We are a fourth generation farm, called Verratti Farms. At the
moment, my father (Dan), my two brothers (Daniel and Ben), and I
support our families by working on our farm. To help our families do
all of the work on the farm, we have seven full-time employees and
about two part-time employees.
We milk over 450 cows. This means that there are about 50 cows to
generate enough income for each family that is depending on our farm
for their livelihood.
Our farm's main source of income comes from milking cows. We feed
our cows corn and hay that we grow on our own farm. In addition, we
generate cash by selling some of our corn, soybeans and wheat. We grow
these crops on about 400 acres of land that our farm owns and about
1,000 acres of land that we rent.
Verratti Farms has been recognized as a Dairy of Distinction for 20
years and has won various awards for the high quality milk we produce.
Our farm has been a member of a cooperative for decades. As our
cooperative has grown, so have the markets for our milk--both in terms
of geography and in terms of the numbers and types of customers.
For example, instead of just selling fluid milk to retail chains in
western New York as we did successfully for decades, nowadays our
cooperative sells many different products throughout the United States
and overseas. Among these products are traditional dairy products such
as yogurt, cottage cheese, chip dip, and ice cream mix, as well as a
number of shelf stable, innovative products such as sports drinks and
dairy-based alcoholic beverages.
It is essential that the 2012 Farm Bill help cooperatives and farms
such as ours continue to benefit from these growing markets for dairy
products in the United States and overseas. The package of ideas called
``Foundation for the Future'' achieves this goal and is the basis for
the Dairy Security Act.
The package of ideas set forth in Foundation for the Future is
being supported by National Milk Producers Federation and many others,
including myself, Verratti Farms, and my cooperative, Upstate Niagara.
In my brief time with you today, I want to emphasize one of the
essential policies advocated by Foundation for the Future that should
guide your formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill--sustaining family farms
such as Verratti Farms.
Why do I care so much about sustaining family farms? Our farm in
Gasport is now supporting its fourth generation of Verrattis. We want
to stay dairy farmers. And we want to stay in Gasport. Not only is
Western New York our home, and a great place to live, but our family is
heavily invested financially and emotionally in this farm that has been
our home for 75 years.
Financially, here are some of the keys to sustaining family farms.
In the long run, the price level for milk depends on demand growing
for dairy products in the United States and overseas.
But in the short run, from time to time there are bumps in the road
in pricing that cause great financial and emotional stress on family
farms. Sometimes these bumps are the price we are paid for our milk.
Sometimes these bumps are the price we must pay for feed, fuel and
fertilizer.
A key part of Foundation for the Future is to focus on the margin
between milk prices and input costs such as feed. Margin insurance that
is promoted and partially subsidized by the Federal Government would be
very helpful in weathering the bumps in the road that disrupt normal
market pricing. In fact, sometimes (as in 2009) these ``bumps'' are
more like a boulder in the field you're plowing, a small seismic shake,
or even a widespread earthquake that threatens the foundation of an
entire industry. As a young dairy producer, I will never forget the
financial hardship of 2009.
However, sustaining family farms is more than a matter of good
financial policy. Sustaining family farms is a matter of good public
policy in the broadest sense of the term. We must work to keep our
farms in the communities they are in and we must do it now.
Being widowed at the age of 26, changed my view of life and time.
Time is short. God gives us days to work as farmers and he gives us
days to work as elected officials. However, none of us knows how long
that particular opportunity will present itself. I want to marry again,
have children and be able to raise those children around the farm.
Members of this Committee, please move forward with meaningful change
so that I may realize these dreams.
Thank you for your time and attention.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Verratti.
Ms. Ledoux, whenever you're ready.
STATEMENT OF MICHELE E. LEDOUX, BEEF PRODUCER, ADIRONDACK BEEF
COMPANY, CROGHAN, NY
Ms. Ledoux. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gibson,
Congressman Owens, my Congressmen, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Michele Ledoux and I am a beef producer
from Croghan, New York.
Before I begin, I'd like to thank you for traveling to the
North Country to hold this field hearing on the farm bill. Most
people don't think of New York when they think of agriculture,
but it is one of the state's most important industries.
I'm particularly grateful that Congressman Owens and
Congressman Gibson are Members of the Agriculture Committee,
especially as Congress begins to rewrite the farm bill this
year. They are an important voice for this region, where
agriculture is the driving force of our local economy.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on issues related
to the livestock industry in upstate New York. My farm, the
Adirondack Beef Company, is located outside of Croghan. It's a
small village that may be best known as home of the American
Maple Museum. During this time of the year, you can see steam
rising from many sugar houses in and around the village.
Croghan is located in Lewis County which has twice as many cows
as people, though most are dairy with only about 800 beef cows
in the county. This is not surprising. Nationwide, New York is
the third largest dairy state, but ranks 34th for cattle
production.
With my husband Steve, son Jake, daughter Camille, our
extended family and partner Ralph Chase, we operate a natural
beef operation. We have not used any antibiotics or growth
promotants for the past 12 years. We run approximately 50
shorthorn brood cows, with an Angus bull, as a cow/calf
operation. We calve out in the spring, market the feeder calves
in the winter, and finish some for the direct-to-consumer and
restaurant markets.
Our family also raises natural lamb and pork. Our children
have their own egg-laying operations and meat-bird business.
This diversity allows us to offer a selection of meat products
that consumers want when we sell at the farmers' market.
Our farm is a member of the Pride of New York Program, the
New York State Beef Producers Association and Adirondack
Harvest, all organizations that help us with branding,
marketing and promotion of our products. Our children are
involved in both the Lewis County 4-H Youth Program and the
Beaver River FFA Program. We hope that they can stay on the
farm, but know that agriculture is a tough business for young
people who have many other opportunities. The policies that you
enact in Washington this year will help determine whether my
son can make his living as a family farmer.
As an aside, my daughter wants to be a large-animal
veterinarian, helping to fill a shortage of these professionals
in upstate farm communities. As a beef producer, I'm delighted
there will be a new veterinarian in the pipeline. For Camille's
sake, I hope you keep reauthorizing the Veterinarian Medicine
Loan Repayment Program until she's ready for it.
In addition to running our farm, both my husband and I have
full-time jobs in ag-related industries. Steve works for Shur-
Gain, an animal feed company, and I work for the local Cornell
Cooperative Extension office, for the past 26 years, where I am
currently the Executive Director of Lewis County.
I want to make it clear that I am not testifying on behalf
of Cornell University or Cornell Cooperative Extension system,
but as an independent beef producer who happens to work for
extension. My hands-on farm experience makes me a better
extension agent because I know firsthand what educational
programs, resources and support are most relevant and needed
for beef producers in our region. This is important because the
Continuing Education Programs offered through Cornell
Cooperative Extension and the New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets help us maintain a quality operation
and a competitive edge.
For example, my family has completed the Masters of Beef
Advocacy and the Beef Quality Assurance Certification Programs.
We also work with our veterinarian, Dr. Deanna Fuller, to
attain our status as a bovine viral diarrhea and Johne's-free
herd through the New York State Cattle Health Assurance
Program. This program, sponsored by Agriculture and Markets and
managed by the New York State Animal Health Diagnostic
Laboratory at Cornell, ensures that ours is a clean, certified
herd. It goes without saying that the livestock and dairy
industries rely on a comprehensive and well-funded animal
health network that conducts routine surveillance, monitoring
and research to protect our herds from outbreaks and emerging
diseases.
Research, Education and Extension Programs at land-grant
universities like Cornell are among the several farm bill
programs that are of critical importance to the New York
livestock industry. Farmers' Market Programs, that direct to
consumer market, is a very important source of income for us.
Our farm sells at the Central New York Regional Farmers' Market
in Syracuse, and we also are considering starting a Community-
Supported Ag Program to support our local sales.
We found that our consumers are willing to pay a premium
for our natural beef. The higher prices we receive in farmers'
markets allows us to cover the added costs of producing beef by
these methods. Grants from the Farmers' Market Promotion
Program to the Farmers Market Federation of New York has helped
us with training and joint marketing. It's also supported
region groups working on CSA models. In addition, cooperative
extension is involved in these efforts by providing direct
marketing training, seminars and workshops to farmers who have
no experience selling to consumers.
The Farmers Market Nutrition Program is an important source
of income and a critical resource in helping expand farmers'
markets into new areas. New York State has the most successful
FMNP Program in the country and should serve as a model for
other states.
I urge you to reauthorize and fully fund the FMNP Program
for both seniors and for WIC families. As the demand for local
food grows, farmers' markets and other forms of direct sales
have helped increase the viability and profitability of many
farms like mine. Reauthorization and expansion of these
programs should be a top priority in the farm bill.
The 2008 Farm Bill finally included Permanent Disaster
Assistance Programs that should be included, should be
continued in 2012. Farmers need some assurance of protection
when a catastrophic disaster strikes. Ad hoc assistance is too
uncertain, especially in the current budget environment in
Washington, D.C., and the state, and often takes too long to
access.
We took advantage of Disaster Programs when a drought hit
our farm a few years ago. New York State most recently had to
deal with flooding from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee
last summer. While my farm was not affected, I know many
producers in other parts of the state who lost entire crops
including forage for their herds. The New York State Soil and
Water Conservation District and Cornell Cooperative Extension
office stepped in to provide help, information and resources to
farmers and citizens.
As a beef producer, I know that the Livestock Indemnity
Program and the Emergency Livestock Assistant Program are the
most useful programs for me if disaster strikes and should be
reauthorized in the farm bill. Programs in the farm bill that
help beginning farmers as they are getting established are
important when you consider the nation's aging farmer base.
These programs provide resources, training, education, and
loans for new farmers.
I think of Casey Nelsen, an animal science major in his
junior year of college, who has been up to our farm for the
experience. He is not from a farm background but wants to farm
when he graduates. Without support of the Beginner Farmer
Programs, his barriers to entry would be difficult for him to
overcome.
Through my work with cooperative extension, we have posted
a Beef 101 series of workshops for beginner beef farmers in
such basics as vaccinations, fencing, equipment, worming and
feeding. It has been such a success that it's been replicated
in other parts of the state. The 2008 Farm Bill made the
Beginner Farmer Program a mandatory program to ensure that it
received funding every year.
As you know, all the mandatory programs are zeroed out in
the President's 2013 budget because their authorization expires
at the end of the current fiscal year. Extension and
reauthorization of this program would help provide new farmers
with the resources they need to get started. In addition,
training programs provided through the formula-based programs
like Smith-Lever for extension and Hatch for research are vital
sources of information for beginner farmers.
The Chairman. Can you summarize, Ms. Ledoux?
Ms. Ledoux. If you'll indulge me, the Department of Labor's
youth labor regulations are not technically part of the farm
bill, but several Smith-Lever Programs, including the 4-H Youth
Development and Youth Farm Safety touch on these issues, and I
ask that you think about the fact that we need to keep young
teenagers participating in education and training to address
these safety issues and those are very important. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ledoux follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michele E. Ledoux, Beef Producer, Adirondack Beef
Company, Croghan, NY
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peterson, Congressman Gibson,
Congressman Owens--my Congressman--and Members of the Committee. My
name is Michele Ledoux. I am a beef producer from Croghan, New York.
Before I begin, I'd like to thank you for traveling to the North
Country to hold this field hearing on the farm bill--most people don't
think of New York when they think of agriculture, but it is one of the
state's most important industries. I am particularly grateful that
Congressman Owens and Congressman Gibson are Members of the Agriculture
Committee, especially as Congress begins to rewrite the farm bill this
year. They are an important voice for this region, where agriculture is
the driving force of our local economy. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on issues related to the livestock industry in Upstate New
York.
My farm--the Adirondack Beef Company--is located outside of
Croghan, a small village that may be best known as the home of the
American Maple Museum. During this time of the year, you can see steam
rising from the many sugarhouses in and around the village. Croghan is
located in Lewis County, which has twice as many cows as people--though
most are dairy, with only about 800 hundred beef cows. This is not
surprising: nationwide, New York is the third largest dairy state, but
ranks 34th for cattle production.
With my husband Steve, son Jake, daughter Camille, our extended
family, and partner Ralph Chase, we operate a natural beef operation.
We have not used any antibiotics or growth promotants for the past 12
years. We run approximately 50 Shorthorn brood cows with an Angus bull
as a cow/calf operation. We calve out in the spring, market the feeder
calves in the winter, and finish some for the direct-to-consumer and
restaurant markets. Our family also raises natural lamb and pork. Our
children have their own egg laying operation and meat bird business.
This diversity allows us to offer a selection of meat products that
consumers want when we sell at farmers' markets.
Our farm is a member of the Pride of New York program, the New York
State Beef Producers Association, and Adirondack Harvest--all
organizations that help us with branding, marketing, and promotion of
our products. Our children are involved in both the Lewis County 4-H
Youth Program and the Beaver River FFA Program. We hope that they can
stay on the farm, but know that agriculture is a tough business for
young people who have many other opportunities. The policies that you
enact in Washington this year will help determine whether my son can
make his living as a family farmer. As an aside, my daughter wants to
be a large animal veterinarian, helping to fill a shortage of these
professionals in Upstate farm communities. As a beef producer, I'm
delighted that there will be a new veterinarian in the pipeline. For
Camille's sake, I hope you keep reauthorizing the Veterinary Medicine
Loan Repayment Program until she's ready for it!
In addition to running our farm, both my husband and I have full
time jobs in agriculture-related industries. Steve works for Shur-Gain,
an animal feed company, and I have worked for the local Cornell
Cooperative Extension office for the past 26 years, where I am
currently Executive Director of the Lewis County office. I want to make
it clear that I am not testifying on behalf of Cornell University or
the Cornell Cooperative Extension System, but as an independent beef
producer who happens to work for Extension. My ``hands on'' farm
experience makes me a better Extension agent, because I know firsthand
what educational programs, resources, and support are most relevant and
needed for beef producers in our region. This is important because the
continuing education programs offered through Cornell Cooperative
Extension and the NY State Department of Agriculture & Markets help us
maintain a quality operation and a competitive edge.
For example, my family and I have completed the Master of Beef
Advocacy and the Beef Quality Assurance Certification programs. We also
work with our veterinarian, Dr. Deanna Fuller, to attain our status as
a Bovine Viral Diarrhea- and Johnes-Free Herd through the New York
State Cattle Health Assurance Program. This program, sponsored by
Agriculture & Markets and managed by the New York State Animal Health
Diagnostic Laboratory at Cornell, ensures that ours is a clean,
certified herd. It goes without saying that the livestock and dairy
industries rely on a comprehensive and well-funded animal health
network that conducts routine surveillance, monitoring, and research to
protect our herds from outbreaks and emerging diseases.
Research, education, and extension programs at land-grant
universities like Cornell are among several farm bill programs that are
of critical importance to the New York livestock industry. Let me tell
you about some others:
Farmers Market Promotion Programs. The direct-to-consumer market is
a very important source of income for us. Our farm sells at the Central
New York Regional Farmers Market in Syracuse, and we are also
considering starting a Community Support Agriculture (CSA) program to
improve our local sales. We've found that our customers are willing to
pay a premium for our natural beef.
The higher prices we receive in farmers markets allow us to cover
the added costs of producing beef by these methods.
Grants from the Farmers Market Promotion Program to the Farmers
Market Federation of New York have helped us with training and joint
marketing; they have also supported regional groups working on CSA
models. In addition, Cooperative Extension is involved in these efforts
by providing direct marketing training, seminars, and workshops to
farmers who have no experience selling to consumers. The Farmers Market
Nutrition Programs is an important source of income and a critical
resource in helping expand farmers' markets into new areas. New York
State has the most successful FMNP program in the country, and should
serve as a model for other states. I urge you to reauthorize and fully
fund the FMNP program for both Seniors and for WIC families. As the
demand for local food grows, farmers markets and other forms of direct
sales have helped increase the viability and profitability of many
farms like mine. Reauthorization and expansion of these programs should
be a top priority in the farm bill.
Disaster Assistance Programs. The 2008 Farm Bill finally included
permanent disaster assistance programs that should be continued in
2012. Farmers need some assurance of protection when a catastrophic
disaster strikes. Ad hoc assistance is too uncertain--especially in the
current budget environments in Washington DC and the states--and often
takes too long to access. We took advantage of disaster programs when a
drought hit our farm a few years ago. New York State most recently had
to deal with flooding from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee last
summer. While my farm was not affected, I know many producers in other
parts of the state who lost entire crops, including forage for their
herds. The New York State Soil and Water Conservation Districts and
Cornell Cooperative Extension offices stepped in to provide help,
information, and resources to farmers and citizens. As a beef producer,
I know that the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) and Emergency
Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) are the most useful programs for
me--if disaster strikes--and should be reauthorized in the farm bill.
Beginning Farmer Programs. Programs in the farm bill that help
beginning farmers as they are getting established are important, when
you consider the nations' aging farmer base. These programs provide
resources, training, education, and loans for new farmers. I think of
Casey Nelsen, an animal science major in his junior year of college,
who has been up to help on our farm for the ``experience.'' He is not
from a farm background, but wants to farm when he graduates. Without
the support of the beginning farmer programs, the barriers to entry
would be difficult for him to overcome. Through my work with
Cooperative Extension, we have hosted a ``Beef 101'' series of
workshops for beginner beef farmers on such basics as vaccinations,
fencing, equipment, worming, and feeding. It has been such a success
that it is being replicated in other parts of the state.
The 2008 Farm Bill made the Beginning Farmer program a mandatory
program, to ensure that it received funding every year. As you know,
all the mandatory programs are ``zeroed-out'' in the President's 2013
budget because their authorization expires at the end of the current
fiscal year. Extension and reauthorization of this program will help
provide new farmers with the resources they need to get started. In
addition, training programs provided through the formula-based programs
like Smith-Lever for extension and Hatch for research, are vital
sources of information for beginning farmers.
Country-of-Origin Labeling. Country-of-Origin Labeling (``COOL'')
is an important program for both livestock producers and consumers. In
my experience with direct sales, people want to know where their food
comes from, to be sure that it is safe and healthy. Since the World
Trade Organization has ruled that COOL requirements for beef and pork
are not WTO-compliant, USDA needs to write rules that preserve the
intent of COOL while conforming to our international trade agreements.
We know that it is possible for COOL to be WTO-compliant, because other
countries have successfully instituted COOL programs. Even apart from
the farm bill, it is important that Congress instruct USDA to fix the
problems with the U.S. system as soon as possible, so that producers
across the country aren't harmed by retaliatory tariffs from Canada and
Mexico.
Youth Labor Regulations. Although the Department of Labor's youth
labor regulations are not technically part of the farm bill, several
Smith-Lever programs--including 4-H Youth Development and Youth Farm
Safety--touch on these issues. If you will indulge me, I would like to
tell you that the Labor Department's recent proposal to change the
youth agricultural labor regulations threatens the operations of family
farms. Youth safety on farms--because of the Smith-Lever programs I
mentioned--has been improving.
The DOL's proposal, however, cuts at the heart of family tradition
by preventing young people from working on their family's farm. My
children have been in the barn with us doing chores and learning
responsibility since they were young. We have taught them how to work
safely around machines and animals, so that they have grown up to be as
safety-conscious as my husband and I. As a farm mother, I can tell you
that the best way to ensure a future generation of farmers is to teach
them safety while they are young, so that it becomes a lifelong habit.
DOL's proposal, however, will prevent young teenagers from
participating in the education and training programs that have been
developed specifically to address safety issues. For example, the
Cornell Cooperative Extension 4-H program sponsors a Tractor Safety
Program each spring in many New York counties to teach young teenagers
how to operate farm equipment safely. My 15 year old son will be taking
the program this year. These are the kinds of educational programs that
need to be supported and continued.
Conclusion. In conclusion, I know that you will be faced with many
difficult decisions as you write the farm bill this year. Mr. Chairman,
I'd like to thank you and the Committee--especially Mr. Owens and Mr.
Gibson--for giving me the chance to tell you about some of the programs
that have helped my family and me run a successful beef operation in
Upstate New York. I hope that you will take these views into
consideration as you move forward.
I would be please to answer any questions you have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Probably a good way to start this give-and-take questioning
is to observe something that really comes clear in Ms. Ledoux's
comments, and that is the challenges of the budget process.
If we just were to extend the existing farm bill for
another 5 years, we would be about $9 billion short. In the way
the previous farm bill was put together, there was not a
permanent stream of funding for all programs, as she correctly
noted, and a number of those programs are not funded, even if
the authorization is in force, we have that challenge.
We also will be spending less money on the next farm bill,
whether it's the $23 billion reduction in spending compared to
the previous farm bill that was agreed to by the principals of
the Agriculture and Senate Committee or the President's $32
million proposed reduction, or the $40+ billion reduction
suggested last year by the House Budget Committee, we'll have
less money to spend. So that makes our challenges tougher
trying to be responsible and keep the good things.
That said, I must note, Ms. Ledoux, I'm always happy to see
a fellow shorthorn producer, someone who is working also very
hard to address some of the diseases and genetic issues, not
just within our breed but within all breeds. That's responsible
stewardship and that's part of our responsibilities.
I would first start by asking this question, and my
colleagues who served on these panels with me for a number of
years know that by my nature as an ag economist, a western
Okie, there are a few fundamental things I'm always very
curious about. Can you tell me, for just a moment, about land
prices in your particular areas, the farmland? Up, down,
sideways, it's all being bought by developers? Just a quick
observation.
Mr. Ooms. Well, I'm in Kinderhook, which is just south of
Albany. I can be parked at the Statue of Liberty in 2 hours on
a Sunday morning.
The Chairman. Oh, my goodness.
Mr. Ooms. Land prices are down in our area, but land and
farm land are not necessarily the same thing. But farm land
that's developable is way down and some farm land, a good tract
of farm land in our neighborhood, beautiful, it's great soil,
about 80 percent tillable, went for $4,500 an acre. And there
is some other land, if it's preserved and the development
rights extinguished, you're talking between a $1,000 and $2,000
an acre. That's what I would pay. I don't know exactly what
others would pay. So, but land values are down because that
$4,500 in 2008 would have been--$10,000 would have been pretty
much in the ball park.
The Chairman. Anyone else wish to comment?
Mr. Rea. I'd like to make a comment. It depends pretty
specifically on the region. We have an area just 30 miles away
where it seems to be quite popular to have a lot of horse
farms, and it's certainly escalated the value of land there.
Our land right in our particular Washington County is pretty
stable. We've--we've purchased farm land for about the same
price recently as we did 10 years ago.
Mr. Verratti. Not a lot of development pressure, but I know
in our neck of the woods, in Niagara County, open ag land is
limited. So open agriculture land, the rents are on their way
up. As far as the prices in our particular county for purchase,
they range between $2,000 and $3,000, depending on the quality
of the acreage, but seem to be heading up in correlation with
soybean and corn prices.
Ms. Ledoux. Obviously, I'm in a more rural county, and it's
about $800 to $1,000 for tillable land.
The Chairman. Fair enough.
For those of you who deal with the crop side of the
equation, and we'll talk about dairy in just a moment, tell me
your opinions, your observations about what you hear in regards
to how present crop insurance works and where you'd like to go
on the crop side.
Mr. Ooms. Personal--personal opinion, we signed up for the
catastrophic coverage that FSA requires and maybe someday we'll
figure out the rest of it. So we don't really worry about it.
The Chairman. Understandable answer. Yes.
Mr. Rea. We have not used crop insurance in the past just
because there would have to be a catastrophic loss to get a
third of what you would lose, and we just haven't thought that
that was a fair exchange for the premiums.
Mr. Verratti. We do--the premiums seem to be cheap enough
for us for catastrophic--the cat insurance that we have been
signing up for it. Actually, particularly this year, roughly 2
weeks ago, we had a crop insurance rep come in from ADM, and we
are looking at it. It seems to be, because of the subsidy on
that crop insurance, it seems to be very reasonable and at some
lower reasonable levels for production on the crops side, we
are looking at going in that direction.
As far as the other sort of programs and payments, direct
and countercyclical payments, not a big deal. They seem to be a
drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things with the
increase in crop income. They don't seem to be very effective.
It's money, we'll take it, but it's not a game changer.
The Chairman. With that, my time has expired. I would now
recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
let me just say that each of your testimony has been very, very
interesting and very, very informative.
I'd like to touch upon a couple of areas that I'm equally
vitally concerned about, and that is the threats to our family
farms. And I think each of you are certainly, you Mr. Verratti
and Ms. Ledoux, I hope I pronounced that right, mentioned that.
What are the one or two major threats that you see right now to
the existence of our family farms? I think you went into a
couple of those, but just for the record.
Mr. Verratti. I'll go ahead and go first. That's a great
question, Congressman Scott. I would say the two top for me
would be milk pricing, which I addressed in my testimony. More
specifically, the margin between your--the income from the milk
and the expenses. I do the books. I'm kind of the account
manager at the farm, which sometimes has caused me to grind my
teeth, but it's been a generally good experience. But you're
always going to have your labor and--and your feed at the very
top of your expenses, so that's why there's so much discussion
between the income from milk and the cost of feed. That margin
is very, very important.
Second thing would be regulation. I'd like to see less
regulation on small businesses in general in this country,
especially farms. For us specifically, we put a lot of money
last year into CAFO, getting ourselves in line as far as
regulations between manure quality, manure water quality, and
these types of things.
And I just want to continue to make the point that dairy
farmers and farmers in general were the original recyclers. We
invented sustainability, if I dare say so myself. We take a
not-so-nice product from the back end of a cow and reuse it and
make crops and--and move forward that way. And it's an
important thing and I don't want to see that stifled by high,
high amounts of regulation.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Let me ask you real quickly
about the Labor Department's proposed regulation dealing with
child labor, I know that they put a parental exemption into it.
Tell me what effect would this regulation, this new rule by the
Labor Department regulating child labor affect a family farm?
Mr. Verratti. It would definitely affect it. You saw in my
testimony I look forward to raising my kids, God willing, on
the farm. I was raised, I worked on the farm, I lived right on
the farm since--my entire life. I would love to see that
regulation go away just because I think it's a great way to
train kids how to work, and to show them the business and to
teach them a great work ethic.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now one of the things that
we're looking at in this new farm bill is to be able to, in
addition to our research grants that we give to our
universities and colleges, that we can put some language in
there that would allow some of this money to go into
scholarships to give the young people who would go into
agriculture related areas, which I think would be very helpful.
Would that be helpful?
Mr. Verratti. That would be fantastic, sir. I would love
that.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And before my time goes up, Ms.
Ledoux, you--you--you made an interesting comment of you don't
use antibiotics.
Ms. Ledoux. Correct.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And what's the result of that?
That's--I mean, how do you treat your sick animals?
Ms. Ledoux. First of all, we run a--a Vaccination Program
for our animals, so we are--just like you would vaccinate your
children, we vaccinate our cows. And so we have been very
fortunate, that we look at our animals. We see them every day.
And if we do have an animal that is sick, we will treat it with
antibiotics, but we pull it out of the general population. And
so it's not something that we would sell to our consumers.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So----
Ms. Ledoux. So I would not let that animal die----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Right.
Ms. Ledoux.--if it needed antibiotics.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, I get a feeling that you
may sense that there's something wrong with using antibiotics?
Ms. Ledoux. No, absolutely not. I think, you know what?
Everybody needs to do what is good for them. Our consumers
would prefer animals that are antibiotic-free and no growth
hormones.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Right.
Ms. Ledoux. And so that meets our consumers that we deal
with. There's nothing wrong with using antibiotics.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Very good. And Mr. Ooms, you
mentioned in your testimony about EQIP, which I think is an
extraordinarily important program that we've got to give
incentives to ranchers and farmers so that we can keep the
animal waste out of our rivers and streams.
What impact do you believe would have if we cut--because
there is a feeling in the new farm bill, as the Chairman
mentioned, budgetary--and I mentioned in my opening comments,
budgetary restraints, and there's a uniform figure maybe we
have to cut things by ten percent. What would cutting the
incentives by ten percent, what effect would that have on this
excellent program?
Mr. Ooms. Sure. If I could just, I have a 4 year old and a
2 year old, and when my--when I was a kid--as far as the
Department of Labor regulations, when I was a kid, my dad would
take me on a Massey-Harris 33 with just the steel fenders, and
you held on for dear life.
My 4 year old goes with me on our 4850 John Deere, which is
a 30 year old tractor with a cab, and I wouldn't even dare to
take him on the other tractor. According to the Department at
Labor regulations, my kids could--I realize mine are really
small. I'm probably not legal anyway. But--the point--the point
is, that they couldn't be on any power--they couldn't use any
power equipment. That's a big concern.
As far as EQIP, on our farm, the reason why EQIP is great
is because we have--we are--we milk 400 cows and therefore we
are a medium-sized CAFO in New York. New York has some of the
leading CAFO rules in the country, and we've done a lot of
storage and management, nutrient management on our farm. And
EQIP has helped pay for the cash investment, but we've had a 50
percent sweat investment in what--and some cash of our own. We
just wouldn't be able to do some of these things because we're
protecting everyone's environment, it's everyone's investment.
And while we want a good environment, some of these things are
reasonable, but we talk about profitability all the time, that
if we had profitability, then we wouldn't need EQIP.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So the bottom line is a ten
percent cut, if we did that, would have a very devastating
impact?
Mr. Ooms. Yes, and I consciously mentioned EQIP in my
testimony, but not any other funding for that reason, because
EQIP is important.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you--thank you Mr. Chairman, and I
want to thank you for bringing the Committee to this beautiful
part of New York State and it's a pleasure to be here. When I
was Chairman of the Committee, prior to the writing of the last
farm bill, we held a hearing in New York, but it was much
further west, in the Finger Lakes region, and so it's great to
see this part of New York. And such a great turn out here, too.
This is a really good response from folks interested in
agriculture here in New York.
I want to say that, as has already been said, the financial
pressures on the Agriculture Committee, in fact on the entire
Congress, with regard to our entire budget with the fourth year
in a row now that we're going to have deficits in excess of a
trillion dollars, will--of necessity mean that we will have
fewer resources when we work on this farm bill. So I want to
focus on some of the things that we can do that, either don't
cost as much money or cost some money but replace programs that
might cost a lot more.
One of those areas was mentioned by Mr. Scott and was
mentioned by Ms. Ledoux, and just a--a moment ago by Mr. Ooms,
and that's regulatory issues. I just introduced this--this week
legislation to halt the effort of the EPA that affects some
parts of New York, again, further west from here, but also the
other five states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which
includes my district in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, from
usurping power from the states and imposing mandatory
regulations in an area where the states have made considerable
progress in reducing sedimentation and phosphorus and nitrogen
going into the Bay and attempting to replace that with mandates
for which they've done no cost-benefit analysis and no effort
to make sure that this will actually help the Bay in any
significant way. Which we certainly want to the do, but not at
the expense of, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, an estimated
$16 billion in cost to the state, to localities, to farmers, to
other businesses, home builders, and so on.
All of that is very important as are some of the other
regulations we talked about here. But we can't do some of those
things in the farm bill, because of the fact jurisdiction, for
example, with the Chesapeake Bay, rests primarily with other
committees. So we'll be working with Members in those
committees to push forward on that.
But in the farm bill, I want to ask what each of you do
with regard to risk management. What kind of risk management
practices, if any, do you currently implement in your dairy
operations, in your beef cattle operation?
We'll start and go right down the room.
Mr. Ooms. Well, like I said earlier, we--we have the
catastrophic coverage just because it's so cheap and you have
to do it to get any program of any--any kind. But essentially,
what we do for risk management is we have our corn spread out
over 12 miles, so therefore the rainfall--we basically self-
insure on that. And we always try to have a buffer of feed from
year to year. And, for instance, this year we're selling less
feed because we didn't have as much feed from last year.
And I mentioned in my testimony building a dryer and grain
storage. That's a cushion for our dairy farm. One of the things
that, in the dairy industry, with higher feed prices, there's
an opportunity for us in the Northeast to grow our own crops,
because we have natural rainfall, so we self-insure.
Mr. Goodlatte. Do you use the RMA's Livestock Gross Margin
Program?
Mr. Ooms. No. And the only--the--the honest answer is no.
And the reason why not is because it's so--I've heard the
horror stories about trying to get into it. There is some real
opportunity there, but--we have friends that have been in line.
I have a friend that's a broker. He has 40 clients he was
trying to get it for. This is somebody who does it
professionally. He had 40 people in line, he got number one and
number two on his priority list and that was it. So we are
interested in that, but we haven't bothered because----
Mr. Goodlatte. Okay. If you would address that too, Mr.
Rea, and we'll go right down the row here, but I'm only going
to be able to ask because of----
Mr. Rea. Sure. Thank you. For risk management, we do
forward contracting with either fuel or grain, depending on
what the market situation is. We also have had a program in the
past with--through our cooperative where we could forward
contract some of our milk, but as far as LGM, we've not used
that. And we do not use the futures market on selling our milk.
Mr. Verratti. We do forward contract some of our expenses
as far as some of input cost on feed, also at some point fuel.
And we have forward contracted with a small program just simply
through our dairy cooperative on roughly ten percent of what we
produce. We did that in 2009 and 2010.
However, as far as the RMA's Livestock Gross Margin
Insurance Program, the complexity is there and I--I'm a guy
that likes computers. I'm 27. I'd love to watch markets all
day, but I have a dairy farm to run. And some of this stuff--I
don't feel like paying people high amounts of money to consult
on these different things to figure these programs out. So if
it's simple and the premiums are reasonable, I'll use it.
Mr. Goodlatte. Ms. Ledoux?
Ms. Ledoux. Obviously I talked about the Livestock
Indemnity Program, the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program.
And they're available for beef producers if they need them. And
you know, we had a lot of issues here in New York State that
happened this past summer, and Soil and Water, and Cooperative
Extension was there to assist people.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This area of insurance is very complex unfortunately, but
it also is an area where, because you can have participation by
both the government with some of the cost of it and the
producer with some of the cost, it may well be the fairest way
to spread risk over a wide area with a lot fewer resources
moving ahead. So we're going to have to devote a lot of effort
to making it work in a fairer and more open and, I would say
simple, but I know how complex it is because each crop is
different in each part of the county, and people raise
livestock differently in different places and the weather
conditions are different in different places. So it will be a
real challenge, but I think that's where we need to focus.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo Mr. Goodlatte's comments, that I'm glad my
colleagues have gotten to see such a beautiful part of the
world as part of their farm bill hearing adventure for this
year.
Mr. Ooms, I have to say that your comment, ``import labor
or import food,'' I think that that's an extraordinarily
succinct description of the crisis that we face in the farm
labor area, and we would certainly like to have your permission
to use that on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Ooms. It's not copyrighted.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you.
A question to Mr. Ooms and to Mr. Verratti. We've talked a
little bit about issues related to regulation. My question is:
How do we strike a balance between the regulatory issues and,
if you will, preserving clean water and other environmental
issues? It seems to me that that's where we should be trying to
go, is to reach a balance, and I'm wondering if you have any
specific suggestion that you could offer to us that would help
us reach that balance?
Mr. Ooms. Go first.
Mr. Verratti. Make it simple. If we can keep the water
clean, the manure where it should be, I think everybody will be
happy.
Mr. Owens. My question is: How do you do that? I really
want to know what you would recommend to actually accomplish
that goal?
Mr. Verratti. You're very quickly going to get above my pay
grade, but the--the programs that are here now, we are very
close to CAFO compliant on our farm. That program seems to
work. We seem to see the benefits of the implementation as far
as keeping some of the runoff from our silage piles where it
should be, keeping the manure where it should be and not mixing
with rainwater, these types of things.
But we need to be able to spread manure on our fields and
use that as fertilizer, and we need to have a place to go with
it. And we desire to see the water clean and a lot of the other
resources clean, but the--the regulation that we hear rumors of
seems to be way more than that. So I guess what I'm saying is,
the way--the things we're seeing in New York, as far as this
specific system, seem to be okay. Much more regulation, way
beyond the money that we should be spending, is more than I
want to pay for.
Mr. Ooms. I personally think, and we've had the opportunity
in New York to, out of necessity, we've worked with a lot of
environmental organizations to try to find ways we can get to
the same place, because everybody wants clean water. But
everybody also needs to eat, okay? And there's a mentality--I
won't get specific. There's a mentality in some places in
Washington, at EPA, what the heck, that the environment is for
the environment and then ag is for the ag guys. And the fact
is, we live in the environment and we need the environment. We
have to protect the environment.
As far as specific issues, I'm not trying to shill for a
specific program, but EQIP has worked because our nutrient
management plan, our CAFO situation, we didn't have to do CAFO,
but we're to the point, like Verratti's, we're getting to the
point where we need to. We have a nutrient management plan.
There's a lot of things that we were doing already, we just put
them on paper.
But the fact of the matter is now, we always learn things
when you do these types of things, but it cost time and money
and effort, and just working through that process has been
great. So I would hold up EQIP just because it's something
we've talked about already and it really has had--everyone has
skin in the game.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
Mr. Rea, you testified that dairy farmers support the Dairy
Security Act in the range of 80 percent. I'm curious as to
where that statistic comes from?
Mr. Rea. National Milk Producers Federation represents 31
dairy cooperatives, and we think that that's about 80 percent
of the total U.S. supply of milk.
Mr. Owens. And do you think that if that were implemented
that that would in effect give adequate stability to milk
prices?
Mr. Rea. I think the market stabilization plan, we have to
realize that we all, now, from the discussions this morning,
that we in our own industries have to take active roles in how
we see the future playing out. And I think if dairy farmers
take an active role in stabilizing the market, then I think we
can make this work.
Certainly, it's a lot different than what we've been
accustomed to, with paying premiums for the insurance program,
but if we can make the stabilization part of it work, I think
we can be successful. There are no rules in there that say you
have to reduce your production, but one way or another, if we
can't bring the market into a balance with the supply, then
we're going to be facing issues that we faced in 2009.
Mr. Owens. Does anyone on the panel have any contrary view?
I want to see if there's anybody who fits in the 20 percent.
Mr. Ooms. I would just say as long as the supply management
portion is voluntary, it's up to that farm to figure out what
they want to do. I have concerns if it's mandatory, though my
family has no intention to milk more cows. But if it's
voluntary, you're going to get a Margin Insurance Program
that's going to be subsidized on some level. That's a carrot-
and-stick approach and seems like a reasonable middle ground.
Mr. Verratti. So much focus has been on milk price and
we've seen in various years price be pretty nice and yet
expenses be well over that. So changing it from price focus to
margin focus is a big, big part of the Dairy Security Act.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
Ms. Ledoux, I'm sorry, but my time has expired. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Conaway. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and it's great to
be here. I want to thank the Chamber of Commerce for last
night's snow. You may not be all that keen on it. We've had 19
inches in west Texas, which was stunningly unusual and I missed
all of it. So it's great to see the 1 inch of snow out there. I
appreciate being here.
Mr. Verratti, I'm a CPA by background, and so your angst
with the business side of it is understandable. If we go to a
Margin Insurance Program, is there a standard definition of
margin, and can you walk me through what you believe, each of
you, what components go into margin, in determining that?
Mr. Verratti. To me, it's between the milk price we're
being paid and the expense below that. Now the common one is
feed, because that's generally the top. The big 3--my two
biggest expenses are, everyday in the dairy, are labor and
feed. So that's why they generally use that--and my definition
would be between feed and some of the other high expenses and
between the actual milk price we're getting paid.
Mr. Conaway. But what are some of those other high
expenses? I mean, do you amortize or depreciate the cost of
your equipment?
Mr. Verratti. Yes, equipment is a big one. The big ones for
us are--fuel is huge, and we know that's going to be even
bigger this year. Fertilizer for our crops. We are cash
cropping some, but remember a lot of that fertilizer is being
used to grow crops to feed our dairy cows.
Mr. Conaway. Now would you want the regulations to require
that that be netted against your--your margins so that your--
Mr. Owens talked about complicating regulations and this gets
complicated--trying to figure out how you insure a margin, if
there's no common definition of margin among the industry.
Mr. Verratti. The difficulty is going to be, sirs, when you
get into places, like I--I have a good friend in Arizona. He's
buying in a lot more feed than I am. I can grow a lot of my
feed here.
Mr. Conaway. Right.
Mr. Verratti. So the difficulty is going to be when you go
across the nation, the difficulties from state to state or from
region to region.
Feed is a pretty good one in that, excuse me, purchased
feed, because everybody needs to feed their dairy cows. As far
as fertilizer, fuel, some of these other expenses, some of
these places aren't using feed and fertilizer, they're buying
all their feed in a truckload.
Mr. Conaway. Sure. I represent a bunch of processors as
well, and so obviously there's push back from those guys who--
and they say they represent the consumer, those kind of things.
So as we walk through this change in--in this policy, most of
us on the dais have friends on both sides of this issue and we
generally try to stick with our friends. And so that's as about
as funny as a CPA is going to get.
So as we walk this path, your relationship with your
processors is going to be an important tool as well.
A couple of you mentioned using forward contracting. The
CFTC, of which our Committee has jurisdiction of oversight for,
has recently been writing extensive rules to implement the
Dodd-Frank Act that affects commodities. And have you yet been
seeing an increase in your cost or lack of availability, or
have your folks that you're working with been communicating to
you at all about what the impact the CFTC's new regulations are
having on your ability to manage risks with the forward
contracts?
Mr. Verratti. In regards to your first comment, I'm
involved with both a co-op and a processor all in one, and I am
willing to be your friend. Even though you're a CPA, I'm
willing to be your friend.
No, all kidding aside, as far as the--the fix forward
pricing within our co-op, that was a free program. It was
simply, I believe, somebody who wanted to purchase milk from
our cooperative or processor, depending on how you look at the
definition, at an even keel throughout the year, so that was
not something as far as this--this Gross Margin Program that
you're discussing, so I would have no premiums from that. This
program seemed to be complex for me at the time.
Mr. Conaway. Mr. Rea, you mentioned--I'm sorry, Mr. Rea,
you mentioned you forward contracted as well. Any impact from
the CFTC's new rules?
Mr. Rea. No, I don't think that affects our forward
contracting of corn or fuel, but I have seen no impact.
Mr. Conaway. Well, it hasn't been implemented yet, so it's
still just a proposal for the most part, and I didn't know if
you had been warned yet about any increases in your cost of
doing business?
Mr. Rea. I have not.
Mr. Conaway. Okay. Mr. Ooms?
Mr. Ooms. I just said we self-insure, but we do forward
contract fuel and feed. I thought you were talking about USDA
programs earlier. And we haven't--the only thing I have heard,
the only concern I've heard, is to make sure that we are
looking at it from a basis of, we're using this product on our
farm and there's some talk about having a reserve for whatever
you forward contract. And our deal has always been, we contract
our urea always in December for delivery sometime in the
spring, usually March, April, May. And we pay it as we get it,
cash on delivery.
I've heard that there's some talk, and if I'm stepping into
a highly, hot issue, so be it, some talk about us having to
back whatever we book. That would be a concern because we book
feed sometimes 13, 16 months out and we don't have the cash on
hand to pay for it. The urea is a little different because it's
for the coming year. But I think part of the key is if you're
an end-user of product, let us use it.
Mr. Conaway. Our Subcommittee, which has regulatory
jurisdiction and the Chairman of the full Committee will try to
make sure the end-users are not impacted by these new
regulations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now turns to the gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, for her 5
minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, too, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Owens, for welcoming us to their
region of the country. And thank you all, really, for being
here in this room and--and for all of the people who have come
to testify. Really articulate, useful commentary for all of us,
so thank you very much.
I'm from Maine which has a small number of dairy producers,
but pricing and margin issues are just as important to all of
us and a huge concern, so I really appreciate the thoughts that
you've brought to us today. But I want to address a slightly
different issue. I'm interested in the local food and farming
aspect of this.
I've introduced a title to the farm bill. It's got about 70
cosponsors, both--some on the Agriculture Committee, but a lot
of people from around the country, all different regions, where
people are seeing this huge growth in the interest in the
market; both what consumers are interested in and then the
opportunities available to farmers who sell more of their
produce and dairy products and value-added products locally. So
I want to address a few questions around that.
I--as I said, I come from Maine, and because of this
interest, we've seen the average age of our farmer going down
and the number of farms and production growing up--going up. So
to us it looks like a huge opportunity.
I'll ask Ms. Ledoux a couple of questions, but if any of
the rest of you are also interested in this, please feel free
to comment.
You mentioned in your testimony that you sell at the
Central New York Regional Farmers' Market, but you're also
considering starting a CSA, and that, for me, is particularly
interesting. Can you tell us a little about some of the
barriers that you face in your production in terms of scaling
up? Are there other problems you deal with, with marketing
chains or distribution networks in terms of expansion?
Ms. Ledoux. We brand our meat in the sense that it's
natural, and so we just decided that moving from doing the
farmers' market, which has been great, but it ties up a
Saturday. And so I have a 12 year old and a 15 year old at home
who are very active on the farm, but we thought that the next
step for us was to do a community supported ag, which would
allow us to have them be involved in the farm, but not tie up
every Saturday going to a farmers' market. And that's really
why we felt the next move for us was to do the community
supported ag.
We have a good following down at the farmers' market down
in Syracuse that are very interested in that, and they would
like to have a steady supply of our meat and the other things
that we could offer them, the eggs and things like that. So we
just thought that was the next step up that worked out very
well for our farm.
Ms. Pingree. Anyone else on that?
Mr. Ooms. Just about that you mentioned the Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program, we have a lot of neighbors who participate
and we are actually looking into the potential, being so close
to New York City. That is always identified as something. It's
just amazing how many people are using that to purchase food at
markets. So I just know that from all my friends and neighbors
who participate, that that is a key program.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Great, certainly.
Mr. Rea. I'd like to follow up a little bit. We're a little
bit of a different animal, being a cooperative, but we've found
the ability to have 1,200 of our members be farmer owned with
our great Cabot brand and we get into stores with our farmers
and they hand out samples. And we have a great relationship
with our retailers, and it all comes from this farmer-owned and
grassroots part of it.
Mr. Verratti. Yes, and I would echo that. I love local--and
people in our community that know me, that see me at church or
at other organizations love to buy our product, talk to me
about it, and I can educate on it--on it some, and--and it's a
great relationship.
Ms. Pingree. Thanks.
Ms. Ledoux. And I guess if I was to follow up, people truly
want to know where their food is coming from. They want to talk
directly to that farmer. They want to look them in the face and
they want to say, I bought this product from you. I want to
know that you grew it or you raised it, and you took care of it
from the beginning to where it was processed and--and brought
that--you know, whatever that is, if it's a vegetable or it's
meat, that they know that you were the one that was involved in
it. And we can do that.
Ms. Pingree. That's great. The chair mentioned that one of
the big issues we're dealing with is budgetary constraints and
what this new farm bill will look like. And I guess my
particular interest is in figuring out, given the fact that
this is where a lot of growth in the market is, where farmers
are seeing huge opportunities, how do we make sure that some of
the programs you've already been talking about, are there and
available to farmers who want to expand into this market as
we're sort of balancing out where our budgetary challenges are.
So are there other things that you think, and I know some
of them have already been mentioned today, even programs like
EQIP or Farm Credit, are certainly critical, but in my brief
time available, anything else you want to throw in there that
you just think, when it comes to helping farmers sell more
locally, is of great advantage?
Ms. Ledoux. I mean, I guess I'm going--I'm going to put in
my plug for Cooperative Extension and the Hatch Programs
because they are directly working with farmers. They are
directly out there talking with them. We are working with them,
if it's telling them how to put in their vegetables, how to
work with a small beef operation.
I mean, the reality is most beef operations in the United
States are 20 cows, and New York State lends itself to that
size operations. They're talking to them about doing rotational
grazing. They're talking with them about having a small
livestock operation, whether it's sheep or hogs, and people
want to get involved with that kind of direct marketing.
Mr. Ooms. Applied research. Very simply, the Specialty Crop
Block Grant is relatively new. It was an 2008 Farm Bill or the
one before. And realize, you only have so much money in the
world, you can't reinvent the wheel. But for future reference,
I served on the New York Farm Viability Institute board and
it's a farmer-led group that helps divvy up applied research
dollars. And a lot of the grants that we're giving out are for
new concepts or new ways even to help everyone though, but to
help find new ways to skin the cat, I guess. So anything on
applied research is always good because states have problems
too.
Ms. Pingree. Thanks. I think I'm out of time. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gibson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gibson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my colleagues
for being here today and to say that this has been a very
productive hearing already. In addition to what you've
communicated this morning, we have detailed written statements
from all of you and that's all going to be part of the record
as we work through the farm bill for 2012, and I want to focus
in on profitability.
We've hit on this in a number of different dialogues, but
I'd like to have the opportunity to get you on the record in
some areas that I think would also potentially help with
profitability. As I look at it--and of course I'm biased--I
think we've got the smartest, hardest working farmers in the
world.
It's not an issue of knowledge. It's not an issue of work
ethics. You guys work 24/7 and so we, I think it's incumbent
upon us to really be looking at ways that we can ease the
burden on you and to look to ways to facilitate your
profitability. So let me throw out a few areas and then the
panel can really just follow up. This is an opportunity to get
you on the record.
Regulations, specifically CAFO, if you have recommendations
on how that might be revised. Conservation, tremendous way for
us to balance, ensuring that we bequeath future generations an
environment that we can be proud of at the same time that we're
helping you with your profitability.
We've mentioned EQIP here this morning. Might there be
other ways to administer it? Is it best done in the NRCS or
might we consider perhaps the FSA to administer that?
We haven't talked too much about the Farmer-Rancher
Protection Program, but I can tell you in our district this is
really a valued program that has helped us on that score.
Energy, are there ways--certainly we talked about margin,
we talked about price for milk and how much you profit in the
end, and energy has a certain component of this. And there have
been programs, particularly with the photovoltaic and anaerobic
digester, are these worthy and should we continue, and do you
have recommendations on that end?
Broadband, we're working really hard to expand rural
broadband. Is that helping? And do you have recommendations on
that? And finally, markets. Is there anything specific,
creative ideas that you have that may help get your product out
to other areas that, all of this inclining towards
profitability. I'll throw that open to the panel.
Mr. Rea. I'll take the first stab. Thank you for the
question.
Regulations, it just so happens that our farm is bumping
right up against an area where we need to invest heavily in
CAFO, and we are reluctant to do that and I think that's
probably tempering our growth. You go from 200 cows to 201
cows, all of a sudden you have to invest hundreds of thousands
of dollars in--into the CAFO.
If we could phase this in somehow, Congressman Gibson, to--
I mean, 20 cows isn't going to cover this cost of the CAFO, and
we are in an area which, disappointing, has very little EQIP
funds available. So everything has kind of taken on a new
perspective when you have to pay for everything, whether you
get any help or not through the government. And I'm not looking
for help from the government, but I'm looking for ways where we
can phase into this.
We're seeing attrition in the dairy industry, so we know
that we need to have increased production from farms that are
going to be viable. And if there's a way we can kind of move
into this, you know. We--we have dug a manure pit. We did it
with our own excavator. And if you get 201 cows, you got to
have an engineer that's going to engineer that manure pit. Our
pit holds more, and you know, we need just a little common
sense here as we go forward into it, because we would like to
produce milk for the future and be profitable.
Mr. Verratti. He's exactly right about, and I'll just talk
about it, as far as CAFO. There's no doubt you're tempering
growth with that--with that regulation just because it costs a
lot more money, you get to certain sizes. I'm not sure what
they are exactly, but I know that we're a medium CAFO, so we're
going to have different regulations than--than Mr. Rea. So
those regulations, all things shared, they cost money.
So EQIP's a help, it's definitely--it's a program we've
received money from. It's definitely a help. But it's difficult
when you need such a large organization to ``bury'' some of
those costs to be able to move on with productivity and
profitability. So that's important.
And you mentioned markets. I just think it's very important
to allow us to continue to export as a nation. We need to be
sending this milk overseas. We believe we have the most
nutritious, best product in the world. And we want to be
sending it out along with our--along with our discussion
earlier about allowing it go to local markets also.
Mr. Ooms. It's pretty--I try to answer questions, but that
was pretty open-ended, so it's probably intended that way.
I just want the panel to know that Congressman Gibson,
before he was actually elected, said he wanted to spend time on
a farm. And he's about, what, 3 miles from our place, so he
came at quarter to 4:00 one morning and he ran the gamut. He
milked cows and then he came back a couple months later
because, he said, well, we milked cows with the machine, but I
want to practice milking one manually because I'm in a cow
milking contest. So we've got--I was going to bring the
pictures for you, but we'll keep them for another time.
As far as--I guess from my family's perspective is, we try
to be reasonable. We try to work with people. And we have a
Right To Farm Law in New York that says we have a right to farm
in certain areas. That doesn't mean we have a right to do
whatever we want. We still need to be a good neighbor. And I
guess I just can't get over all the different regulations that
come upon us.
And the one that really gets me is: I make a choice to stay
home on the farm. Somebody said earlier, they didn't get paid,
I think it was the Chairman talking earlier about he didn't get
paid until he went to work for someone else. And you know, I
don't know if I should admit this or not, but I was 30 before I
got paid on the farm. And it was only because I said to my dad,
``Dad, I'm thinking about getting married here. So I'm going to
be moving out. So I'm going to need to get paid.''
And so my whole purpose of doing this was so I could--my
kids could have the opportunities that I've had. And this is
just one example. We are incorporated because that's just what
makes sense for our business, so my kids legally couldn't work
on the farm.
Now, whoever is enforcing this, Hilda Solis can come and
pry my kids out of the farm and barn all they want. We're going
to do it until they do that. But just let us have the
opportunity to be--and again, we want to work with the people.
You mentioned--I could go on for hours.
This is my last point, is: You mentioned the Chesapeake,
the clean up of the Chesapeake, and see you're coming at it
from a southern vantage point. I'll give the northern vantage
point.
Our New York State DEC, which we in ag and DEC don't always
get along, it's saying to me, that we could remove all human
life forms from the Chesapeake Bay area that New York--just
covered in New York, I think it's 21 counties. It's a good
swath. Not where I am. They could remove all human life form
and the water still won't be clear, clean enough. You know,
let's use a little common sense. And you know, again, none of
us want dirty water, so I'll just--there you go.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The time
for the first panel has expired. And I might note, Mr. Ooms,
you could actually be an Okie if you want to come live with us
some day too, by the way.
Mr. Ooms. No way.
The Chairman. With that, the Committee would like to thank
the first panel for your insightful presentations and the
questions and your answers, and you're dismissed. And we will
ask the second panel to prepare to come forward.
The Chairman. We will now hear from our second panel of
witnesses.
Mr. Eckhardt, whenever you're prepared, please begin.
STATEMENT OF LARRY ECKHARDT, VEGETABLE, FIELD CROP, AND BEEF
PRODUCER; PRESIDENT, KINDERHOOK CREEK FARM, INC., STEPHENTOWN,
NY
Mr. Eckhardt. Well, good morning, and thank you, Chairman
Lucas, and other Members of the Committee for being here, and
thank you for inviting me to offer some comments and ideas
regarding the 2012 Farm Bill.
My name is Larry Eckhardt, and I'm a farmer from
Stephentown in Rensselaer County in eastern New York. I also
provide crop consulting and planning services to farms in my
area as a certified crop adviser.
There are several pieces of the farm bill that are
important to our farm and to vegetable growers in the state
that I would like to highlight today.
Some general farm bill concerns: The farms in our area,
including our own farm, were hit really hard last year by
tropical storms of the summer and fall. In trying to recover
from this damage, I think it's important that the 2012 Farm
Bill continue to include Permanent Disaster Assistance and
Emergency Conservation Programs. These are very important to
helping farmers recover after unimaginable disasters, whether
through the replanting of trees, with the help of the Tree
Assistance Program, or replacing soil and fixing fields that
were washed away through help with the Emergency Conservation
monies, ECP.
We can't go back to ad hoc disaster assistance. Farmers
need disaster assistance they can count on and which arrives in
a timely manner. Programs that are sometimes years in getting
financial assistance to farmers, like the SURE Program, are not
very helpful in efforts and these types of programs would be
better spent elsewhere.
Conservation is also an important piece of the farm bill,
and New York farmers have worked hard to meet extremely lofty
Federal and state standards. As been said before, the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, has provided
critical funding and has helped leverage state and local monies
to make sure farmers in the state continue to meet the ever
increasing standards.
During these difficult economic times, I know there are
going to be cuts to the farm bill, so I think it's important
for Congress to focus on its conservation efforts on working
lands programs like EQIP and the Farm and Ranch Lands
Protection Program. Over the other programs, like Land
Retirement, keeping vital and productive lands in production
and protecting the environment at the same time should be where
goals, the goals where funds are limited.
I would further suggest that the 2012 Farm Bill, that the
role of NRCS be returned to its real and original purpose, and
that's providing technical assistance to farmers for installing
their needed practices, and leave the handling of the funding--
the funds for cost sharing the projects, to the FSA. NRCS
personnel have time and again told me that they are not trained
in administering the funding of conservation, they're trained
to help farmers make conservation practices work. I agree and
believe that the FSA is better trained in handling the funds
for conservation programs.
While mentioning FSA, I'd like to voice a strong opposition
to the closing of local FSA offices in our region and around
the country. These critical offices administer all the programs
that are now in effect including insurance and other reporting
and new requirements for farms to comply with programs. How can
we do this with fewer offices and what little, if any, money is
going to be saved? I'm all for saving, and I think everyone
else is, but let's begin where it might make a difference. Not
by eliminating the people and offices that, for us, are the
front line, and for most real farmers are the real face of
USDA.
I move to some specialty crop specific concerns. New York
is largely a state of dairy and specialty crops, and that's why
it's important that the farm bill reflect the type of
agriculture we have here in New York and around the Northeast.
Specialty crops have been notoriously under-served in previous
farm bill legislation and that's why it's so important that
specialty crops was included in the 2008 Farm Bill and I hope
will remain in the 2012 Farm Bill.
The Specialty Crops Block Grants have been important to
many farmers, both large and small, by supporting research,
marketing and market development, and critical Pest Management
Programs that help increase our profitability and our
sustainability. The funds from other public sources for
research and development in the area of specialty crops have
been cut dramatically over the past 2 decades.
These Specialty Crops Block Grants have made substantial
contributions to new business development, new products, new
and improved growing methods for the producers in New York. I
hope for continued and perhaps increased funding for this
important part of the new farm bill.
I don't think it's any secret that crop insurance doesn't
serve specialty crop farmers very well, especially not multi-
crop farms like my own. The devastating weather events of 2011
have only served to highlight the need for some major changes
in several areas.
I would suggest a few ways for the farm bill to be more
responsive to specialty crop risk management needs and they
are: First, I'm not an economist or an actuary, I can only
suggest some ideas for a crop insurance program that will meet
our specialty crop needs. But we'll need to help the USDA
figure out how to make them actuarially sound.
I think Congress should instruct the USDA in the next farm
bill to research and development with input from actual growers
of specialty crops, risk management tools that will work more
effectively for diverse crop farms. Being diversified helps
manage our risks to a large degree, but as we saw last year,
there are no options that work well in near complete or
complete losses that help farmers get back on their feet.
The Noninsured Disaster Assistance Program, known as NAP,
is the only coverage offered for most nontraditional specialty
crops. But in the event of a complete loss, it really only
provides remuneration for \1/4\ or less of the lost crop. When
there is a partial lost--loss in a crop, most often there is no
coverage at all. There should be a buy up option so farmers can
better protect themselves and manage their own risks.
Although NAP is pretty cost effective, the record keeping
can become overwhelming for farmers who have many crops, and on
my case, maybe 30 or more. And record keeping should be
streamlined so more farmers would participate and be eligible
for disaster assistance programs. Other revisions such as sign
up deadlines, acreage reporting, yield history, type of
production, whether you're organic or conventional, multiple
planting dates and training of loss adjusters would have to be
addressed to make the program more appropriate for growers.
And while we're talking about crop insurance, it seems it
would just--we would pay less indemnification on insurance
policies or NAP or at least more or would less frequently pay
out if some of our rivers and streams were better maintained.
We have seen extreme sediment deposits and obstructions in our
many streams and tributaries caused by a lack of planned and
routine care. Although allowing the trained NRCS staff to help
farmers responsibly clear and shape these waterways to prevent
widespread flooding, it would substantially benefit our farms
and help mitigate the effects of the excessive rainfall in our
communities in the future. This benefit can only be
accomplished if the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the EPA are
required to cooperate, perhaps through the 2012 Farm Bill.
Some nutrition programs in the farm bill are also important
to specialty crop farmers. The Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Snack
Program for Schools and the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program are two of the many programs that help link our farmers
with the people who most need the access to fresh and healthy
foods. Any program that supports local food purchases and helps
develop new distribution networks will be a great benefit to
both farmers like myself and the people who need the access to
the food I grow.
There are a number of provisions in the present farm bill
for organic certification and research and is certainly an
important piece of specialty crop agriculture, and I hope it
continues. In this economy, I see many farmers using organic
methods, but not able to spend enough money or commit the time
to complete the certification. Instead, their focus, and that
of many farms, has shifted to serving a market seeking out
local foods.
Whether it's certified organic, organically grown or grown
conventionally, consumers want to know where their food is
coming from and who grew those crops. Because of this, I think
it's important for the 2012 Farm Bill to include funding for
the programs that help all farmers who direct market, no matter
what production techniques they use. This means developing food
distribution networks, supporting the Farmers Market Promotion
Program, supporting the food-based entrepreneurship programs
and other grant opportunities. These programs help provide--
improve the vitality of all farms--family farms in the areas of
the country.
And finally, the proposed new regulations for food safety
are due out soon and diversified farms like mine are concerned
how this will change our business. Food safety begins on the
farm and is certainly a primary concern on my farm. We work
hard to ensure it every day in whatever way we can, but not
knowing what is in these regulations and how hard it will be to
comply with them scares me.
If the farm bill can provide farmers assistance in meeting
these new standards, whether with needed training on the ground
assistance from USDA or tools to implement new procedures, this
farm bill would certainly help in that effort.
Thank you again for the invitation to speak today, and any
questions, I would be happy to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eckhardt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Eckhardt, Vegetable, Field Crop, and Beef
Producer; President, Kinderhook Creek Farm, Inc., Stephentown, NY
Chairman Lucas, Congressman Peterson, Congressman Owens,
Congressman Gibson, and Members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting me today to offer comments and ideas regarding the 2012 Farm
Bill. My name is Larry Eckhardt and I'm a farmer from Stephentown,
Rensselaer County, in Eastern New York State. I also provide crop
consulting and planning services to farms in my area as a certified
crop advisor.
There are several pieces of the farm bill that are important to our
farm and to the vegetable growers in the state that I would like to
highlight for you today.
General Farm Bill Concerns
The farms in our area, including our own farm, were really hit hard
by the tropical storms of last summer and fall. In trying to recover
from this damage, I think that it is important the 2012 Farm Bill
continue to include permanent disaster assistance and emergency
conservation programs.
These are very important to helping farmers recover after an
unimaginable disaster, whether through replanting trees with the help
of the Tree Assistance Program (TAP) or replacing soil or fixing fields
that were washed away through help from the Emergency Conservation
Program monies (ECP). We can't go back to ad hoc disaster assistance;
farmers need disaster assistance they can count on and which arrives in
a timely manner. Programs that are sometimes years in getting financial
assistance to farmers (like SURE) are not very helpful and the efforts
in these types of programs would be better spent elsewhere.
Conservation is an important piece of the farm bill and New York
farmers have worked hard to meet extremely lofty Federal and state
standards. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has
provided critical funding and has helped leverage state and local
monies to make sure farmers in the state continue to meet ever-
increasing standards.
During these difficult economic times, l know there will be cuts in
the farm bill, so I think it is important for Congress to focus its
conservation efforts on working lands programs, like EQIP and the Farm
and Ranchland Protection Program, over the easement and land retirement
type programs. Keeping vital and productive lands in production and
protecting the environment at the same time should be our goals when
funds are limited.
I would further suggest for the 2012 Farm Bill that the role of
NRCS be returned to its real and original purpose--providing technical
assistance to farmers for installing needed practices--and leave the
handling of the funds for cost-sharing these practices to FSA. NRCS
personnel have time and again told me that they are not trained in
administering the funding of conservation--they are trained to help
farmers make conservation practices work. I agree and believe that FSA
is better trained in handling the funds for conservation programs.
While mentioning FSA, I'd like to voice strong opposition to
closing local FSA offices in our region. These critical offices
administer all the programs now in effect, insurance, reporting and any
new requirements for farms to comply with programs--how can we do this
with fewer offices? And what little, if any, money is saved? I'm all
for saving, but let's begin where it might make a difference, not by
eliminating the people and offices on the front lines, who, for most of
the real farmers, are the face of the USDA.
Specialty Crop-Specific Concerns
New York is largely a state of dairy and specialty crops, that's
why it's important that the farm bill reflect the type of agriculture
we have here in New York and the Northeast. Specialty crops have been
notoriously under-served in previous farm bill legislation and that's
why it was so important that a specialty crops title was included in
the 2008 Farm Bill and I hope will remain in the 2012 Farm Bill.
The Specialty Crops Block Grants have been important to many
farmers, large and small, by supporting research, marketing and market
development, and critical pest management programs that help increase
our profitability and sustainability. The funds from other public
sources for research and development in the area of specialty crops
have been cut dramatically over the last 2 decades.
These Specialty Crops Block Grants have made substantial
contributions to new business development, new products and new and
improved growing methods for producers in New York. I hope for
continued, and perhaps, increased funding for this important part of
the new farm bill.
I don't think it's a secret that crop insurance doesn't serve
specialty crop farmers well, especially not multi-crop farms like mine.
The devastating weather events of 2011 have only served to highlight
the need for some major changes in several areas. I would suggest a few
ways for the farm bill to be more responsive to specialty crop risk
management needs:
First, I'm not an economist or an actuary. I can only
suggest some ideas for a crop insurance program that will meet
our specialty crop needs, but we need the help of USDA to
figure out how to make them actuarially sound. I think Congress
should instruct the USDA in the next farm bill to research and
develop, with input from actual growers of specialty crops,
risk management tools that will work more effectively for
diverse crop farms. Being diversified helps manage our risk to
a large degree, but as we saw last year, there are no options
that work well in near complete or complete losses to help
farmers get back on their feet.
The Non-Insured Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) is the
only coverage offered for most nontraditional specialty crops,
but in the event of a complete loss, it really only provides
remuneration for a quarter or less of my lost crop. When there
is a partial loss, most often there is no coverage at all.
There should be a buy-up option so farmers can better protect
themselves and manage their individual risk. Although NAP is
pretty cost-effective, the record-keeping can become
overwhelming for farmers who have many crops--maybe 30 or
more--and recordkeeping should be streamlined so more farmers
would participate and be eligible for the disaster assistance
programs. Other revisions, such as sign-up deadlines, acreage
reporting, yield histories, type of production (organic or
conventional), multiple planting dates and training of loss
adjusters would have to be addressed to make the program more
appropriate for growers.
While we're talking about crop insurance, it just seems we
would have to pay less indemnification on insurance policies or
NAP, much less frequently, if some of our rivers and streams
were better maintained. We have seen extreme sediment deposits
and obstructions in many of our streams and tributaries caused
by the lack of planned, routine care. Allowing the trained NRCS
staff to help farmers responsibly clear and shape these
waterways to prevent widespread flooding, it would
substantially benefit our farms and help mitigate the effects
of excessive rainfall on all our communities in the future.
This benefit can only be accomplished if the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers and the EPA are required to cooperate, perhaps thru
the 2012 Farm Bill.
Nutrition programs in the farm bill are also important to specialty
crop farmers. The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program for schools
and the Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program are two of the many
programs that help link our farmers with the people who most need
access to fresh, healthy foods. Any program that supports local food
purchases and helps develop new distribution networks will be a great
benefit to both farmers like myself and the people who need access to
the food I grow.
There are a number of provisions in the present farm bill for
organic certification and research and this is certainly an important
piece of specialty crop agriculture. However, in this economy, I see
many farmers using organic methods, but not able to spend the money or
commit the time to complete their certification. Instead, their focus
and that of many farmers has shifted to serving a market seeking out
local foods.
Whether it's certified organic, grown organically, or grown
conventionally, consumers want to know where their food is coming from
and who grew the crops. Because of this, I think it is important for
the 2012 Farm Bill to include funding for programs that help all
farmers who direct market, no matter what production techniques they
use. This means developing food distribution networks, supporting the
Farmers Market Promotion Program, supporting food-based
entrepreneurship programs, and other grant opportunities. These
programs all help improve the viability of all family farms in all
areas of the country.
And finally, the proposed new regulations for food safety are due
out soon and diversified farms like mine are concerned with how this
will change our business. Food safety begins on the farm and is
certainly a primary concern on my farm. We work hard at ensuring it
every day, in whatever way we can, but not knowing what is in these
regulations and how hard it will be to comply with them scares me. If
the farm bill can provide farmers assistance in meeting these new
standards, whether with needed training, on-the-ground assistance from
USDA, or tools to implement new procedures, this farm bill could
certainly help that effort.
These have been several of the issues of the upcoming farm bill
that I think are most important to diversified vegetable farms like
mine. Thank you again for the invitation to speak today and if you have
any questions, I am always happy to answer them.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Osborn, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT OSBORN, WINE GRAPE PRODUCER; PRESIDENT, FOX
RUN VINEYARD, INC., PENN YAN, NY
Mr. Osborn. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for asking
me to speak here today. I would like to thank you for taking
the time to come all the way up here to listen to our thoughts
on the upcoming farm bill.
My name is Scott Osborn, and I own Fox Run Vineyards, which
is a medium-sized winery in the Finger Lakes of New York. I
have 50 acres of vinifera grapes which are the classic European
varieties that I can grow due to the maritime influence of the
large and deep Finger Lakes.
I'm the current President of the New York Wine Industry
Association and the past President of the Finger Lakes Wine
Alliance, past President of the Seneca Lake Winery Association,
and I was presented with an industry award from the New York
Wine & Grape Foundation for my contributions to the New York
wine industry. I'm also a member of Wine America and the New
York Farm Bureau.
The 2008 Farm Bill was historic in that for the first time
ever specialty crops were officially recognized and supported
in various ways. Grapes are a specialty crop, yet are the sixth
largest dollar volume crop produced in the U.S. In New York
alone, grapes, grape juice and wine generates more than $3.76
billion in economic benefits to the State of New York. And the
national industry generates more than a $162 billion for the
American economy.
For the new farm bill, my main concerns are crop insurance,
research and market access programs. Crop insurance for grape
growers is a big issue here on the East Coast. Although it has
improved significantly in New York over the last 5 years, there
are still a number of problems which need to be addressed.
We are asking that you continue the premium subsidy to
continue to get more buy in by growers. If you remove it and it
costs too much, no one will participate.
It would be nice if the harvest deduction was removed.
Currently, grape growers are getting hit twice with this cost:
Once when it is subtracted from the indemnity they get, and
then again by the adjuster.
This is a fee that is just charged grape growers for not
picking their grapes. And every grape grower picks their
grapes, so it is sort of problematic.
The price per ton we are paid on a claim should be based on
a 5 year average on either the contracted price or a regional
average to reflect the real time market value as opposed to the
current 10 year average. I also think that RMA and the USDA
need to better educate their employees in other states where
there is an emerging grape and wine industry, so they can
understand the grape industry and they can be of help rather
than an obstacle.
We could use insurance for our new plantings. And this is
something many people don't understand, we are a permanent
crop, which makes us very different from other agriculture.
Our installation costs are extreme. For example, it costs
approximately $18,000 per acre to plant an acre of grapes, and
it is around 4 years before the first harvest. We still have to
farm it all this time, which runs $4,000+ per acre per year to
farm, So the investment over 4 years is about $30,000 per acre.
If you add in that we may be removing an under-performing
variety and replanting for a more profitable variety, you are
looking at, easily, a $50,000 investment per acre.
If there's an environmental event which significantly
damages or destroys the new vines, we have no way of recouping
our investment. So some form of insurance would be a great help
for that.
In addition, moving the closing date for the MPCI, Multiple
Peril Crop Insurance policies, to December 1st. The current
date of November 20th is very close to the end of grape
harvest, and in some cases people are still harvesting. Having
an extra 10 days or so would be helpful by allowing the grower
to make an intelligent decision rather than an impulse one.
The specialty crop title of the farm bill was an important
addition to the last bill, and I hope this remains. The
Northeast is mostly made up of specialty crop producers, and
this recognition is helpful to the success of farming in our
area.
The Specialty Crops Research Initiative, the Agricultural
Research Service, IPM programs and block grants are all very
important for grapes and other fruit and vegetable crops. A
number of northern universities, through their grape breeding
programs, have been able to develop grape varieties which can
withstand subzero temperatures. This has allowed areas in the
Northeast to develop a grape and wine industry that did not
exist 5 years ago. The more funding towards research gives us
more opportunities to develop our industry, providing more jobs
and making our businesses more profitable and more competitive.
The farm bill should continue to include export assistance
programs such as the Market Access Program, which allows
farmers to be competitive in a global market. Both the New York
Wine & Grape Foundation and Welch's grape juice have received
MAP funding in recent years, and this allows our wines and
juice products from New York to expand current markets and
explore new opportunities. Driving demand for our grape
products directly helps farmers become more profitable.
In summary, the last farm bill was a promising start, but
needs to be continued and expanded so that specialty crops can
contribute even more to the American agricultural economy.
Thank you for letting me testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Osborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Osborn, Wine Grape Producer; President, Fox
Run Vineyard, Inc., Penn Yan, NY
Good morning! Thank you for asking me to speak here today. I would
like to thank you for taking the time to come all the way up here to
listen to our thoughts on the upcoming farm bill.
My name is Scott Osborn and I own Fox Run Vineyards which is a
medium sized winery in the Finger Lakes of New York. I have 50 acres of
vinifera grapes which are the classic European varieties which I can
grow because of the maritime influence of the Large and deep Finger
Lakes. I am the current President of the New York Wine Industry
Association, past President of the Finger Lakes Wine Alliance, Past
President of the Seneca Lake Winery Association and was presented with
the Industry Award from the New York Wine and Grape Foundation for my
contributions to the New York Wine Industry. I am also a member of Wine
America and the New York Farm Bureau.
The 2008 Farm Bill was historic in that for the first time ever
``specialty crops'' were officially recognized and supported in various
ways.
Grapes are a specialty crop yet are the 6th largest dollar volume
crop produced in the U.S. In New York alone grapes, grape juice, and
wine generates more then $3.76 billion in economic benefits to the
state of New York, and the national industry generates more then $162
billion for the American economy.
For the new farm bill my main concerns are Crop Insurance,
Research, and Market Access programs.
Crop insurance for grape growers is a big issue here on the East
Coast. Although it has improved significantly here in New York over the
last 5 years there are still a number of problems which need to be
addressed. We are asking that you continue the premium subsidy to
continue to get more buy in by growers. If it costs too much no one
will participate.
It would be nice if the harvest deduction ($30) was removed.
Currently grape growers are getting hit twice with this cost once when
it is subtracted from the indemnity they get and then again by the
adjuster.
The price per ton we are paid on a claim should be based on a 5
year average on either the contracted price or a regional average to
reflect real time market value as opposed to the current 10 year
average. I also think that RMA and USDA need to educate their employees
in other states, where there is an emerging grape and wine industry,
better so they can understand the grape industry so they can be of help
rather then an obstacle.
We could use insurance on our new plantings. We are a permanent
crop. Our installation costs are extreme. For example it costs
approximately $18,000 per acre to plant an acre of grapes. It is around
4 years before you get your first harvest. We have to farm it all this
time which runs $4,000+ an acre each year to farm. So the investment
over 4 years is $30,000. If you add in that we may be removing an under
performing variety and replanting for a more profitable variety you are
looking at easily a $50,000 investment per acre. If there is an
environmental event which significantly damages or destroys the new
vines we have no way of recouping our investment. So some form of
insurance would be a big help.
Also move the closing date for MPCI (multiple peril crop insurance)
polices to Dec. 1. The current date of Nov 20th is very close to the
end of grape harvest and in come cases people are still harvesting.
Having an extra 10 days or so would be helpful by allowing the grower
to make an intelligent decision rather then an impulse one.
The specialty crop title of the farm bill was an important addition
to the last bill and I hope this remains. The Northeast is mostly made
up of specialty crop producers and this recognition is helpful to the
success of farming in our areas. The Specialty Crops research
initiative, the Agricultural Research Service, IPM programs, and Block
Grants are all very important for grapes and other fruit and vegetable
crops. A number of Northern University's through their grape breeding
programs have been able to develop grape varieties which can withstand
subzero temperatures that have allowed areas in the North East to
develop a grape and wine industry that didn't exist 5 years ago. So the
more funding towards research gives us more opportunities to develop
our industry providing more jobs and making our businesses more
profitable and more competitive.
The farm bill should continue to include export assistance
programs, such as the Market Access Program (MAP), which allow farmers
to be competitive in a global market. Both the New York Wine and Grape
Foundation and Welch's grape juice have received MAP funding in recent
years and this allows our wines and Juice products from New York to
expand current markets and explore new opportunities. Driving demand
for our grape products directly helps farmers become more profitable.
In summary, the last farm bill was a promising start, but needs to
be continued and expanded so that specialty crops can contribute even
more to the American agricultural economy.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Child, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF RALPH CHILD, SEED POTATO AND LEAFY GREENS
PRODUCER, OWNER/OPERATOR, CHILDSTOCK FARMS, INC., MALONE, NY
Mr. Child. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Ralph Child. I'm a fourth-generation produce
farmer from Malone, New York. I grow 300 acres each of seed
potatoes and leafy greens. I am active in the Empire State
Potato Growers and the National Potato Council. Both
organizations are active members of the Specialty Crop Farm
Bill Alliance, a coalition of more than 100 specialty crop
associations, companies and cooperatives across the U.S.
I want to highlight the importance of several key issues
included in the farm bill and a couple of issues that, while
beyond the scope of the farm bill, remain critical to my
continued success as a specialty crop grower in upstate New
York.
Prior to the 2008 Farm Bill, the needs and concerns of the
specialty crop producers were not considered while establishing
national farm policy. The inclusion in the 2008 Farm Bill of
specialty crop programs designed to improve industry
competitiveness was an important first step in making modern
farm programs accurately reflect the mix of agriculture in the
United States. Importantly, specialty crop producers requested
Federal support for industry programs that were designed to
maintain and improve competitiveness and not to provide
compensation to growers nor to distort the specialty crop
marketplace.
Research is critically important to our industry's ability
to continue to improve our productivity and to make nutritious
fruits and vegetables available to consumers as economically as
possible. The 2008 Farm Bill established two important programs
that are producing research results that meet key needs for
growers. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative provides
competitive funding for multi-disciplinary, multi-state
research projects that address critical industry needs. These
are large projects that cover problems in a multi-state area.
Since specialty crop production is so regionally diverse,
Congress also wisely included the Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program in the 2008 Farm Bill to address local needs. This
program, as administered by the State Departments of
Agriculture, is meeting the priorities of smaller growers like
me whose needs for research and technical assistance might
otherwise be overlooked.
Increased access to foreign markets is also vital to the
overall health of the industry. Many of our global competitors
are able to produce and deliver specialty crops in a more cost
effective way due to assistance from their own governments.
Programs that enable U.S. producers to gain a foothold in a
developing market are essential to growing our business
domestically and contributing to a strong economy. The Market
Access Program allows U.S. growers to do just that.
MAP funds have enabled potato growers in the United States
to market and export potatoes and potato products to
significant economies all over the world, including the top
export markets of Japan, China, Korea, and Mexico. U.S. potato
industry is able to complement the funding it receives through
MAP with other trade promoting programs including the Technical
Assistance for Specialty Crops Program.
TASC is crucial to maintaining market access in the face of
sanitary and phytosanitary issues that can threaten to block
U.S. specialty crops from critical markets. The value of TASC
to the specialty crop industry cannot be overstated.
Like any part of agriculture, and perhaps even more so,
specialty crops are susceptible to plant pests and disease.
Pests and disease can cut yield, hurt quality, and if the pest
is a quarantined pest or a highly regulated pest, it can
completely close off markets for our products.
An example of a regulated pest that has the potential to
wreak havoc on market access and devastate our local economy is
the golden nematode. Since the quarantine is working, we are
able to conduct business without serious consequences. With
proper pest and disease programs, many of these issues can be
identified early and possibly avoided altogether.
A significant step forward for our industry in the 2008
Farm Bill was the increased investment in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
The Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention
Program allows APHIS to address plant pests early and
proactively.
Although it is not addressed directly in the farm bill, I
do want to call the Committee's attention to need for adequate
appropriations for the APHIS line item that funds the Golden
Nematode Program in New York. That funding is important both to
New York growers as well as to potato growers across the U.S.
Finally, with the expected movement in the 2012 Farm Bill
towards reliance on insurance products and away from direct and
countercyclical payments, there needs to be a thoughtful
discussion about crop insurance needs in the specialty crop
industry. For specialty crop growers, annual planting decisions
are based upon market indicators. There is a significant risk
of distorting or destabilizing markets when incentive exists to
make planting decisions based on crop or revenue insurance
instead of those market indicators. I hope the Committee will
look closely at the potential market distorting impacts of
insurance programs using price or revenue loss triggers.
Major policy strides were made in the 2008 Farm Bill for
specialty crops, and we hope to build on those strides in the
2012 Farm Bill. However, without a skilled agricultural work
force, the best farm bill policies will not have their intended
effect. The specialty crop industry is labor intensive and
programs like mandatory E-Verify, without an agricultural
worker program, would have extraordinarily negative
consequences to growers like me.
Since I farm close to the northern border, I understand
firsthand the consequences of an enforcement-only immigration
policy. I currently participate in the H-2A Program out of
necessity, not because I think it is a viable long-term option.
Any desire to further invest in my business is dampened by
concerns about the long-term direction of immigration policy. I
urge you to work with your colleagues in the House of
Representative to approve a comprehensive immigration policy
that provides an opportunity for existing agricultural workers
to earn a legal status, creates a viable Guest Worker Program,
and secures our nation's borders.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee. I
respectfully request that the entirety of my remarks, which are
more specific on key issues, be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Child follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ralph Child, Seed Potato and Leafy Greens
Producer; Owner/Operator, Childstock Farms, Inc., Malone, NY
My name is Ralph Child. I grow 300 acres each of seed potatoes and
leafy greens in Malone, New York. I am active in the Empire State
Potato Growers and the National Potato Council. Both organizations are
active members of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance (SCFBA)--a
coalition of more than 100 specialty crop associations, companies, and
cooperatives across the United States. I want to highlight the
importance of several key issues included in the farm bill and a couple
issues that while beyond the scope of the farm bill remain critical to
my continued success as a specialty crop grower in Upstate New York.
Prior to the 2008 Farm Bill, the needs and concerns of specialty
crop producers were not considered while establishing national farm
policy. The inclusion in the 2008 Farm Bill of specialty crop programs
designed to improve industry competitiveness was an important first
step in making modern farm programs accurately reflect the mix of
agriculture in the United States. Importantly, specialty crop producers
requested Federal support for industry programs that were designed to
maintain and improve competitiveness and not to provide compensation to
growers nor to distort the specialty crop marketplace.
Research is critically important to our industry's ability to
continue to improve our productivity and to make nutritious fruits and
vegetables available to consumers as economically as possible.
Improvements in our nation's health are directly linked to expanding
the availability and consumption of more fruits and vegetables. The
2008 Farm Bill established two important programs that are producing
research results that meet key needs for growers. The Specialty Crop
Research Initiative (SCRI) provides competitive funding for
multidisciplinary, multi-state research projects that address critical
industry needs. These are big projects with big promise to solve big
problems. Since specialty crop production is so regionally diverse,
Congress also wisely included the Specialty Crop Block Grant (SCBG)
program in the 2008 Farm Bill to address local needs. This program as
administered by the state departments of agriculture is meeting the
priorities of smaller growers like me whose needs for research and
technical assistance might otherwise be overlooked.
Increased access to foreign markets is also vital to the overall
health of our industry. Many of our global competitors are able to
produce and deliver specialty crops in a more cost effective way due to
assistance from their own governments. Programs that enable U.S.
producers to gain a foothold in a developing market are essential to
growing our businesses domestically and contributing to a strong
economy. The Market Access Program (MAP) allows U.S. growers to do just
that. MAP funds have enabled potato growers in the United States to
market and export potatoes and potato products to significant economies
all over the world, including the top export markets of Japan, China,
Korea, and Mexico. The U.S. potato industry is able to complement the
funding it receives through MAP with other trade promoting programs
including the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program.
TASC is crucial to maintaining market access in the face of sanitary
and phytosanitary issues that can threaten to block U.S. specialty
crops from critical markets. The value of TASC to the specialty crop
industry cannot be overstated.
Like any part of agriculture and perhaps even more so, specialty
crops are susceptible to plant pests and disease. Pests and disease can
cut yield, hurt quality, and if the pest is a quarantine pest or a
highly regulated pest, it can completely close off markets for our
products. An example of a regulated pest that has the potential to
wreak havoc on market access and devastate our local economy is the
Golden Nematode. Since the quarantine is working, we are able to
conduct business without serious consequences. With proper pest and
disease programs, many of these issues can be identified early and
possibly avoided altogether. A significant step forward for our
industry in the 2008 Farm Bill was the increased investment in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS). The Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention
program allows APHIS to address plant pests early and proactively.
Although it is not addressed directly in the farm bill I do want to
call the Committee's attention to the need for adequate appropriations
for the APHIS line item that funds the Golden Nematode Program in New
York. That funding is important both to New York potato growers as well
as potato growers across the U.S.
Finally, with the expected movement in the 2012 Farm Bill toward a
reliance on insurance products and away from direct and counter
cyclical payments, there needs to be a thoughtful discussion about the
crop insurance needs in the specialty crop industry. For specialty crop
growers, annual planting decisions are based upon market indicators.
There is a significant risk of distorting or destabilizing markets when
an incentive exists to make planting decisions based on crop or revenue
insurance instead of those market indicators. I hope the Committee will
look closely at the potential market distorting impacts of insurance
programs using price or revenue loss triggers.
Major policy strides were made in the 2008 Farm Bill for specialty
crops and we hope to build on those strides in the 2012 Farm Bill.
Without a skilled agricultural workforce, the best farm bill policies
will not have their intended effect. The specialty crop industry is
labor intensive. A skilled labor force on a seed potato and leafy green
farm is not very accessible to begin with and programs like mandatory
e-Verify without an agricultural worker program would have
extraordinarily negative consequences to growers like me. Since I farm
close to the northern border, I understand firsthand the consequences
of an enforcement--only immigration policy. I currently participate in
the H-2A program out of necessity, not because I think it is a viable
long-term option. Any desire to further invest in my business is
dampened by concerns about the long-term direction of immigration
policy. A flexible, realistic, and market-based agricultural guest
worker program would enable me to more effectively do what I do best. I
urge you to work with your colleagues in the House of Representatives
to approve a comprehensive immigration policy that provides an
opportunity for existing agriculture workers to earn a legal status,
creates a viable guest worker program and secures our nation's borders.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee. I
respectfully request that the entirety of my remarks which are more
specific on key issues, be included in the record.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative
The specialty crop industry accounts for half the farm gate value
of plant-based agriculture in the United States. While many of our
global competitors enjoy state subsidization, U.S. producers prefer
support and funding for essential programs that enable the industry to
be competitive at home and in foreign markets. The Specialty Crop
Research Initiative (SCRI) has emerged as an essential tool to foster
competitiveness. In the U.S. potato industry for example, $2,381,759
provided by an SCRI grant allowed researchers from USDA's Agricultural
Research Service in Ithaca and cooperators from across the country to
develop and implement management strategies for Potato Virus Y as well
as the eradication of necrotic variants of the virus that were
introduced into the United States. Other research priorities have also
been addressed through SCRI, including Zebra Chip research with project
leaders in Texas and the development of varieties of potatoes with
lower acrylamide as a result of research directed from Wisconsin. The
program has been so successful and universally popular in the specialty
crop industry that specialty crop producers recommend increasing the
funding to $100 million per year of mandatory funds. Under current farm
law, SCRI is not included in baseline funding and will not continue in
the next farm bill unless action is taken to address funding. The
effectiveness of SCRI could be improved by allowing greater flexibility
in the administration of the program. Specific improvements include
reduction of the 100 percent matching requirements, increasing
stakeholder input, the inclusion of Federal and state marketing orders
and commissions for consideration, and review by industry stakeholders
for relevance prior to the scientific review.
Specialty Crop Block Grants
The Specialty Crop Block Grant (SCBG) program is also of critical
importance to the specialty crop industry by empowering regionally-
specific research to be conducted on a state-by-state and multi-state
basis. In 2011, there were ten projects valued at a total of just over
$1 million awarded in the state of New York, including extensive
partnerships with researchers at Cornell University. Nationwide, about
$55 million for the SCBG projects will be available in 2012. The
program's effectiveness is clearly understood by the specialty crop
industry, and with a few minor improvements could be even more
responsive to the needs of the industry, including grower-level
projects, strengthened definitions and the use of designated funds
according to those definitions, increased emphasis on competitiveness
and expansion of multi-state projects. Based on this experience, the
specialty crop industry supports increasing funding by $5 million per
year. This would translate to $350 million in mandatory funding over 5
years.
Market Access Program
The specialty crop industry is heavily reliant upon a robust export
economy for continued success in the United States. For example, one in
six rows of potatoes grown in the country today are destined for
foreign markets, or more than double the amount we exported in 2000.
One of the most important tools in this success story is the Market
Access Program (MAP), which provided $6.1 million in funding for the
U.S. Potato Board, the national marketing and promotion organization
for the U.S. potato industry. Since 2000, potato exports to countries
targeted with MAP funds has grown by 68%. Exports are a major reason
that the agricultural economy has been so strong in recent years and a
much-needed bright spot during the current national economic downturn.
Not only does it make economic sense as an investment, it also allows
U.S. growers to more effectively compete with their global competitors,
many of whom enjoy significant advantages in the form of subsidization.
As you might expect, MAP enjoys an immense level of popularity within
the specialty crop industry and the Alliance fully supports continued
mandatory funding at the current level of $200 million per year.
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
Considering the significant stake that the specialty crop industry
has in the export market, the industry is always looking out for
technical barriers to trade that can close down markets for sanitary
and phytosanitary reasons. The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
(TASC) program is the vehicle to address these trade barriers in a
timely fashion. TASC was originally designed to be a nimble and
effective way to help the private sector resolve technical barriers to
trade. These barriers can emerge unexpectedly and require fast action
to prevent market closures and trade disruptions in established
markets. Given the value and effectiveness of TASC, the Alliance
recommends continued mandatory funding at $9 million per year.
Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention
Commonly referred to as Section 10201, the Plant Pest and Disease
Management and Disaster Prevention program in the 2008 Farm Bill allows
funds to be used for early plant pest detection and surveillance, for
threat identification and mitigation of plant pests and diseases, and
for technical assistance in the development and implementation of
audit-based certification systems and nursery plant pest risk
management systems. This program is highly effective and allows USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to address potential pest
and disease issues proactively rather than reactively. Section 10201 is
currently funded at a level of $50 million per year and the Alliance
recommends $75 million in mandatory funding per year.
National Clean Plant Network
The National Clean Plant Network (NCPN), or Section 10202, is a
program also administered by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service under which a partnership of clean plant centers are organized
to provide high quality asexually propagated plant material free of
targeted plant pathogens and pests that cause economic loss to protect
the environment and ensure the global competitiveness of specialty crop
producers. NCPN is funded through 2012 at $5 million per year but does
not have baseline funding in the next farm bill. The Alliance
recommends mandatory funding of $10 million per year for the National
Clean Plant Network.
The Chairman. They will indeed be included in the record,
and thank you, Mr. Child.
Mr. Sullivan, begin whenever you're ready.
STATEMENT OF ADAM F. SULLIVAN, APPLE PRODUCER; ORCHARD FOREMAN,
SULLIVAN ORCHARDS, INC., PERU, NY
Mr. Sullivan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Members of the Committee. I'd also like to recognize
Congressmen Bill Owens and Chris Gibson, and thank you both on
behalf of the industry. If you could please let Ranking Member
Peterson know that a grower from upstate New York wore purple
so that the Minnesota Vikings can get the stadium passed, I
would be most appreciative.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about
the impact of the 2008 Farm Bill and priorities for 2012
legislation. My name is Adam Sullivan of Sullivan Orchards, and
I'm a fourth-generation apple grower from Peru, New York. Due
to the time constraints, I'd like to encourage all of you, if
you have not had the opportunity, to review and read the
written testimony that I have submitted.
The written testimony provides excellent detail of many
issues facing and impacting growers across this country in
which the farm bill has been very effective in assisting
growers, whether it is the Specialty Crop Research Initiative,
which is playing a critical role in slowing down the damage
caused by the newly invasive brown marmorated stink bug, or the
Tree Assistance Program which help growers, many of whom are
located in the Champlain Valley, recover losses from
catastrophic tree loss sustained from an early thaw followed by
extensive cold weather, which in turn killed the trees.
Today I'd like to spend the remainder of my time teaching
you about three specific issues regarding the farm bill. These
issues are the Market Access Program, crop insurance and, of
course, labor.
Exports are extremely important to the apple industry with
nearly 30 percent of the fresh crop destined for overseas
markets. The export market is critical for the Empire variety,
which is the second most grown variety in New York State.
Empires are exported throughout the European Union, recently as
far as Singapore, to name a few, and all thanks to MAP funding.
The apple industry strongly supports the Market Access
Program which has helped level the playing field as we compete
with countries such as China and Chile who have a much lower
cost of production. MAP is a public-private partnership with
growers contributing $2 for every Federal dollar the industry
receives. While my company only exports a small portion of our
crop, every apple exported is one less apple I have to battle
shelf space for.
Now I'd like to change gears and tell you a brief story. In
1983, on a Saturday afternoon in late August, about 3 o'clock
in the afternoon, a storm fell over the orchard and we could
hear the hailstones pinging off the metal roof. I remember
seeing my father watch as the stones piled in the driveway.
After about 5 minutes it stopped. Dad went out to evaluate the
crop. He came back ``annoyed'' that this had happened, but the
crop was salvageable. Then 5:30 came, and the real storm began.
I don't remember how long it lasted, but I remember him
staring out the window with my mother consoling him. It was
determined that a tornado landed less than a mile away and
pummeled the apples. I was 6. The crop was so severely
destroyed that mom and dad were only able to sell one load of
juice. That year's crop fermented on the orchard. The real
kicker was that he didn't have crop insurance. It took them
more than a decade, through hard work and God's good will, that
they got the orchard financially secured again.
The second issue I'd like to discuss is the Federal Crop
Insurance Program. Over the years, the industry has worked
closely with USDA's Risk Management Agency. As a result,
significant improvements to the apple policy have been made,
such as fresh fruit buyout, specific grades and a list of what
actually constitutes a defect.
Crop insurance is an excellent tool to help the grower
manage risks. With farming, challenging weather is part of the
deal and crop insurance makes the grieving process a little
easier. Input costs are so high today, the margin so tight,
that a grower could not back--excuse me--a grower could not
come back from a loss suffered like my parents without crop
insurance.
Last, most importantly, I would like to discuss labor.
Clinton County, which is where Sullivan Orchards is located,
has more cows than people. The youngest full-time employee at
Sullivan Orchards is 35 and he's sitting here before you today.
The next youngest employee is 58.
The younger generation is not coming to work in agriculture
in Peru. Due to our climate, soils, and I like to believe,
skills, the Champlain Valley is known for growing the highest
quality McIntosh apples, and I see many of you eating them
today.
The Champlain Valley harvest is approximately 1 million
bushels of Macs in a 4 week window. Unfortunately, there is not
a local work force to harvest a crop. As a result, our farm and
all the apple growers in the region have relied on the Jamaican
H-2A Program.
For approximately 30 years, the program has worked for
Sullivan Orchards. We have the same men returning year after
year. Last year marked the 25th season for James Hahn who was
the last of the original men.
Since I returned to the farm, and even prior to that time,
there has been constant rhetoric about the need for an
efficient Guest Worker Program. We are no closer now then we
were 10 years ago. Instead, we are threatening people with E-
Verify, scaring growers using the only legal Guest Worker
Program, and are taking away health insurance from our Jamaican
guest workers.
The subject of immigration reform has been talked to death.
I understand it is an election year, and I understand that
unemployment is high. I understand that immigration is a very
sensitive issue. Unfortunately, myself and the other growers in
the Champlain Valley don't have an alternative way to get the
crop grown and harvested.
We need an effective Guest Worker Program. I depend upon
the men coming year after year. They plant the trees. They
operate the tractors. They mow the orchard floor. They know the
fields. They go to the local church. They purchase groceries at
the local Grand Union. They buy clothes at the local store.
They pay Federal and state taxes. They are as much a part of
the success of Sullivan Orchards as I am, my father is, or
Gramp was.
The time for rhetoric is over and action needs to be taken
concerning a Guest Worker Program. Let's get an effective Guest
Worker Program passed for 2012 for all commodities, including
dairy.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will be happy to
answer any questions, and enjoy those Macs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adam F. Sullivan, Apple Producer; Orchard
Foreman, Sullivan Orchards, Inc., Peru, NY
Good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. I would also like to recognize
Congressmen Bill Owens and Chris Gibson and thank you both on behalf of
the industry. It is great to have two New Yorkers on this important
Committee and we look forward to working with both of you on the new
farm bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the impact of
the 2008 Farm Bill and priorities for the 2012 legislation. My name is
Adam Sullivan of Sullivan Orchards and I am a 4th generation apple
grower from Peru, New York. My Great Grand-father started the farm with
a handful of cows, some apple trees, a few vegetables and potatoes--a
good Irishmen. When ``Gramp'' took over, he sold all the cows to grow
strictly apples, which is how the farm remains today. My father and
mother are still the primary stakeholders and participate in much of
the functions of the orchard. I returned to the orchard in 2003 to
serve as the orchard foreman and run the day to day activities.
From New York to Washington State and Michigan to California the
industry is comprised of independent business owners, many of whom are
third or fourth generation. We strongly support programs that build
long-term competitiveness, drive innovation and grow demand of our
products. Apple growers and the produce industry are not seeking a
government farm program to support grower income or market prices. That
would not be in the best interest of my business or our industry. The
2008 Farm Bill made a number of important strides toward each of these
goals.
Research
Research and extension activities supported by USDA provide the
apple industry with a competitive edge by enabling the introduction of
new cultivars, implementation of improved pest management strategies,
genomics and plant breeding and science-based improvement of food
safety.
One of the most successful programs of the 2008 Farm Bill is the
Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), which provides funding for a
variety of research programs throughout the specialty crop industry.
For apple growers, this program played a critical role in slowing down
the damage caused by the newly invasive Brown Marmorated Stink Bug
(BMSB).
The SCRI funded a 3 year, $5.7 million research grant involving
over 50 scientists and ten research institutions nationwide to develop
methods to control this destructive pest. The research has already
yielded significant benefits. Information provided to growers from SCRI
researchers resulted in a dramatic reduction in losses in 2011.
U.S.Apple estimates that information from SCRI researchers saved apple
growers alone at least $35 million in 2011--that is over six times the
amount of the total 3 year grant. Much more research needs to be done
to develop a long term solution to the BMSB problem, but this research
project alone promises to save agriculture from potentially billions of
dollars of losses nationwide.
This is only one example of the impressive return on investment
that the SCRI has provided during its first 4 years. Advances made in
SCRI research projects on mapping the apple genome, mechanizing orchard
practices such as pruning and harvesting, and prevention of other
disease and insect pest threats promises to result in even greater
savings to agriculture that translates into a direct benefit to the
U.S. economy and U.S. jobs.
Another important program is the National Clean Plant Network,
which serves as the single nationally-certified source of plant
material free of potentially devastating diseases and pests. Enabling
the nursery industry to produce clean plants is of critical importance
because a number of serious diseases can enter into the United States
through nursery stock. Once such pests and diseases become established
in a region it is very difficult to eradicate them.
A strong commitment to research is critical to the future of the
apple industry, but the benefits of a strong and coordinated research
program flow directly into the U.S. economy.
Crop Insurance
The apple industry is one of a handful of specialty crops that
participates in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Over the years, the
industry has worked closely with USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA)
and as a result, significant improvements to the apple policy have been
made. USApple and the RMA collaborated to provide growers with an
insurance program that better addresses the unique needs of the
industry. Just this past season, Hurricane Irene came for a visit. The
storm damaged our fresh fruit production through hail stones piercing
the fruit and wind knocking apples into each other causing bruises.
Nine inches of rain fell with 50 mph wind gusts blowing trees over.
Through having the Fresh option with our crop insurance policy,
Sullivan Orchards is able to recoup some of our loss.
No crop insurance program will make a grower devastated by a
natural disaster financially ``whole,'' but it will allow them to
survive a devastating loss and continue to support the economic engine
of rural America. Let me be clear, crop insurance enables me to manage
risk, but it should never be designed in a way that distorts the market
or encourages sub-par production. The apple industry is also concerned
that as discussions in Washington, D.C. have moved to further expand
crop insurance programs, there will be additional requirements
attached, such as cross compliance with other Federal programs. What we
need is less government regulation, not more.
Tree Assistance Program
When severe weather occurs, apple growers can experience not only
lost crops, but damaged or destroyed trees. That is exactly what
happened in 2004 when a January thaw of December's heavy snow fall,
followed by 30 below zero temperatures, caused moisture in the ground
to freeze and snap roots of more than 30,000 trees in Clinton County.
The replacement cost alone for those trees, was estimated at nearly
$3 million, and when you add the lost crop revenue, the total loss is
much greater. This was also a multi-year loss, as new trees take 3 to 5
years to produce fruit. The Tree Assistance Program (TAP) offered a
lifeline by providing funds to growers to partially offset the cost of
tree replacement. However, securing those funds was a tough lift and it
was only because there was a large disaster bill already moving through
Congress that TAP funds were allocated.
That is why the apple industry urged Congress to include mandatory
funding for TAP in the 2008 Farm Bill. This program is a success and
must be maintained and expanded if possible to reach more growers.
Export Programs
Exports are extremely important to the apple industry, with nearly
30% of the fresh crop destined for overseas markets. While our company
only exports a small portion of our crop, a strong export market
strengthens domestic prices for growers nationwide. For many growers in
New York, the export market represents a significant portion of their
business.
The apple industry strongly supports the Market Access Program
(MAP), which has helped level the playing field as we compete with
countries such as China and Chile that have a much lower cost of
production.
As a direct result of the MAP program funding, New York companies
have been able to identify and supply key importers in Singapore--who
are looking for new products for their stores and for the past three
seasons they have been stocking apples from New York State. Growers and
shippers from New York would not be able to conduct activities or
develop a market such as this without the support of MAP funds that
allowed us to bring buyers to the U.S. to meet with suppliers. MAP also
funded sampling programs in supermarkets to educate consumers in
Singapore about apples and their unique flavors. MAP is a public-
private partnership, with growers contributing $2 for every Federal
dollar the industry receives.
The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) is another
important farm bill program which provides funds to resolve
phytosanitary and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten access
to a foreign market. The New York apple industry used TASC funds to
maintain an important foot-hold in the Israeli market when pest and
disease concerns threatened to shut down the market. The U.S. Apple
Export Council worked with Cornell University to develop new pest
mitigation guidelines which allowed trade to continue without
interruption.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Congressman
Owens for introducing H.R. 3914 to amend the Apple Export Act. This
bill would eliminate the USDA inspection requirement for bulk apples
into Canada. The requirement, which dates back to 1933, is no longer
necessary or required by the Canadians. If passed, this bill will save
money and time for the grower and, in the process, increase exports.
Nutrition Programs
Programs like the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program are a win-win
for the apple industry and the children that are served. This highly
successful national program reaches more than four million low-income
elementary school children, many of them in New York City. Apples have
consistently been one of the most popular fruits in the program.
The program is popular with parents, students and educators alike.
Many of the students who participate take what they learn home with
them by asking their parents to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. There
is a bipartisan focus on reducing the rate of childhood obesity and
diabetes through improved nutrition and this program accomplishes those
goals.
Marketing Programs
The 2008 Farm Bill includes a number of important marketing
programs which have proven beneficial to the apple industry both in New
York and nationally. The Specialty Crop Block Grant program focuses on
regional and local priorities to improve the competitiveness of
specialty crop producers. Nationally, the apple industry has utilized
these grants for food safety programs as well as marketing initiatives
and state programs including ``Pride of New York.''
The Value-Added Grant program is also helping growers here in the
north country. Red Jacket Orchards, which is located in Geneva,
received such a grant which they used to expand their operation and
create new jobs in the process.
Labor--Our #1 Issue
I would be remiss if I did not raise the issue of agricultural
labor and the concerns that apple growers have from coast-to-coast as
to whether they will have adequate labor to pick the crop. In other
parts of the country you hear a lot about migrant workers but we here
in the Champlain Valley are a little different.
Clinton County has more cows then people. The youngest full time
employee at Sullivan Orchards is 35 and he is sitting before you today.
The next youngest employee is 58. The younger generation is not coming
to work in agriculture in Peru.
Due to our climate, soils, and I like to believe skills, the
Champlain Valley is known for growing the highest quality McIntosh
apples. Unfortunately, the harvest window for McIntosh lasts only 4
weeks. The Champlain Valley harvests approximately 1 million bushels in
this 4 week window. As stated earlier, there is not a local work force
to harvest the crop. Most migrant workers do not want to travel to this
area because of the short work period.
As a result, our farm and most all of the apple growers in this
part of New York have relied on the Jamaican H-2A program. It is not
uncommon to have the same workers return for 10 or even 20 years. The
program, while expensive and bureaucratic, has supplied us a reliable
and consistent workforce and up until about 2 years ago it worked
pretty well.
In August of 2010, just as we were gearing up for harvest, the
program came to a standstill and workers were delayed in arriving
because the U.S. Government began questioning the legitimacy of
voluntary fees which had always been paid by the workers to the
Jamaican Central Labor Organization (JCLO) to pay for health insurance,
and liaison services provided by the JCLO to the workers. The JCLO also
coordinated a program for workers to send money home at no charge if
they chose. The JCLO is affiliated with the Jamaican Government and the
program and voluntary fees had been in place since the 1990s. When the
Department of Labor began questioning these services and specifically
the fees, we almost lost our workers. Finally, due to the intervention
of a number of senior Members of Congress, an agreement was reached
that no fees would be taken out and the workers arrived.
This ``compromise'' is still in effect and we are now getting our
workers on time. However, they are coming without health insurance and
if they want to send money home, they have to pay exorbitant fees
through Western Union. I have had workers come to me and express
concern that they no longer have health insurance. They don't
understand--and neither do I--why our government would take that right
away from them.
Though the program is mostly working again, I have strong concerns
about what will happen if mandatory E-Verify legislation is passed
without agricultural labor reforms and suddenly all of agriculture is
forced into the H-2A program at once. Currently, the program only
supplies about 50,000 of the estimated one million agriculture workers
needed in this country. Sullivan Orchards has been in this program for
over 30 years, and I can tell you first hand that it does not have the
capacity to double let alone increase twenty-fold without major
reforms. What the industry needs is a stable, adequate, able and
predictable supply of agricultural labor able to participate legally in
the U.S. workforce.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before this
Committee. These discussions and the reauthorization of the farm bill
offer an exciting opportunity to further improve important specialty
crop programs and support increased growth and competiveness of the
apple industry.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Your memories of going to the field after the catastrophe
reminds me of being a 7 year old and following my father to the
wheat field nearest the house one night and watching him stand
in that field with his flashlight and realizing every stalk was
broken over and that quiet walk back. Even as a 7 year old,
like yourself, there are some things you remember forever. The
fact that he said nothing for 2 days made a great impression on
me. That said, that's what we're here about, and that's what
we're here to try to address.
Mr. Eckhardt, let's begin with you. You mentioned the SURE
Program and you talked about your experiences. Could you expand
on that just a little bit, and not only your experience with
SURE, but expand for a bit on where you think the money would
be better spent, perhaps you think the money would be better
spent somewhere else?
Mr. Eckhardt. Right. I think as we look at eligibility for
coverage under certain programs, the paperwork and record
keeping trail, along with whether or not SURE will be released,
is just so burdensome that many people back away from any
insurance coverage whatsoever. I mean, it may be that the only
reason they sign up for CAT for their field crops or for NAP
for their vegetable crops is that their banker may require that
they have some type of coverage.
But when it gets right down to push come to shove, for
instance, with NAP, the first 50 percent of your loss is yours.
You take it in the shorts for 50. If you have 51 percent loss,
you will get indemnification for one percent. Do you understand
what I'm saying?
So when you look at the calculations, and SURE Program has
some of the same issues, only it's usually 2 years later that
those funds start to become available, and through the process
of qualification and the review by the county committees and
the FSA county and state committees, that you get some
indemnification through the SURE Program.
My seed company really is looking to get paid that year for
the seed I bought from them, not 2 years later. My fertilizer
company wants their money sometimes up front. When we look at
these kind of indemnification programs that are that long in
getting funds back to those people who have had losses,
sometimes catastrophic losses, it just isn't working.
You know, what could we spend it better on? Perhaps on some
type of process or policy NAP process, that would allow the
grower to purchase a higher level of coverage. Much like we
have in the crop insurance programs. NAP would, for lack of a
better term, I call it NAP Plus. But these would be things that
we could tweak to this program to make it so that it's more
acceptable.
And the other thing is, is it's very difficult when you try
to put together what is referred to as APH, actual production
history, for your farm. You know, you produce potatoes or sweet
corn or whatever, you have to come up with documentation year
after year to justify that.
So it's--it's extremely difficult and time consuming for
the producer and those people in the FSA and the crop insurance
people to come up with speciality crop insurance that's going
to work. SURE has it. It just is too time consuming and too
late.
The Chairman. Switching gears for a moment, gentlemen. I'd
be honest, if I did not admit this to you, I would not be
honest. The northwest half of the great State of Oklahoma is
what I represent. And when I stand up in front of this
building, I can see more trees than there are in my entire
Congressional district, so understand I think they're amazing
things, these trees.
Could you tell me for a moment about your experiences with
the Tree Assistance Program, TAP, if anyone has experience?
And by the way, I like trees. I'm not opposed to trees. I
just don't have any.
Mr. Sullivan. I think it was 2003 or 2004. Don't hold--hold
me to the actual year it happened. We had an extensive snowfall
in December and then we had a wonderful January thaw, which was
nice. I mean, it went from 20 below up to into the nice 30
and 40. It was a nice, nice, nice little break. But then
January decided to come back with full vengeance and froze up
the ground, which in turn snapped the roots and killed the
trees.
So in the Champlain Valley, we had close to 30,000 trees
that--that snapped off at--in the root system and the trees had
to be removed and replaced. And so we did the Tree Assistance
Program. It helped. It assisted, and I mean, it didn't pay for
the loss by no means, but I mean it was extra money that was
certainly needed and it was nice.
The Chairman. This, of course, is one of the many reasons
we have these hearings. I come from an area where this is not
really utilized, but obviously it is an important program.
Mr. Sullivan. It has its place, of course--I didn't get
into it in my speech, and I'm glad to hear that we're really
trying to be financially and fiscal responsible. All these
policies are great to have and regulations are great and the
Tree Assistance Program is great. But the $30,000 that we got
from putting--from the Tree Assistance Program, it was nice. It
helped. I'm not going to say no, because it's there.
But if it wasn't there, I am still going to be farming. I
mean, call me thick-headed and dumb, I mean, but I'm still
going to make a go of it. That I think it's more important as
you're doing the farm bill that you look and you say is it
worth putting my kids and everybody else's kids here further in
debt for giving a little Band-Aid aid or is it better that
maybe we don't put the money out there.
The Chairman. Your insights are very appreciated. My time
has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5
minutes. Mr. Scott.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Seems to me that the two most pronounced areas of great
challenge to the specialty crop industry here is the need for
crop insurance because no area of agriculture is more
susceptible to storms and weather conditions than specialty
crops. And the other one is your challenge with labor because
it's labor intensive. It's getting out there, picking and
harvesting these crops. So let me start off with the crop
insurance.
Mr. Eckhardt, I think you probably hit some of this: How
many lenders now require crop insurance, and would this be the
way to go, that lenders require the growers to have insurance
if they lend them money for their operating cost?
Mr. Eckhardt. I don't think I've ever been told by a lender
that I was not going to get a loan if I didn't have crop
insurance.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay.
Mr. Eckhardt. But you can tell by body language and
interest rate just how important they make that: It would be a
great idea, Mr. Eckhardt, to have some crop insurance. And
you're nodding your head like this, going, yes, you're
absolutely right.
So to say that in some writing some place, crop insurance
was required by my lender, I don't think I've ever seen that.
And if it is, what the big print giveth, the little print
taketh away. But I still think that as we go forward, it
certainly gives them the option to say this person has some
coverage should there be a catastrophic loss and we might
actually ask to be named as one of the people who receive those
funds.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Do you think that with us in
Washington, in Congress, as we develop policy, that some kind
of way that we approach with this farm bill some effort to
require that?
Mr. Eckhardt. Well, perhaps--perhaps through a--if it was
required by a lender, the farm bill could look at how there
might be a reduced interest rate to that grower who's borrowing
operating or capital funds, a reduced interest rate if you do
have some type of workable crop insurance. But it needs to be
something that's actually going to pay you something if you
have a loss.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Right. All right. Now let's
turn to the labor issue, because, Mr. Sullivan, I really think
that you hit the nail on the head here with this. Because we
can no longer continue to hide from this issue. If we do not
address the labor issue for specialty crops, how devastating
would this be? I mean, we've another Farm--we got this farm
bill. I mean, there may be some things we could do with this, I
don't know. We certainly can bring that discussion up, but this
farm bill comes around every 4 years. How urgent is this
problem to develop a Guest Worker Program for specialty crop
producers?
Mr. Sullivan. I think Mr. Child has probably a pretty good
example on how urgent the, if you don't mind telling your
experience with--a couple of years ago, about the H-2A Program
and how our government decided to take it upon themselves to
invoke rules that nobody knew about to not allow the men to get
in here.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. I did want to get to that
because, Mr. Child, I was getting to you next. And as you
respond to this, you said securing the borders, and that was
the only reference that you made in your testimony to what
might be judged upon as dealing with this immigration issue. I
want to ask you that, but I also wanted to ask you which
borders? Are you talking about Canadian border?
Mr. Child. I do live near a high priority enforcement zone
on the Canadian border, but I fully recognize most of the
people that are coming into the country to work are coming in
on the southern borders. The fact that I live so close to the
border, with a border patrol station in my town, just makes me
very vulnerable to enforcement.
I think it was back in 2004 was the last year that I hired
crews from labor contractors that were green-carded people.
It's a pretty well known fact that approximately 70 percent of
the migrant workers in agriculture are probably here with
forged documents. And we might as well bring out the facts and
tell it straight.
I currently use the H-2A Program which Mr. Sullivan alluded
to that he uses--for his Jamaican work force. I still hire
Mexican workers for my vegetable farm.
The H-2A Program has allowed me to have a continuity from
one year to the next without concerns about enforcement from
Immigration, but the Administration, through the Department of
Labor, has been quite difficult. There are a lot of hoops to
jump through.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Right?
Mr. Child. It's been really frustrating the last couple of
years, where the rule changes from one year to the next, make
it quite difficult, and----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Let me just--I know my time is
getting around the Chairman's back. I don't want him to cut me
off. But may I make one suggestion that might be helpful, is
that you get these specialty crop block grants coming down
through your state, and you also--we also have Specialty Crop
Research Initiative, and you have some excellent universities
and research groups here. It might be useful to do some
documentation, engage in some study of this impact of the labor
issue with the specialty crops in this region. And it could
qualify for that, to begin to give us in Washington more
substantive information and credibility on how we move forward
with this, because, I assure you, I grew up on a farm. I used
to come up. Matter of fact, I used to come up here a long time
ago when I was a kid, in around Utica. And they used to have a
lot of bean picking up there then. I don't know if they still
do. And even back then, it was migrant labor coming up from the
south, and they used to have what they called bean camps up
here.
So you're very unique in this regard, and it could be a
wise utilization of your block grants to get some information
on this. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to follow up on the questions of the gentleman
from Georgia, again, on the issue of the H-2A Program and Guest
Worker Programs in general.
I have, in the last few Congresses, introduced legislation
to reform the H-2A Program to change the adverse effect wage
rate, which seems like a bureaucrat's dream, to the prevailing
wage rate which it seems like most businesses pay their workers
based upon what the prevailing wage is in--in the marketplace.
It also would reform a number of these other issues.
Unfortunately, it's also not something that will come up in
the farm bill because it's the Judiciary Committee's
jurisdiction. But since I am a Member of the Judiciary
Committee, I can be helpful in that regard, and I would love to
hear some of the particular problems that you had here in the
last 2 years with the H-2A Program.
One example that I've heard, from my apple growers in the
Shenandoah Valley, has been that they have no ability to
determine whether or not the worker can actually do the work of
climbing a ladder and picking apples. In fact, when they
attempted to determine that the people they were going to be
hiring would indeed climb a ladder, they were told that they
were imposing a requirement that was inappropriate.
This kind of problem really makes a program which was
struggling to begin with, the H-2A Program, even more
unworkable and why I think it needs to be reformed. But Mr.
Child, Mr. Sullivan, any of you want to jump in and talk about
the experience you've had lately in dealing with the workers
you need under the H-2A Program?
Mr. Child. Yes, there are a few hurdles that have come up
in the last couple years. A lot of times with this program
we're being regulated by multiple agencies, both at the Federal
and state level. In the past, the H-2A Program required a
certain--required that the producer provide housing for the
workers, but left the inspection of the housing up to the state
departments of health.
That changed a couple years ago where, then before you
could receive certification, the inspection of the housing had
to be done at that time. Since you have to apply so far ahead
before your date of need for the workers, that meant going out
in the snow banks and working on the labor camp just to get
certification rather than having the facilities ready when the
workers arrived, and that's been a bit of a hardship.
I have heard horror stories. Some of my colleagues in Idaho
have had some very bad issues along those lines, where for very
minor, not even what you would normally consider infractions,
they're denied a housing permit. And then that backs up the
whole process and you have to start all over again.
Some of the regulations may have good intent, but the way
they're administered is really off base.
Mr. Goodlatte. Agreed. Let me, since I'm going to be
limited in time here.
Mr. Child. Okay.
Mr. Goodlatte. Let me shift over to another topic I'd like
to raise that we haven't had a lot of discussion about, and
that's the conservation programs. And I'll give Mr. Eckhardt
and Mr. Osborn an opportunity to tell us about which of those
programs producers in this part of the world take part in and
what conservation programs we should focus on with the limited
resources we have.
Mr. Osborn. I just want to add something just from the last
on the H-2A, and that is for a small producer like me, H-2A
doesn't work. It's too expensive and when I need three
employees for 1 week and then a month and a half later I need
ten, the H-2A doesn't fit. And there are a lot of small grape
growers and specialty crop producers that H-2A just doesn't
work, so there's nothing there for us to get the extra help
that we need.
In terms of conservation, we've worked with the Soil and
Water. We've got our drainage ditches put in. Those are all
very effective. The Cooperative Extension and their help in
bringing and letting us know what is available to us in terms
of education and the programs like mulching and things like
that that help our conservation are all very effective. I mean,
I appreciate everything that's being done.
Mr. Eckhardt. The EQIP Program is critically important, but
it also has a component that the producer contributes. There
are other matching funds that might be available from state or
local municipalities, so that when you look at the funding for
EQIP, as we tweak the program to make it work better,
especially in the specialty crops, I think there are lots of
opportunity to leverage other programs to fund that.
I think the critical part is, is we are all
conservationists at heart. We want to have something left for
our children and our grandchildren to farm. But if we don't
have these critical programs and practices in place, in some
cases there may not be much left, and the environment is
important to us.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Owens for 5 minutes.
Mr. Owens. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for testifying today.
It seems to me that the two issues we're hearing most about
are crop insurance and farm labor issues. I know that certainly
with Mr. Sullivan we've had many, many conversations about this
as it goes, and some cases go back to your father in the 1980s,
when we were having those same discussions.
In terms of the crop insurance issue, is there some
analysis, that you've seen that's out there, that would give us
a good road map to establishing a workable crop insurance
program? Obviously understanding it may have to be modified
regionally, and may also have to be modified in terms of the
type of agricultural program we're facing. It just strikes me
that we've had a lot of conversation about it, but when you
look at the crop insurance programs, it's not clear to me that
there is in fact an analysis that we could utilize to really,
in a major way, revamp these programs to make them more
functional.
Mr. Eckhardt. You're asking for a template that we can
apply across the board, with specialty crops, with field crops
like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton. I think it's going to be a
group effort to come up with a--we have a base, and I look at
that base as being, like the NAP Program, for those programs
that do not have any insurance, and the possibility of having
more crops added to the insured programs rather than relying on
NAP. But as a template, I think it's going to have to come down
to a consensus among specialty crop growers, region by region,
what works. And I think that looking at some of the things that
don't work and tweaking them to get them so they do work.
I wish I could say I had a template, and be able to hand it
to the Committee and say, here, this will work. This is my idea
as how it's going to work. I have some ideas, but it is not a
template, but it is some ideas on how we can tweak it and make
it work better. It's very difficult because there are so many
thousand of specialty crops that we would have to include in
something like that.
Mr. Owens. Well, let's start with the ideas that you do
have, and let's lay them out and then get some analysis done to
determine whether or not that works.
One of the things that struck me in your testimony, when
you talked about and having read about this before, is if you
have a 51 percent loss but you have, in effect, a deductible of
50 percent and you're getting paid one percent, it hardly makes
sense, I would think in most cases, to buy the insurance.
Mr. Eckhardt. That's correct. And I think when you look at
specialty crop growers and NAP insurance in general, whether it
be for a hay crop for dairy farmers, I mean, if you wanted NAP
insurance on your hay in 2012, you're already too late, because
you had to sign up by the 30th of September in 2011 to have
that crop insured.
To me, the first step is changing sign up dates. I mean,
just like Ralph said, to be able to look at the market
situation just prior to planting or planning to plant and say
okay, this crop, that crop, going to dropped, but you had to
buy it or at least sign up for the insurance 6 months ago, kind
of odd.
But also, what I would refer to as NAP Plus, where you
would actually, as an individual grower, choose to buy
additional insurance, maybe insure it to 65 percent, so you had
a 35 percent loss, and then you would have indemnification kick
in, you know. It's $250 per crop, per county, up to a maximum
of three crops. Okay, let's move it to a situation where you
would pay $500 or maybe a thousand, and you, as an individual,
would be able to choose that based on your need for protection.
Mr. Owens. Thanks. Want to move to the labor issue for just
a minute. I'm curious, from all of the panelists, whether or
not they would support a program that would provide for the
allowance of individuals currently in the country, potentially
illegally in the country, to obtain a work visa? Is that
something that the farm community would support?
Mr. Eckhardt. Oh, yes. I mean, for us it would be a--I
don't have any migrant workers right now. My work force is
almost entirely locals and especially teenagers.
You know, we're just holding our breath on how we're going
to farm in 2012 if I can't hire my teenagers. First of all,
we're one of the few employment opportunities for them. But the
biggest concern for us always is the fact that they're in
school until the end of June. They go back to school at the end
of August or early September, and what do I do to get crops
planted and what do I do in the fall to finish the harvest?
And having some--a few people available just for that short
period of time would be extremely helpful. Just like the H-2A
doesn't work. I mean, we need something that will work, and I
think anything you can do to help us with that.
Mr. Owens. Mr. Child, looks like you have a comment.
Mr. Child. Yes, yes, I would like--I would like to speak in
favor of that type of movement. I'm not talking about a fast
track to citizenship. Most of these people do not care to
become citizens of the U.S., or if they do, that option could
be there. But I don't think it should be fast tracked. It's not
what the workers are interested in, nor is it politically going
to happen.
But we do have a trained work force in the country, and to
start all over with new workers just to have a legal status
would also be burdensome. I think there should be a provision
to give these people that are currently here, illegally or not,
the opportunity to stay and work in the country. They are doing
the jobs that most Americans choose not to do.
Mr. Owens. I'd like to go back to Mr. Ooms' statement, we
either import labor or we import food. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Osborn. Just a quick----
The Chairman. The gentlemen, may finish. Yes, please.
Mr. Osborn. Quick comment on that. One, the government
doesn't have the infrastructure to do the paperwork for a new
work force, if you kicked everybody out. So to have the ability
to get legal working papers for people who are already in the
country, who are already working would be an excellent thing to
have.
Mr. Owens. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now turns to the gentleman from Texas, which should be noted
for the record, are amazed when they see the number of trees we
have in Oklahoma in the third district. Mr. Conaway is
recognized for 5 minutes. And a response before his 5 minutes
begins.
Mr. Conaway. Exactly. I actually--I gave the previous
Chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, a picture of myself standing by the
city limits signs of the city of No Trees, Texas, so in
addition to snow this morning, there are even trees in it as
well.
Mr. Sullivan, I couldn't help but notice the name Isabella
on, or Isabel, on your pink and white tote that you brought in,
and much--and then your comments about the debt that we're
laying on them and the struggles that we have across this
entire country as to how we hand off the legacy, of the
American legacy, to her--I'm assuming it's your daughter--to my
grandchildren. I have seven grandkids, that legacy of debt that
we are on the path to do that.
I offered up the last farm bill, 2008, an amendment in
Committee that would have said if you only get--if your check,
your maximum check, that you get from the non-crop insurance
portion of the support system is $100 or less, that you
wouldn't get it. That the payments would have to be more than
$100 or we wouldn't pay you.
And we had a pitched battle in the Committee how cruel that
was for me to argue that, that $100 was the difference between
making it and breaking it on a farm. And in your comment, that
the $30,000 for the Tree Assistance Program, while helpful, had
you not had it you would still be growing apples today.
And as we look at these programs, we need to focus on which
ones--because we can't afford them all, what are those that are
really the make/break kinds of issues involved. We fought them
all the way down to $25 a check, so that, if the check is less
than $25, which it costs USDA $30 to write each check, you
don't get it.
We stripped about $6 billion out of the Crop Insurance
Program over the last couple of years. And I want to know if
any of you have seen an impact on the private delivery system,
that I think most of us support, where you've got private folks
selling the insurance, doing the adjustments and working with
you on those programs. Have you seen an impact yet from that
reduction of some $6 billion from the crop insurance side?
Mr. Osborn. I would just like to talk about the paperwork.
Doing the--the grape--insuring grapes is, and I don't know
about other crops, but when my insurance agent comes to talk to
me about the crop insurance, he--he says what level do you
want? Do you want 95 percent, 90s all the way down to 60, 50
percent? And then I say, well, what's it going to cost? He
goes, well, I don't really know because RMA hasn't really told
us yet. I have a good idea.
I mean, 5 years ago, they had no knowledge. Now they sort
of have an idea, and they'll get up a quote and they'll say,
here's your quote. And I'll say, okay, I'll take the 75
percent, that one.
Well, then that goes to RMA, and then they come back and
say this is the price. And I only get one shot on that. If I
don't like the price, then I--I don't get insured, or I have to
take it. The insurance agents not having a clear picture of
what the cost of that insurance is going to be is problematic.
Mr. Sullivan. We're pleased with the Crop Insurance
Program. USApple worked with RMA and the crop insurance
providers to work to improve the apple policy. You will have
some apple growers who say they're not happy with it, of
course, and there's minor glitches in the system. But I mean,
overall, it's a very functional program.
As for how you save $6 billion----
Mr. Conaway. No, no. We've already done that. I'm just
saying what impact has that had? Have you seen the impact?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, no, I have absolutely no idea. I did--
people in Kansas City at the RMA office are a great group of
individuals. I worked with them and just appreciate the hard
work that they do at that office. And they're really working
very, very hard for the growing community.
It may not seem that way, and you've got a lot of actuarial
people in there who can do circles with numbers in there. But I
mean, it's a good group. And I think as you're doing the Crop
Insurance Program, you've got to get their insight in it. I
mean, they've got oodles of experience.
I mean, I want to tell you, yes, we need to be--color of
the apples, I'm going to tell you that's a green apple versus a
red apple, and we need to get some of the loss end of it. But
when it comes to the number ends of it and how stuff is going
to work on the actuarial thing, you really need to get RMA's
involvement in there.
Mr. Conaway. Mr. Eckhardt?
Mr. Eckhardt. In delivery, I think that the private
insurance company people have done a reasonably good job, even
with some of the cuts that we've seen. I still say that our
biggest issue is the fact that we have--if it's apples, an
apple--have we got apples or we have grapes.
But when you come to a diversified farm like my own, where
we may have close to 30 crops or those people who are growing
nontraditional crops like hops or, here in the Northeast,
arugula or Belgian endive or the list just starts--goes from A
to Z, arugula to zucchini, if you want to call it that.
It's just one of the issues that perhaps the best people
that have the best knowledge of the crops grown in that area is
the FSA County Committee, and their input, and growers' input
into what is a good yield, what's a good price, how can we
insure this crop, would probably be best, a good way is spend
some time with those people.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now turns to the gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again to another wonderful panel for your
articulate thoughts. I do want to take a quick aside here so
this doesn't get lost, is follow-up on one of the dairy things.
I didn't know before that Representative Gibson had entered
into a cow milking contest, and I just want to challenge him
here in his home district. I do have a blue ribbon and a red
ribbon from a politician's cow milking contest and would ask if
we can have a little match-up.
The Chairman. The gauntlet is thrown down.
Ms. Pingree. Exactly. Maine against New York.
But thank you very much. As I said, I mentioned earlier
that one of my interests on the aspects of local food and local
production in the growing market there, but I also support all
of my colleagues' questions on crop insurance.
In the bill that I submitted, we asked the USDA to analyze
this problem, because I do think there are a lot of good ideas
and data out there. There are good thoughts from actuaries,
farmers themselves, and I do think having a whole farm crop
insurance program--Mr. Eckhardt, you've had a lot of good ideas
for us today--but it would be very beneficial to many of the
farmers that I represent. And I think we could resolve this
issue with a little bit of resources put behind it and then
provide something that would really be useful to many of the
farms and the farms that are actually growing today.
I also represent a lot of organic growers and as many of
you in the room know, organic growers have to pay a premium,
but then a reduced price when they recover anything from crop
insurance, which is completely backwards and upside down. So I
think there's an opportunity there, particularly, again, with
this being a fast-growing market and a lot of investment being
made in organic production today.
So just to the panel generally, and any of you who have
thoughts on this, as I mentioned, I'm interested in how we
spend our resources on programs that allow you to expand in the
local food market, to use more CSA, farmers' markets.
Many of you have already talked about some of the areas
where you're benefiting or using some of the programs that are
out there. One thing I'm interested in is that there are about
2,000 Farm-to-School Programs around the country that are
providing more local foods for schools, also universities and
hospitals. That's a great market and a local market.
And I know there are some barriers there, and so I'm
interested in that, but also just any of your input on these
particular programs and where we should be directing our
resources. I'll just open it up to any of you.
Mr. Osborn. I'm a big proponent of local, just to talk a
little bit about marketing, marketing to the American consumer,
that buying local is important, not only from knowing where
their food is coming from, but what the impact is.
For every bottle of wine that you buy local, you return
$10.60--or $10.05 to the local community. When you buy a wine
from another country, you return 67 cents. So the impact of
buying local is huge, and I don't think the American public
really understands that, and I think that's probably the most
important thing we need to do.
The other is people have to understand the difference in
cost. I had a Chilean grape grower in visiting last year, and
he said to me, said, Scott, how much do you pay your vineyard
help? And I said, well, I give them $10, $12 an hour plus
medical benefits. And he sat there and looked at me, and he
goes, wow, I pay mine, $8 a day.
I can't compete with $8 a day. And I think the American
public needs to understand that everybody needs a good living
and we just can't compete with these people, and they shouldn't
buy their products that are basically exploiting the workers.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that. And I do think it helps to
emphasize that this is a--this is a jobs issue, and especially
in many of our local communities and certainly an economic
benefit, so thank you for that. Go ahead.
Mr. Child. One comment on encouraging local marketing: The
State Specialty Crop Block Grants are a good avenue for that.
In New York State, over the past few years, approximately
20 percent of that block grant money has gone into marketing
and promotion, much of which is on a, probably, a local type
scale. It also has helped fund improvements at the Hunts Point
Terminal market in New York City for those producers that
choose to market there. So that is one approach that the
Federal Government can help on that line.
Mr. Eckhardt. And the research for the nutrition portion of
it, especially when we talk about School Lunch Program, as we
try to get more local products into our schools, collaborating
with people so that we can use products. An apple is an apple
from--if your school is right here locally and you produce
apples locally, they should be able to use those local apples.
The Vegetable Growers Association, along with several other
groups, are trying to make cookies that go into School Lunch
Programs. How do you make butternut squash into a really good
nutritious cookie that kids want to eat? Like, you put
chocolate chips in it.
But the idea is that we try to come to these research
things to help with School Lunch Programs and what makes
children want to eat nutritious things. They have to taste
good, they have to look good, they have to be good for them.
Ms. Pingree. Okay. Thank you. I'm out of time, but thank
you very much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. We now
turn for the final 5 minutes allotment to the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panel.
It's just been very detailed, a productive testimony. I
also want to take the opportunity on behalf of my colleague,
Bill Owens, to thank our hosts here today, that the North
Country Community College, very proud of this institution.
Indeed, number one in the state, 22 in the nation.
A few comments, and then I'll throw out the questions for
the panelists. But it's certainly some discussion here this
morning about our situation with deficit and debt, and I keenly
appreciate what has been communicated this morning.
It's so important, though, that we take a comprehensive
approach to this, a thoughtful comprehensive approach, as we go
about that very serious question in recognizing the fact that,
even in the last 5 years there have already been significant
savings in this area. And the fact that when you look at it in
total outlays, you're talking \1/2\ of 1 percent of outlays
into a sector of our economy that's so vitally important.
Absolutely, we need to scrutinize every single program to
make sure we're doing what's right, but we also recognize no
farms, no food. We need to get this right or we're going to end
up growing food overseas. So certainly appreciate that's not to
negate anything that's been said here today, but just that how
important it is we get that balance right.
I want to make a few comments. This testimony, I deeply
appreciate all that was communicated here.
Disaster relief: we were hit very badly by a storm,
including up here in the North Country, in August. And having
the Emergency Conservation Program, the Emergency Watershed
Program available to us, it took some fight to get that funding
there, but it helped us in terms of debris removal, money for
fences, for reimbursement there, and cleaning out streams.
And Mr. Chairman, just say that going forward, I think it's
important we budget for this because this was a situation we
were at zero balance and it took us a couple of months to fight
our way to get that money available. As we think about this
bill, that we think about paying that forward, in making sure
that those programs are available to us.
But we also know that even after that assistance was
available, we ran up against this insurance, so no farmer was
made whole. And you know, Bill Owens put a marker down that we
should pick up and continue to work, and he said, well, what
would that template look like?
And I've got here today a couple folks who work on my ag
advisory panel who are also part of the New York Farm Bureau,
Julie Suarez and Eric Ooms, and I'd ask that we think about is
there some way that New York could work on a proposal that may
flesh this out in greater detail, that we can get into the
national narrative. Something to think about. Certainly, I have
no tasking authority over you, but just to say that maybe we
can work together on that to provide a recommendation.
The next thing is, Mr. Eckhardt mentioned that NRCS, he was
talking about the EQIP Program and that he thought it may be
administered in the FSA. Mr. Chairman, that I just want to tell
you that I move all about the 137 towns in my district. I do
hear that quite often.
I just want to submit it, that I want to reinforce and
affiliate myself with the remarks of Mr. Eckhardt. And
something to think about, it's really just a common sense
approach, and recognize that this is looked at differently in
different parts of the country. But here, we like to have our
foot soldiers out and working issues, and then the folks who
are helping facilitate, those are the ones who are helping with
the paperwork. And that's sort of the view here in upstate New
York as it relates to how we delineate duties.
I might also say that it might be worth looking at, we're
talking about bureaucratic reorganization, that we also
consider the labor issue that we've talked about so much. And I
know, Mr. Sullivan, we worked with you, you've come down to
D.C. I appreciate that. We've worked with Mr. Owens, the New
York delegation, as we try to sort through this. I wonder if
that program, H-2A, isn't better administered in the USDA
instead of the DOL. I think we might have more empathy in
trying to solve the problem if it was the same folks who come
from the farming community. Something to think about.
I want to affiliate myself with remarks of Mr. Eckhardt in
terms of FSA closings. You know, as the guy who was a soldier
for many years, I think we should be looking to the
headquarters in D.C. Before we come out here. You know, we have
offices that have two people in it, but those two personnel are
so vitally important to the farmers all throughout the
community. And as we look to consolidate, I would say are there
savings first that we can get in the headquarters before we
come out to where we're actually providing the services?
Organic was mentioned. I want to say today I had Mike
Kilpatrick here. He's about 24 years old. He's an incredible
young man, bright future ahead of him. Took a really hard hit
in this storm. He represents the future, I think. He's just a
representative of the future of organic farming in our area.
We need to support him. And I'd ask Mike Kilpatrick, since
we weren't able to get you as a witness here today, if you
could provide your recommendations--I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, if
we could submit that for the record for consideration.
[The information referred to is located on p. 894.]
Mr. Gibson. And I'm sorry about the lengthy statement, but
I did want to make these points. And I just want to ask the
panelists for--we haven't gotten on the record yet as far as
the energy programs and broadband. These are just other areas
where we can try to help the profitability in extending the
reach of our agricultural community. I'd ask that--we've had
some farmers in our district take advantage of the energy
incentives, none of which were in the USDA, somewhere in
Treasury, to help with photovoltaic--to help drive down energy
costs. I'd ask for any kind of comment from the panelists.
The Chairman. And a prompt answer would be appreciated.
Mr. Osborn. Which kind of answer? A short one?
I think there should be more funds devoted to help either
with tax credits or something for alternative energy. You know,
at this point in time, I'm considering working out a solar
project. I'd like to have the whole farm to be solar. But it's
pretty hard to work out the numbers to come up with $150,000 to
put in a solar thing. To wait for tax credits down the road is
problematic.
I'm working with a leasing company. If I can get the lease
prices down, below what my cost of utility would be, I would do
that.
But I just want to address the FSA closings. In Yates
County, we're losing our FSA office, and it's going to be
tragic. There are a lot of Mennonites in our county and these
folks use horse and buggy, and for them to have to now travel
25 to 30 miles in a horse and buggy is really problematic. And
we only have two people in the office, and they're very, very
effective. And they're very communicative, they stay on top of
every farmer, and we know exactly what's going on. And to lose
that is going to be tragic in Yates County.
Mr. Eckhardt. Just real quick, probably the most important
crop that every farm in this area of the Northeast produces is
their children. And without the ability to put these young
people in a position of responsibility for working on our
farms, whether they're our own kids or our neighbors', we've
had three generations of young people that have worked for us:
Their grandparents, their parents and now the kids are working
for us. And I think as we go forward, if we're going to have
anybody take over in agriculture, we've got to have young
people involved in agriculture, and we can't exclude them. A 14
year old with a size 15 shoe at 6 1" is not an infant.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, the panel's
time has expired. The chair would like to note that before we
adjourn it has been my custom to allow the Members whose
district we are in a closing comment. Not all of us are
fortunate enough to live in New York State and we are
scattering to the airports very shortly. Mr. Owens, 2 minutes,
sir.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, again, thank you to all of you for attending today.
Thank you to the panelists.
I want to say that from my perspective, I enjoyed listening
and learning today. This is very important to all of us to
bring back to Washington. I also want to say as we talk much in
Washington about buy America, this is the penultimate product
to be purchased in America. And Mr. Osborn, your suggestion
that we buy America, particularly in the wine area, where
you're competing with other countries at a cheaper price, I
think we all should take that to heart. We also should focus on
that when we're going into Wal-Mart and other places and we're
picking up foreign made products.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I would note to
all of our good folks participating in the back of the room
today in this hearing, anyone watching or listening, you can
visit the House Agricultural Committee's website to learn more
about the 2012 Farm Bill. In addition, you may submit comments
to be considered a part of the Committee's field hearing
record. Your comments must be submitted using the website
address by May 20, 2012, and that is http://
agriculture.house.gov/farmbill. Look it up on our website.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record for today's
hearing will remain open for 30 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplemental written responses from
witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m. (EST) the Committee was
adjourned.]
THE FUTURE OF U.S. FARM POLICY: FORMULATION OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
----------
FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Galesburg, IL.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m. (CDT), in
the Gymnasium, Building F, Carl Sandburg College, 2400 Tom L.
Wilson Boulevard, Galesburg, Illinois, Hon. Frank D. Lucas
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Lucas, Conaway, Hultgren,
Schilling, and Boswell.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Tamara Hinton, John Porter,
Matt Schertz, Nicole Scott, Debbie Smith, Pelham Straughn, John
Konya, Margaret Wetherald, C. Clark Ogilvie, and Caleb
Crosswhite.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
entitled, The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation of the
2012 Farm Bill, will come to order.
Good morning and thank you all for joining us today for
this farm bill field hearing. And I would like to thank
Congressman Schilling for hosting this hearing here in
Illinois.
These field hearings are a continuation of what my friend
and Ranking Member Collin Peterson started in the spring of
2010. Today, we will build upon the information we gathered in
those hearings, as well as 11 farm policy audits we conducted
this past summer.
We used those audits as an opportunity to thoroughly
evaluate farm programs to identify areas where we could improve
efficiency.
The field hearings serve a slightly different purpose
though. Today, we are here to listen.
I talk to producers all the time back in Oklahoma. I see
them in the feed store and I meet with them at my town hall
meetings. And of course I get regular updates from my boss back
home on the farm. Yes, that is Linda Lucas. But the conditions
and crops in Oklahoma are different than what you will find
here in Illinois.
And one of the reasons we hold field hearings is to get a
sense of the diversity of agriculture across this great
country.
Let me tell you--in some ways, Illinois and my home state
of Oklahoma could not be more different. Back home--and I say
this respectfully--back home, we do not measure our soil in
feet and our rain in inches like you do here. That is called a
little bit of envy.
The broad range of agricultural production makes our
country strong, and it also creates challenges when you are
trying to write a single farm bill to support so many different
regions and so many different commodities.
While each sector has unique concerns when it comes to farm
policy, I would like to share some of my general goals for the
next farm bill.
First and foremost, I want to give producers the tools to
help you do what you do best, and that is produce the safest,
most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world.
To do this, we must develop a farm bill that works for all
regions and all commodities. We have repeatedly heard that a
one-size-fits-all program will not work. I can tell you from
experience that what works here in Illinois will not work as
well for my constituents in Oklahoma. So the commodity title
must give producers options so that they can choose the program
that works best for them.
I am also committed to providing a strong crop insurance
program. The Committee has heard loud and clear about the
importance of crop insurance and we believe it is the
cornerstone of the safety net. Today, we hope to hear how we
can improve crop insurance.
And last, we will work to ensure that producers can
continue using conservation programs to protect our natural
resources. I am interested to hear how producers in this area
of the country use the conservation programs. I am particularly
curious as to your thoughts on how to simplify the process so
they are easier for farmers and ranchers to use.
Beyond those priorities, I know there are a number of
universal concerns facing agriculture across the country.
For instance, my producers in Oklahoma are concerned and
worried about regulations coming down from the Environmental
Protection Agency and how they must comply with those
regulations.
I am also aware that the death tax is creating difficulties
for farming operations. And I want to hear how these Federal
policies are affecting producers here.
Today, we will hear from a selection of producers.
Unfortunately, we just do not have time to hear from everybody
who would like to share their perspective. But we have a place
on our website where you can submit those comments in writing.
You can visit agriculture.house.gov/farmbill to find that
place. And you can also find the address on the postcards
available on the table here.
As I said before, we do not have an easy road ahead of us.
But I am confident that by working together, we can craft a
farm bill that continues to support the success story that
American agriculture is.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress
from Oklahoma
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today for this farm
bill field hearing. I'd also like to thank Congressman Schilling for
hosting this hearing here in Illinois.
These field hearings are a continuation of what my good friend and
Ranking Member Collin C. Peterson started in the spring of 2010. Today,
we'll build upon the information we gathered in those hearings, as well
as the 11 farm policy audits we conducted this past summer.
We used those audits as an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate farm
programs to identify areas where we could improve efficiency.
The field hearings serve a slightly different purpose. Today, we're
here to listen.
I talk to producers all the time back in Oklahoma. I see them in
the feed store and I meet them at my town hall meetings. And of course,
I get regular updates from my boss back on our ranch. But the
conditions and crops in Oklahoma are different than what you'll find
here in Illinois.
One of the reasons we hold field hearings is to get a sense of the
diversity of agriculture across this great country.
Let me tell you--in some ways, Illinois and my home state of
Oklahoma couldn't be more different. Back home, we don't measure our
soil in feet and our rain in inches like you do here.
The broad range of agricultural production makes our country
strong, but it also creates challenges when we're trying to write a
single farm bill to support so many different regions and commodities.
While each sector has unique concerns when it comes to farm policy,
I'd like to share some of my general goals for the next farm bill.
First and foremost, I want to give producers the tools to help you
do what you do best, and that is to produce the safest, most abundant,
most affordable food supply in the world.
To do this we must develop a farm bill that works for all regions
and all commodities. We have repeatedly heard that a one-size-fits-all
program will not work. I can tell you from experience that what works
here in Illinois won't work as well for my constituents in Oklahoma.
So the commodity title must give producers options so that they can
choose the program that works best for them.
I also am committed to providing a strong crop insurance program.
The Committee has heard loud and clear about the importance of crop
insurance and we believe it is the cornerstone of the safety net.
Today, we hope to hear how we can improve crop insurance.
Last, we'll work to ensure that producers can continue using
conservation programs to protect our natural resources.
I'm interested to hear how producers in this area of the country
use the conservation programs. I'm particularly curious as to your
thoughts on how to simplify that process so they are easier for our
farmers and ranchers to use.
Beyond those priorities, I know there are a number of universal
concerns facing agriculture across the country.
For instance, my producers in Oklahoma are worried about
regulations coming down from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and how they must comply with those regulations.
I'm also aware that the death tax is creating difficulties for
farming operations. I want to hear how these Federal policies are
affecting producers here.
Today, we'll be hearing from a selection of producers.
Unfortunately, we just don't have time to hear from everybody who would
like to share their perspective. But we have a place on our website
where you can submit those comments in writing.
You can visit agriculture.house.gov/farmbill to find that place.
You can also find that address on the postcards available on the table
here.
As I said before, we don't have an easy road ahead of us. But I'm
confident that by working together, we can craft a farm bill that
continues to support the success story that is American Agriculture.
The Chairman. And with that, I would like to turn to my
colleague, my senior Democratic Member at the hearing today,
for any opening statement that he may offer. The gentleman from
Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD L. BOSWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM IOWA
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all
of you for being here. I am not trying to stand in for the
Ranking Member Collin Peterson, but I am very pleased to be
here.
This will probably surprise our Chairman, I do not think so
though--might embarrass him. But I think we have an excellent
Chairman of the Agriculture Committee that is committed to
making it the best we can make it. And I like what he just
said, I want to repeat it in my own words.
You know, everybody in this country--everybody in this
country--has a vested interest in agriculture. We all eat. And
we are not making more land, we are making a lot more people.
And I will comment just very briefly, but what we all get,
whether it is that guy or lady in downtown New York or L.A. or
Dallas or wherever, is the most plentiful, least expensive,
safest food in the world. Make no mistake about it. Does not
seem like it when you go to the grocery store, but that is
true. Just check it out. So we are all invested in it and we
ought to be appreciative of that and remember how important it
is to all of us. And that is something I think we all need to
be promulgating constantly, so I hope you will do that.
It is kind of neat for me to be back in Galesburg, it has
been a long time. I came here one time with a Farm Progress
Show. Now that takes you back a few years, some of you. Was
anybody here at the Farm Progress Show? Well, I had just gotten
out of spending a career in the military, come home and started
farming again and I bought me a motorcycle, and I brought about
six guys on motorcycles to Galesburg and we arrived--it has
been a number of years ago--pouring down rain and muddy on the
grounds and everything. And here I am on a two-wheeler trying
to get around and find a place to park where when you put the
kickstand down, it will not just sink.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Boswell. But so much for that. It was a good experience
and I feel some real affection for it and you do a lot of
things here like we do, just a little bit west of here.
Chairman Lucas made a comment about his soils and so on
from Oklahoma. Well, I spent a lot of time at Fort Sill, not
too far from him--a lot of time. I have some stewardship over
some land. We measure topsoil by the inch as well. So everybody
thinks Iowa's topsoil it is feet. Well, some places it is and
some places it is here in Illinois, but not everywhere.
The farm program is very important to us and I am just
going to close here and just say this: there is room for
everybody in this. You know, I was in the state legislature on
the Agriculture Committee and got very involved. I came back to
do what I love to do and that is agriculture. We have gone
through a time when there is production agriculture,
sustainable agriculture, organic agriculture, so on. And there
has been a lot of head bumping over it. Let me tell you this is
what I think, I think there is room for all of us. We can stop
that, we do not need to do that. The farmers' markets are
growing like crazy, people want that. The population growth is
unbelievable. We are going to be stressed to be able to provide
food and fiber for the people of this world. There is room for
all of us. So let's work together and let's make it the best we
can.
And I certainly agree that the safety net is what we are
probably going to be focused on. I think I will be interested
in what you have to say so that we understand. You know,
Federal crop insurance is available, affordable and so on, and
make it work.
So I am just very pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank you. I am glad to be in my colleague's district, I
appreciate it. I am anxious to hear what you have to tell us so
we can do the best we can with the leadership of the Chairman
here to bring forth a farm bill.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Iowa yields back his time
and I appreciate those very thoughtful words, and we now turn,
as is my custom when we are doing a field hearing, to the
Member who represents the district that we are in. You would be
impressed at how hard and diligently he worked to help make
sure that the Agriculture Committee came to his district, the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schilling is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT T. SCHILLING, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS
Mr. Schilling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to start out, this week the Illinois ag
community lost a very special woman and I wanted to dedicate
this opening statement to her. Maralee Johnson was an effective
voice for the Illinois Beef Association. Her kindness and
passion were always appreciated and her efforts for beef
producers across this state will be remembered. Our strongest
thoughts and prayers go out to her family. And with that, this
one is for Maralee.
First, I want to thank Chairman Lucas for holding this farm
bill hearing. I also want to welcome my colleagues, Congressmen
Boswell, Conaway and Hultgren. Thank you for coming and welcome
to the Illinois 17th District.
This district is blessed with some of the most fruitful and
productive soil in the world. In fact, when it comes to the
value of sales for corn and soybeans, we rank 14th out of 435
Congressional Districts. We host the Farm Progress Show every
other year. We are home to ag manufacturers John Deere and
Caterpillar and are among the leading districts for livestock
in the country. In short, we are an agricultural powerhouse.
I cannot tell you how much our community appreciates the
opportunity to be one of four locations throughout this great
nation to discuss the next farm bill. It is good to see that we
have some friends from Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota in
attendance with us today as well.
Before we get started, I also want to thank the fine folks
at Carl Sandburg College for opening up their doors for this
event. I especially want to thank President Lori Sundberg,
Julie Van Fleet, Bill Gaither, Aaron Frey, Robin DeMott, Mary
Ann Nelson, Anthony Law of the campus security, Bobby
Frederick, my ag specialist and the countless others who helped
set this up. Many thanks to the Knox County Sheriff's
Department and the Galesburg Police Department as well.
I also want to recognize a great leader in the community,
the Mayor of Galesburg, Mayor Sal Garza. We really appreciate
all the efforts that he helps with our community to bring and
liven up our economics here.
Again, I want to welcome all of our farmers, producers,
guests and witnesses here today. I have the honor of
representing Deb Moore from Roseville, Dave Erickson from
Altona, Gary Asay from Osco and Terry Davis from Roseville, all
of whom are here to testify today.
I look forward to hearing from all of you about the 2008
Farm Bill, how it has been effective and how we can improve the
future or ag.
Before we get to the testimony, I wand to address the issue
of bipartisanship and offer insight to the question that almost
all of you are asking. Can Congress get a farm bill done this
year? In the spirit of Mark Twain, reports of the death of
bipartisanship have been greatly exaggerated. After all, it was
this Congress that passed the three free trade agreements,
repealed the onerous 1099 tax reporting requirement, passed the
VOW to Hire Heroes veterans jobs bill, passed the STOCK Act,
passed a 4 year FAA reauthorization, and passed a defense bill
that will promote workload and jobs for Rock Island Arsenal.
All of these laws were bipartisan, I might add.
Do we have our work cut out for us? Absolutely. But this is
a bipartisan Committee and we will work together to produce a
farm bill that works great for America. We have an economy
struggling to regain its footing and a budget crisis to solve.
Fortunately, ag has been very, very bright for us; yet, we know
the economic production and cycles in ag require us to plan for
the future.
At $136.3 billion in 2011, ag exports have never been
higher, and according to the USDA, for every $1 billion in ag
exports, that provides for 8,400 related jobs for men and women
here and across America. That is why it is so important that
the next farm bill continue to allow producers to do what they
do best. At a time when rural populations are looking for new
ways to grow our communities, our voice must be stronger than
ever and I believe this Committee is up to the task.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to listening to our
farm panels today. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schilling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert T. Schilling, a Representative in
Congress from Illinois
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The Illinois Ag Community lost a very special woman this week and I
want to dedicate this opening statement to her.
Maralee Johnson was an effective voice for the Illinois Beef
Association. Her kindness and passion were always appreciated--and her
efforts for beef producers across this state will be remembered.
Our strongest thoughts and prayers go to her family. And with that,
this one is for Maralee.
I want to thank Chairman Lucas for holding this farm bill hearing.
I also want to welcome my colleagues, Congressmen, Boswell, Conaway and
Hultgren.
Thank you for coming and welcome to Illinois' 17th District.
This District is blessed with some of the most fruitful and
productive soil in the world. In fact, when it comes to the value of
sales of corn and soybeans, we rank 14th out of 435 Congressional
Districts.
We host the Farm Progress Show every other year, are home to ag
manufacturers John Deere and CATERPILLAR, and are among the leading
districts for livestock in the country.
In short, we are an agricultural powerhouse.
I can't tell you how much this community appreciates the
opportunity to be one of the four locations throughout this great
nation to discuss the next farm bill. It's good to see that we have
some friends from Iowa, Indiana, Ohio and Minnesota in attendance today
as well.
Before we get started, I also want to thank the fine folks of Carl
Sandburg College for opening up their doors for this event. I
especially want to thank:
President Lori Sundberg,
Julie Van Fleet,
Bill Gaither,
Aaron Frey,
Robin DeMott,
Mary Ann Nelson,
Anthony Law of Campus Security,
And countless others who helped set up this great venue.
Many thanks to the Knox County Sheriff's Department and the
Galesburg Police Department as well.
Again, I want to welcome all of our farmers, producers, guests and
witnesses here today.
I have the honor of representing Deb Moore from Roseville, Dave
Erickson from Altona, Gary Asay from Osco and Terry Davis from
Roseville--all of whom are here to testify today.
I look forward to hearing from all of you about how the 2008 Farm
Bill has been working and how we can improve things for the future of
Agriculture.
Before we get to testimony, I want to address the issue of
bipartisanship and offer insight to the question that almost all of you
are asking . . . ``Can Congress get a farm bill done this year?''
In the spirit of Mark Twain, reports of the death of bipartisanship
have been greatly exaggerated.
After all, It was THIS Congress that:
passed the THREE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS,
repealed the onerous 1099 tax reporting requirement,
passed the VOW to Hire Heroes veterans' jobs bill,
passed the STOCK ACT,
passed a FOUR-YEAR FAA reauthorization
and passed a Defense bill that will promote workload and jobs at
the Rock Island Arsenal.
All of these laws were bipartisan I might add.
Do we have our work cut out for us? Absolutely. But this is a
bipartisan Committee and we will work together to produce a farm bill
that works for America.
We have an economy struggling to regain its footing, and a budget
crisis to solve. Fortunately agriculture has been a very bright spot,
yet we know the economic and production cycles in agriculture require
us to plan carefully for the future.
At $136.3 billion dollars in 2011--ag exports have never been
higher. And according to USDA--every $1 billion in AG exports provides
for 8,400 related jobs for men and women here in America.
That is why it is so important that the next farm bill continue to
allow producers to do what they do best.
At a time when rural populations are looking for new ways to grow
our communities, our voice must be stronger than ever and I believe
this Committee is up to the task.
With that Mr. Chairman, I look forward to listening to our farm
panels today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Schilling, for
yielding back.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony, and to ensure there is ample time for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
As we approach the current farm bill's expiration date, we will
hear directly from farmers and ranchers across the country on the
issues they face every day.
Writing a new farm bill will not be an easy task. Everybody is
being asked to do more with less, and, it seems to me, that agriculture
is being asked to cut even more than others. I'm particularly troubled
by the House Republican budget released this week which, in addition to
massive cuts to agriculture and nutrition programs, includes
reconciliation instructions asking our Committee to make unrealistic
budget cuts. I just don't see how we can make these cuts and then turn
around to write a strong farm bill.
The agriculture economy is perhaps the only part of our nation's
economy that has remained strong over the last few years. It is amazing
to me that those outside of agriculture are trying to mess this up.
Passing a farm bill this year or even next year if it comes to
that, is going to be incredibly difficult. We need producers of all
regions, representing all commodities, to work together to get a new
farm bill across the finish line.
I thank the witnesses for making the time to testify hear today.
The Chairman. I would like to welcome our first panel of
witnesses to the table--Mr. David C. Erickson, corn and soybean
producer, Altona, Illinois; Ms. Deborah L. Moore, corn,
soybean, and beef producer, Roseville Illinois; Mr. John Mages,
corn and soybean producer, Belgrade, Minnesota; Mr. Blake
Gerard, rice, soybean, wheat, and corn producer, McClure,
Illinois; and Mr. Craig Adams, corn, soybean, wheat, hay, and
beef producer--you are a busy man--Leesburg, Ohio.
Mr. Erickson, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DAVID C. ERICKSON, CORN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCER,
ALTONA, IL
Mr. Erickson. Thank you. My name is David Erickson, I am a
Knox County farmer from Altona, Illinois. And as a life long
resident here in Knox County, I want to welcome the Committee
and in particular Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, all
the other Members of the Committee. We appreciate your
commitment to come here to our community for this hearing. And
in particular, I want to thank Congressman Schilling for his
persistence in not only serving the district, but in making
sure that this all-important hearing is here, as well as the
work of his staff. Thank you very much.
My wife Nancy and I operate a corn and soybean farming
operation and a farm management business that serves absentee
landowners. Our businesses are truly family owned and
established through the work of the previous two generations of
our families. We continue to enjoy the involvement of three
generations of our families in production agriculture and work
with multi-generations of landowners through our farm
management business. We are extremely optimistic about the
future of agriculture.
I believe that farm businesses should be rewarded for their
work in the global marketplace and that we need to continue to
support efforts to open, develop and further expand markets for
agricultural products and commodities, both domestically and
globally. The impacts that these products have had here locally
is beyond question. Agricultural exports support jobs here at
home and particularly when we add value through enhancing our
basic commodities.
I urge Congress to continue to support trade agreements and
initiatives that provide increased access, improved acceptance
and fair trade policies for U.S. agriculture. Congress has an
important job ahead of it.
As farmers, we protect and enhance our environment because
we know the importance of sustained rich soil and clean water
that supports our family and our consuming public. Some current
conservation programs are over-burdened with rules and
procedures and do little to impact programs except use up
limited budget allocations. I urge Congress to consider
simplifying, consolidating our current conservation programs to
allow for the most effective use of those funds budgeted for
these efforts.
As a taxpayer, I want Congress to cut spending, reduce
waste and improve results with our investment. I believe that
the Federal budget deficits must be eliminated and debt
reduced. I feel strongly that agriculture should do its part to
help Congress in this endeavor.
I know that much of the discussion to date about the farm
bill has led to proposed elimination of direct payments. While
I understand the need for change, I also must report how direct
payments in our farming operations are beneficial and
effective. Without the assistance of any other government
programs, we invested these direct payments back into our
farming operation to reduce soil erosion, improve drainage,
limit nutrient runoff and manage price risk. We made effective
use of those dollars and taxpayers reap the rewards with a
safe, abundant, low cost supply of food and fiber.
I understand the importance of Federal crop insurance as a
part of risk management and I know that too much emphasis also
on any single approach can be dangerous. Federal crop insurance
should provide risk coverage for crop losses but not for poor
marketing and overall risk management. Farming is a risky
business. We need tools to help us manage these risks but those
risks can never be totally eliminated.
I urge you to consider streamlining farm program paperwork.
A vast majority of Illinois farmland is owned by someone other
than who physically operates it. Absentee landowners are
reaching the end of their desire to comply with all the
requirements of farm program participation. Their frustration
will only lead to lower participation and the increased
likelihood of cash only rental arrangements that do nothing but
compound the risk already that farmers must bear.
I encourage your continued work to complete the farm bill
legislation this year and to make it a 5 year program that does
not rely on temporary extensions. No aspect of the commodity
title fits all operations or regions, but I trust you to work
diligently to craft legislation that provides flexibility for
the inherent diversity that encompasses U.S. agriculture.
I thank you for the privilege to address the Committee and
appreciate the great efforts involved in bringing this hearing
to my home.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement or Mr. Erickson follows:]
Prepared Statement of David C. Erickson, Corn and Soybean Producer,
Altona, IL
My name is David C. Erickson. I am a Knox County farmer from
Altona, Illinois. As a life-long Knox County resident, I want to extend
a warm welcome and sincere appreciation to Chairman Lucas, Ranking
Member Peterson and all the Members of the Committee for bringing this
most important Field Hearing to Galesburg. I applaud your efforts to
seek input from constituents on the important issues facing agriculture
policy and your willingness to bring the inner workings of Congress to
the people in their home communities. I also want to recognize the
efforts of Congressman Schilling and his staff for their persistence in
serving the 17th Congressional District in Illinois and in hosting the
Committee in the District for this important Farm Policy Hearing. I am
very proud of Knox County and hope that you will find the people here
friendly, engaged and thoughtful just as I have.
My wife, Nancy, and I operate a corn and soybean farming operation
and manage farmland for absentee landowners with our farm management
business. Our businesses are truly family owned and were established
through the work of the prior two generations in our families. We
continue to enjoy the involvement of three generations of our families
in production agriculture and work with multiple generations of active
landowner participation in our farm management business. We are
extremely optimistic about the future of the agriculture industry and
are confident in the ability of the agriculture industry to support a
significant portion of our local, state and national economy.
After college and a 4 year experience as a high school and
community college teacher, I began to farm full-time in 1984 with the
1985 crop year being my first full season. Production and prices have
certainly changed considerable from that era of sub $2 corn, sub $5
soybeans and idled acres (set aside) of 10% to 20% very common. Through
many years of involvement in leadership positions in agriculture
organizations, I have had the opportunity to participate in Farm Policy
discussions and have been actively involved with farm bills since 1990.
The change from one farm bill to the next has been mostly evolutionary,
but looks rather revolutionary from a rearview perspective. I enjoy
farm policy discussions and still find the process as interesting as it
was to me that first time.
I believe that farm businesses should be rewarded for their work in
the global marketplace. I continue to support the efforts to open,
develop and further expand markets for all agriculture commodities both
domestically and globally. I know that historical efforts to limit
production to improve prices only hurt U.S. production capabilities and
encouraged our competitors. I have no doubt that through research,
development and challenging competition, farmers will meet the growing
needs and tastes of the world population. We are a country of many
resources and our ability to effectively use those resources will be
paramount to our future and that of our neighbors throughout the world.
Agricultural exports support jobs here at home particularly when we add
value to those basic commodities through processing and enhancements.
U.S. agriculture must be allowed to participate in the growing global
marketplace. I urge Congress to continue to support trade agreements
and initiatives that provide increased access, improved acceptance and
fair trade policies for U.S. agriculture products and commodities.
Congress must limit unnecessary and burdensome regulations that
increase costs, reduce productivity and decrease opportunities for
current and future generations. Something as simple as protecting young
people from the threat of workplace accidents or abusive working
conditions can lead to over-regulation that sacrifices developing a
strong work ethic in our youth. Young people must be allowed to learn
how to work and work safely or we risk losing an effective, motivated
workforce in future generations. Work on the family farm is rewarding
and builds life lessons that lead to future successes for young people.
Employers have long recognized the strong work ethic of young people
from rural areas as a positive skill for future employees. Regulations
protect us in everyday life, but when overused, serve no purpose to a
productive society.
We must be prudent stewards of our natural resources. Farmers
protect and enhance our environment, because they know the importance
of sustaining the rich soil and clean water that supports their family
and the consuming public. I feel that conservation programs are
important to the farm policy decisions that we make. Some current
conservation programs are overburdened with rules, procedures and
standards that do little to impact the programs except to use up
limited budget allocations. Congress must not lose sight of the
positive impact that past voluntary incentive conservation programs
have provided. I urge Congress to consider simplifying and
consolidating current conservation programs to allow for the most
effective use of funds budgeted to these efforts.
As a taxpayer, I want Congress to cut spending, reduce waste and
improve results with our investment. I believe that Federal budget
deficits must be eliminated and debt reduced. I feel strongly that
agriculture should do its part to help Congress achieve those goals.
I know that much of the discussion to date about the new farm bill
has lead to the proposed elimination of direct payments. While I
understand the need for change, I must also report to you how direct
payments in our farming operations were beneficial and cost effective.
As farmers and farmland owners, we used those payments to implement
conservation plans, develop needed grassed waterways, utilize grid soil
sampling to manage nutrient use, invest in equipment upgrades for
conservation and no-till farming while also developing risk management
marketing practices. Without the assistance of any other programs, we
invested these direct payments back into our operation to reduce soil
erosion, improve drainage, limit nutrient run-off and manage price
risk. We made effective use of those dollars and taxpayers reap the
rewards of a safe, abundant, low cost supply of food and fiber.
A reasonable safety net must still be a part of the farm bill to
ensure that production agriculture can withstand the inevitable
variability in prices and production, neither of which are in our
complete control. I understand the importance of Federal Crop Insurance
as a part of risk management, but I also know that too much emphasis on
any single approach to risk management is dangerous. We have not used
Federal Crop Insurance because the associated cost has not calculated
into a sound business decision for us. We have worked to improve our
financial stability, we are fortunate to have long term relationships
for land rental and our environment has produced fairly consistent
yields. There may have been times when we might have received insurance
payments, but those payments would pale in comparison to the
accumulated cost of premiums over the years. Federal Crop Insurance
should provide risk coverage for crop losses, but not for poor
marketing and overall risk management. Farming is a risky business
subject to weather, price, political, trade, speculation and other
influencing factors. We need tools to help us manage these risks, but
those risks can never be nor should be totally eliminated.
I urge you to consider streamlining farm program paperwork and the
near endless amount of information that must be provided. A vast
majority of Illinois farmland is owned by someone other than who
physically operates the land. Absentee landowners are reaching the end
of their desire to comply with all of the requirements for farm program
participation. Their frustration will only lead to lower participation
or increase the likelihood of cash only rental arrangements which only
compounds the risk that farmers must bear.
I encourage your continued work to complete the farm bill
legislation this year and to make it a 5 year program that does not
rely on a temporary extension. All the programs contained within the
legislation must have the ability to plan for the future and know that
a multi-year farm bill is the key to that confidence. No aspect of the
commodity title fits all operations or regions. I trust you to work
diligently to craft legislation which provides flexibility for the
inherit diversity that encompasses U.S. agriculture.
I thank you for the privilege to address the Committee today and
appreciate the great efforts required to bring this important hearing
to my home.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Erickson.
Ms. Moore, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH L. MOORE, CORN, SOYBEAN, AND BEEF
PRODUCER, ROSEVILLE, IL
Ms. Moore. Good morning. I would like to start by thanking
Chairman Lucas, Congressman Peterson, Congressman Schilling,
and the other Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
testify here today.
My name is Deb Moore. I farm near Roseville in western
Illinois with my husband, Ron, and his brother, Larry. We farm
about 2,000 acres of corn and soybeans and have a beef cattle
operation.
I thank you for the opportunity to talk about the value and
importance of farm programs to operations like ours. For more
than 30 years, we have been active family farmers who are
concerned about caring for our land and sharing our farm story.
I was actually born and raised in Chicago suburbs and moved to
the farm after marrying Ron, who is a third generation Warren
County farmer.
Farmers like us face many challenges and opportunities in
today's global marketplace. We must continue to become more
efficient and also manage more risk. As crop prices have
increased over the last couple of years, so have expenses. We
must find ways collectively to manage these risks.
From 2010 to 2011, our income increased 50 percent but our
expenses increased 58 percent. Our major expenses each year are
cash rent, fertilizer, seed and crop protectants. All of these
have doubled in cost over the last few years. Last year, we
purchased all of our farm inputs for our 2012 crop, a full year
before that crop will need to be harvested.
Another major challenge we face is educating consumers
about agriculture and the importance of our industry to food
production and the economic well-being of our country. I am
involved with Ag in the Classroom programs and Illinois Farm
Families.
Illinois Farm Families invited Chicago moms to have their
questions about food and farming answered by Illinois farmers.
After making their own judgment about our methods and
procedures, they share their experience using social media.
I share this information with you because it is important
for you to know as we educate consumers about agriculture, they
gain a better understanding of why it is important for tax
dollars to be used for agriculture. When consumers see for
themselves how we care for our animals, the land, the
environment, and gain a better understanding of how agriculture
bolsters the national economy, we see more support for U.S.
agriculture in the Federal budget.
My family believes that farm programs play an important
role in underpinning the strength of the farm economy, which
supports the overall U.S. economy. The importance of an
effective safety net for farm income has grown with the rise in
cost of farm inputs. We recognize that in the present budget
environment, farm programs are a target of interest from either
groups that oppose them in principle or who want to use those
funds for other projects.
Let me review five of the farm bill titles and my position:
In the commodity title, we support risk management
proposals and other programs that enable us to better manage
risk, maintain planting flexibility, avoid restructuring of
existing crop insurance programs, and are compliant with
current U.S. WTO commitments.
We use Federal crop insurance, marketing loans, futures and
options, hedge-to-arrive contracts to protect our financial
investment in times of extreme volatility of commodity prices
and input costs.
Let me also add that credit for new farmers is important to
the future of agriculture. With the expenses we face, it would
be very difficult for a new farmer to secure enough credit to
take over an operation from an existing farmer.
In conservation, we support practices on working land. We
would like to reduce the acreage cap on CRP in order to achieve
budget savings and allow U.S. producers to respond to growing
demands.
Conservation projects that protect the environment are
extremely important to farmers. Our farm is 30 percent no-till,
70 percent minimum-till.
We have relied on cost share programs that reduce erosion
through stream bank restoration, CRP waterways and dry dams.
But there are not enough resources to do all the necessary
work.
In energy, we support reauthorization and funding for
Biodiesel Fuel Education Program and Biobased Market Program
and would like to see reauthorization of the Bioenergy Program
for Advanced Fuel.
In research, we would like to see the Agriculture & Food
Research Initiative reauthorized and funding maintained for
research at land-grant universities to help us better manage
production challenges.
For trade, we need reauthorization and funding for the
Foreign Market Development Program and the Market Access
Program and continue Food for Education and food aid programs.
Again, let me emphasize that I strongly support these and
other titles be part of the 2012 Farm Bill, including support
for commodity programs, conservation, research, energy, export
promotion and food assistance programs.
I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah L. Moore, Corn, Soybean, and Beef
Producer, Roseville, IL
Good morning. I would like to start by thanking Chairman Lucas,
Congressman Peterson, Congressman Schilling, and other Members of the
Committee for the opportunity to testify here today.
My name is Deb Moore. I farm near Roseville in western Illinois
with my husband, Ron, and his brother, Larry. We have about 2,000 acres
of corn and soybeans and a feeder cattle operation with 200 acres of
pasture. I am a member of the Illinois Soybean Association and the
Illinois Farm Bureau. Ron and I are also members of the corn and beef
associations.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk
about the value and importance of farm programs to modern U.S.
agriculture operations like ours. For more than 30 years, we have been
active family farmers who are concerned about both caring for the land
and sharing the farm story with the public. I was actually born and
raised in suburban Chicago and moved to the farm after marrying Ron,
who is a third generation Warren County farmer. Both of his
grandfathers farmed in Warren County. We like to tell our sons' friends
that there are more steers per square mile than there are people in
Section 5 of Roseville Township.
Farmers like us face many challenges and opportunities in today's
global marketplace. As we continue to become more efficient and grow
food for the world on the same number of acres, we must be innovative
and also manage more risk. As crop prices have increased over the last
couple of years, so have expenses. We must find ways collectively to
manage such challenges.
Currently our only income is from the farm. With higher commodity
prices has come a higher input cost. From 2010 to 2011, our income
increased 50 percent, but our expenses increased 58 percent. Our major
expenses each crop year include cash rent, followed by fertilizer, seed
and crop protectants. Fertilizer expenses have more than doubled in the
last 4 years, crop protectants costs are up 30 percent, cash rent, seed
and fuel have doubled in cost over the last few years. I would also add
that we have not increased our production acres during this time
either, only the expense per acre of planting the crop. In the fall of
2011, we purchased our seed, fertilizer and crop protectants for the
2012 crop, a full year before that crop will be harvested. We pay for
crop expenses a year ahead to guarantee supply and prices.
We do what we can to manage the financial risk as much as possible,
but every year is different. Weather, disease and prices play a major
role in our profitability. High commodity prices are of absolutely no
use to us if we lose a crop to extreme weather conditions. One storm
can wipe out an entire crop and jeopardize a farm in a matter of
minutes. We have had several wind storms that have taken down buildings
and flattened our crops. In those situations, we had to run the combine
in one direction with a reel to harvest most of our crop. We were
luckier than many other farmers, we still had a crop to harvest but the
expense increased greatly with added fuel and additional wear on the
machinery.
Another major challenge we face is in educating consumers about
agriculture and the importance of our industry to food production and
the economic well-being of our country. I taught school when we were
first married and then stayed home to raise our three sons. I did go
back to teaching for 8 years while the boys were in college to help pay
their tuition. My teaching position was eliminated 2 years ago, but I
still have a passion for teaching others about farming. I am involved
with the Ag in the Classroom program and have hosted multiple school
field trips, participated in classroom visits, and hosted urban
teachers to our farm.
I also have become involved with Illinois Farm Families, a group
that focuses on a different way of communicating with consumers than in
the past. Illinois Farm Families are actively seeking a dialogue with
urban consumers about food and farming concerns.
In this last year, Illinois Farm Families invited Chicago-area moms
to see a variety of farms and get their questions answered. More than
70 interested moms applied for the program and nine were chosen to
spend the year touring Illinois farms. I am one of the farm mom
hostesses spending time with these field moms while they tour our
farms. Each tour allows the moms to dig into food and farming topics
and make their own judgments about our methods and performance. After
the tours, the moms share their experiences with others using social
media.
Last summer, my family was one of five Illinois farm families
featured in an online program where consumers watched a video tour of
our farm to learn about farming. We know more than 135,000 Illinois
consumers viewed the farmer videos, many of whom we still communicate
with through e-newsletters. In June, we will host the field moms for a
closer look at our family farm.
I share this information with you because it is important for you
to know that as we educate consumers about agriculture, they gain a
better understanding of why it is important for tax dollars to help
support agriculture. When consumers see for themselves how we care for
the land, our animals and the environment and gain a better
understanding of how agriculture bolsters the national economy and
feeds their own families as well as those around the world, we see more
support for making sure U.S. agriculture is a wise investment in the
Federal budget.
My family believes that farm programs play an important role in
underpinning the strength of the farm economy which supports the
overall U.S. economy. The importance of an effective safety net for
farm income has grown as the rising cost of farm inputs has
increasingly pressured farm profitability. We recognize that, in the
current budget environment, farm programs are a target for interests
that either oppose them in principle or want to fund other priorities.
I am willing to accept our fair share of budget costs, but in
proportion with other programs that may be explored for budget cuts.
Our family supports ways to make farm programs more efficient,
effective and defensible.
Let me review five of the farm bill titles and my position:
Commodity title. We support Risk Management proposals and
other programs that enable us to better manage risk, maintain
planting flexibility, avoid restructuring of the existing crop
insurance program, and are in compliance with current U.S.
World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments.
We use Federal Crop Insurance (Revenue Assurance), hail insurance,
market loans, futures and options and Hedge-to-Arrive contracts
to protect our financial investment in times of extreme
volatility of commodity prices and input costs.
Our farm usually takes loans out every year for corn and soybean
production to help with cash flow. We get our loans through our
local Farm Service Agency office and the Commodity Credit
Corporation.
Let me also add that credit for new farmers is important to the
future of agriculture. With the expenses we face, it would be
very difficult for a new farmer to secure enough credit to take
over an operation from an established farmer. Farmers borrow
more money each year than most Americans will borrow in a
lifetime.
Conservation title. We support programs for conservation
practices on working lands. We would like to reduce the acreage
cap on the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in order to
achieve budget savings and allow U.S. producers to respond to
growing demand.
Conservation projects are extremely important to farmers. We
emphasize conservation projects that protect the environment.
Our farm is 30 percent no-till and 70 percent minimum till. But
there are not enough resources to do all of the necessary work.
We have relied on the cost share programs available through USDA
and the Illinois Department of Agriculture. We have done stream
bank restoration to reduce erosion on pasture land and have CRP
waterways to reduce field level erosion on 200 acres. We also
installed seven dry dams on 140 acres to reduce erosion and
improve productivity.
Energy title. We support reauthorization and funding for the
Biodiesel Fuel Education Program and Biobased Market Program
and would like to see reauthorization of the Bioenergy Program
for Advanced Biofuels.
Research title. We would like to see the Agriculture & Food
Research Initiative (AFRI) reauthorized for competitive
research grants and funding maintained for research at land-
grant universities. I believe that we need to continue
investing in research with Illinois universities to advance
research that can help us better manage production challenges.
We need public funding and researcher support to maintain a
comprehensive researchprogram.
Trade title. We need reauthorization and funding for the
Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program at $34.5 million
annually and the Market Access Program (MAP) at $200 million
annually and continue Food for Education and food aid programs.
Again, let me emphasize that I strongly support these and other
titles be part of the 2012 Farm Bill, including support for commodity
programs, conservation, research, energy, and export promotion and food
assistance programs.
That concludes my comments today. I look forward to working with
you and other Members of the Committee as you write the next farm bill.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for
your time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Mages, whenever you are prepared, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MAGES, CORN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCER, BELGRADE,
MN
Mr. Mages. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want
to thank you for letting me testify today. Ranking Member
Peterson is actually my Congressman in my district in
Minnesota.
My name is John Mages and my wife, Cindy, and I farm in
central Minnesota near Belgrade. We farm 1,200 acres of corn
and soybeans.
If I had to sum up my views on the next farm bill, it would
be as follows:
Pass a 5 year farm bill this year.
Give farmers a menu of policy options to choose from.
Be sure that every one of those options has protection
against long periods of low prices.
Do not change the pay limit or AGI rules again.
And above all, do not do anything to hurt crop insurance.
We need a 5 year farm bill for the same reason we need
long-term tax policy. We need to be able to go to the banker
and be able to make plans for the future.
Farmers need a choice, because it is obvious to almost
everyone that you cannot squeeze the same crop into the same
program and make it work for all crops. If the farm bill does
not work for all crops, then I think the chances of it passing
Congress and becoming law are low.
This past week, I made the rounds on Capitol Hill with
fellow farmers from seven states growing nearly every crop and
I want each one of them to have a policy that works for them as
well as one that works for myself. Whatever options farmers
have to choose from, there needs to be a mechanism to deal with
the long-term low prices.
None of you wants to be in Washington writing emergency
assistance legislation because the farm bill was not designed
to handle a financial crisis.
On pay limits and AGI, the new rules that just came out
about 2 years ago, I know this sort of thing is cast off as
being friendly for the family farmer, but these rules are now
hitting the family farmer. More and more of those advocating
these kind of rules seem like the real goal is to adjust the
real farm policy. Now they want to put these rules on crop
insurance. I doubt any home, business or car owner would want
his identity means tested or his pay limited because of the
measure of his loss.
Finally, do not hurt crop insurance. I know this is the
mantra these days, but we do need to make sure, for example,
that revenue programs do not duplicate crop insurance, which
would hurt us. But supplement it by helping to ease parts of
the farmer's deductible which can get high in some parts of the
country, especially if the producer's actual production history
lags.
Thank you again for inviting me and I will look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mages follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Mages, Corn and Soybean Producer, Belgrade,
MN
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, Members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to appear before the House Agriculture
Committee to share our views on the 2012 Farm Bill.
My name is John Mages and I am a corn and soybean farmer from near
Belgrade, Minnesota in Stearns County. I am also President of the
Minnesota Corn Growers Association.
I believe that farm policy designed to support a strong and dynamic
U.S. agriculture sector is vital. Federal Crop Insurance and the farm
policies that have been in place for more than a decade have generally
served this nation and producers well. I am proud to stand by a policy
that has been under budget for the past 10 years, accounts for only
about one quarter of one percent of the Federal budget, guarantees
American consumers the lowest grocery bills, as a percentage of
disposable income, of any consumer in the world, and constitutes the
one bright spot in our economy and our nation's balance of trade.
However, I understand that budget and other pressures may require
that a new approach be taken in the 2012 Farm Bill and, as such, I
would like to set out the policy priorities of Minnesota producers like
me.
First and foremost, please do no harm to Federal Crop Insurance,
which should be preserved, protected, and strengthened. We strongly
oppose any further legislative or administrative cuts to Federal Crop
Insurance, and we oppose carrying conservation compliance or other
rules applicable to the farm bill over to this critical risk management
tool that we as producers help pay for. We also believe that
improvements to Actual Production History (APH), continued availability
of enterprise units, and the ability to stack supplemental area-wide
coverage on top of individual coverage can all work to help erase at
least a part of a producer's deductible.
Second, the triggering mechanism under farm policy needs to be
updated to provide tailored and reliable protection in the event of
multiple-year low prices such as we experienced in the late 1990s and
early 2000s. Price protection over multiple years is the main point of
a farm bill because it is the one thing that Federal Crop Insurance is
not designed to do. We need price protection under any option a
producer might be given in the farm bill. If there is not price
protection and prices collapse, we will see a repeat of what we saw in
the mid 1980s and late 1990s which is a financial crisis followed by
very costly and inefficient ad hoc disaster assistance.
Third, it is apparent that farmers need options in the 2012 Farm
Bill. It is clear, for example, that revenue programs may work for some
producers, but not for others. Even among producers who like the idea
of a revenue program, there is a split on whether it should be done on
a national, state, crop reporting district, county, or on an on-farm
level. Within Minnesota alone, there is probably a rough geographic
line where producers may prefer area wide revenue on one side and on-
farm revenue on the other, while some Minnesota producers may prefer a
price-based option instead. We think allowing producers to choose from
options in order to best meet the risks they face on their farms is a
good approach.
Whatever options are made available in the 2012 Farm Bill, they
should be plain and bankable, tailored to losses and, thus, defendable,
and built to weather prolonged periods of low prices. Toward this end,
we generally feel that the 2011 Farm Bill proposal that you developed
last fall met these goals.
Fourth, since the farm bill options under discussion would only
kick in to cover actual loss situations, whether revenue or price
losses, it seems that arbitrary payment limits and means tests for
producers should be eliminated. It is one thing to limit or means test
Direct Payments paid on historical bases and yields but it makes no
sense to do this against revenue or price losses that a farmer sustains
on his operation. Farm policy is intended to help U.S. producers
compete against heavily subsidized and protected foreign competitors
and arbitrary rules frustrate this goal rather than advance it.
Fifth, we very much need a 5 year farm bill passed into law this
year. The prospect of having to make plans, secure loans, and plant
under a short term extension or no law at all is not a good one for
producers.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to offer testimony on the
crafting of the 2012 Farm Bill.
The Chairman. Absolutely, thank you.
Mr. Gerard, begin whenever you are ready, sir.
STATEMENT OF BLAKE GERARD, RICE, SOYBEAN, WHEAT, AND CORN
PRODUCER, McCLURE, IL
Mr. Gerard. Chairman Lucas, Members of the Committee, good
morning and thank you for inviting me to testify today.
The Chairman. Pull your microphone up just a little closer,
sir. These things seem to be very directional.
Mr. Gerard. My name is Blake Gerard and I am from Alexander
County in Illinois, the southernmost county in the State of
Illinois. I am a rice, soybean, corn and wheat producer. I
appreciate the opportunity to come here today and give you my
top five priorities for the 2012 Farm Bill.
The first of which being I would like to see us pass a 5
year farm bill this year. We farmers are businessmen and we
depend on the stability and certainty of long-term farm policy.
Second, we farmers need a choice of policy options.
Producers of some crops face different risks than producers of
other crops. In fact, sometimes producers of the same crop
coming from different regions of the country face different
risks. We have an opportunity right now to craft a farm bill
that will address the risks on the farm. It is not so easy for
me to go home and craft my risk to match farm policy. The
proposal that was developed last fall would have worked for all
producers, from my perspective.
Third, each farm policy option that we present to producers
needs to have price protection that will address periods of
prolonged low prices. This is the very purpose of the
origination of the farm bill, but what has happened since the
2008 Farm Bill was enacted, the production costs have increased
significantly to the point that they are not adequate to
prevent a financial crisis in the agriculture industry if
prices were to collapse, such as they did in the late 1990s.
Target price and loan rates are much too low at this point to
be relevant. The ACRE program has not worked, as evidenced by
current participation rates. Direct payments, while they have
been helpful, cannot respond to a collapse of prices. Along
with that, crop insurance is not designed to work effectively
in prolonged periods of low prices.
Okay, fourth, the farm bill should not change payment
limitations. We just made major changes in the last farm bill,
which were not fully implemented up until 2 years ago, and I am
competing in a global marketplace with competitors that benefit
from rising subsidies and protectionist tariffs, while at the
same time funding for my farm bill has decreased to record low
levels.
And fifth, I would like to see crop insurance strengthened
to where it will work equitably for all commodities.
Fortunately, I can say as a corn and soybean producer that crop
insurance is working effectively for me. But for my rice
enterprise, crop insurance has not been working effectively and
I think we need to put all hands on deck to focus on improving
crop insurance to where it can work effectively for all
commodities.
The bottom line for me is when I look at the farm policy
options that are on the table today, from my rice enterprise,
the revenue program totally does not work. My risks on my rice
enterprise are price risks and production cost risks. I need a
price-based safety net.
Then when I analyze it and I step over to my corn and
soybean production and I look at the options that are on the
table, I am concerned about the current revenue programs that
are in place, that are on the table today because there is
still yet no price-based protection in these programs that are
offered. In other words, if we get into a period, which I feel
like we will with the cyclical nature of agriculture, of
prolonged low prices, the revenue guarantee under the current
revenue programs that are proposed will fall along with those
low prices. At that point, we have no safety net. At that
point, we will have people requesting ad hoc disaster
legislation, which is not fiscally responsible, it is not fair
to the American farmer or the American taxpayer.
So summing it up, let me just say this; I feel like the
proposal that was put together last fall by this Committee,
with what you had to work with, the time frame you were working
in and the funding level that you had to work with, you did a
very effective job putting a proposal together that will work
for all producers. And also it saved money, a significant sum
of money, for the American taxpayers. You offered up a program
that gave the producers a choice and both choices, the revenue
program and the price-based program had a price protection
built into it. I think we are on the right track and I think we
need to stay on that track.
I appreciate the opportunity to come here and express my
beliefs today. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Blake Gerard, Rice, Soybean, Wheat, and Corn
Producer, McClure, IL
Introduction
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this hearing concerning farm policy
and the 2012 Farm Bill. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony
on farm policy from the perspective of a diversified grain producer.
My name is Blake Gerard. I raise rice, soybeans, wheat, and corn in
Alexander and Union counties in southern Illinois and I have been
farming on my own now for 16 years. I am the fourth generation in my
family to farm this land and this is my 13th year to farm rice in
Illinois. I am also co-owner in a seed conditioning facility that does
contract seed production, conditioning, packaging & warehousing. All of
our soybeans are raised for seed along with about 75% of our rice. In
addition to my farm and seed business, I also serve as the commissioner
for the East Cape Girardeau/Clear Creek Levee & Drainage District, the
Illinois Crop Improvement Association and am a member of the USA Rice
Producers' Group Board of Directors.
Importance of Agriculture and Cost-Effective Farm Policy
U.S. agriculture shares a certain amount of pride for what we do
for the nation's economy. Agriculture still matters.
Over the course of the current economic downturn, here is an
excerpt of what objective sources ranging from the Federal Reserve to
The Wall Street Journal had to say about what America's farmers and
ranchers have been doing to help get our nation back on track and
people back to work:
``In 2010, rural America was at the forefront of the economic
recovery . . . `[R]ising exports of farm commodities and
manufactured goods spurred job growth and income gains in rural
communities . . . If recent history holds true, rural America
could lead U.S. economic gains in 2011.' Federal Reserve of
Kansas City, 2010 report.''
``Growers' improved lot is rippling out to other industries.''
The Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2010.
We read the same kinds of reports during the last recession when
the manufacturing sector was in crisis:
``Farm Belt Is Becoming a Driver for Overall Economy . . . The
present boom is proving that agriculture still matters in the
U.S. Rising farm incomes are helping to ease the blow of the
loss of manufacturing jobs in Midwest states . . . `The farm
sector is a significant source of strength for the U.S.
economy,' says Sung Won Sohn, chief economist of Wells Fargo
Bank . . . Although farmers themselves are a tiny part of the
population, they have an outsize impact on the economy because
farming is such an expensive enterprise. A full-time Midwest
grain farmer often owns millions of dollars of equipment and
land, and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on
supplies.'' The Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2003.
And, for those old enough to remember the 1980s, publications such
as The Economist recalled the impact on the rest of the economy when
agriculture was not doing well:
``The 1990s were so good [for Chicago] partly because the 1980s
had been so bad. `Everything that could possibly have gone
wrong did' says William Testa, the senior economist at the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The region was hit by a
crushing combination of high energy prices, a strong dollar,
high interest rates, and a farm recession.'' The Economist, May
12, 2001
Last year alone, U.S. farmers and ranchers spent nearly $320
billion in communities across the country to produce agriculture
products valued at some $410 billion. Put in perspective, the value of
total U.S. agriculture production was greater than the 2010 GDP of all
but 25 nations, and total production cost was greater than all but 28.
And, according to the Department of Agriculture, U.S. agriculture is
expected to positively contribute $26.5 billion to the U.S. balance of
trade in Fiscal Year 2012 after having contributed over $40 billion
just the year before.
And, one of the reasons we are here today, I expect, is because
while U.S. agriculture is critically important to America, farm policy
is also critically important to U.S. agriculture.
Without farm policy, U.S. producers would be unilaterally exposed
to global markets distorted by withering high foreign subsidies and
tariffs, and have no comprehensive safety net. In fact, DTB &
Associates issued a report last fall, similar to the study on tariffs
and subsidies developed and maintained by Texas Tech University (http:/
/www.depts.ttu.edu/ceri/index.aspx.), which found that:
``U.S. subsidies . . . have dropped to very low levels in
recent years. In the meantime, there has been a major increase
in subsidization among advanced developing countries . . .
Since the countries involved are major producers and consumers
of agricultural products, the trade-distorting effects of the
subsidies are being felt globally. However, because the run-up
in subsidies is a recent development, and because countries
have not reported the new programs to the WTO or have failed in
their notifications to calculate properly the level of support,
the changes have attracted little attention. We believe that
when trade officials examine these developments, they will
discover clear violations of WTO commitments.''
This aggressive increase in foreign subsides and tariffs might also
explain why foreign competitors worked to derail WTO Doha Round
negotiations, causing then Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate
Finance Committee and House Ways & Means Committee to register their
opposition to pursuing a lopsided agreement against the U.S. interests:
``Since the WTO Doha Round was launched in 2001, we have
supported the Administration's efforts to achieve a balanced
outcome that would provide meaningful new market access for
U.S. agricultural products . . . particularly from developed
and key emerging markets. Unfortunately, the negotiating texts
currently on the table would provide little if any new market
access for U.S. goods, and important developing countries are
demanding even further concessions from the United States.''
Ways & Means Committee Chairman and Ranking Member Rangel and
McCrery and Finance Committee Chairman and Ranking Member
Baucus and Grassley.
Moreover, while many successfully negotiated trade agreements have
promised market access gains for agriculture, much of what was promised
has yet to materialize or is continually threatened by artificial
sanitary, phytosanitary (SPS) and other non-tariff barriers. This is
why programs such as the Market Access Program and Foreign Market
Development Program are of vital concern to the rice industry and must
be reauthorized in the 2012 Farm Bill. It has not gone unnoticed that
budget reductions currently being considered (such as the elimination
of the Direct Payment) will result in a dollar for dollar loss in farm
income. Producers must be provided the tools not only to attack these
obstacles to trade but to increase exports through market promotion and
thereby increase farm income through increased open and fair trade.
But, beyond even these barriers that are imposed by foreign
competitors are barriers to exports imposed in whole or in part by the
U.S. Government. For example, rice was completely excluded from the
free trade agreement negotiated with South Korea, foreclosing for the
foreseeable future any new market access for U.S. rice producers in
that country. Iraq, once a top export market for U.S. rice, has
instituted restrictive specifications on rice imports that have led to
a 77 percent drop in sales of U.S. rice to that country. In the pending
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, Japan has indicated an
interest in joining. The U.S. rice industry supports Japan joining the
negotiations, but only if additional market access for U.S. rice into
Japan is part of the agreement. Our industry cannot support an
agreement where market access for our product is categorically off the
negotiating table. Another market that has the potential to become a
top five export market almost immediately is Cuba. Unfortunately, the
U.S. Government maintains restrictions on our agricultural exports to
this country. Cuba was once the number one export market for U.S. rice
prior to the embargo and we believe it is potentially a 400,000 to
600,000 ton market if normal commercial agricultural exports are
allowed to resume.
In total, U.S. rice exports to date for the current marketing year
are down 24 percent compared to last year.
And, while the rice industry is still a long ways off from having a
crop insurance product that is relevant to rice producers, the general
need for Federal involvement in insuring crops where losses are highly
correlated is also obvious, as even the American Enterprise Institute
has admitted:
``The empirical evidence on the viability of either area-yield
or multiple-peril crop insurance seems clear. When normal
commercial loading factors are applied, the premiums required
by insurers to offer an actuarially viable private crop
insurance contract are sufficiently high to reduce the demand
for such contracts to zero . . . Thus, private markets for
multiple-peril crop insurance are almost surely infeasible, and
the weight of the empirical evidence indicates that area-yield
contracts are also not commercially viable . . .'' American
Enterprise Institute, ``The Economics of Crop Insurance and
Disaster Aid,'' 1995.
Fortunately, for the American taxpayer, in addition to all of these
justifications on why we have a farm policy in this country, we can add
to the list at least one more reason: farm policy is cost-effective.
In fact, U.S. farm policy has operated under budget for over a
decade and accounts for only \1/4\ of 1 percent of the total Federal
budget. Not including additional cuts scheduled under sequestration,
U.S. farm policy has, to date, been cut by about $18 billion over the
past 9 years, including in the 2004 and 2010 Standard Reinsurance
Agreements (SRAs), the FY2006 reconciliation package, and the 2008 Farm
Bill.
In the most recent 5 years, average funding for U.S. farm policy,
based on real funding levels, including crop insurance, was $12.9
billion per year, which is 28% less than the previous 5 year average of
$17.9 billion and 31% less than the average of $18.8 billion that
incurred in the preceding 5 years. In the current year, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that crop insurance policy
will cost slightly more than the current commodity policies. And
according to CBO projections for the next 10 years the estimated annual
cost for commodity policy in the farm bill is $6.6 billion on average
(before the expected reductions are made as part of this farm bill
process), while the estimated annual cost for crop insurance policy is
$8.8 billion on average. With the current suite of crop insurance
policies not working effectively for rice producers, this puts our
industry at a further disadvantage and highlights the need to maintain
an effective commodity policy in the farm bill that will work for rice.
Funding of that portion of farm policy that assists rice producers
has declined from $1.2 billion a decade ago to about $400 million
annually, with this amount largely reflecting Direct Payments.
Meanwhile, U.S. consumers are paying less than 10% of disposable
income on food, less than consumers in any other nation.
This is why I believe so firmly that future cuts must focus on
areas of the budget outside of farm policy that have not yet
contributed to deficit reduction yet comprise a significant share of
the Federal budget. This is also why I would urge lawmakers to reject
cuts to U.S. farm policy that would exceed the level specified by the
House and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairs and Ranking Members in
their letter to the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction last fall.
2008 Farm Bill Review
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Bill)
continued the traditional mix of policies consisting of the non-
recourse marketing loan, loan deficiency payments, and the direct and
countercyclical payments. The farm bill also included the addition of
Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) as an alternative to counter
cyclical payments for producers who agree to a reduction in direct
payments and marketing loan benefits. The bill also added Supplemental
Revenue Assurance (SURE) as a standing disaster assistance supplement
to Federal crop insurance.
The 2008 Farm Bill made very substantial changes to the payment
eligibility provisions, establishing an aggressive adjusted gross
income (AGI) means test and, albeit unintended by Congress, resulting
in the very significant tightening of ``actively engaged'' requirements
for eligibility. USDA was still in the process of implementing many of
the provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill in 2010, and the final payment
eligibility rules were only announced in January of that same year, a
mere 2 years ago. As a consequence, we are still adjusting to the many
changes contained in the current farm bill, even as Congress considers
the 2012 Farm Bill.
Regarding ACRE and SURE, frankly, neither policy has proved much
value to rice farmers. Specifically, in the first year of ACRE signup,
only eight rice farms representing less than 900 acres were enrolled
nationwide. With changes, this revenue program may provide more value
for some rice growing regions like California. And SURE has provided
little, if any, assistance to rice producers, including those producers
in the Mid-South who suffered significant monetary losses in 2009 due
to heavy rains and flooding occurring prior to and during harvest, or
the significant losses last year as a result of spring flooding in the
Mid-South. SURE's inability to provide disaster assistance for such
catastrophic events further highlights the continuing gap in available
programs designed to help producers manage or alleviate their risk.
Regarding the traditional mix of farm policies, the nonrecourse
marketing loan, loan deficiency payment, and countercyclical payments
have not yet provided payments to rice farmers under the 2008 Farm
Bill. The new price paradigm has, as a practical matter, greatly
limited the protections afforded to producers under these farm policy
features. In fact, if the protections provided were ever to trigger for
rice farmers, the protections would help stem some of the economic
losses but, frankly, not enough to keep most rice farms in business
through even a single year of severely low market prices.
As such, whatever its imperfections, the Direct Payment alone has
assisted rice producers in meeting the ongoing and serious price and
production perils of farming today.
For rice producers, as for most other producers, the existing
levels of price protection have simply not kept pace with the
significant increases in production costs, costs such as energy and
fertilizer that are exacerbated by escalating government regulations.
It is for this reason that rice farmers believe strengthening farm
policies in the 2012 Farm Bill would be helpful in ensuring that
producers have the ability to adequately manage their risks and access
needed credit.
Crop Insurance
Risk management products offered under Federal Crop Insurance have
been of very limited value to rice producers to date due to a number of
factors, including artificially depressed actual production history
(APH) guarantees, which I understand is also a problem for many other
producers; high premium costs for a relatively small insurance
guarantee; and the fact that the risks associated with rice production
are unique from the risks of producing many other major crops.
For example, since rice is a flood-irrigated crop, drought
conditions rarely result in significant yield losses as growers simply
pump additional irrigation water to maintain moisture levels to achieve
relatively stable yields. However, drought conditions do result in very
substantial production cost increases as a result of pumping additional
water. As such, what rice farmers need from Federal crop insurance are
products that will help protect against increased production and input
costs, particularly for energy and energy-related inputs. For example,
fuel, fertilizer, and other energy related inputs represent about 70
percent of total variable costs.
In this vein, many in the rice industry have been working for over
the past 4 years now to develop a new generation of crop insurance
products that might provide more meaningful risk management tools for
rice producers in protecting against sharp, upward spikes in input
costs. I serve on a rice industry task force that has been working to
develop and improve crop insurance products for rice, and although the
objective was to gain approval from the Risk Management Agency (RMA) of
at least two new products that could be available to growers in time
for the 2012 crop year, this has not materialized. But, it is important
to stress that even if these products had become available this year,
we do not believe that they would have put rice producers anywhere near
on par with other crops in terms of the relevance that crop insurance
has as a risk management tool.
As such, rice producers enter the 2012 Farm Bill debate at a very
serious disadvantage, having only a single farm policy that effectively
works and that farm policy being singled out for elimination.
2012 Farm Bill
With the foregoing as a backdrop, the U.S. rice industry developed
a set of farm policy priorities in September of last year to guide us
during consideration of the 2012 Farm Bill. The U.S. rice industry is
unified in its firm belief that farm policy designed to support a
strong and dynamic U.S. agriculture sector is absolutely vital. We also
believe that the planting flexibility provided under the 1996 Farm Bill
and the countercyclical policies that have been in place for more than
a decade now have served this nation and its farmers well. In
particular, as we noted earlier, the 1996 Farm Bill's Direct Payments
have provided critical help to rice farmers--offering capital farmers
could tailor to their unique needs. We are very proud to stand by this
farm policy.
However, given budget pressures and other considerations facing
Congress that have caused policymakers to consider altering this
approach in favor of more directed and conditioned assistance, we
developed the following priorities:
First, we believe the triggering mechanism for assistance
should be updated to provide tailored and reliable help should
commodity prices decline below today's production costs, and
should include a floor or reference price to protect in multi-
year low price scenarios.
Second, as payments would only be made in loss situations,
payment limits and means tests for producers should be
eliminated.
Third, Federal crop insurance should be improved to provide
more effective risk management for rice in all production
regions, beginning with the policy development process.
More specifically relative to each of these points, we believe
that:
Price Protection is a Must
Given price volatility for rice is the primary risk producers face
that they do not have other good means of protecting against, with
price fluctuations largely driven by global supply and demand; given
rice is one of the most protected and sensitive global commodities in
trade negotiations, thus limiting access to a number of key markets;
given costs of production have risen to a point where the current $6.50
(loan rate)/$10.50 (target price) assistance triggers are largely
irrelevant, we believe the first priority should be to concentrate on
increasing the prices or revenue levels at which farm policy would
trigger so that it is actually meaningful to producers, and would
reliably trigger should prices decline sharply.
The reference price for rice should be increased to $13.98/cwt
($6.30/bu). This level would more closely reflect the significant
increases in production costs for rice. And we believe this reference
price should be a component of both the price-loss policy and the
revenue-loss policy to ensure downside price protection.
Options for Different Production Regions
In addition, there should be true options for producers that
recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach to farm policy does not
work effectively for all crops or even the same crop such as rice in
different production regions.
In the Mid-South and Gulf Coast production regions, a price-based
loss policy is viewed as being most effective in meeting the risk
management needs of producers. Specifically, this policy should include
a price protection level that is more relevant to current cost of
production; paid on planted acres or percentage of planted acres; paid
on more current yields; and take into account the lack of effective
crop insurance policies for rice.
In the California production region, although the existing revenue-
based policy still does not provide effective risk management, efforts
to analyze modifications which will increase its effectiveness
continue. Since rice yields are highly correlated between the farm,
county, crop reporting district, and state levels, we believe the
revenue plan should be administered for rice at either the county or
crop reporting district level to reflect this situation rather than
lowering guarantee levels to use farm level yields. By setting loss
triggers that reflect local marketing conditions, delivering support
sooner, and strengthening revenue guarantees that account for higher
production costs as well as the absence of effective crop insurance,
California rice producers are hopeful that an effective revenue program
can be developed.
While I have focused on the need for a choice for rice producers in
different regions, this also applies for producers of most other
grains. I support having policy options available for corn, soybeans,
and wheat, which I produce, and believe that both a price-based policy
and a revenue-based policy should be offered as options for these
crops.
Whatever is done should be plain and bankable. The current SURE has
too many factors and is not tailored to the multiple business risks
producers face--it is not plain. The current ACRE, while offering
improved revenue-based protection, is complicated by requiring two loss
triggers; providing payments nearly 2 years after a loss; and provides
no minimum price protection--it is not bankable. The marketing loan and
target prices are plain and bankable--unfortunately the trigger prices
are no longer relevant to current costs and prices.
Whatever is done should be tailored and defendable. We believe it
makes sense to provide assistance when factors beyond the producer's
control create losses for producers. We generally think more tailored
farm policies are more defendable. For this reason, we like the thought
of updating bases and yields or applying farm policies to planted
acres/current production and their triggering based on prices or
revenue, depending on the option a producer chooses. However, policy
choices should not result in severe regional distortions in commodity
policy budget baselines from which reauthorized commodity policies must
be developed.
Whatever is done should be built to withstand a multi-year low
price scenario. Whether in a revenue-based plan, or a price-based plan,
reference prices should protect producer income in a relevant way in
the event of a series of low price years. Ideally, this minimum could
move upward over time should production costs also increase, this being
of particular concern in the current regulatory environment.
Whatever is done should not dictate or distort planting decisions.
Direct payments are excellent in this regard. SURE or similar whole
farm aggregations tend to discourage diversification, which could be a
problem for crops like rice. Any commodity specific farm policy that is
tied to planted acres must be designed with extreme care so as to not
create payment scenarios that incentivize farmers to plant for a farm
policy. Whatever is done should accommodate history and economics and
allow for proportional reductions to the baseline among commodities.
Some commodities are currently more reliant on countercyclical farm
policies (ACRE/CCP) while others are receiving only Direct Payments in
the baseline. Generally, the least disruptive and fairest way to
achieve savings across commodities would be to apply a percentage
reduction to each commodity baseline and restructure any new policy
within the reduced baseline amounts.
There have been concerns raised about higher reference prices
distorting planting decisions and resulting in significant acreage
shifts including for rice. We are unaware of any analysis that shows
significant acreage shifts resulting from the reference price levels
included in the 2011 Farm Bill package. In fact, for rice specifically,
a reference price of $13.98/cwt that is paid on historic CCP payment
yields and on 85% of planted acres results in a reference price level
well below our average cost of production, so I find it hard to imagine
why someone would plant simply due to this policy given these levels.
Pay Limits/Eligibility Tests Should Be Eliminated
The likely outcome of new farm policy is that it will provide less
certainty for the producer (a likely decrease or elimination of Direct
Payments). Since it will likely be designed to provide assistance only
in loss situations, the second priority is that the policy should not
be limited based on arbitrary dollar limits. Assistance should be
tailored to the size of loss. A producer should not be precluded from
participating in a farm policy because of past income experience. Any
internal limits on assistance should be percentage-based (i.e., 25% of
an expected crop value) and not discriminate based on the size of farm.
Crop Insurance Should Be Maintained and Improved
Although crop insurance does not currently work as well for rice as
it does for other crops, the third priority would be to improve
availability and effectiveness of crop insurance for rice as an
available option. I would also support improvement to the product
development processes (we have struggled with two 508(h) submissions
for over 4 years and are still not completed with the process), and to
the APH system such that any farmer's insurable yield (pre-deductible)
would be reflective of what that farmer actually expects to produce. In
no case should the crop insurance tools, which are purchased by the
producer, be encumbered with environmental/conservation regulation or
other conditions that fall outside the scope of insurance.
2011 Budget Control Act Efforts
Although the details of the 2011 Farm Bill package that was
prepared by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in response to
the Budget Control Act were not disclosed, based on discussions and
reports we believe that that package at least represents a good
framework on which to build the 2012 Farm Bill. The 2011 package
included a choice of risk management tools that producers can tailor to
the risks on their own farms, providing under each of those options
more meaningful price protection that is actually relevant to today's
production costs and prices. It also included provisions to improve
crop insurance and expedite product development for under-served crops
such as rice.
We are concerned that effective support for rice producers under
the price-based option was set well below cost of production that late
changes to the revenue-based option minimized its potential as an
effective risk management tool for rice producers, and that pay limits
and AGI rules would still serve as an arbitrary constraint upon U.S.
competitiveness, globally. Still, even with these areas for
improvement, the U.S. rice industry very much appreciates the Members
and staff who put enormous time and effort into what we believe
represents a good blue print for ongoing farm bill deliberations and we
thank you.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to offer my testimony. We
certainly look forward to working with you on an effective 2012 Farm
Bill we can all be proud of.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And thank you in
particular for the kind comments about the October-November
discussion. Apparently not everybody in America quite agrees
with that, but thank you.
Mr. Adams, you can begin whenever you are ready, sir.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG ADAMS, CORN, SOYBEAN, WHEAT, HAY, AND BEEF
PRODUCER, LEESBURG, OH
Mr. Adams. Chairman Lucas and Members of the Committee,
thank you for holding this hearing on U.S. farm policy and the
formulation of the farm bill.
I am Craig Adams, and my family has been in production
agriculture starting as sharecroppers for at least four
generations in southern Ohio, and have grown our business to
1,700 acres, of which 900 are owned. We have a diversified
operation raising corn, soybeans, wheat, hay, pasture,
commercial beef cows, and kids. My wife is an educator and we
have three children still in school.
Because of the 1980s farm crisis, poor yields, 18 percent
interest and no functional crop insurance, I am the only
Wilmington College agriculture graduate of 1979 still engaged
in full time production. All of us who started farming in this
time frame are survivors of or near bankruptcy. Without the
1985 Farm Bill and a community bank that believed in young men
with dreams, I would not be here today.
With high commodity prices and an over-extended Federal
budget, there is a push to eliminate or substantially reduce
government support of agriculture. I believe everyone receiving
Federal USDA dollars should share equally in reductions. During
the late 1990s, there was a public outcry over Congressionally
approved crop disaster payments.
Crop insurance in its current form is the most effective
answer to short crop years. Any producer who desires an
effective risk management tool can purchase crop insurance.
Agriculture will accept reductions in FSA programs for crop
insurance to survive. Independent companies servicing
independent agents who dispense advice to farmers using 30 to
40 year historic yield databases to get true production
patterns, not weather fluctuations, helping mitigate premium
increases stemming from catastrophic loss. We need an insurance
program that is affordable to all producers across the United
States.
Commodity markets are cyclical and our self-produced food
is a national asset. If all risk is removed I fear some of the
unintended consequences could be the loss of affordable
insurance for U.S. farmers.
Spring is the time of renewal, with baby animals entering
the world and crops peaking through the warm soil seeking the
sun's energy. Be like a farmer, Chairman Lucas, and nurture
this farm bill to passage.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig Adams, Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Hay, and Beef
Producer, Leesburg, OH
Chairman Lucas, Congressman Peterson, and Members of the Committee
thank you for holding this hearing on the future of U.S. farm policy
and the formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill.
I am Craig Adams, am my family has been in production agriculture
starting as sharecroppers for at least four generations in southern
Ohio and have grown our business to 1,700 acres of which 900 are owned.
We have a diversified operation raising corn, soybeans, wheat, hay,
pasture, commercial beef cows, and kids. My wife Kim is an educator
with a master in curriculum supervision. We have two children in
college and one in middle school.
Because of the 1980's farm crises, poor yields, 18% interest, and
no functional crop insurance, I am the only Wilmington College
agriculture graduate of 1979 still engaged in full time production. All
of us who started farming in this time frame are survivors of or near
bankruptcy. Without the 1985 Farm Bill and a community bank that
believed in young men with dreams, I would not be here today.
With high commodity prices and an over extended Federal budget,
there is a push to eliminate or substantially reduce government support
of agriculture. I believe everyone receiving Federal USDA dollars
should share equally in reductions. During the late 1990's there was
public outcry over Congressionally approved crop disaster payments.
Crop insurance in its current form is the most effective answer to
short crop years. Any producer who desires an effective risk management
tool can purchase crop insurance. Agriculture will accept reductions in
FSA programs for crop insurance to survive. Independent company's
servicing independent agents whom dispense advice to farmers using 30-
40 year historic yield databases to get true production patterns, not
weather fluctuations, helping mitigate premium increases stemming from
catastrophic loss. We need an insurance program that's affordable to
all crop producers across the U.S. Commodity markets are cyclical and
our self-produced food is a national asset. If all risk is removed via
shallow loss I fear the unintended consequence could be the loss of
affordable insurance.
Spring is the time of renewal, with baby animals entering the world
and crops peaking through the warm soil seeking the sun's energy. Be
like a farmer Chairman Lucas and nurture our farm bill to passage.
Thank you,
Craig Adams.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Adams.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes and I would start by
observing, Mr. Erickson, I promise you in the House of
Representatives all spending is going down this year. And that
is part of the challenge we face on this Committee, whether we
have $23 billion less or $33 billion less or $40+ billion less
to spend when we put that next 5 year farm bill together, that
is one of the challenges that we face.
I have a question though, being an old wheat and cattle guy
from western Oklahoma, that I have to ask the panel. And my
colleagues are always tired of this after awhile. But tell me
in a snapshot, what are land prices doing in your core areas,
the last 2, 3, 4 years? Up, down, sideways, stable?
Mr. Erickson. Dramatically higher and not all driven by
agricultural prices, but in fact you have to look at the larger
picture of the economy and lack of investment opportunities for
those people who have been conservative in their approach to
their personal finances invested into their future and now have
the opportunity to invest into something larger at a rate of
return that is better than they can find at the local bank.
So I think it is driven perhaps more by the opportunity to
invest and some current tax laws than it is by its ability to
pay for itself as farmland, that is for sure.
The Chairman. I see the exact same thing at home, 10 years
ago, 5 years ago, it was to have a place to go hide on the
weekends or a place to hunt. Now it is a safe place to put your
money.
Ms. Moore, your area.
Ms. Moore. A few months ago there was some land that sold
in the Roseville area and it was $12,000 an acre and a farmer
bought it. No, that does not cash flow but----
The Chairman. No.
Ms. Moore.--as Mr. Erickson said, it is an investment. At
$12,000 an acre, that is a big investment.
The Chairman. Exactly.
Mr. Mages.
Mr. Mages. Mr. Chairman, in our area in Minnesota, I am in
central Minnesota and there has been land sales in the $5,000
to $6,000 range, which seems like a bargain compared to
Illinois evidently. But some land in Minnesota is a few
thousand dollars higher, but it is driven by the farmer
basically. You know, years ago, it was a 1031 exchange that
drove the land sales and today it is the farmer and for the
reasons like Mr. Erickson said also. They look at it as a place
to put their money because the return in the bank or whatever
is a lot lower.
Thank you.
Mr. Gerard. And in southern Illinois, we are seeing the
exact same thing, rapid escalation in land prices from both the
investor and from the farmer. Not too many years ago, we were
buying land for $2,000 to $3,000 an acre in our area and 2
weeks ago, we had one 10 miles up the road that sold for $7,700
an acre, which is phenomenal for Alexander County, Illinois. So
same story.
The Chairman. Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I must be living in a depressed
part of the world. I jokingly say we can look out our back door
and see Appalachia and we can look north about four counties
and see the Corn Belt. Our prices have generally increased in
southern Ohio. Two weeks ago, I had a friend purchased a farm
for $3,400 an acre, about 95 percent tillable, had not been
farmed for several years. It is in that mid to low $3,000 to
$3,700-$3,800 an acre in southern Ohio. Now you go two counties
to north central Ohio and you are talking $5,000 to $7,000 an
acre for crop ground.
The Chairman. You have to remember, being an Okie, I live
between my friends in Texas and my friends in Kansas, so I
see--we will not flatter them at this moment here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Chairman, will you yield a moment?
The Chairman. I would yield to Mr. Boswell for a moment.
Mr. Boswell. What do you suppose you and I would do, you
have your ranch down there, if we were cow/calf operators, some
crops, if somebody wanted to come to your place or mine and
offer us $10,000 or $12,000, we would probably say come on in,
let us talk.
The Chairman. Then my wife would take me aside and explain
to me why I could not do that, Leonard; yes, exactly. But yes,
absolutely.
Another question. One of the topics of great discussion as
we work on options in the next farm bill, as we try to craft
this concept of insurance, both revenue and traditional
weather, yield issues, and we take into consideration all the
other factors that drive farm policy. You are a very diverse
group of farmers obviously.
Tell me, when you make your decisions about what to plant,
how much of it is soil and past growing history, how much of it
is what the insurance rates are, how much of it is what kind of
demand the Renewable Fuel Standard creates? Tell me about how
you make your decisions in your diverse operations, about what
to produce. And as Chairman, that light is yellow, but you can
go a little longer with me. Whoever is brave, step up.
Mr. Mages. Mr. Chairman, the way we do it, I guess
basically we are corn and soybeans and it is economics. We
plant about \2/3\ corn and \1/3\ soybeans and we do that on a
rotational basis. It seems to work out pretty well, so that is
one of the reasons. And the corn, we seem to make a little more
money on corn and the risk is a little bit less on corn for
some reason, weather risk in our area. Soybeans tend to have
issues with high alkaline soils and things like that. So that
is what makes our decision.
Mr. Erickson. We have a corn and soybean rotation and we
look at our business from a holistic approach. Not only does
the rotation provide for we think better opportunities for
revenue generation, but we also think it allows us to manage
risks, both from weather, diseases, other pests that might
attack the crop. So we tend to look at a long-range approach
there and have the opportunity with long-term landlord
relationships to keep those in place. So we make our decisions
based on what works best for our operation and the signals in
the marketplace tells us.
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, we raise basically a 50/50 ratio
of corn and soybeans. Back in 2008 when corn prices took off
upward, we messed up our rotation and when the end of the year
was over, soybean acres had been purchased up similar to what
they are doing right now, should have stayed with what we are.
Wheat is not competitive in that kind of a rotation. We do some
different things because of the cow/calf operation, things like
that for forage. But the wheat is basically a conservation tool
and it also allows us to rebuild waterways, terraces and things
like that.
Mr. Gerard. Mr. Chairman, where I farm, we have variable
soil types, so I guess the primary, the first consideration is
soil type. We have some soils that are solely suited for rice
where we cannot really rotate, it is continuous rice
production. We have other soils where we can rotate rice and
soybeans. And then on the third soil type, we can rotate corn,
wheat, soybeans. We have much more flexibility. So on those
acres that we do have flexibility, the first thing I look at is
what is going to reap me the best net income and the market
will dictate what we plant on those acres. Fortunately we have
that flexibility.
One thing that really is irrelevant to my consideration is
the safety net that is provided based on the target price or
loan rates because what was proposed last fall is support to
help keep us in business, but still yet, it is below cost of
production. So there is no influence from the safety net or
target price proposed, has really no bearing on what I am going
to plant. Crop insurance the same.
The Chairman. So basically what you are telling me is what
I have always known and what I have tried to explain to my
colleagues back east; and that is, a typical farmer has to be
an outstanding agricultural economist and calculate all these
things every time to survive, and also a pretty darn good soil
scientist based on his or her property and property history.
Thank you very much. I now recognize my friend from Iowa
for 5 minutes, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
dialogue you just had, that was helpful.
There is quite a lot of concern, as the Chairman mentioned,
about the adjustments we will have to make, and I want you to
understand and appreciate that his and our colleagues' worked,
we tried to have that super committee action before the last
holiday and it did not happen. But I think you need to know
that of all the committees that were asked to bring their
resolve to that super committee, the one that succeeded was the
Agriculture Committee. So back to that whole comment about
bipartisanship, we feel good about that.
We talked for some time about how we will step up and take
a hard look at what we can--set our priorities. We know we will
have to make an adjustment. We would like to do it, you would
like to do it rather than having somebody sitting at a desk in
some far away place deciding for you. So I am very appreciative
and complimentary that we came up with that $23 billion. That
is a lot.
But then I think it is fair, we have to talk about some of
this. Now the rest of you step up to the plate and do your part
before you come back to us. There is a lot of discussion, lot
of concern. I am an old soldier, I spent a career in the
military and I am lucky to be here, very lucky. And I am big on
defense, but when we have a Secretary of Defense stand up and
say we might need to make some adjustments here. And I am on
the Eisenhower Commission which is setting up the memorial, I
was asked to do that some years ago and it is not an easy thing
to do. You might see something on the news on it.
But I made a comment some years ago about the military
industrial complex and what it might do to us and I think we
are faced with some of that. You are going to hear a lot of
debate on this and I just want you to know a little bit of
background. Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson, and Ms.
Stabenow and Pat Roberts over in the Senate side stepped up to
the plate and so we have to deal with that. So you will hear a
lot about it and things will be discussed on that probably, if
you just stop and think about it, it will probably end up going
to a conference committee and be worked out there. So I just
want to say this to you so you know that this debate is going
to take place and it will probably be fairly lively.
Having said that, if you want to comment, fine, but I am a
big advocate for alternative fuels and have been for a long,
long time. I was still in uniform years ago on a NATO
assignment when we had the 7 day war and the big fuel crisis
and I was in a foreign country. Amazed me what people just like
us will do if you cannot get fuel for your car, your delivery
truck or your tractor. It is amazing. So I have really been
engaged in alternative fuels--all the above. And I have really
been enthused about what we can grow out of the ground and turn
into fuel and turn around and grow it again next year and so
on.
Seeing what we have done in production yields and so on in
our lifetime, I guess I am the oldest one on the panel up here.
I am not waving that flag, but I remember when I came back from
the Army, I had been gone for 20+ years, came back and I was so
anxious to get into row crops and I was getting ready to plant
and my father came out and he dug around down the row and he
said, ``How much are you planting, what kind of seed count?''
And I do not remember what it was. He said, ``You cannot do
that, you cannot do that.'' And I told him why I thought I
could and so on. So we watched it very close and I did not want
to spend a lot of time on it, then he came back and crawled up
on the combine when the harvest was going on and of course it
was coming out pretty full and he said, ``How much is this
yielding?'' We did not have the fancy gadgets we have now but I
said, ``It is probably about 125 to 135 bushels to the acre,
probably.'' I said, ``Why don't you just go into the elevator,
it is all going across the scales, just go in there, we just
finished that 80 over there, and check it.'' So he was gone
quite a bit and he come back and he said, ``It is making
that.'' He just shook his head.
But look what we can do now. Look what some of you have
done. So I do not know this question about, can the livestock
sector exist with us doing a successful domestic ethanol
industry, for example? I would like to hear your comments on
that, just briefly, anybody and everybody. Can we do this?
Mr. Erickson. I think so.
Mr. Boswell. And I will tell you what I think when we get
to the end. Go ahead.
Mr. Erickson. Thank you. I think that we can and we have
demonstrated that we have been able to thus far. Our ability to
increase yields without sacrificing soil loss or nutrient
mismanagement, I will call it. We also have to recognize the
key role that alternative fuel production plays in providing
feedstocks for livestock. We must have a strong livestock
industry here at home. Not only does it provide excellent food
for our own people, but we are able to add value by processing
those things locally.
But I think the alternative fuels market has also provided
us the opportunity to provide feedstocks at a lower cost.
Today's DDG provide a big percentage of rations for hog
operations, swine diets and have significantly reduced the cost
of just corn base. When you are looking at $6+ corn, the DDG
provides a very economical alternative to the diet for swine.
So I think we have been able to accomplish both.
Mr. Mages. Congressman, I think it is a very workable
system. You know, in the past 10 years, the demand for ethanol
has increased dramatically, ten percent of the nation's fuel
basically is ethanol now. And with that 14 billion gallons of
ethanol being produced, it comes from approximately 5 billion
bushels of corn, but we are raising a tremendously larger
amount of corn than we did in the past and on the same amount
of land. And we are also doing it with using less fertilizer
and we are doing it in a fashion that is very friendly,
environmentally friendly to the land.
So I think the future of ethanol looks bright. I think with
the livestock sector they are still a big customer, one of the
biggest customers and through the DDGs and through the
livestock, the value-added livestock, but also we get the
nutrients from the livestock to put back on the land. And it is
a tremendous circle of economic success.
Mr. Boswell. In respect to the rest of the Members, I am
going to stop here, maybe we can come back to it later, but
that little red light means I have used up my time for this
round.
But I think we can too and I appreciate it. Just nod your
head, do you think we can do it? Or shake your head this way--
okay, we think we can do it.
I want the rest of you to know, media and so on, we feel
like we can do this. We can continue to take steps to get out
of bondage to OPEC and so on. So anyway, so much for that. I
just wanted to see what you thought about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, who I would note
for the record has even fewer trees than I have in my district
in Oklahoma, Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
here. We measure our rain in hundredths of inches and we are
proud to get \5/100\ of an inch from time to time. Thank you
all for being here this morning.
I chair the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and
Risk Management and while things that are going on at the CFTC
are not directly related to what we are going to do these
coming months in this farm bill, Ms. Moore, you mentioned that
you bought your inputs last year for the 2012 crop.
Can you walk me through basically how you did that and the
rest of you, have you seen yet impacts of the CFTC's rulemaking
on your ability to do that at a price that makes sense for you?
Ms. Moore. Even before we finish our harvest, our seed
salesmen are at our door trying to get our order for next year
because seed is at such a premium for certain seed numbers,
that if we can use those seed numbers, we really have to book
them. We have the option of paying for them, but of course, it
is at a reduced rate if we pay for it earlier than if we pay
for it later next fall.
Mr. Conaway. Okay, so you are not using futures contracts,
you are actually buying them directly from the----
Ms. Moore. We buy our seed.
Fertilizer costs, most of the time they are predicting they
are going up so we will book and pay for our fertilizer.
Mr. Conaway. And how do you do that?
Ms. Moore. Through our local co-op.
Mr. Conaway. Okay, so you are relying on the co-op to be
able to provide those services to you?
Ms. Moore. Yes.
Mr. Conaway. Have they talked to you about increased
prices? Do any of the rest of you use futures markets to hedge?
Mr. Mages. Yes, I do, Congressman.
Mr. Conaway. Are you seeing anything yet from the impact of
the rulemaking on the CFTC?
Mr. Mages. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Conaway. Okay.
Department of Labor has recently stepped into your business
with respect to, I will not call them children, but young
people working on farms. Where should those decisions be made
about how do you regulate, how do you take responsibility for
children working on farms?
And maybe help us understand how old were you when you
first started meaningfully working on your properties.
Mr. Erickson. I am not sure how meaningful it was, but I am
a graduate of a half day kindergarten and I know after a half
day kindergarten, I used to sit on the tractor and I thought I
was driving, but I think it was a way to keep me occupied while
my dad fed hay to the cows.
I think that the problem with some of these--and I alluded
to it in my written testimony--the problem with some of these
regulations is they appear before they are thought through. And
if given the opportunity for people who have an understanding,
beginning in Congress like the gentlemen before us today, if
this Committee had had an opportunity to comment on some of
those regulations before they had been introduced, I am sure
that you would have been able to shed light to those regulatory
agencies to say, hey, I think you need more information here.
It is important to keep young people safe in working on the
farm, but it is also important that we grow that work ethic in
our young people and employer after employer will tell you the
importance of that work ethic in young people today. And I
think that is what makes us such a good workforce in the
Midwest.
Mr. Conaway. Ms. Moore.
Ms. Moore. I think the responsibility should be with the
parents. My husband told me when he was 8, he started raking
hay and doing that. And when our oldest son was 8, I looked at
him and said, ``Do you really think Steve is ready?'' And he
agreed that no, maybe at that time he was not ready. But our
boys all worked on the farm just building fence or raking hay
or doing whatever needed to be done, when it was age
appropriate, and that was our decision. And I can tell you that
when they went out to college or went looking for jobs and
people found out that they grew up on a farm, their eyes kind
of light up, like oh somebody who knows how to work. That has
been a real plus. They come back and say, ``Mom, they like that
I grew up on a farm. You know, they think that I have learned
how to work.'' And I think that we instill that in our children
and I think that is really important.
Mr. Conaway. Yes, the struggle is going to be obviously you
making a decision for your children to work on your farm.
Ms. Moore. Right.
Mr. Conaway. The restrictions should be different than
someone who lives near and they are going to be using children
who are not theirs, but still age appropriate. How do you put
in place the protections that are appropriate but also allow
the flexibility to children whose parents do not actually own
the land or are actually farming, to be that labor in the
summer time that they need to learn that work ethic.
Ms. Moore. Well, I think the parents of the children should
have that.
Mr. Conaway. Sure.
Ms. Moore. So if they said yes, I think my child is mature
enough and responsible enough to do that job on the farm, that
they should have the ability to say yes.
Mr. Conaway. My experience was not on the farm but it was
on a drilling rig. And I had the same experience, while I
worked on a drilling rig as a roughneck, I did not really think
with either one of my boys that was a good idea. So I mean, it
was my decision, my call to make there.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I would simply note, like many people in this
room, I started at a young age with my father and grandfather.
And when I got to work for the neighbor as a teenager, that was
wonderful, I got paid.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Wonderful.
I turn to the gentleman from Illinois for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. This has already been very informative.
I just want to briefly say, before I get started, it is
such a privilege to be serving on the Agriculture Committee,
thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been such a great learning
experience for me. My district is just east, it starts a little
bit north of here in Henry County and then goes east all the
way over to DuPage County. But great to be here today.
I also know, Congressman Schilling and I, it has been a
wonderful little over a year that we have been serving out in
Washington, D.C., but we also really appreciate the opportunity
to work with our Senators here from Illinois. Specifically, I
just want to recognize a couple of guys who are here from
Senator Kirk's office, who just do a great job on ag policy--
Rob Johnson and also Randy Pollard, along with Senator Kirk's
ag advisory group is here as well. We got to meet with them for
a few minutes before. So we all know Senator Kirk is doing
great and we want him back in Washington quickly, and he is
still passionate about serving people here in Illinois. So glad
you guys are here. But again, thank you all for being here.
A couple of quick questions and a lot of stuff has already
been covered, but I wanted just to talk with Mr. Erickson
briefly about exports. I was very excited with, as Congressman
Schilling said, the passage of the free trade agreements. I
wondered if you could talk more specifically how you would see
that impacting your family farm.
Mr. Erickson. We have the advantage in this part of
Illinois that we have a strong domestic demand for commodities
and we also have the ability to export via river
transportation. I will not even go into all that because that
is a whole other topic.
But exports have clearly been a driving force. When I first
started farming in 1985, I think we had the feeling generally
that we could control production, and therefore, control price.
In the meantime, our competitors decided that if they are not
going to do it, we will. And I think that we have finally come
around to the fact, quite some time ago, that competing in the
global marketplace is what we are all about and we obviously
need to work here at home first. Exports clearly provide a lot
of opportunities, not only for the producers, but the
developers of products, the value-added, the transportation
industry, the construction industry, and the list goes on and
on that supports those export markets.
Mr. Hultgren. Thanks. I agree with you as well. Along with
serving on the Agriculture Committee, I also serve on the
Transportation Committee and so I am really helping try to get
a farm bill passed and also a surface transportation bill
passed. I see how important our canals are, our rivers are, our
roads are, our rails are. All of these are interconnected
clearly and impact other industries, such as agriculture. So we
need to make sure that we get some things done on the farm bill
but also on the transportation bill.
Ms. Moore, I wondered if I could ask you briefly, you
talked in your testimony about the difficulty of securing
credit especially for new farmers. I wonder, how hard is it to
get started, for a new farmer to get started these days in this
economy? And do you have any suggestions that would help
prospective farmers or things that we should keep in mind as we
work on the 2012 Farm Bill?
Ms. Moore. Well, with the changes in the banking industry,
for a new farmer to go in without much collateral, it is almost
impossible for them to get the kind of money that we are
talking about.
Several years ago, it might have been a little easier, but
as costs have gone up, they need to borrow more and more to get
started. If there is a program that would support a young
farmer and back them and give them some security at hopefully a
lower interest rate too. But it is mostly getting the
collateral backing for that loan that really could be a
stumbling block for a lot of producers to get started.
Mr. Hultgren. Mr. Gerard, in your testimony you said ``If
all risk is removed via shallow loss, I fear that the
unintended consequences could be the loss of affordable
insurance.''
I wonder if you could elaborate on that possible unintended
consequences and why you believe a shallow loss program would
not be beneficial.
Mr. Adams. Congressman, I am sorry, but I think that was my
testimony.
Mr. Hultgren. Was that yours? I am sorry.
Mr. Adams. My intent was on the shallow loss, I misstated,
shallow loss or other changes in the insurance program that
would increase cost to the farmer. The concern is that if you
have an indemnity payment every year, then your premiums are
going to go up. That was the concern.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay.
Mr. Adams. It is with the loss ratio. You know, do no harm,
it is working right now, is the concept; yes.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay, thank you.
Real quickly if I could sneak one in. It just turned red.
Let me get back to Mr. Erickson real quickly. You talked
about the importance of direct payments. We have also heard so
much about the importance--maybe a greater importance--of crop
insurance right now. Obviously, many would like to have both.
I wonder if quickly, if you could say is there a way that
you could do without direct payments if crop insurance was
strengthened?
Mr. Erickson. I think my testimony led us to discuss the
fact that direct payments, while under attack for a number or
reasons currently, I think they were a good investment and I
think my feeling has always been that you have to have personal
responsibility for your own business and the things that you
are responsible for. And I think the direct payments put the
onus on the producer and the landowner to make sure that those
payments were properly used and that those payments went to
things that I outlined, which included risk management.
In our operation, we do not utilize Federal crop insurance.
And the reason that we do not is that we have had the
opportunity to become financially stable. We have used those
direct payments as a way to do marketing programs that have
reduced price risk and the premium and reward from the Federal
crop insurance has not worked for us. That is not to say that
it is not a good program and it does have a place in risk
management. I was just hopefully shedding light on the fact
that there is opportunity for flexibility for all of the
program.
Mr. Hultgren. That is helpful. My time has expired. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. We now turn
to Mr. Schilling for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Schilling. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Erickson, it is interesting, you brought up a little
bit about regulation and before I got going, I had a meeting
with Senator Kirk's ag advisory board and I was telling them
the story of how we had a meeting with Ms. Jackson, and it was
kind of interesting because what happened was we were talking
about the masks that they were trying to force the farmers to
wear and one of my colleagues had asked, do you know how much
they cost. And she says well, no, I do not. Are they $50, are
they $500, are they $5,000. And anyway, as this thing went on
and on, it was both Democrats and Republicans alike that were
kind of going after her and I was sitting there thinking--I was
kind of feeling sorry for her and then I remembered that she
was with the EPA.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schilling. But one of the things that is really
critical is that we all want clean air, clean water. And any
time you come in and you try to get some of this over-
regulation under control, you get attacked. And I think it is
imperative when they are trying to regulate farm dust and
things like that, we have really got to keep a good eye and
keep this under control because those all end up being more
inputs and cost to people that do not necessarily need to be
there.
But what I wanted to start out, Mr. Erickson, do you
think--I want to talk about crop insurance because that is the
number one thing I continually hear as I go throughout the
district. But do you think more parity in crop insurance
premiums in Illinois would make you more likely to purchase
crop insurance?
Mr. Erickson. Crop insurance is all about risk/reward, just
like any insurance is. I would give full review to what the
opportunities provided for our business and how it could
potentially lay off risk, and what the potential reward was
down the line. And I think that is the importance of keeping
the flexibility in crop insurance in the mixture, that it is a
sound program that does not become overly subsidized or overly
regulated. If you try to fix it too much, you might actually
hurt the parts that work the best for the majority of people.
So I am not being critical of the program, but I just think
that it could be dangerous if we try to make too many changes
there to fix everyone's problem, and in effect you have a
costly program that maybe does not suit all at any cost.
Mr. Schilling. An unintended consequence basically.
Mr. Erickson. Yes.
Mr. Schilling. I have heard quite a bit about the re-rating
issue from producers in the district who believe that the MRAs
approach is just the beginning in addressing a long-standing
rate issue here in Illinois. And basically would encourage the
process to continue.
Five minutes goes so fast. I want to try to get to Ms.
Moore here.
You mentioned too much emphasis on any single approach,
which is great. So I am going to flip over to Ms. Moore.
In your testimony on risk management, you mentioned that
you utilize the revenue assurance to protect against loss,
which is basically what we talked about here, which I think is
great. But one of the things that I think that you are doing a
really awesome job on and I just want you to kind of touch on,
and I applaud your work here in Illinois with the Farm Families
and your educational efforts on farm policy because I think
that is something that is critical, that we can get outside of
our farm communities and educate people.
Can you just highlight some of your most successful
practices for us, Ms. Moore, on educating folks about the farm
bill?
Ms. Moore. Well, probably the latest is Illinois Farm
Families where we have sat down with mostly moms, we think that
moms are the most influential, and sat down with them and
answered their questions. And this month, we did a tour to a
hog facility with them and while we are on the bus, we talk. So
those are our times. And one of the questions was, ``Tell me
about farm subsidies.'' Well, that is all they hear, that is
all they have in their mind about the farm bill, they did not
understand all the titles that are involved. So I had the
opportunity to explain to them everything that was encompassed
in the farm bill and they said, ``Oh, so it is more than just
paying some money to farmers.'' So we did get that dialogue and
they did understand how much of it is including the nutrition
programs and the SNAP program and got them to see.
But every time I talk to consumers and they hear farm bill,
oh, you mean subsidies. And that is all that they are hearing.
So we need to do our part to let them know there is a lot more
to this farm bill than just subsidies.
Mr. Schilling. Very good. You know, I appreciate that
answer because part of our job on this Committee is to make
really the strongest arguments for rural America I believe, and
just the importance of the farm bill to our colleagues. We have
a lot of colleagues who do not truly understand what is going
on with ag.
I can see I am running out of time, but I really appreciate
everyone being here. Thank you. I yield back, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Schilling.
One last observation or one question. Mr. Boswell and I
have been discussing a point up here and I would recognize him
to make a quick inquiry of the panel on this policy point.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Something we are hearing some talk about as we talk about
the Federal crop insurance and so on, is conservation
compliance. A lot of talk across the country and a lot across
my state, a lot of people think we are all flat, but you know,
we have a lot of highly erodible ground and so on. I would like
to hear your response, there is not too much land and it has to
have some conservation practice put on it. So should this be
something we should be considering as we talk about Federal
crop insurance? Should the producers be required to be in
compliance?
The Chairman. Should it be a mandatory requirement, that's
the question back east. No not participating in the program if
you are not vested in the conservation programs--not voluntary.
There is a big difference there. Whoever, anybody.
Mr. Mages. Mr. Chairman, I think conservation compliance
does not belong in crop insurance. I think crop insurance is
something that we pay for part of it and, say you had a problem
one year and you have a big crop insurance payment coming in,
and for some reason they do a compliance check in the back 40
and you did something wrong years ago and you are out of
compliance. And now the banker is waiting for his money or you
are waiting to pay the bills and now they are going to refuse
to pay. So for all of them reasons, I think compliance should
not be an issue with crop insurance.
Mr. Erickson. I almost hate to say this. I would differ in
the fact that I think regardless of how we feel about them as
producers, subsidy or incentive that we are provided
financially from the government may entitle us to fall within
the framework of certain programs. In our scenario, we have
done conservation programs without government funding, but that
is not the case for everyone. If we want to provide subsidy in
any regard, in my estimation, it may come at a cost. And I do
think we have a responsibility to farm responsibly. I think the
vast majority of farmers do. But I also can understand the need
for programs to be designed so that there is a certain amount
of accountability for those who want to participate.
That is a pretty wide area I guess.
Mr. Boswell. I think you both made valid remarks. And
perhaps if we go into this and I am quite confident we are
going to hear about it. And by the way, for whatever it is
worth to you, the land I have stewardship over, I complied
before we had all this set aside business and I did not--I had
already done it. That is beside the point.
I think some of our folks--we are back to we all have an
investment in agriculture, whether you are in the city or
wherever--are going to bring this up, so we might need some
expertise, Mr. Chairman, if we get to that point on how to
qualify or design it where it would----
The Chairman. Very valid point, Mr. Boswell, and this
question takes us to the very core issue of what a farm bill
is. When in a time that 75 percent of all farm bill spending in
the last 5 years go to the social nutrition programs, some in
my district refer to them as the feeding programs, perhaps when
all the bills are added up for this year and last year, 80
percent of all farm bill spending will be the feeding programs.
Is it still a farm bill when we become that small a portion.
And by the same token, is the farm bill, part of the farm bill
intended to help us meet the food and fiber needs of this
country and the world, or is it a tool with which to compel us
to follow other people's guidelines about how we should live on
our land.
Those are all big philosophical discussions that will be
sorted out on the floor or in the Committee and certainly on
the floor of the United States House.
You look like, Mr. Adams, you have some insights to lay on
us. You will get to finish this.
Mr. Adams. Well, Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Boswell,
as a producer I would be willing to have linkage between crop
insurance and conservation if recipients of food feeding
programs would submit themselves to drug tests and things of
that nature to be able to qualify.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. On that thought----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--the time for this panel has expired and we
thank you for your insights.
And we now call our second panel of witnesses to the table.
[Brief pause.]
The Chairman. The hearing will return to order and I would
like to thank all of not only our participants in the hearing
today but the folks who are with us today and who may be
observing this process, and remind you once again everyone can
visit, and anyone can visit, the House Agriculture Committee
website to learn more about the 2012 Farm Bill process.
Additionally, anyone is welcome to submit comments to be
considered as a part of the Committee farm bill field hearing
record. Your comments must be submitted using the website
address by May 20, 2012, so it can be incorporated in the
permanent record. That address is agriculture.house.gov/
farmbill.
With that, I would like to welcome our second panel of
witnesses to the table. Mr. John Williams, sorghum, corn,
wheat, and soybean producer from McLeansboro, Illinois; Mr.
Gary Asay, pork, corn, and soybean producer, Osco, Illinois;
Mr. Terry Davis, corn and soybean producer, Roseville,
Illinois; Mr. David W. Howell, corn, soybean, pumpkin--pumpkin?
This is going to be a good diverse topic--pumpkin, and tomato
producer, Middletown, Indiana. By the way, my grandfather was
born in Miami County, Indiana 113 years ago. And Ms. Jane
Weber, specialty crop producer, Bettendorf, Iowa.
And as Chairman, you can offer comments as you go along, it
is one of the privileges that are left.
Mr. Williams, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WILLIAMS, SORGHUM, CORN, WHEAT, AND SOYBEAN
PRODUCER, McLEANSBORO, IL
Mr. Williams. Good morning. I would like to thank you for
giving me the opportunity to sit here before you today to
discuss the impact of the next farm bill, and what it will have
on our operation.
I farm at home with my mom, dad, my son, and my daughter in
Hamilton and White Counties near McLeansboro, Illinois, where
we grow grain sorghum, corn, wheat, and soybeans. Grain sorghum
is an integral component in our rotation and is a crop I use as
a foundation for defense. I am blessed geographically to be
able to sell our grain sorghum at a premium of 30 to 70 over
corn each year. It is less expensive to plant and is more
resilient to varying weather conditions, whether they be wet or
dry. It is a dependable crop and has been a staple on our farm
now for four generations.
As a farmer, I realize the vast impact this one piece of
legislation has on our day-to-day operations, and I want to
ensure farmers benefit from the next farm bill. So I applaud
you for holding this hearing today, and thank you.
On our farm, I plan defensively and understand the upside
and downside of risk. I have seen what can happen to friends
and neighbors when they do not plant for risk, which
underscores the need for meaningful risk management tools that
farmers can utilize. With that said, I firmly believe that the
number one goal for the next farm bill should be ``do no harm''
to Federal crop insurance.
I believe a personal T-yield system, which would allow a
farmer's APH to more accurately reflect his yield potential,
would be a more productive way to improve the APH.
I would also encourage RMA to include sorghum in the trend-
adjusted yield pilot program. It is inequitable to allow
competing crops to have trend-adjusted yields while sorghum
farmers' APHs are left unadjusted.
Crop insurance is a safety net in a time of disaster. It is
also an integral part of our overall marketing strategy.
Because of revenue protection insurance, I can market
aggressively and still be protected against market shifts. I
remember having a glut of grain in the 1980s and I do not want
to be caught in a position like that again where it affects our
bottom line.
In the 1980s with high interest rates and low grain prices,
our crop was worth less than it cost to produce it. While
interest rates are not the problem today, the cost of basic
farm inputs has skyrocketed over the last 2 years. That is why
it is critical to have some protection in the next farm bill
against a steep drop in commodity prices, since input prices
are sticky and slow to follow declining commodity prices.
Whether that protection is a reference price system or a
revenue-based system, it is important that it be in the new
farm bill safety net and farmers have the option to choose what
fits their operation and risk appetite the best. In a revenue-
based program, it is critical to have a reference price and
plug yields. The reference price will protect against a long-
term, large commodity price drop and plug yields will help in
times of consecutive years of yield losses.
As for ACRE and SURE, these programs are not widely used in
our area because they are too complex. I would have rather gone
with a guaranteed route that direct payments provided. But
given the situation, any new program that results from the next
farm bill should be simple and transparent.
With that said, sorghum is an agronomically important crop
to our farm and likewise to those in the Sorghum Belt. However,
it is not always the primary crop for many farmers and is
extraordinarily sensitive to any incentives that are created in
the farm program. No matter which form of policy is pursued, I
believe special care must be taken to encourage crop diversity
and to avoid a monoculture system that rejects agronomics in
favor of farm policy incentives.
And finally, I support the continuation of a farm bill
energy title. As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, I sell my
grain sorghum at a premium by rail. The market is limited to my
area but stands to improve by generating competition through
the biofuels industry which already has created a positive
economic impact in the High Plains area. This Bioenergy Program
for Advanced Biofuels from Section 9005 of the 2008 Farm Bill
should be continued as it incentivizes eligible biofuel
producers to use non-conventional feedstocks such as sorghum.
Thank you again and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Williams, Sorghum, Corn, Wheat, and Soybean
Producer, McLeansboro, IL
Introduction
I would like to thank the House Committee on Agriculture for the
opportunity to submit testimony on the next U.S. farm bill and its
impact on my operation. I am honored to be here and be asked to present
my views.
My name is John Williams. I farm with my father and son near
McLeansboro, Illinois, in Hamilton and White Counties where we raise
grain sorghum, corn, wheat and soybeans. Grain sorghum is a crop I use
as a foundation for defense. It is less expensive to plant and much
more adaptable to varying weather conditions. Grain sorghum has proven
itself as an integral component in my rotation, providing a resilient,
dependable crop each year on my third-generation family farm.
My partners and I appreciate the work put forth by this Committee
in developing the next farm bill and look forward to working with the
Committee to craft this set of vital farm policy. Because it is an
integral part of my operation, my testimony will focus on multiple
areas of farm policy as they relate to sorghum's safety net.
Protect Federal Crop Insurance
On my operation, I plan defensively and understand the upside and
downside of risk. I have seen what can happen to friends and neighbors
when they do not plan for risk, underscoring the need for meaningful
risk management tools that producers can utilize. Therefore, my first
priority is to ``do no harm'' to Federal Crop Insurance, and I feel the
program should be built upon in the following ways:
The APH methodology should be reformed and county T-yield
system improved so as to reduce the impact of local weather
phenomena and allow the producer's insurable yield (pre-
deductible) to reflect what the producer and his lender would
actually reasonably expect to produce in that year. I believe a
personal T-yield system, which would allow a producer's APH to
more accurately reflect his yield potential, would be a
productive way to improve APH.
I would also support improvement to the product development
processes so that there would be a clear pathway to bring new
policies, like one for sweet sorghum or high biomass energy
sorghum, to market.
In no case should the crop insurance tools, which are
purchased by the producer, be weighed down with environmental
regulation or other conditions that fall out of the scope of
insurance.
I would encourage RMA to include sorghum in the trend
adjusted yield pilot program. It is inequitable to allow
competing crops to have trend adjusted yields while sorghum
producers' APHs are left unadjusted.
2012 Farm Bill
Crop insurance is a safety net in a time of disaster but it also is
an integral part of my overall marketing strategy. Because of revenue
protection insurance, I can market aggressively and still be protected
against market shifts. I remember having a glut of grain in the 1980s
and I don't want to be caught in a position like that again where it
affects my bottom line.
In the 1980s, with high interest rates and low grain prices, my
crop was worth less than it cost to produce it. While interest rates
are not the problem today, the cost of basic inputs has skyrocketed
over the last 2 years. That is why it is critical to have some
protection in the next farm bill against a steep drop in commodity
prices; I know input prices are sticky and slow to follow declining
commodity prices.
Whether that protection is a reference price system or a revenue
based system, it is important that it be in the farm bill safety net
and producers have the option to choose what fits their operation and
risk appetite the best. In a revenue based program, it is critical to
have a reference price and plug yields. The reference price will
protect against a large commodity price drop and plug yields will help
in times of consecutive years of yield loss.
With that said, sorghum is an agronomically important crop to my
farm and likewise to those in the Sorghum Belt. However, it's not
always the primary crop for many producers, and is extraordinarily
sensitive to any incentives that are created in the farm program. No
matter which form of policy is pursued, special care must be taken to
encourage crop diversity and rotation on the farm and avoid a
monoculture system which rejects agronomics in favor of farm policy
incentives. Based on both experience and a producer's understanding of
the program, I suggest the following:
A farm bill should not dictate or distort planting
decisions. Direct payments are excellent in this regard. SURE
or similar whole farm aggregations tend to discourage
diversification, which could be problematic for sorghum. Any
commodity specific program that is tied to planted acres must
be designed with extreme care to avoid creating payment
scenarios that incentivize farmers to plant crops with higher
inherent value to maximize payments rather than making the
wisest possible agronomic decisions.
A program should be simple and bankable. The recently
expired SURE program had too many factors and was not tailored
to the multiple business risks producers face--it was not
simple. The current ACRE, while offering improved price-based
protection, is based on the state's income, not the farm's--it
is not bankable, especially in some of the large states where
sorghum thrives. The current loan and counter cyclical programs
are simple and bankable--unfortunately the 2008 price levels
are no longer relevant given current production costs. It is
important to me to have a simple, bankable program to take to
my lender, should disaster strike my crop.
A farm bill should be targeted and defensible. It makes
sense to provide assistance when factors beyond the producers'
control create losses.
A farm bill should be built to withstand a multi-year low
price scenario. Whether in a revenue loss plan, or a price-
based countercyclical plan, it will be important to have a set
minimum price that serves as a floor or reference price to
protect producer income in a relevant way in the event of a
series of low price years. Ideally, this minimum could move
upward over time should production costs also increase.
A farm bill should allow for transitional and fair
reductions to the baseline for all crops. Generally, the least
disruptive and most fair way to achieve savings across
commodities would be to apply a percentage reduction to each
commodity baseline and structure any new program within the
reduced baseline amounts.
The sorghum industry has seen firsthand the impact farm policy can
have on planting decisions made by producers.
Specifically evaluating certain revenue proposals, it seems that
without yield plugs, in a situation with 2 consecutive years of loss,
the protection quickly drops to a point where the program would have
little value and would provide almost no protection for my farm. This
component is necessary to ensure equity among crops because sorghum is
grown in region with such high yield variability.
Additionally, a revenue policy in conjunction with the potential
use of adjusted yields for certain commodities could eliminate the
important element of risk involved in growing a crop. This would create
a situation that would greatly distort planting intentions because a
farmer may be inclined to plant for the largest revenue guarantee as
opposed to the most prudent agronomic choice.
Finally, direct payments, while not necessarily tied to a specific
crop being planted, have proven to be a WTO compliant, efficient
payment for producers. It is one of the few parts of the current safety
net bankers have certainty with and will provide financing for our
producers. However, if the Committee decides to move away from this
program, it makes it that much more important that successor policies
be bankable.
Eliminate Dated Pay Limits
Given the likely possibility that a new farm program would have
less certainty for the producer (a likely decrease or elimination of
direct payments) and will therefore be designed to provide assistance
only in loss situations, the program should not be limited based on
arbitrary dollar limits, i.e., assistance should be tailored to the
size of loss. A producer should not be precluded from participating in
a farm program because of past income experience. Any internal program
limits on assistance should be percentage-based (i.e., 25 percent of an
expected crop value) and not discriminate based on the size of farm.
Build Incentives for Sorghum Production into Conservation and Energy
Titles
Sorghum is a highly water efficient crop that works well in various
rotation systems, spanning from southern Texas to South Dakota. It
thrives in drought prone areas because, whereas other crops will die
during a period of prolonged water stress, sorghum will become dormant
and thrive again upon taking in moisture. And while I rarely experience
prolonged drought myself, this ability to make a crop under highly
water deficient conditions allows sorghum to fit easily into farms
where water is becoming scarcer each year.
As such, it would be beneficial to strengthen the principles of
water conservation language in the Ag Water Enhancement Program (AWEP)
of the 2008 Farm Bill to more specifically encourage planting sorghum
and other water saving crops. Currently, the program allows incentives
for switching to lower water intensity crops, but a vast majority of
payments are going to other projects. There is also place for water
conservation language in existing Conservation Security Program (CSP)
and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) language, and water
conservation options should be strengthened wherever practical. Using
farm bill conservation programs as a transitional support, farmers will
be able to economically justify switching higher value crops to lower
water intensity crops over time.
Additionally, grain, sweet and high biomass forage sorghums are all
used to produce ethanol under economically viable biofuels
technologies. I support the continuation of a farm bill energy title
and specifically encourage continuing the Bioenergy Program for
Advanced Biofuels from Section 9005 of the 2008 Farm Bill. Section 9005
allows incentive payments to eligible biofuels producers that use non-
conventional feedstocks, such as sorghum. It has had positive economic
impact on the Sorghum Belt and served as a water savings incentive
where aquifers are already depleted.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Asay, you may proceed whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF GARY ASAY, PORK, CORN, AND SOYBEAN PRODUCER, OSCO,
IL
Mr. Asay. Good morning, Chairman Lucas and Members of the
Agriculture Committee. I am Gary Asay, a farmer from Osco,
Illinois. Along with my wife, I farm 300 acres of corn and
soybeans and raise about 9,000 hogs a year. I am licensed to
sell crop insurance and Livestock Gross Margin insurance.
Like all pork producers, in the next farm bill, I would
like to see provisions that help me maintain and strengthen my
competitiveness. I do not want unwarranted and costly
provisions that will make it harder for me to compete.
The U.S. pork industry would like Congress to address
several issues in the next farm bill, including feed
availability, comprehensive disease surveillance, new foreign
market access, risk management, and government intervention
into the markets. I want to focus my testimony on the latter
two.
The U.S. pork industry has seen rapid growth in exports
over the past decade. It is now exporting more than 25 percent
of production. Because of that growth and an increased
likelihood of a foreign animal disease outbreak in the U.S.,
the potential for a catastrophic drop in hog prices is greater
than ever. Such a drop would adversely affect the U.S. economy
which garners $35 billion in GDP annually and 550,000 jobs for
the U.S. pork industry. Producers need better risk management
tools to protect their operations. USDA has such a tool, a
program similar to the one for crop farmers called Livestock
Gross Margin insurance. But it reaches far too few pork
producers and covers too few hogs.
Congress and the USDA need to make funding and program
changes so the program provides inexpensive catastrophic
insurance coverage. Congress should remove the program's $20
million cap, $16 million of which is now used for the dairy
industry and $3 million is used for hogs. Also, USDA should
lift the 30,000 head limit on the amount of hogs that can be
insured. These limits are out of step with today's pork
industry. Last year, only 206,000 hogs were covered. With the
U.S. pork industry marketing more than 100 million hogs in a
year, it is clear that the current LGM program affords very
limited protection to U.S. pork producers. Congress should
strongly urge USDA to work with pork producers to develop a
catastrophic insurance product that is more in keeping with
today's pork industry needs.
Another issue I would like to raise is government's
intervention in the buying, selling, and raising animals and
how that would adversely affect pork producers'
competitiveness. Mandates, whether pushed by lawmakers or
activists, must not stand in the way of market-based demands. I
know some lawmakers continue to discuss banning packer
ownership of livestock, eliminating forward contracts and
limiting the number of hogs covered by a contract. I do not
believe pork producers would be well-served by having Congress
dictate or eliminate certain types of contracting mechanisms.
Doing so would force the livestock industry to revert to an
inefficient system used more than a half century ago.
Today's U.S. pork industry has a wide variety of marketing
and pricing methods, including contracts to meet the
challenging needs of a diverse marketplace. Economics should
determine the structure of the pork production and processing.
No economic research has ever shown that structure or marketing
practices of the industry has harmed producers or consumers.
Until such research exists, Congress should not impose
limitations on packer ownership of production, producer
ownership of packing or marketing contracts.
Likewise, Federal mandates on production practices,
including ones that dictate animal housing, would add to
producers' costs and weaken the competitiveness. That is why
pork producers oppose Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments,
House Resolution 3798, which would dictate the size of cages
for laying hens. The bill would amend the Federal food safety
law. If imposed on imports, food safety laws must meet the
World Trade Organization's equivalency principle, which
requires countries to recognize each other's science-based
measures as acceptable, even if they are different, as long as
an equivalent level of protection is provided.
But the supporters of H.R. 3798 admit that the standards in
the bill are arbitrary, they are not based on science that
protects and improves food safety and public health. If imposed
on imported eggs, they would not meet the World Trade
Organization's equivalence principle.
For Congress to intervene in production practices for any
livestock species with arbitrary standards devoid of scientific
justification is extremely dangerous precedent for domestic and
international commerce. The bottom line on the farm bill,
Congress should craft legislation to help farmers like me
remain competitive and should avoid provisions that make us
less competitive.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Asay follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Asay, Pork, Corn, and Soybean Producer,
Osco, IL
Introduction
Gary Asay is a farmer from Osco, Ill. Along with his wife, he runs
Asay Farms, which consists of 300 acres split between corn and
soybeans. He also raises about 9,000 hogs a year for Cargill and is
licensed to sell crop insurance and Livestock Gross Margin insurance.
He serves on the board of directors of the National Pork Producers
Council, which is an association of 43 state pork producer
organizations and is the voice in Washington for the nation's 67,000
pork producers.
Like all pork producers, in the next farm bill Asay would like to
see provisions that help him maintain and strengthen his
competitiveness vis-a-vis foreign competitors; he does not want in the
bill unwarranted and costly provisions and regulations that will make
it harder for him to compete in the global marketplace.
The Next Farm Bill
There are several issues pork producers believes Congress should
address in the next farm bill that could help the U.S. pork industry
and farmers like him.
1. Enhancing programs that keep feed grain prices competitive with
the rest of the world would be very beneficial. Feed comprises
60-70 percent of my input cost of producing a market hog. (Each
market pig consumes approximately 10.5 bushels of corn and 200
pounds of soybean meal--that's about 4 bushels of soybeans.)
But the rapid development of the corn-based ethanol industry,
together with other factors, is threatening the U.S. pork
industry's competitiveness and the survivability of producers
like me. The markets have rationalized demand for corn over
time, but the potential for short-term dramatic price swings,
as well as localized feed shortages, has jeopardized the
industry's competitiveness and reliability as a domestic food
supplier and as an exporter.
Following passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA) of 2007, which included a Renewable Fuels Standard
(RFS2) that quickly accelerated the mandated production of corn
ethanol, pork producers struggled to adjust to rapidly
escalating prices and increased volatility in grain markets.
This resulted in a reduction in hog production. Congress
allowed the long-standing tax subsidies for corn ethanol to
expire at the end of last year. But the ethanol industry
continues to seek further government support for expanding
ethanol markets, calling for the blend rate to be increased
from 10 to 15 percent ethanol in motor vehicle fuels, subsidies
to finance construction of ethanol pipelines and other
infrastructure and adjustments to the RFS2 that would allow
corn ethanol to qualify as an advanced biofuel and expand its
production mandate.
The debate over Federal renewable fuels policy has been playing out
over continually increasing pressure on domestic and worldwide
grain reserves. The 2011 crop, affected by weather conditions
in various parts of the Corn Belt, including the loss of
significant acreage because of flooding, delayed planting
because of wet conditions, drought and excessively hot summer
temperatures, came in below initial expectations, with corn
reserves at times during the year reaching record lows. That
caused tremendous volatility in grain markets, prompted
speculative buying and increased the risk of localized corn
shortages. Projections for the 2012 crop year show little
improvement in total corn reserve carry over, enhancing the
financial risk faced by pork producers, who must compete
against subsidized users of corn for increasingly difficult to
obtain supplies of corn.
Pork producers have asked Congress and the Obama Administration to
consider a variety of responses, including reactivating the
Inter-departmental Livestock Task Force to help identify
policies to avert a feed-related crisis in the livestock
industry, reforming the Conservation Reserve Program to put
more land in production and to allow the penalty-free early
release of the least environmentally sensitive acres in the
event of a feed crisis and making available to producers all
USDA and Federal emergency programs and loan guarantees to help
them purchase feed should they encounter regional grain
shortages. Additionally, the U.S. pork producers support H.R.
3097, the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act, which
creates a safety valve that makes short-term adjustments to the
RFS in the event of a grain crisis to ensure adequate supplies
of feed is available for producers.
Research and development also are needed to find other energy
alternatives, such as using animal manure and fat and biomass,
including switchgrass and corn stover. Pork producers want to
emphasis the right balance is needed to meet the needs of fuel
and feed security.
2. Developing a world-class disease surveillance system is vital to
the continued viability of the U.S. pork industry. The outbreak
of H1N1 in 2009 demonstrated the interrelationship of human and
animal health when combating new and emerging diseases. From
that experience, the U.S. pork industry learned that a more
Comprehensive and Integrated Surveillance System (CISS) is
needed to ensure the capture of data about a broader range of
diseases. The industry began working collaboratively with
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop
a CISS. CDC supports the CISS, and APHIS's Veterinary Services
(VS) program has embraced this concept and included
comprehensive surveillance as a major objective in its
strategic plan, VS-2015. Completion of CISS is critical to
maintaining the pork industry's disease-free status, which is
critical to maintaining and expanding our exports.
Disease surveillance is the foundation of disease prevention and
preparedness. The threat of new and emerging diseases continues
to grow, with scientists continually warning the public and
animal health authorities about prevention and preparedness.
One of the more grim aspects of these warnings is that many of
these diseases are zoonotic and are originating in wildlife and
domestic animals. The CISS is designed to provide an ``early
warning system'' and to allow for development of response plans
in advance of an epidemic. The U.S. pork industry currently is
collaborating with APHIS on a pilot project to test
implementation of a CISS and to determine how it can be
connected to an animal traceability system. Currently, the most
significant shortcoming is funds to build the infrastructure to
accommodate a more robust system of surveillance. In 2009, the
emergency supplemental appropriation, which made funds
available to CDC for managing the H1N1 crisis, also provided
$25 million to APHIS/VS for swine influenza surveillance. Of
that amount, approximately $17 million remains unused, money
that could be used to support a surveillance system covering
new and emerging diseases would also support the infrastructure
for CISS. Although the pork industry has been working
cooperatively with APHIS and the agency has committed to
developing a CISS, the President's USDA budget for fiscal 2013
inexplicably proposed a reduction of $2.6 million for swine
disease surveillance. The justification for the decrease is
inconsistent with USDA's commitment and the requirements for
implementing a CISS. The ability to expand surveillance to
include other diseases will increase exports. Reducing
surveillance provides other countries the justification to
restrict U.S. exports because of inadequate surveillance data.
U.S. pork producers also support USDA's animal traceability system.
An effective traceability system is critical to the national
animal health infrastructure and is required for certification
by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The ability
to quickly trace diseased and exposed animals during a foreign
animal disease outbreak would save millions of animals, lessen
the financial burden on the industry and save the American
taxpayer millions of dollars. With support from all sectors of
the pork industry, approximately 95 percent of pork producer's
premises already are registered under the USDA livestock
identification program. Premises identification is the key to
meeting a goal of tracing an animal back to its farm of origin
within 48 hours, which would allow animal health officials to
more quickly identify, control and eradicate a disease, to
prevent the spread of a disease or to make certifications to
our trading partners about diseases in the United States.
3. Expanding markets to U.S. pork products increases producers
bottom line and contributes significantly to the U.S. economy,
prompting job growth and increasing the U.S. gross domestic
product. Pork represents 44 percent of global meat protein
intake. far more than beef and poultry, and world pork trade
has grown significantly in the past several years. The extent
of this increase in global pork trade in the future will hinge
heavily on continued efforts to increase agricultural trade
liberalization.
The U.S. pork industry exported in 2011 more than $6 billion of
product, which supported more than 50,000 jobs. And the trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea approved last
fall, when fully implemented, will boost U.S. pork exports to
those countries by a combined $772 million, add $11 to the
price producers receive for each hog marketed and generate more
than 10,000 U.S. pork industry jobs. It is estimated that U.S.
pork prices were $55 per hog higher in 2011 than they would
have been in the absence of exports.
It is important to emphasize the need to strengthen the ability of
U.S. agriculture to compete in the global marketplace. But the
downside of growing exports is, of course, the larger economic
impact on producers and the U.S. economy should there be any
disruption in trade. Pork producers understand this dynamic and
recognize that it would be devastating for the U.S. pork
sector.
4. Protecting producers against disruptions in trade is paramount.
Produces like Asay need better risk-management tools to protect
their operations should exports markets ever be interrupted by
a serious animal disease outbreak in this country.
Such tools are needed now, more than ever. Outbreaks of devastating
foreign animal diseases such as foot and mouth, classical swine
fever and African swine fever are increasing around the world.
The increased presences of disease, along with increasing
international travel and trade that move diseases around the
world, have created an unprecedented risk to the U.S. pork
industry.
According to a recent study, revenue for the combined beef and pork
industries would fall by billions of dollars annually as a
result of a foreign animal disease outbreak. The recent free
trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea as well
as economic growth in China will lead to continued pork export
expansion. But if these export markets are lost and livestock
producers are forced to bear the resulting financial harm,
there will be thousands of bankruptcies in rural America.
Further, USDA is expected to change its traditional approach to
dealing with foreign animal diseases from ``stamping out'' to
one that includes vaccinating and, potentially, living with
diseases for an undetermined time.
There is a simple solution to the elevated risk in livestock
production. USDA has been running a pilot insurance program for
hog producers called Livestock Gross Margin (LGM). The program
is designed to protect hog producers from systemic risk much as
crop insurance programs do for crop producers. The program now
is ready for prime time and should be allowed to take on this
role. To structure the program to provide inexpensive,
catastrophic coverage, Congress would need to remove the $3
million cap on swine insurance.
The $3 million limit on spending has caused USDA to severely
restrict the number of head that any one producer can insure.
In fact, last year just 205,883 hogs were covered; in 2010,
only 263,454 hogs were covered. With the U.S. pork industry
marketing more than 110 million hogs a year, it is clear that
the current LGM program has little benefit to pork producers.
The limit on coverage--Congress capped the program for all species
at $20 million ($16 million is used by the dairy industry), and
USDA set a coverage limit of 30,000 head--is a new development
for USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) because there is no
upper limit on the number of crop acres that can be insured
under other RMA policies. There is nothing in the Federal Crop
Insurance Act that allows RMA to engage in social engineering
of this type. [n fact, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of
2000 states the following:
Eligible producers:
Any producer of a type of livestock covered by a pilot program
under this subsection that owns or operates a farm or ranch
in a county selected as a location for that pilot program
shall be eligible to participate in that pilot program.
The limit on the insurable livestock farm size is unfortunate for
two reasons. First, the livestock industry is evolving toward
larger production units, and these larger units are essentially
prohibited from using the product as a catastrophic policy to
cover their output in excess of the numerical limits. Second,
the existence of a limit is divisive, potentially pitting
smaller units against larger ones.
Additionally, LGM for swine now is available only for a 6 month
period. This is not enough coverage to protect against drought
or to downsize an operation. This is easily fixed, and a policy
that insures for one year is feasible. This policy would roll
over every month so producers always have one year of insurance
coverage.
The owners of LGM have indicated that they are willing to make the
changes described above if the $3 million limit is eliminated
and the policy is allowed to move beyond pilot status.
Finally, companies and agents selling LGM are reimbursed based on
the premium paid by the producer rather than on the number of
policies. Total administration and operation (A&O)
reimbursement for companies and agents is set at 22.2 percent
of the producer premium. This means that a catastrophic policy
that sells at $1 per hog for 500 hogs would have a total A&O of
$111. This A&O needs to be split to cover the company's costs
and the agent's costs. A typical reimbursement for selling a
crop insurance policy is from $500 to $700. This percentage-
based A&O policy for livestock makes it economically infeasible
for the agent to sell catastrophic policies or to sell to
smaller producers. One easy remedy is to allow the agent to
choose between reimbursement based on a percent of the premium
or a fixed per-contract amount.
Today, because of the growth in exports of U.S. pork products and
the increased chances of a foreign animal disease outbreak, the
potential for a catastrophic drop in hog prices is greater than
ever. And the stakes for the U.S. economy, which garners $35
billion annually in gross domestic product and 550,000 jobs
from the U.S. pork industry, also are great.
The U.S. pork industry has done much to protect itself, including
increased biosecurity on farms, implementation of a national
swine identification program and calls for a comprehensive
disease surveillance system, but it needs more. Pork producers
encourage Congress to urge USDA to develop a catastrophic
insurance product that is more in keeping with today's swine
industry needs.
5. Protecting the environment is a top priority of the U.S. pork
industry. Pork producers are committed to running productive
pork operations while protecting the environment and exceeding
environmental regulations. Pork producers have fought hard for
science-based, affordable and effective regulatory policies
that meet the goals of today's environmental statues. For
producers to meet these costly demands while maintaining
production, they believe that the Federal Government must
provide through conservation programs of the farm bill. such as
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), cost-share
support to help them defray some of the costs of compliance.
The EQIP program has not provided pork producers with enough
support to meet all the challenges we face related to
conservation and the environment. Producers like Asay, who has
used the program, would like to see the scope of projects
covered by the program widened.
Pork producers take a broad view of what it means to be
environmentally responsible farmers and business people, and
they have embraced the fact that their pork processing
operations must protect and conserve the environment and the
resources they use and affect. They take this responsibility
with the utmost seriousness and commitment. and it is in that
spirit that producers would make major contributions to
improving their practices through a conservation title of the
farm bill.
Investing in research also is critical to the U.S. pork industry.
Producers rely on it for improving swine genetics, testing and
deploying new and improved animal vaccines, improving the
usefulness of energy production by-products such as distillers
dried grains and for further increasing animal productivity.
Research also can assist in monitoring diseases and preventing
a disease outbreak.
6. Dictating how the U.S. pork industry buys, sells and raises its
animals would severely cripple the competitiveness of pork
producers. Mandates--whether pushed by lawmakers or activists--
must not stand in the way of market-based demands. Producers
understand that the issue of banning packer ownership of
livestock or eliminating forward contracting continues to be
discussed. However, they do not believe that the U.S. pork
industry will be well served by having Congress eliminate
certain types of contracting mechanisms. This only forces the
livestock markets to revert to an inefficient system used more
than half a century ago in which livestock were traded in small
lots and at prices determined in an open-market bid system.
This system was inefficient and makes no economic sense in
today's economy. Today, the U.S. pork industry has developed a
wide variety of marketing and pricing methods, including
contracts, to meet the changing needs of a diverse marketplace.
Economics should determine the structure of pork production and
processing, including the ownership of both. No economic
research ever has shown that either the structure or marketing
practices of the industry have harmed producers or consumers.
Until such research exists, Congress should not impose
limitations on packer ownership of production, producer
ownership of packing or marketing contracts.
Likewise, Federal mandates on production practices, including ones
that would dictate animal housing systems, would add to
producers' costs and weaken the U.S. pork industry's
competitiveness vis-a-vis foreign competitors. It is for those
reasons that producers oppose the ``Egg Products Inspection Act
Amendments'' (H.R. 3798), which would dictate the size of cages
for laying hens.
The bill would amend a Federal food-safety law. If provisions of
that law are imposed on imported products, they must meet the
World Trade Organization's equivalency principle, which
requires governments to recognize other countries' science-
based measures as acceptable even if they are different from
their own, so long as an equivalent level of protection is
provided.
But proponents of H.R. 3798 have admitted that the standards in
this bill are arbitrary and were part of a negotiated
settlement between an industry group and an animal activist
group; they are not based on science that protects and improves
food safety and public health. If imposed on imported products
(eggs, in this case), they would not meet the WTO's equivalence
principle.
The U.S. pork industry has no doubt that activist groups and
special interest groups will be watching this farm bill debate
and will attempt to push their particular agendas, which would
add regulations to our business practices. Lawmakers must be
cautious about allowing these issues to be added to the 2012
Farm Bill--a piece of legislation that has been aimed for the
past 65 years at maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S.
agriculture and livestock sectors.
The U.S. pork industry has developed and implemented strict
standards for animal care and judicious use guidelines for use
of animal drugs. These standards and guidelines are now part of
the industry's pork quality assurance and transport quality
assurance programs. These require producers and handlers to be
trained and certified to care and transport our animals with
the utmost care and concern. Pork producers do not believe that
Congress should legislate on these issues as part of the 2012
Farm Bill.
Congress should craft a farm bill that helps farmers like Gary Asay
remain competitive in the domestic and world markets.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Asay.
Mr. Davis, proceed whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF TERRY DAVIS, CORN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCER, ROSEVILLE,
IL
Mr. Davis. Hello. Good morning, my name is Terry Davis, a
corn and soybean farmer from Warren County, in Roseville,
Illinois. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House
Agriculture Committee gracious enough to come before us today
and those in attendance here today to listen to this important
discussion. Today, we all share one commonality, this is our
America. I wish to welcome everyone here today to my America,
as I live only about 30 miles from this site. To describe this,
I will use a line from the song by Irving Berlin, ``God Bless
America, land that I love, stand beside her and guide her.'' I
come here this morning to tell you how I stand beside my part
of America, not only to provide for my family but to provide
this country with a plentiful, healthy, sustainable food
supply; and hopefully raise enough extra that I can share my
bounty with others around the world. And I ask you here today
to be the guide, guide her to share my philosophy with the rest
of the world.
I will comment on a story that I will share. Go back to 9/
11/2001. I was traveling to an ethanol plant meeting, the
formation of a group we were having and I received a phone call
that we could not meet that day because something had happened
in New York City and Washington, D.C. I did not yet know at
that time what that was.
Later that afternoon, I had the opportunity to receive a
phone call from my wife that was waiting in an hour and a half
long line at a gas station to get gasoline for her car because
of what was going on that day. I was headed to a meeting that
afternoon, happened to drive by a gas station, saw the line,
told my wife if that was the last tank of gas she was ever
going to get, she was better off to come home, because the
grocery truck would not make it to the store tomorrow morning.
But to my shock, as I drove to that meeting that afternoon,
there was no one at the grocery stores, everybody was at the
gas stations buying gasoline.
And the reason I think this important for this discussion
today is that energy was important to us, yes; but why have we
forgotten about food? If it comes down to a tank of gasoline or
a loaf of bread, I know which line I am going to be in.
I would like to talk about the conservation title today.
This title is often understated in its importance to the
overall farm bill and I feel it is one of the most critical to
its overall mission. I served as the Association of
Conservation District's President here in Illinois and I had a
column that I used every month to talk about the things that I
felt were important for the Soil and Water Conservation
District. I closed that column every month with this closing.
``As always, remember that this is God's handiwork we are
entrusted to watch over. Let us make him proud.''
We all farm the land, we survive off of the bounty of our
land, but we are just stewards of that land and we are allowed
the privilege of being the caretakers of the land that we work
during our lifetime. American agriculture is being tasked with
a mission never before seen in modern history, that is the need
to feed and protect more people with limited and in some cases
dwindling natural resources. Every day in this country more
land is converted for non-agricultural uses while all the while
trying to feed a growing population. I am not advocating a
moratorium on non-ag uses of the productive working land of the
United States, but refocusing on what is of greater importance;
cropland, animal production, forestry needs rather than
development for social uses.
A strong underlying safety net is going to be necessary for
creating a sustainable food supply. We need a strong
commodities title along with a crop insurance program utilizing
current programs and funding with a few tweaks. I feel that
this underlying support should come from Federal farm programs
to ensure that any raw input commodity producer receives enough
support to ensure that they will again next year be able to
raise production because of the alteration of this year's
production, or due to weather or financial condition. This
level should cover variable costs and protect against
significantly lower commodity prices and a little bit more.
The farm bill provisions are intertwined and work together
to be much more successful than any title will individually. A
comprehensive, robust title I for commodities ensures continued
sustainable domestic food supply. A vibrant renewable energy
title can not only provide energy sources here at home but also
create environments for natural resource conservation while
allowing producers to generate income and provide an outlet for
excess production. This excess production we will always need.
As before, we have used loan rates and government sponsored
storage to keep extra production. Today, we have the ability to
allow farmers to hang onto those reserves and convert them into
renewable energy sources if not needed as a fuel source. But if
that crop is never raised, it will never be available if
needed. A secure, adequately funded conservation title will
create those opportunities.
I thank you for this opportunity to be before you this
morning and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry Davis, Corn and Soybean Producer,
Roseville, IL
Good morning Chairman Lucas, distinguished Members of the House
Agriculture Committee, House staff, the other invited panel members and
all others here in attendance today we all share one commonality this
is OUR AMERICA. I wish to welcome everyone to my America, as I only
live about 30 miles from this site, and to describe this I will use a
line from the song by Irving Berlin; ``God Bless America, Land that I
love. Stand beside her, and Guide her''. I have come here before you
this morning to tell you of how I stand beside my part of America, not
only to provide for my family but to provide this country with a
plentiful, healthy, sustainable food supply and hopefully raise enough
extra that I can share my bounty with others around the world.
I come before you this morning to share from my perspective, a
perspective that recognizes the importance of a strong equitable 2012
Farm Bill. This perspective does not want to rewrite farm bill policy
totally, but rather celebrate its successes and build upon and those
successes and hopefully craft a new 2012 Farm Bill that addresses the
needs of the next 5 years and reviews and retires no longer pertinent
addressed items. This bill has many titles expressed under its banner,
but I feel that they are all intertwined and dependent upon each other
for successful implementation of this farm bill. I do not feel that any
title within the farm bill is any more important than another title; it
is only with fair deliberation, implementation, and adequate
appropriation that any farm bill effort will accomplish its goal. That
goal is of GUARANTEEING the same goals that I have set for myself, to
provide this country with a plentiful, healthy, sustainable food supply
and then produce enough extra that I can share my bounty with others
around the world. I recognize that this task becomes a little more
complicated at the national level. I also realize that numerous,
different segments of the populous want to have inclusions in this farm
bill; but I feel strongly that the goal here in the farm bill is to do
what government can to make sure that every American has adequate
access to something to eat and then to have access to the food, energy
and fiber materials that we need to exist and prosper.
The area I would like to focus your attention to right now is the
conservation title. This title often understated in its importance to
the overall farm bill but I feel it is one of the most critical to its
overall mission. I have had the opportunity to serve the association
that speaks for the Soil and Water Conservation Districts here in
Illinois as its President and as part of my duties was to write a
monthly column for the organization's newsletter. I closed that column
every month with this closing, ``As always, Remember that this is God's
handiwork we are entrusted to watch over. Let's make him proud''.
I am a Christian, but maybe for sake of this day more important is
the fact that we are all just stewards that are allowed the privilege
of being the caretakers of the land we work on during our lifetimes.
American agriculture is being tasked with a mission never seen before
during modern history, that of a need to feed and protect more people
with limited and in some cases dwindling natural resources. Every day
in this country more land is converted for non agricultural uses all
the while trying to feed a growing population. I am not advocating a
moratorium on non ag uses of the productive working land of the USA but
refocusing on what is of greater importance; cropland, animal
production, forestry needs rather than development for social uses.
We only need to look back into our country's history to see how
important conservation has become. It began a a desire to protect
things that were unique or in someone's opinion important to protect.
Our National Park System and other Federal public lands as well as
state and local public land holdings recognize that resources need
preserving for future generations. Now as it becomes apparent that the
working lands of this country are finite and that we need to protect
them. The challenge here is that we cannot just lock them away but have
to use them sustainably. The conservation accomplishments that have
been achieved by this country are nothing short of spectacular, but
vigilance and continued efforts are paramount to the survival of the
human species as we wish it to be. Once our natural resources are lost
our prosperity also will be lost. Conservation for me on my farm means
this: Preservation of the natural resources not only for my benefit but
to preserve the ability to utilize those by future generations and by
using the conservation title of the farm bill in conjunction and along
with other titles within the farm bill to secure and preserve a stable,
sustainable food, fiber, and renewable energy supply.
To understand the working lands let us look back to the 1930's This
country was trying to rebuild itself as for the first time in our
country's history we had a large segment of the population that finally
did not have to work the land for themselves but could have someone
else furnish those needs for them while they enjoyed prosperity through
the financial markets. Then that bubble burst in 1929 and sent many
scrambling back to feed themselves. A result of that was accelerated
damaging of new marginal lands in production. The lack of understanding
that marginal lands means just that marginal, the Dust Bowl resulted
and many more people found themselves struggling to just survive. Throw
in Mother Nature creating a drought. Hugh Bennett came along and
championed for working land as some say Theodore Roosevelt did for
public land preservation. The result being the formation of the Soil
Conservation Service. As I look at drought indicators today I realize
that the results of the formation of SCS are what separates the Dust
Bowl Days from what we experience today. Thus this conservation title
is very important in the protection of the working lands of the USA. We
do not need to extensively rewrite this title in the next farm bill but
continue to focus on what are the critical needs. In my estimation NRCS
and the EQIP program needs further funding and expansion. This is a
very efficient and effective way to get conservation on the ground. I
believe many other programs needs can be accomplished through EQIP and
allowing prioritization to fit financial budgets. There is an attitude
currently that since EQIP is receiving funding those funds can be
rediverted to under-funded special interest programs and this has to be
curtailed. The NRCS EQIP system already is set up to allow states to
cater the funding to localized needs thus improving effectiveness of
monies spent.
There does need to be a conservation compliance component to
complement production safety nets. Production agriculture is changing
and there needs to be compliance to guarantee sustainability and to
protect the accomplishments that the millions of Federal assistance
dollars that have already been spent on have achieved. I have noticed
that as farms get bigger, operations become more specialized, with
farmers many times not even seeing the land only the tractor operators.
These operators only have one mission, that is to do what they are
instructed. The farmer producer may not even be aware of a problem
occurring until confronted by some outside entity or agency.
Conservation compliance is the strongest tool in the farm bill to
ensure good stewardship and wise use of Federal funds.
A strong underlying safety net is priority one to creating a
sustainable food supply. The tools of choice are a strong commodities
title along with a crop insurance program utilizing current programs
and funding with a few tweaks. All crops need to have a insurance
program developed around them, including livestock. This underlying
support should come from Federal farm program funding to ensure that
any raw input commodity producer receives enough support to ensure that
they will try again the next year if their production falters because
of weather or financial conditions. This level should cover variable
costs and protect against significantly lower commodity prices and
little more to limit government exposure and allow efficient producers
to determine who farms the land not who has the best crop insurance
protection. Livestock producers could be included by a similar
insurance plan limiting coverage to cost of feed inputs. Producers
should be allowed to buy up insurance protection to higher levels but
that risk should not be financed or underwritten by the Federal budget
but rather an unsubsidized function by private insurance companies and
risk assessed and rated accordingly by the insurance industry.
Farm bill provisions are intertwined and working together will be
much more successful than any title individually. A comprehensive,
robust title I for commodities ensures a continued sustainable domestic
food supply. A vibrant renewable energy title can not only provide
energy sources here at home but create environments for natural
resource conservation while allowing producers to generate income and
provide an outlet for excess production. This extra production will
always be in reserve in case there is a need to use it as a food
source. But if that crop is never raised it will never be available if
needed. A secure, adequately funded conservation title will create
opportunities and preserve and protect natural resources for continued
future utilization.
Once we have created this plentiful food supply we need to be able
to allow all Americans some kind of access to it. Current food aid
provisions are sometimes abused and probably need attention to weed out
fraud and abuse. If there were only certain types of purchases that
could be made would help ensure proper use of funds. Stories like those
of persons buying soda with Federal food aid assistance and then
recycling unopened soda cans in automated can recyclers for the cash
generated by the cans is an example of misuse of a valuable system to
society.
Thank you for allowing a taxpayer to comment on this subject. To
achieve these goals we only need to keep refocusing on what is first
priority and what financial resources we are willing to commit to
achieve those goals. Current farm bill programs have accomplished so
much for the safety and prosperity of the United States. Hopefully the
2012 Farm Bill will further allow America to be the proud beacon of
hope for the rest of the world.
I close my testimony as I did for my informational column:
``As always, Remember that this is God's handiwork we are
entrusted to watch over.
Let's make him proud.''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Howell, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID W. HOWELL, CORN, SOYBEAN, PUMPKIN, AND
TOMATO PRODUCER, MIDDLETOWN, IN
Mr. Howell. Good morning. My name is David Howell. I am
honored to be here this morning to testify.
I am a farmer from Middletown, Indiana. My wife and I
started our family farm in 1971. It is our vision that our
children will be able to carry on. Our family farm is
approximately 7,000 acres, more than 90 percent of which is
leased. We grow corn, soybeans, about 500 acres of jack
o'lantern pumpkins and about 500 acres of processing tomatoes.
Our tomato production is under contract to a company called Red
Gold, Inc., an Indiana tomato processing company.
We are seeking a modification of Federal law that restricts
Midwestern farmers from growing fruits and vegetables on
program acres.
The issue: since 1996, the farm policy has generally
prohibited production of fruits and vegetables on base acreage.
However, this was not significant until the 2002 Farm Bill,
which made soybeans a program crop. This change meant that
virtually all of the quality farmland in states like Indiana
and Illinois now have a program base.
The problem is two-fold.
First, program restrictions. For example, our farm has been
personally affected by the prohibition on growing fruits and
vegetables. Our family is in transition to the next generation
from my wife and me. We began our processing tomato operation
in the early 1990s and established our personal production
history over the years. The regulations as they stand now serve
to limit the abilities of my children to diversify their
farming enterprise with specialty crops. In essence, the
prohibition on planting fruits and vegetables are protecting my
wife and me from our own children. This seems contrary to any
goal of encouraging young farmers. Additionally, we are needing
to change our business structure to ensure an orderly
generational transfer. When we do, however, our producer
history will be lost.
Second, fear of base acreage loss. We have struggled to
rent ground for growing processing tomatoes and pumpkins over
the years. In the Midwest, most family farms rely on rented
acres to grow their crops. I have found that the landlords
fear, and rationally so, that future base recalculations will
result in loss of base acres on their farms if they rent for
processing tomato production.
H.R. 2675, the Farming Flexibility Act of 2011, would fix
this twofold problem by allowing an acre-for-acre opt out from
the program acreage for production of fruits and vegetables for
processing. Also, it would declare a policy that vegetable
production for processing on program base acres will not cause
future loss of base acreage.
I realize that some in the fresh produce industry do not
agree with me. They make two basic point. And let me address
those.
They suggest that the 2002 Farm Bill restrictions do not
present a real problem. And that is wrong.
First, it is a problem because of the restrictions. As we
attempt to pass along our operation to the next generation, our
producer history will be lost. And it harms the traditional
industry that provides safe and economical food to a population
in need of better nutrition.
Second, as a threat to base acreage, I and my landlords
have lost base acres clearly.
Third, it is a threat to my market. As times goes on, about
five percent of Midwest vegetable producers stop growing
vegetables each year. That means that each year, it will be
harder for our processor market to stay in business because
they cannot contract for enough production. This year is the
first time that some of them were not able to contract for
their production capacity. Eventually, we will lose those
processors, and the canned vegetable market will be taken over
by imports.
Italians can put tomatoes on the East Coast cheaper than
California canners. South America is already exporting a range
of vegetables into these states, such as corn, asparagus, and
tomatoes could not be far behind.
Clearly, this is a real problem.
Opponents of H.R. 2675 also claim that it would somehow
hurt fresh produce producers. And this is also wrong. It would
not hurt the producers.
First, it is against the law for us to use or produce to
sell to the fresh produce market and production would have to
be for processing only. Penalties for the program are very
high.
Second, vegetables for processing are not the vegetable
varieties produced for fresh market anyway.
Third, H.R. 2675 would just take us back to the 1996 Farm
Bill situation prior to the inclusion of oilseed acreage. Under
the 1996 Farm Bill and even before that, the Midwestern
processing industry was getting smaller, not expanding.
There is no way that this would hurt the fresh produce
producers.
A final couple of points. I realize and support that direct
payments may be eliminated in the next farm bill. If that is
done, we submit that the restrictions on producing fruits and
vegetables should be eliminated altogether. And obviously, the
fruit and vegetables we grow for processing go to nearby
processing facilities, which means jobs in rural America. This
is important throughout the Midwest.
Finally, the Federal Crop Insurance Program for specialty
crops have not received the same refinement and upgrades as
have traditional commodity crops and should be scrutinized to
offer reasonable protection for the growers of our nation's
food supply.
Thank you for coming to the Midwest to hear us.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howell follows:]
Prepared Statement of David W. Howell, Corn, Soybean, Pumpkin, and
Tomato Producer, Middletown, IN
Introduction
Good morning. My name is David Howell. I am honored to present
testimony today.
I am a farmer from Middletown, Indiana. My wife and I started our
family farm upon returning home from college, and it is our vision that
our children and their families will successfully transition what we
sacrificed and worked hard to establish. Our family farms approximately
7,000 acres, of which more than 90% is leased. We grow corn, soybeans,
pumpkins and about 500 acres of processing tomatoes. Our tomato
production is under contract with Red Gold, Inc., an Indiana tomato
processing company.
We are seeking a modification of Federal law that restricts
Midwestern farmers from growing fruits and vegetables on program acres.
I am here as one family farmer, but we do concur totally with the
position of the American Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Growers
Coalition (AFVPGC).
The Issue
Since 1996, farm policy generally has prohibited the production of
fruits and vegetables on base acreage. However, this was not a
significant problem until the 2002 Farm Bill made soybeans a program
crop. This change meant that virtually all of the quality farmland in
states like Indiana now have program base.
The problem is twofold.
First, program restrictions. For example, our farm has been
personally affected by the prohibition on growing fruits and
vegetables. Our family is in transition to the next generation from my
wife and me. We began our processing tomato operation in the early
1990's and established our personal production history over the years.
The regulations as they stand now serve to limit the abilities of my
children to diversify their farming enterprise with specialty crops,
not enhance them as any good agricultural policy would attempt to do.
In essence, the prohibition on planting Fruits and Vegetables are
protecting my wife and me from our own children entering the very
enterprise that will help ensure their success because there is no
mechanism for them to either earn their own producer history or have my
producer history transferred to them, even though we have been
continuously engaged in growing processing tomatoes for nearly 20
years. This seems contrary to any goal of encouraging young farmers to
seek alternative crops and provide a more sustainable future, both
economically and environmentally. Additionally, we are needing to
change our business structure to ensure an orderly generational
transition. When we do, however, our producer history will be lost.
Second, fear of base acreage loss. We have struggled to get rented
ground for growing our processing tomatoes and pumpkins. In the
Midwest, most family farms rely on rented acres to grow their crops. I
have found that landlords who I have approached fear, and rationally
so, that future base recalculations will result in loss of base acres
on their farms if they rent it to me for processing tomato production.
This means that my ability to rotate crops as a good IPM practice and
to fulfill my traditional contract obligation to Red Gold is severely
restricted.
H.R. 2675, the Farming Flexibility Act of 2011, would fix this
twofold problem by allowing an acre-for-acre opt out from the program
acreage for production of fruits or vegetables under contract for
processing. Also, it would declare a policy that vegetable production
for processing on program base acres will not cause future loss of base
acreage.
I realize that some in the fresh produce industry do not agree with
me. They make two basic points. Let me address those.
They suggest that the 2002 Farm Bill restrictions do not present a
real problem. That is wrong.
First, it is a problem because of the restrictions. As we
attempt to pass along our operation to the next generation, our
producer history will be lost, because it is not transferable.
What my wife and I worked hard to establish under the rules
will simply vanish and the ability to lease production acres
for fruits and vegetables for processing will artificially be
hindered, not by a free market determination, but by a
protectionist decree that offers no actual protection but harms
a traditional industry that provides safe and economical foods
to a population in need of better nutrition.
Second, this is a threat to base acreage. I have lost base
acreage, some of my landlords have lost base acreage, and that
has happened to my neighbors who grow vegetables. This base
acreage experience is why my landlords generally will not let
me grow vegetables on leased land and in some cases
specifically prohibit the production of fruits and vegetables
because of this issue. My colleagues who grow vegetables are
facing the same thing. Most family farms have significant
production on leased land.
Third, this is a threat to my market. As time goes on, about
five percent of Midwest vegetables producers stop growing
vegetables each year. That means that each year, it will be
harder for our processor market to stay in business because
they cannot contract for enough production. This year is the
first time that some of them were not able to contract for
their production capacity. Each year this will get worse.
Eventually, we will lose processors, and the canned vegetables
market will be taken over by imports.
Italians can put tomatoes on the East Coast cheaper
than California canners. South America is already importing
a range of other canned vegetables, such as corn and
asparagus.
Clearly, this is a real problem.
Opponents of H.R. 2675 also claim that it would somehow hurt fresh
producers. This is also wrong.
H.R. 2675 is narrowly tailored. It would not hurt fresh
producers.
First, it would be against the law for us to grow
vegetables for fresh markets. H.R. 2675 would only allow
opt out for FAV production FOR PROCESSING. The production
would have to be for processing.
Penalties for program violations are very heavy--I would
be crazy to intentionally violate program rules. (Penalties
are equal to twice the per acre value of the tomato crop
produced in violation.)
Second, vegetables for processing are not the
vegetable varieties produced for fresh anyway. My family
has been growing processing tomatoes for 20 years and, even
though it has been legal to sell them to fresh markets, we
never have.
They are the wrong variety--not right for the fresh
market.
So, there is no market for them.
Where there is no market, there is no market
distribution system.
Third, H.R. 2675 would just take us back to the 1996
Farm Bill situation prior to the inclusion of oilseed
acreage. Under the 1996 Farm Bill and even before that, the
Midwest processing industry was getting smaller, not
expanding.
There is no way that this would hurt fresh producers.
A couple final points. I realize that Direct Payments may be
eliminated in the next farm bill. If that is done, we submit that the
restriction on producing Fruit and Vegetables should be eliminated
altogether. Of course, the fruit and vegetables we grow for processing
go to nearby processing facilities, which means jobs in rural areas.
This is important throughout the Midwest. Here in Illinois, there is a
LIBBY'S facility that produces canned pumpkin, pumpkin pie filling and
pumpkin bread from the pumpkins produced by 70 farmers on 8,000 acres.
These pumpkin products have seen periodic shortages in recent years due
to several factors, one of which is the company's difficulty in
contracting enough acres. So, Farm Flexibility is critically important.
The Federal Crop insurance programs for specialty crops have not
received the same refinement and upgrades as have the traditional
commodity crops and should be scrutinized to offer reasonable
protection for the growers of our nation's food supply.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Howell.
Ms. Weber, please begin whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JANE A. WEBER, SPECIALTY CROP PRODUCER,
BETTENDORF, IA
Ms. Weber. Chairman Lucas, Representative Boswell, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak today about the impact of the farm bill
from the perspective of a small farmer. My name is Jane Weber
of Weber Farm, row crop farmer, specialty crop producer, and
farmers' market vendor from Scott County in east central Iowa.
I serve as a Soil and Water Conservation District Commissioner
in my county to conserve the soil and improve water quality.
There are several parts of the 2012 Farm Bill that are
important to our farm, specialty crop producers, and
conservation.
First, the conservation title: the farmland in our area as
well as my own farm historically benefitted from locally-led,
incentive-based conservation practices of CRP, EQIP and various
other conservation programs. Producers rely on the NRCS for
technical help to develop conservation plans, design
conservation practices, make wetland determinations, and
provide guidance on highly erodible lands. Weber Farm has
installed contour buffer strips, filter strips, grass
waterways, tiling, and farmstead windbreak. Conservation
technical assistance, funded by the NRCS, is critical to
conservation practices getting installed through Soil and Water
Conservation Districts in Iowa and to farm bill programs being
implemented. Workloads in the USDA Service Centers remain high
for conservation programs, while funding for CTA remains
critically low. Without technicians, NRCS and SWCDs cannot
deliver conservation programs.
Four years ago the Cedar and Iowa Rivers flooded along with
the Mississippi River, devastating the towns of Cedar Rapids,
Iowa City, Columbus Junction and Oakville in eastern Iowa,
along with the cropland in the water's path. Where conservation
structures were not in place, soil was carried downstream along
with the floodwaters. However, where two, three or more
conservation practices occurred on farmland, the water damage
was not as significant. Less soil and water left the area. In
other words, the conservation practices worked.
Last year, it was the Missouri River that flooded in
western Iowa. More conservation practices installed before a
disaster may protect our valuable resources from disaster. In
the spirit of making the most economical choice, Congress
should adequately fund conservation today to avoid the
increased costs of repair tomorrow and in the future.
Second, the nutrition title: as a farmers' market vendor, I
participate in the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
that provides fresh locally grown produce to low income seniors
at the farmers' markets. This program has increased the
profitability of producers and is appreciated by the consumers.
Each year, I have inquiries from senior citizens on how to
obtain vouchers and I have observed how the seniors frugally
utilize them to stretch throughout the season. As Iowa's
population is aging, I am seeing more demand for participation
in the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. as well as an
increasing need per person. In these economic times, seniors
with fixed incomes are having difficulty eating nutritiously.
Just as good nutrition helps all of us maintain good health, it
would be cost-effective to help these seniors eat more fresh
fruits and vegetables for better nutrition to keep them
healthy.
Third, the horticulture title: specialty crops are an
important part of agriculture that allow farmers to diversify.
Specialty Crop Block Grants try to help increase this
competitiveness of specialty crops. In our state, they have
supported educational efforts on food safety, research by our
universities and marketing efforts that encourage consumers to
choose locally grown products. I have written and received
grants for two organizations. I have also served on a grant
review board in our state. The grant process needs to be
simplified so that more farmers' markets may access funds for
marketing efforts to encourage consumers to buy fresh produce.
These markets are the front lines in the direct marketing of
specialty crops.
A strong conservation title is important for our production
agriculture. NRCS and SWCDs are the key delivery system at the
local level. The availability of program funding and the CTA
allow the implementation of conservation practices as long-term
investments in the protection of our natural resources.
Farm policy also must consider the growing consumer
interest in fresh, healthy local food and provide access for
low income populations. Specialty crop producers need a mix of
programs aimed at enhancing profitability and an innovative
marketing strategy to promote specialty crops and to educate
consumers. The importance of passing the farm bill before break
allows agencies to be prepared and producers to plant and make
informed business decisions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane A. Weber, Specialty Crop Producer,
Bettendorf, IA
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about the
impact of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 from the
perspective of a small farmer. My name is Jane Weber of Weber Farm--row
crop farmer, specialty crop producer, and farmers' market vendor--from
Scott County, in east central Iowa. I serve as a Soil and Water
Conservation District Commissioner in my county to conserve the soil
and improve water quality. There are several parts of the 2012 Farm
Bill that are important to our farm, specialty crop producers, and
conservation.
Conservation Title
The farm land in our area as well as my own farm has benefited from
the locally-led, incentive-based conservation practices of the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), and various other conservation programs. Producers rely
on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for technical help
to develop conservation plans, design conservation practices, make
wetland determinations, and provide guidance on highly erodible land
(HEL). Weber Farm has installed contour buffer strips, filter strips,
grass waterways, tiling, and a farmstead windbreak. Conservation
Technical Assistance (CTA) funded by NRCS is critical to conservation
practices getting installed through Soil and Water Conservation
Districts (SWCDs) in Iowa and to farm bill programs being implemented.
Workloads in USDA Service Centers remain high for conservation programs
while funding for CTA remains critically low. Without technicians, NRCS
and SWCDs can not deliver conservation programs.
To protect our lakes and clean up our creeks and rivers from
sediment and nutrient delivery, conservation programs are integral to
improving water quality. As an IOWATER volunteer that participates in
spring and fall snapshot water samplings in our county for 9 years, I
have seen the results identify conservation needs in the community that
our SWCD was able to help alleviate with conservation practices cost
shared with landowners. As an Iowa Watershed Improvement Review Board
(WIRB) member, I have seen the partnerships of NRCS, DSC, EPA 319, and
WIRB work together to improve water quality in projects throughout our
state.
Four years ago the Cedar and Iowa Rivers flooded along with the
Mississippi River devastating the towns of Cedar Rapids, Iowa City,
Columbus Jct., and Oakville in eastern Iowa along with cropland in the
waters' path. Where conservation structures were not in place, soil was
being carried downstream along with the flood waters. However, where
two, three, or more conservation practices occurred on farmland the
water damage was not as significant. Less soil and water left the area.
In other words, the conservation practices worked.
Last year it was the Missouri River that flooded in western Iowa.
While the 2012 Farm Bill needs to address Emergency Conservation
Program (ECP) as it funds the technical assistance and rehabilitation
of farmland after a natural disaster, more conservation practices
installed before a disaster may protect our valuable resources from
disaster. In the spirit of making the most economical choice, Congress
should adequately fund conservation today to avoid the increased costs
of repair in the future.
Nutrition Title
As a farmers' market vendor I participate in the Senior Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program that provides fresh, locally grown produce to
low income seniors at the farmers' markets. This program has increased
the profitability of producers and is appreciated by the consumers.
Each year I have inquiries from senior citizens on how to obtain
vouchers and I have observed how the seniors frugally utilize them to
stretch throughout the season. As Iowa's population is aging, I am
seeing more demand for participation in the Senior Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program as well as an increasing need per person. In these
economic times, seniors with fixed incomes are having difficulties in
eating nutritiously. Just as good nutrition helps all of us maintain
good health, it would be cost effective to help these seniors eat more
fresh fruits and vegetables for better nutrition to keep them healthy.
I also participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) utilizing an electronic bank transfer (EBT) wireless machine at
the farmers' markets. Many of the farmers' market vendors who tried
this program at the onset have discontinued due to the cost of
transactions for SNAP. A client could buy a $.35 zucchini making the
transaction fees higher than the purchase. A vendor actually would lose
money after paying the monthly fees and transaction fees that are not
allowed to be reimbursed. If all the costs and transaction fees
involving the SNAP could be reimbursed, more vendors would participate
in the program. However, it may not be cost effective as I have had a
month where the monthly fees were higher than the total sales for SNAP
as well. It would take more consumer education to make this program
more beneficial to all concerned.
Horticulture Title
Specialty crops are an important part of agriculture that allow
farmers to diversify. Specialty Crop Block Grants try to help increase
the competitiveness of specialty crops. In our state they have
supported educational efforts on food safety, research, and marketing
efforts that encourage consumers to choose locally grown products. I
have written and received grants for two organizations, the Mississippi
Valley Growers' Association, Inc. and the Iowa Farmers' Market
Association. I have also served on the grant review board in our state.
The grant process needs to be simplified so that more farmers' markets
may access funds for marketing efforts at their local level to
encourage consumers to buy fresh produce. These markets are the front
lines in the direct marketing of specialty crops. The current grant
process has become more difficult for a farmers' market to obtain. A
professional grant writer and/or administrator is needed so
universities and other organizations with access to grant writers are
more likely to apply and consequently, receive the grants.
Conclusion
Many farm bill programs have an impressive success rate. A strong
conservation title is important for production agriculture. NRCS and
SWCDs are the key delivery system at the local level. The availability
of program funding and CTA allow the implementation of conservation
practices as long-term investments in the protection of our natural
resources.
Farm policy must consider the growing consumer interest in fresh,
healthy, local food and provide access for the low income population.
Specialty crop producers need a mix of programs aimed at enhancing
profitability and an innovative marketing strategy to promote specialty
crops and to educate consumers. The importance of passing the farm bill
before break allows agencies to be prepared and producers to plan and
make informed business decisions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Asay, let us visit for a moment. You not only are a
producer of feed grains, but you are a consumer of feed grains.
And one of the issues that has come up time and time again in
my home area in the northwestern half of Oklahoma is the
question about having enough grain for beef cattle and pork and
poultry operations. Tell me what your observations in the last
few years have been. Are we meeting the demand, along with our
needs for energy production, are we meeting the demand of our
livestock industries in this country?
Mr. Asay. Mr. Chairman, the last 2 years, we have had some
tight carryovers. There have been some concerns for pork
producers at times about feed availability. We have made it
through the last couple of years without any major problems.
Pork producers have done a lot of change in diets, use a lot of
DDGS to substitute for corn and soybean meal in the diets to
help get through in these periods and help make the adjustments
needed. But there is still concern that sometimes if we have an
extremely short crop that the availability of feedstuffs may be
limited if we do not have some kind of adjustment in the fuel
standard.
The Chairman. Putting your other hat on, Mr. Asay, as a
grain producer as well as a feeder, the number of acres in the
CRP program, I think reflecting grain prices in the re-
enrollments, are coming down slowly. Does that concern you as a
grain producer if your fellow farmers around the country are
taking the signal it is time to produce more and putting some
higher quality land back into production?
Mr. Asay. It ultimately could put some pressure on the
grain prices, but the market is the one making the decision for
producers to bring that out, so I believe it is reacting to
market factors.
The Chairman. Since CRP is, after all, a voluntary
participation program you bid into and stay with a 10 year
contract.
Let us touch on one other subject, Mr. Asay, and then I
will turn to some of your colleagues on the panel.
You mentioned H.R. 3798. Some folks describe that as a bill
attempting to take a negotiated agreement between a trade group
in one region and an animal rights group, and impose it on the
rest of the country. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Asay. I would agree on that assessment. It's fairly
scary to producer animals to have two groups try to set some
standards on a regulatory issue. I would rather see market
factors influence how animals were raised in this country.
The Chairman. Fair enough.
Mr. Williams, in your statement, you discuss the importance
of having a reference price and a plug yield built into any
revenue-based program. Could you expand a little bit more on
that, why that matters?
Mr. Williams. The reason it matters is because if you have
consecutive bad years, 3 or 4 bad years of either drought or
excessive wet weather, as your yields, your personal yields go
down, every year your guarantees keep going down. So the plug
yield would be something like a county T-yield or something of
that nature, and the price would be somewhere along the revenue
price of the crop insurance yield that would be there to
coordinate with the plug yields to keep your dollar--your
revenue guarantees level.
The Chairman. Thank you for that very clear and
understandable explanation for the record. This is a topic
being much discussed in the hallways of Congress these days.
Ms. Weber, you mentioned conservation and your involvement.
I must tell you as a Member of Congress who represents the part
of the great country that probably was more centered in Mr.
Steinbeck's book in the 1930s than any other--and we will not
discuss what we think of that in northwest Oklahoma, but that
is a whole different subject--we too are very fond of voluntary
conservation programs. We too are very fond of the upstream
flood control programs and are very focused on rehabilitating
those structures. The chief challenge we have, as was alluded
to several times today, is with the number of dollars available
to us coming down, the tough decisions that we have to make to
meet our part of the overall deficit reduction efforts that the
United States House is prioritizing.
Could you expand for just a moment on why, as you so
clearly pointed out in your testimony, why conservation is a
long-term investment that benefits not just tomorrow but
decades from now?
Ms. Weber. The key word right now is----
The Chairman. And that is called baiting a witness
actually, for the record.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Weber. The key word is sustainability; whether it is in
specialty crops or other types of production agriculture,
sustainability. The only way you are going to have
sustainability is if you have that good topsoil to produce the
product. And if it is going downstream in weather-related
events and causing hypoxia in the Gulf and whatever, we are not
going to have sustainability. We have to keep the ground where
it is, you have to keep the rain where it falls in order to
have sustainability and good production agriculture.
The Chairman. Well put. If I did not know better, I would
think you were a constituent of the 3rd District of Oklahoma.
I now turn to the outstanding--my time has expired--to the
gentleman from Iowa for his 5 minutes. Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been an
interesting presentation. Thank you all very, very much. I told
the Chairman I would give up some of my time to continue that
last question about conservation compliance and so on. So you
may want to comment about that.
But I think that is an interesting point there, Ms. Weber,
and I appreciate you coming here representing, seems to me like
reading your statement, all aspects of agriculture really, not
just one--specialty crops and production farms and so on at
your family operation.
Kind of brings out the point we may have said earlier, I
have said so often, we are not making more land, we are just
making a lot more people and how are we going to take care of
that as we go down the road. And I think you are kind of
thinking about that apparently from what you have said.
I go back to you, Mr. Howell, you talk about your family
operation and so on and wanting to take some of your program
land out to put it in specialty crop. We have not had a lot of
discussion about that, but I have a feeling that quite a few
Members of our Committee would probably object to that, but I
do not know that, we have not talked about it I do not think,
have we, Mr. Chairman, at all? So this is an interesting point.
It seems to me like if I go back to my days when we were
starting farmers' markets and so on, that this was one way to
get people to grow specialty crops. They were not going to have
somebody like me at that time, it was about all I could do,
capable of doing, to row crop. But a lot of people said well, I
think I will set this 20 acres aside and use my equipment and I
will just produce a whole lot of onions or a whole lot of this
or a whole lot of that. Kind of got that situation stated. So
we may have a whole new discussion going on here, I do not
know.
You have been raising tomatoes a long time and you make
your point: how do we not go back, we are bumping heads again,
Mr. Chairman, where we have people wanting to do different
types--what I have said, there is room for everybody because of
the population growth and need for food. How do we do that?
Mr. Howell. Well, it was not an issue until the 2002 Farm
Bill, when they made soybeans one of the program crops. Before
that, we used the soybean ground and we were free to use that
for production of vegetables. When they changed that and added
that in as a program crop, that is when it went out of hand. So
it is not really--it is a relatively current short-term
problem, but it needs to be rectified.
Mr. Boswell. Let us just dialogue for a minute, maybe it is
a short-term problem and it will solve itself, I do not know.
It is interesting, I guess we may hear more about it if this is
indicative of what we will hear in other places. But you know,
the farmers' markets have become a very successful thing, and
to start out it was just seasonal and now a lot of places it is
year round. And I am not sure how they get the produce there in
all cases, but nevertheless, it is very, very popular. People
want it, obviously. And then we see what the market is for
corn, beans, wheat and so on. There does not seem to be any
problem there, particularly as we have some of it going into
fuels, alternatives, and that nature. I am just not sure how we
get there without destroying something that I think across the
country they are pretty proud of, and that is people that are
going out and doing the fruits and vegetables and bringing it
to town and selling it fresh on the farmers' market.
Mr. Howell. I have to apologize, I am not sure I understand
exactly where you are going. If you are thinking I am against
my colleague to the left----
Mr. Boswell. I am not sure either.
Mr. Howell.--I would like to have that part eliminated for
both the fresh and the processing and I think that would be
fine. And my suggestion is if you take direct payments away,
why there is really no incentive, in my view, to keep that
restriction on. Again, it just happened in the 2002 Farm Bill
when they did that.
Mr. Boswell. Ms. Weber, would you care to make any comment
in this discussion?
Ms. Weber. Basically, for specialty crop producers--let me
take for an example a muscatine grower in Iowa that produces
watermelons. They need a 10 year change on the crop. I mean
with most of things we grow, there is maybe a 3 year rotation.
So you have to have other acreage to rotate it with. So they
are renting other people's property and like he is saying,
without the soybean ground to rotate to, if that was not clear,
he did not have that ground to rotate to any more because that
was part of the program. Is it that it?
Mr. Howell. Well, that is part of it. We have to be
responsible growers, we have to rotate our crops and so we have
to have 3 years out before we can grow a tomato crop. And so we
need--I am not sure where the discussion is going again, but we
need to have that extra ground to--soybeans and corn in a way,
even though we raise a lot of them, are a vehicle to allow us
to raise the corn and soybeans and then when you penalize the
landowners for letting us grow those vegetable crops, nobody is
going to win.
Mr. Boswell. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. And I would note,
if you listen to my friends on both the left and the right, the
direct payment issue may take care of itself soon.
With that, I recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5
minutes.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis, I appreciate your opening comments reflective of
what a food shortage would look like, because most Americans
take it for absolute granted that--well first off, most
Americans think food just shows up at the grocery store by
magic. They do not appreciate the hard work and sweat equity
and the risks that you and your colleagues on the panel and I
suspect most folks in this room, take every day and every year.
There is this reliance that you put on a rational, fully
resourced safety net working constantly in terms of trying to
figure out what the best one is and it is in a constant state
of flux.
Previous hearings, we have had people talk about farm
labor, we talked a little bit about child labor, but farm labor
in general. None of you mentioned that in your testimony. Are
you adequately, have a workforce that is adequate to meet your
needs, and that is not an issue in your area? Any of you?
Mr. Davis. Myself, with my family operation, both my
children are becoming involved with the operation. My son has
grown up on the farm and is now home today taking care of
things while I am here with you.
I think we need, for continuation of development of ability
to create something, we need that early training program. We
send our children to school when they are 5 and 6 and 4 even
but now we are saying that a child cannot learn how to work
until they are 16 or 18.
Mr. Conaway. I guess I was asking comments for adults,
maybe the specialty crop guys, Mr. Howell and Ms. Weber, do you
have an adequate workforce to harvest your crops at the right
points in time?
Mr. Howell. No, sir. I think that is a problem with all of
agriculture, if you really look under the covers. If you think
about the seed industry where detasseling is done, if you think
about the meat processing area where there is need for workers,
livestock producers in the confinement facilities. There is a
bad shortage, significant shortage and growing shortage of
people able and willing to do the work. And I know it is not
you gentlemen's responsibility in this Committee, but the whole
issue of the undocumented workers and the immigration policies
is really presenting a problem particularly for the
horticulture, but across the board. And it is a train wreck
getting ready to happen. Everybody wants to play by the rules
and we do play by the rules, but there is a problem that we
just need to face up to and provide us with an adequate supply
of documented labor one way or another through a program that
will let us harvest the crops. In the southern states, Georgia
and those areas, and the Arizona issues, there are problems on
both sides. But agriculture is running out of hand labor.
Mr. Conaway. Can anybody give us an example of where--the
regulatory burden that you have to cope with. We can all talk
about regulations, but specific regulations that you are having
to deal with that are either new and/or antiquated that cost
you money and can you give us some specificity with respect to
those regulations that you think are no longer necessary or
were not necessary to begin with?
Mr. Davis. Regulations, one that comes to mind, I
understand that the Secretary has taken this under advisement
to make a change right now, but something as simple as a cover
crop on cropland. That if I do not plant a program crop to that
cropland as its first crop, it becomes ineligible for program
payments. So if I was to seed a rye grass crop on a cornfield
and when I went into my FSA office to sign up for a farm
program, that I would state that I have it seeded to rye now as
a cover crop, that becomes my crop acreage for that year. Also,
vegetables are ineligible, there are cover crops in turnips and
radishes right now that are very beneficial to the ground,
great reduction in the necessity of tillage, but because those
crops are planted, it technically makes those crops ineligible
for farm program payments, just based on the rules. So that is
one regulation.
Another regulation that does come into play that I and my
family, we work closely with my in-laws, I am allowed to have
my children operate machinery on my farm, but I cannot have my
nephew come onto my farm and operate the same machine, even
though he has the same experience, because we do not have the
same relationship.
Another area that has come into mind of regulations,
workmen's comp back on the farm has become a serious
consideration for me if I bring in outside labor. That is more
of a state issue with the Illinois workmen's comp law, but that
is another regulation that is coming.
And also, additionally--we could go on and on--but spraying
of farm pesticides looks to be an issue that is coming to a
head here very shortly that will restrict me.
Mr. Conaway. Thanks.
It would be interesting, Mr. Chairman, if we could find who
in the Department of Labor actually wrote the farm labor laws,
rules and regulations, to see if they have ever even been on a
farm or could spell farm.
(Laughter.]
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Hultgren for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Hultgren. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman.
I mentioned a little bit earlier just the gratitude that I
have had of working with our Senators, I mentioned a couple
people from Senator Kirk's office. Also, it has been a
privilege to work with Senator Durbin's office. I also wanted
to recognize I think Brad Middleton and also Bart Ellefritz are
here from Senator Durbin's office. So thank you so much. Also
glad that our acting Director of Agriculture, a good friend of
mine, former colleague in the Illinois House, Bob Flider is
also here as well, so thank you so much for being here today,
and all your work.
Again, I want to thank the panel for your information, it
has been very helpful.
A few questions. Mr. Williams, I wondered if you could--you
have expressed in your testimony frustration over both the SURE
and the ACRE programs. I wondered if you would be able to
elaborate a little bit on these issues and speak to how you
might recommend that we could simplify these and make them more
beneficial, more useful.
Mr. Williams. With the ACRE program, as I understand it,
back--and I also alluded to the fact that I remember back in
the 1980s when the prices were very low, the ACRE program would
have worked very well. But we have been blessed to have more
exports so our prices have risen higher, the ACRE program just
was not feasible, it did not pay the producer.
My experience with the SURE program, we have been paid
throughout that. Whenever you get a yield loss and you draw
crop insurance revenue from we will say 2008 crop year, then
you will come back in 2009 and receive payment through SURE the
following year. In my personal case, we farm in two counties,
we did have a SURE loss in Hamilton County, but the crop was so
great in White County that it kicked out the Hamilton County
loss that was ineligible. To me--a lot of our landlords carry
crop insurance as well and so because we were blessed to have a
great crop in one county, but we were unfortunate in another
county, the county that had the loss, we should have received
the payment on that. And to me, that does not seem right. I
realize the average was there and for us farming in both
counties, we were all right. But the landlords were penalized
because of our success in the other county. So to me, that was
not very fair or equitable.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you.
Mr. Asay, you spoke about the importance of developing a
disease surveillance system and the work that the pork industry
has done in conjunction with USDA's APHIS and also Centers for
Disease Control. I wonder if you might be able to talk a little
bit about the Comprehensive and Integrated Surveillance System
and give us an update on your progress on that.
Mr. Asay. We are working to try to update the system. There
is a lot of work that has been done in the event a foreign
animal disease does come to this country, as to what agencies
have jurisdiction over various aspects. At one point, it was
thought that we would destroy the animals and then bury those
animals to try to control disease, but we have seen in other
countries that has not worked--England and South Korea, for
example. If we were to bury animals, we would have to get okay
from the EPA at those sites, that those sites could handle
that. So now it looks like we have to vaccinate and control
with vaccine the disease. First off, you would have to have
enough vaccine for that disease on hand to control that. And
also you would have to live with the disease for a number of
years in order to get it under control again.
But we are working, trying to get all the agencies to work
together and I believe right now, the first agency that would
have control would be the Department of Homeland Security to
make sure it was not a terrorist act. And after they ensure
that, then it goes on to the next one. So there are a lot of
steps involved, a lot of agencies involved, a very complicated
matter.
Mr. Hultgren. I wonder if you could give us an update on
the pilot program USDA has been running with hog producers
called the Livestock Gross Margin, LGM.
Mr. Asay. Okay. Actually there was a pilot program created
in Iowa a few years ago, in 2008 it expanded to some other
states and last year it just expanded to the 48 continental
states. It was set up--it is a program that uses futures prices
to set the expected margins and uses the price of the hogs
minus the cost of the feed with various formulas, and ensures
that margin there. That is the concept, and it works for
producers at times. It has helped in the management but there
is a lot of cost involved in this and we would like to see some
changes where it can insure larger operations and, as I
mentioned, there were 200,000 hogs insured in the past year. I
personally worked with producers to sell about 10 to 15 percent
of that insurance. It has been a struggle working with agencies
sometimes to try to clarify things also on this product.
Mr. Hultgren. My time has expired. I did just want to
mention real quickly, Mr. Howell, I appreciate your information
and discussion on the Farming Flexibility Act of 2011, 2012,
H.R. 2675. I know I am a cosponsor along with Congressman
Schilling and Congressman Johnson here from Illinois, and I
know that would be something very beneficial to Midwestern
farmers and Midwestern families.
So my time is up, but thank you so much for the discussion.
We certainly will be talking about that some more.
Mr. Asay. Well, thank you for your help.
Mr. Hultgren. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes for the final 5 minutes of
questions, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schilling.
Mr. Schilling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What I would also like to point out is that what is nice
about the Agriculture Committee is that this is truly a red,
white, and blue Committee, it is not Democratic or Republican.
And also, a good friend of ours, Lieutenant Governor Simon has
a couple of her folks here, Christina Rogers and Laura Kissell,
we appreciate them being here today also.
I want to go back to Gary, your comment here on a question
that Mr. Hultgren was asking. Do you have some suggestions on
how Congress can strengthen the Livestock Gross Margin
insurance?
Mr. Asay. Okay, there are various aspects there. I just
recently learned that the loss ratio on the LGM has been in the
neighborhood of .33 to .37. There were some changes this year
in the crop insurance program to try to get corn and soybeans
closer to the 1.00 loss ratio. If we can somehow get that loss
ratio improved, that would improve the aspects of the producer
making that work for them to actually better protect them for
the premium invested in that.
Also, one other aspect: This insurance is only available on
the last Friday, business Friday, every month from
approximately 4:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., the following
Saturday. Not many crop insurance agents or producers want to
mess with trying to figure out the margin and the premium on
the weekend. That has been a limiting factor also.
Mr. Schilling. Very good.
And then can you further tell the story of conservation and
its part of your operation? Can you basically elaborate further
on how programs such as EQIP can be strengthened for us?
Mr. Asay. Yes. I have benefitted from EQIP funds in the
past, it has helped me invest in manure-hauling equipment. The
manure spreader that I use has a controller on it and a monitor
where I can control how much manure, how many gallons go on per
acre. I also test the soil and the manure for an analysis and
use the crop usage to determine how much manure I apply. It has
also helped me with windbreaks on the farm to try to protect
the wind from blowing through. Also for manure containment
facilities. I think it is a very good program out there and we
possibly need to look in some areas to expand a little bit to
better help livestock producers.
Mr. Schilling. Very good.
And then, Mr. Davis, recently, there was a nice article in
the Galesburg Register-Mail where a local farmer, David Serven,
who actually is here today, said ``Crop insurance to me is the
safety net we need to keep there.'' I am hearing this from the
majority of farmers that I talk to.
My time is almost up, but what are your thoughts on
strengthening crop insurance here in Illinois, sir?
Mr. Davis. The thoughts of Mr. Asay there on the
realignment of the loss ratio I think would be very beneficial
to crop insurance usage here in Illinois. My county and my own
instance, my loss ratio is .25. If 1.0 is loss equals payback
for the premium I am paying, I am paying substantially more for
my insurance than I ever hope to be able to get back because I
do have a low loss. So if that could be addressed.
Another area is if, as I heard mentioned here just a moment
ago, that direct payments might be curtailed in some way,
shape, or form, there does need to be a safety net somewhere
and if this crop insurance program is an area where we could
regain that footing to put in that floor for support, the most
important thing is that crop gets raised next year, not the
crop you are raising this year that is lost, but raising that
crop next year.
Mr. Schilling. Very good.
With that, I yield back my time, Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time. The time
has expired for this panel.
Before we adjourn, I would like to invite Mr. Boswell,
followed by Mr. Schilling, to make any closing comments or
remarks that they might have. Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I kind of
measure how did I think things go on if I had what I know right
now, would I have come to this meeting. Yes, I would.
It has been good to be here in Galesburg and Carl Sandburg
College. I want to thank all of you for participating today and
it has been meaningful. I think our staff has got a lot of
notes we are going to have to digest but it has been worth
coming here and, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this and
Mr. Schilling for being our host, I appreciate it. Thank you
very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back and I now recognize
our host, Congressman Schilling, for any closing remarks he
might have.
Mr. Schilling. Yes, I truly want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for just recognizing the great Midwest for who we
are, and just giving us the opportunity to have what I call the
final 3 feet, the farmer to actually have their say. I think
one of the most important things that we look at is from the
Midwest and across the country when it comes to ag is that we
want the farmers to have the input. We do not want folks that
have really nothing to do with farming making the decisions on
how the farm bill is going to come out.
And I think the biggest take-away that I got today out of
this is that, number one, we need a 5 year bill so that we can
give certainty to our farmers and allow them to just know what
cards are on the table and then, number two, I think of course
is the strong crop insurance.
But I just want to thank everyone who participated, the
folks that set up, also the Agriculture Committee, the folks
from Washington that took time out to be with us today. But
just want to say thank you very much, everyone.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time and I
would recognize myself to note that I appreciate not only
Congressman Schilling, but both of your Illinois Members, for
the good work that they do on the Committee. And of course, our
friends at Carl Sandburg College for hosting and helping work
with us to make this possible, and the community for turning
out today to listen to what some folks outside of rural America
consider to be the least exciting topic, but yet it is the most
important subject matter for all of our futures and all of our
children's futures.
And with that again, let me state one more time for the
record, that anyone may submit comments to be considered as a
part of the Committee's farm bill field hearing record, this
will be a part of the permanent record. Comments submitted to
the address agriculture.house.gov/farmbill by May 20, 2012 will
be incorporated in a permanent part of the record. It is
important that we have not just our expert witnesses today, but
everyone out there who is interested put their stake into this
process.
With that, I would also note that we, working as a
Committee together, have a very challenging process ahead of
us. We intend to get you a farm bill that we can all support,
that you can live with, that maybe you will not just survive
but have a chance to thrive with. But it is going to be a
challenging process. It is going to be a very challenging
process.
And with that, under the rules of the Committee, the record
of today's hearing will remain open for 30 calendar days to
receive additional material and supplemental written responses
from the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m. (CDT), the Committee was
adjourned.]
THE FUTURE OF U.S. FARM POLICY: FORMULATION OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
----------
FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
State University, AR.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m. (CDT), in
the Riceland Hall, Arkansas State University, 201 Olympic
Drive, State University, Arkansas, Hon. Frank D. Lucas
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Lucas, Neugebauer,
Stutzman, and Crawford.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Josh Mathis, Matt Schertz,
Debbie Smith, Heather Vaughan, John Konya, Nathaniel Fretz,
Anne Simmons, and Jamie Mitchell
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
entitled, The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation of the
2012 Farm Bill, will come to order.
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today for
this farm bill field hearing--which is a very important
distinction, I might add. And I would like to thank Congressman
Crawford for hosting us today.
These field hearings are a continuation of what my good
friend and Ranking Member Collin Peterson started in the spring
of 2010. Today, we will build upon the information we gathered
in those hearings, as well as the 11 farm policy audits we
conducted this past summer. We used those audits as an
opportunity to thoroughly evaluate farm programs to identify
areas where we can improve efficiency. The field hearings serve
a slightly different purpose. Today, we are here to listen.
I talk to producers all the time back home in Oklahoma. I
see them in the feed store, I meet with them at my town hall
meetings and, of course, I get regular updates from my personal
boss, Linda Lucas, back on the farm. But the conditions and
crops in Oklahoma are different than what you will find here in
Arkansas.
In New York, we heard how specialty crop producers and
dairy producers utilize farm programs. In Illinois, we heard
about the importance of crop insurance for corn and soybean
producers. Today, we will hear from a wide variety of producers
from across the Southeast. I expect we will hear a different
perspective than we got in the Northeast and the Midwest. That
is why it is so important that we offer a choice of policy
options. The broad range of agricultural production makes our
country strong, but it also creates challenges when we are
trying to write a single farm bill to support so many different
regions and commodities.
While each sector has unique concerns when it comes to farm
policy, I would like to share some of my general goals for the
next farm bill. First and foremost, I want to give producers
the tools to help you do what you do best and that is produce
the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply in the
world. To do this, we must develop a farm bill that works for
all regions and all commodities.
I recognize that the challenges that you face here in the
Southeast are different than the conditions facing producers in
Illinois or New York. I also recognize that even within
commodities, different programs work better for different
regions. That is why it is vitally important that the commodity
title give producers options so they can choose the program
that best works for them.
I am also committed to a strong crop insurance program. Now
I know that crop insurance, while a valuable tool for many
producers, does not work as well for producers down here. That
is why offering an array of programs is important and why we
must work with the Risk Management Agency to improve crop
insurance products for rice, peanuts and other crops that do
not have higher buyout levels.
Last, we will work to ensure that producers can continue
using conservation programs to protect natural resources. I am
interested to hear how producers in this area of the country
use the conservation programs. I am particularly curious as to
your thoughts about how to simplify the process so they are
easier for farmers and ranchers to use.
Beyond those priorities, I know there are a number of
universal concerns facing agriculture across the country. For
instance, my producers in Oklahoma are worried about
regulations coming down from the Environmental Protection
Agency and how they must comply with those regulations. I am
also aware that the death tax is creating difficulties for
farming operations. I want to hear how these Federal policies
are affecting producers here.
Today, we will hear from a selection of producers.
Unfortunately, we do not have time to hear from everyone who
would like to share their perspective. But we have a place on
our website where you can submit those comments in writing to
be added to the record. You can visit agriculture.house.gov/
farmbill, to find that form. And you can also find an address
on the postcards available on the tables that are here.
As I said before, we do not have an easy road ahead of us,
but I am confident that by working together, we can craft a
farm bill that continues to support the success story that is
American agriculture.
And with that, I would like to recognize our host for any
opening comments he might make. The gentleman from Arkansas,
Mr. Crawford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ARKANSAS
Mr. Crawford. I thank the Chairman.
I want to start by acknowledging our FFA chapters that are
here, and if I could get them to stand. The chapters that we
have checked in are Batesville, Weiner, Harrisburg and Manila.
Thank y'all. This is the future of agriculture.
[Applause.]
Mr. Crawford. Thank you for being here, good morning, and
thank all of you for joining us. We are pleased to have this
third of four farm bill hearings here in Arkansas. Great honor
to be here and we are very thankful to our Committee Chairman
and to the Members who have taken time to come and
participate--Congressman Neugebauer from Texas and Congressman
Stutzman from Indiana, all of whom are my colleagues on the
Agriculture Committee.
As we know, agriculture is the number one industry in our
district here in the First District of Arkansas--from the
Delta, cotton, rice, soybeans, wheat, peanuts and aquaculture,
and up into the Ozarks, poultry, cattle, dairy, timber
products. Annually, agriculture in Arkansas is a $16 billion
economic juggernaut, employing over 260,000 Arkansans. And like
every industry, Arkansas agriculture comes with a fair share of
risk and uncertainty.
In these tough economic times, farmers and ranchers know
the impact of high fuel prices as an input cost. When fuel
costs rise, farmers feel the pinch more than most. Farmers also
deal with uncertainty caused by unpredictable weather, volatile
markets and a continued need for investments in technology. On
top of all those challenges, farmers are constantly wrestling
with a myriad of regulations coming from Washington and no
agency embodies that better than the Environmental Protection
Agency. Farmers in our district live off the land, they raise
their families and earn an honest living by taking care of our
natural resources. If anyone understands the importance of
preserving our environment for future generations, it is
certainly those who derive their livelihood from the land on
which they live, and from the water that they use.
With all the challenges our agriculture community already
faces, they should not have to worry about burdensome new
regulations that only serve to cripple American agriculture.
Sound farm policy must incorporate all the tools that America's
farmers and ranchers need to continue to produce the world's
safest, most abundant and affordable food supply, and the 2012
Farm Bill must take that into account. It also must take into
account the diverse models of production throughout the United
States. Unlike what some of my colleagues in Congress may
think, there is no one-size-fits-all policy that will work.
Agriculture here in Arkansas, and across the South, is vastly
different than say Iowa or Illinois. And therefore, we need
carefully crafted policy that accounts for the differences in
cost, risk and production models. I know I am preaching to
choir here and we are not here to do the talking, we are here
to do the listening. So with that, I want to just really
quickly acknowledge some of the witnesses that are from
Arkansas and I am proud to represent them in Congress.
I will start by welcoming Dow Brantley from England,
Arkansas; Mississippi County producer Randy Veach; representing
the cattle industry, cattle producer Dan Stewart from Mountain
View, Arkansas; Mike Freeze is an aquaculture producer from
Keo, Arkansas; and last but not least, a friend of mine, cotton
farmer, also an ASU grad, David Hundley.
We are pleased to welcome each of you. Thank all of you for
being here, and we look forward to this hearing. With that, I
yield back to the Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so that the witnesses may
begin their testimony and to ensure that there is ample time
for questions.
With that, I would like to welcome our first panel of
witnesses to the table. Mr. L. Dow Brantley, rice, cotton,
corn, and soybean producer, Brantley Farming Company, England,
Arkansas; Mr. Randy Veach, cotton, rice, corn, wheat, and
soybean producer, Manila, Arkansas; Mr. Paul T. Combs, rice,
soybean, cotton, corn, and wheat producer, Sunrise Land
Company, Kennett, Missouri; Mr. Bowen Flowers, cotton, corn,
soybean, wheat, and rice producer, Clarksdale, Mississippi; and
Mr. Burch, cotton and peanut producer, Burch Farms, Newton,
Georgia. Clearly, gentlemen, you are a diverse bunch of
producers.
With that, Mr. Brantley, please begin whenever you are
ready.
STATEMENT OF L. DOW BRANTLEY, RICE, COTTON, CORN, AND SOYBEAN
PRODUCER, BRANTLEY FARMING COMPANY,
ENGLAND, AR
Mr. Brantley. Chairman Lucas and Members of the Committee,
I would like to welcome you again to the State of Arkansas; and
Congressman Crawford, thank you for convincing the Chairman
that Jonesboro was the place to hold this hearing. Thank you
again for holding this hearing on the reauthorization of the
farm bill. I am honored to have the opportunity to offer
testimony before the Committee----
The Chairman. Mr. Brantley, if you do not mind, swing that
microphone towards you.
Mr. Brantley. Is that better?
I am honored to have the opportunity to offer testimony
before the Committee concerning my views on current farm policy
and the changes needed.
My name is Dow Brantley. My farm is located in central
Arkansas near the community of England. We grow rice, cotton,
corn, soybeans and I farm in partnership with my father,
mother, two brothers and our families. Due to the hard work of
my grandparents and parents, our family farm has grown from
just a few hundred acres in 1946 to around 8,500 acres in row
crop production today. I am pleased to serve as Chairman of the
Arkansas Rice Federation and the Arkansas Rice Producers' Group
as well as a board member for many other agribusiness
associations in the state, but I offer my testimony today from
my perspective as a farmer, and not on behalf of any one
organization.
As I stated earlier, my farm is diversified, but rice is
one of our primary focuses. It is worth noting that Arkansas
grows rice on approximately 1.3 to 1.5 million acres each year,
which is nearly \1/2\ of the entire U.S. rice crop. Rice
product, transportation and processing play important roles in
the state by providing thousands of jobs in what is referred to
as the Mississippi River Delta. Rice is the state's second
highest value commodity and the top agricultural export.
The bigger challenges facing the U.S. rice industry are
challenges over which farmers have no control. They are
decisions taken by governments--our own Federal Government and
the governments of nations around the world. Some examples
include:
Brazil's export program that provides $60 per ton export
subsidy for rice to Central America, Haiti, Nigeria and to the
U.S.
Thailand's intervention price program is the equivalent of
$10.00 per bushel, while the U.S. market price, here in the
U.S., is around the $6.00 per bushel range.
India, one of the world's top rice exporters, subsidizes
the cost of fertilizer and other inputs for its farmers.
Iraq's unreasonable import specifications have contributed
to a 77 percent drop in sales of U.S. rice to that country.
Access for U.S. rice was excluded from the so-called South
Korea Free Trade Agreement because they consider it a sensitive
crop.
China has yet to accept imports of U.S. rice as a result of
China's lack of phytosanitary requirements.
And the U.S. Government continues an embargo that was put
into place more than 50 years ago against trade with Cuba, once
the number one export market for U.S. rice.
These trade policies and the increased cost of inputs,
especially fuel and fertilizer, over which the U.S. farmer has
no control, cannot be covered by a one-size-fits-all program.
The U.S. rice industry is seeking risk management tools
that will allow rice farmers to secure their production loans
and to repay loans should forces over which they have no
control lead to an increase in input costs or decline in rice
prices which makes U.S. rice less competitive.
Not providing such a policy option threatens not only U.S.
farmers who grow rice, but thousands of Americans who
transport, process and market U.S. rice across the nation and
around the world.
Crop insurance as a whole has not worked on my farm or many
others like ours in Arkansas. Our farm is 100 percent
irrigated, and on average our yields are very consistent. Our
financial problems occur with higher production costs due to
irrigation or as a result of a weather event in the fall that
disrupts our harvest and affects the quality of our crops.
These circumstances cannot be hedged.
I believe Congress should reauthorize the farm bill this
year for at least 5 years.
I understand that the budget situation facing this
Committee is a key consideration in the development of the farm
bill. These budget pressures, coupled with the outcome of the
U.S.-Brazil WTO case means some farm policies must be modified
to satisfy both budget constraints and specific trade
objectives.
Some key components of the farm bill should be maintaining
planting flexibility that began with the 1996 Farm Bill and the
countercyclical policies that have been in place for more than
a decade now.
Given the aforementioned budget pressures and other
considerations facing Congress, I believe that the following
priorities represent the needs of producers for crops here in
the Mid-South:
First, the trigger levels for assistance should be updated
to provided tailored and reliable help should commodity prices
decline below today's production cost and should include a
floor or reference price to protect multi-year low price
scenarios.
Second, as payments would only be made in loss situations,
payment limits and means tests for producers should be
eliminated, or at a minimum not tightened any further.
And third, the Federal Crop Insurance Program should be
improved to be a more effective risk management for all crops
in all production regions, beginning with the policy
development process.
We support the funding of our land-grant universities
through the research title, particularly the formula funding
like the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts that enable our
universities to deliver initiatives that are so important to
our states.
In summary, I appreciate the work of this Committee in
crafting the 2008 Farm Bill, and more recently the
recommendations developed last fall with your counterparts in
the Senate. I know developing this next farm bill will present
its own set of challenges, especially from inadequate budget
authority and international trade obligations.
Based on my experience in working with the rice and cotton
industries and the Arkansas Farm Bureau, I know they will work
closely with this Committee to ensure that we have an effective
farm policy. It is critical that we maintain provisions that
allow us to be competitive in world markets and provide support
in these times of low prices.
Thank you for the opportunity for me to present my views
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brantley follows:]
Prepared Statement of L. Dow Brantley, Rice, Cotton, Corn, and Soybean
Producer, Brantley Farming Company, England, AR
Introduction
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing on the re-
authorization of the farm bill. I am honored to have the opportunity to
offer testimony before the Committee concerning my views on current
farm policy and the changes needed.
My name is Dow Brantley. My farm is located in central Arkansas
near the community of England. We grow rice, cotton, corn, and
soybeans. I farm in partnership with my father, mother, two brothers
and our families. Due to the hard work of my grandparents and parents,
our family farm has grown from just a few hundred acres in 1946 to
around 8,500 acres in row crop production today. I am pleased to serve
as the Chairman of the Arkansas Rice Federation and the Arkansas Rice
Producers' Group, as well as a board member for many other agribusiness
associations in the state, but I offer my testimony today from my
perspective as a farmer, and not on behalf of any one organization.
Industry Overview
As I stated earlier, my farm is diversified, but rice is one of our
primary focuses. It is worth noting that Arkansas grows rice on
approximately 1.3 to 1.5 million acres each year, which is nearly half
of the entire U.S. rice crop. Rice production, transportation and
processing play important roles in the state by providing thousands of
jobs in what is referred to as the Mississippi River Delta. Rice is the
state's second highest value commodity and the top agricultural export.
Nationally, the U.S. rice industry contributes $34 billion in annual
economic activity. It provides jobs and income for not only rice
producers and processors, but also for all involved in the value chain,
contributing 128,000 jobs.
About 85 percent of all the rice that is consumed in the U.S. is
produced domestically.
Despite significant trade barriers to exports, the U.S. remains the
largest non-Asian exporter of rice and the third largest exporter
worldwide.
Rice fields are flooded during the growing season to provide water
that the plants need and to help control weeds. While drought during
the growing season adds to the cost of maintaining the flood and
certainly adds to the labor required to check irrigation pumps and keep
levees intact, we do not lose a rice crop due to drought.
Global Challenges of U.S. Rice Industry
The bigger challenges facing the U.S. rice industry are challenges
over which rice farmers have no control. They are decisions taken by
governments--our own Federal Government and the governments of nations
around the world. Here are some examples:
1. Brazil's PEP (Petrobras Environmental Program) program provides
a $60 per ton export subsidy for rice shipped to Central
America, Haiti, Nigeria and to the U.S. All are traditional
U.S. rice markets.
2. Thailand's Intervention Price is buying rice from Thai farmers
at the equivalent of $10 per bushel. The U.S. market price is
in the $6.00 per bushel range. And U.S. rice faces Thai rice in
world markets every day.
3. India, one of the world's top rice exporters, subsidizes the
cost of fertilizer and other inputs for its farmers.
4. Iraq's recent tender specifies rice varieties grown in Thailand
and Vietnam, but not in the U.S. Thailand's unreasonable
demands have led to a 77 percent drop in sales of U.S. rice to
the country.
5. South Korean negotiators, at the eleventh hour, demanded that
rice be excluded from the so-called Korea Free Trade Agreement
because they considered rice a ``sensitive crop.'' U.S.
negotiators agreed to the exclusion.
6. China has yet to accept imports of U.S. rice as a result of
China's lack of phytosanitary requirements.
7. Japan's desire to join the Trans Pacific Partnership has caused
the rice industry to question the impact of the TPP on rice
trade within that group of nations.
8. There have been no recent country updates as required by the
WTO, which brings into question the level of engagement by the
Administration in enforcing the trade issue.
9. While the U.S. has extended trade and travel status with Vietnam
and China, countries which were our enemies in the 1960s and
1970s, we have not restored normal travel and trade relations
with Cuba where the U.S. Government continues an embargo that
was put into place more than 50 years ago.
The biggest risk to the U.S. rice industry is not crop failure, but
our own government's trade policies and the trade policies of foreign
governments, which are either condoned or ignored by our government.
These trade polices and the increased costs of inputs, especially fuel
and fertilizer, over which the U.S. rice farmer has no control, cannot
be covered by a one size fits all farm policy.
The U.S. rice industry is seeking risk management tools that will
allow rice farmers to secure their production loans and to repay the
loans should forces over which they have no control lead to an increase
in input costs or a decline in rice prices which make U.S. rice less
competitive.
Not providing such a policy option threatens not only U.S. farmers
who grow rice, but the thousands of Americans who transport, process
and market U.S. rice across our nation and around the world.
2008 Farm Bill Review
The 2008 Farm Bill continued the traditional mix of policies
consisting of the non-recourse marketing loan, loan deficiency payment,
and the direct and countercyclical payment. While the countercyclical
payment and marketing loan have been helpful in the past, they have
recently been overwhelmed by the cost of production. If crop prices
drop sharply most producers, including myself, will be in dire
financial straits by the time these policies make payments. However,
the marketing loan also plays a key role in the orderly marketing of
crops for both producers and our marketing cooperatives, especially for
rice and cotton. This policy should be continued without being
encumbered by limitations on how much of a commodity a producer can
place under loan. The direct payment, whatever its imperfections, has
assisted rice producers in meeting the ongoing and serious price risk
of farming in today's environment. It is a bit ironic that the Federal
Government has been sending signals to the agriculture community that
we should shift our policies towards those that are green box and WTO
friendly, such as direct payments. The rice industry heeded those
instructions in previous farm bills, and we, more than any other
commodity, will be severely impacted by the loss of the direct payment
unless Congress works with us to find a workable policy solution.
The new policies created in the 2008 Farm Bill included the
addition of Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) as an alternative to
countercyclical payments for producers who agree to a reduction in
direct payments and marketing loan benefits. The bill also added
Supplemental Revenue Assurance (SURE) as a standing disaster assistance
supplement to Federal crop insurance.
The support mechanisms within ACRE do not provide an adequate farm
policy for rice farmers or others in the Mid-South when compared to the
DCP program. As evidence by the lack of sign ups, ACRE has not proven
to be a viable alternative for Southern agriculture. In my home county,
we have 1,650 producers, and not one has elected to choose ACRE. I
understand that only one producer in the entire state of Arkansas has
enrolled 20 acres in ACRE. Specifically, in the first year of ACRE
signup, only eight rice farms, representing less than 900 acres, were
enrolled nationwide. A one-size-fits-all policy will not work, but a
regional or crop-based policy could provide the assurance that rice
farmers will be able to endure the challenges they face.
SURE has provided little, if any, assistance to row crop producers,
including those producers in the Mid-South who suffered significant
monetary losses due to heavy rains and flooding occurring prior to and
during harvest and spring flooding.
I recognize the challenge facing Congress to make improvements in
this program. Without increased baseline spending authority, there will
be no funds to continue the policy in the next farm bill much less make
the necessary improvements for it to be an effective disaster relief
mechanism. However, I do not support reallocating existing spending
authority from current farm policy to apply to SURE.
Crop Insurance
Crop insurance, as a whole, hasn't worked on our farm or many
others like ours in Arkansas. Our farm is 100 percent irrigated, and on
average, our yields are very consistent. Our financial problems occur
with higher production costs due to irrigation or as the result of a
weather event in the fall that disrupts our harvest and affects the
quality of our crops. These circumstances can't be hedged.
Conservation
My family has participated in several conservation initiatives over
the years. Initiatives such as the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) have helped us conserve our natural resources and
become better stewards of the land. Conservation initiatives such as
the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) can lead to improved
environmental and conservation practices, however I believe that this
program is not succeeding in the way it could. Of all the conservation
initiatives offered by USDA, the CSP might have the most potential in
terms of producing the desired environmental results that are
beneficial to both the environment and the farmer. This initiative is a
win-win for everyone, but it has been vastly under-funded. The CSP has
been hampered by overly restrictive payment limitations contrived by
USDA regulators, and I do not believe the statute supports the
restrictions. Because the CSP regulations limit payments to an
``agricultural operation'' and because the payment limits are so low,
most farmers do not have the opportunity to enroll all of their land,
even if their land would otherwise be eligible. In order to enroll more
land in CSP, a producer is required to have more than one agricultural
operation. This is a very costly and inefficient way for a producer to
operate (e.g., multiple loans, multiple operating accounts, multiple
sets of operating records, etc.). Again, this probably has something to
do with the level of funding, but it would seem to me that an
initiative that produces benefits for both the environment and the
producer would warrant more funding. With that being said, conservation
initiatives should not serve as the primary delivery mechanism for farm
policy and should not come at the expense of our farm policies.
Payment Limitations/Means Testing
The 2008 Farm Bill also made very substantial changes to the
payment eligibility provisions, establishing an adjusted gross income
(AGI) means test and, a very significant tightening of ``actively
engaged'' requirements for eligibility. In my opinion, the USDA over-
stepped the intent of Congress in key payment eligibility provisions
and issued regulations that are overly complicated and restrictive.
These changes have not only been expensive, but they have required
our farm to make changes in our day-to-day operations that do not make
good business sense. FSA's financing rules, active personal management
rules and the decision by USDA to allow FSA and NRCS to operate under
different actively engaged rules, are a few examples of the problems
that we are facing. Sound farm policy provisions are of little value if
commercial-size family farming operations are ineligible for benefits.
While I oppose any artificial payment limitations, I advocate
administering the current provisions within the intent of Congress and
strongly oppose any further restrictions.
2012 Farm Bill
I believe Congress should reauthorize the farm bill this year.
I understand that the budget situation facing this Committee is a
key consideration in the development of the farm bill. These budget
pressures, coupled with the outcome of the U.S.-Brazil WTO case means
some farm policies must be modified to satisfy both budget constraints
and specific trade objectives.
Some key components of the farm bill should be maintaining planting
flexibility that began with the 1996 Farm Bill and the countercyclical
policies that have been in place for more than a decade now.
Given the aforementioned budget pressures and other considerations
facing Congress, I believe that the following priorities represent the
needs of producers for crops here in the Mid-South:
First, the trigger levels for assistance should be updated
to provide tailored and reliable help should commodity prices
decline below today's production costs, and should include a
floor or reference price to protect in multi-year low price
scenarios.
Second, as payments would only be made in loss situations,
payment limits and means tests for producers should be
eliminated, or at a minimum not tightened any further.
Third, Federal crop insurance should be improved to provide
more effective risk management for all crops in all production
regions, beginning with the policy development process.
Price Protection is Key
The development of farm policy should be focused on providing
producers with price protection, not just for price moves during the
growing year, but for multiple years of price declines as we saw occur
in the late 1990's. Those that hold out crop insurance as the
centerpiece of farm policy certainly don't understand the nature of
farming in my area. Crop insurance can't, and it was not designed to,
provide price protection across multiple years. Adequate price
protection is the most critical component of the next farm bill and
must be included in any policy option.
The first priority should be to concentrate on increasing the
prices or revenue levels at which farm policy would trigger so that it
is actually meaningful to producers, and would reliably trigger should
prices decline sharply.
The reference price for rice should be increased to $13.98/cwt
($6.30/bu). This level would more closely reflect the significant
increases in production costs for rice on my farm. And this reference
price should be a component of both the price-based option and the
revenue-based option to ensure downside price protection.
The existing price trigger levels have simply not kept pace with
the significant increases in production costs. It is for this reason
that I believe strengthening U.S. farm policy would be helpful in
ensuring that producers have the ability to adequately manage their
risks and access needed credit.
Options for Different Production Regions
I believe that farm policy must be designed to give producers
options of what policy will work best for a farmer based on our mix of
crops and our growing region. I consider my farm to be rather
diversified, growing four of the major program crops. We are fortunate
to farm in an area where we have the ability to rotate among several
crops. Not all production regions have that ability and may be limited
to just one or two crops that can be profitably produced. Because of
this great diversity across American agriculture we need policy options
that I can use to tailor the best risk management tools possible on my
farm.
Using rice as an example, here in the Mid-South I can rotate up to
three other crops with my rice, whereas rice producers on the Gulf
Coast have in most cases only one other crop rotation option, and yet
in California rice producers have in most cases only one cropping
choice, rice. Due to a host of differences in market prices, production
costs, yields, marketing patterns, and uses, there is the potential for
a properly designed revenue-based policy to work for rice growers in
California, while I know that for my rice enterprise here in Arkansas I
need a price-based policy. But I would like the opportunity to evaluate
both price-based and revenue-based options for my other crops to see
which will best fit my situation. Each crop has very different pricing
and marketing options.
Plain and Bankable Policies
The current SURE has too many factors and is not tailored to the
multiple business risks producers face--it is not plain. The current
ACRE, while offering improved revenue-based protection, is complicated
by requiring two loss triggers; providing payments nearly 2 years after
a loss; and provides no minimum price protection--it is not bankable.
The marketing loan and target prices are plain and bankable--
unfortunately the trigger prices are no longer relevant to current
costs and prices.
Planting Flexibility
Any commodity specific farm policy that is tied to planted acres
must be designed with care so as to not create payment scenarios that
incentivize farmers to plant for a farm policy. Whatever is done should
accommodate history and economics and allow for proportional reductions
to the baseline among commodities. Some commodities are currently more
reliant on countercyclical farm policies (ACRE/CCP) while others are
receiving only Direct Payments in the baseline. Generally, the least
disruptive and fairest way to achieve savings across commodities would
be to apply a percentage reduction to each commodity baseline and
restructure any new policy within the reduced baseline amounts.
There have been concerns raised about higher reference prices
distorting planting decisions and resulting in significant acreage
shifts, including for rice. Based on my understanding of the reference
price levels included in the Agriculture Committees' package last fall,
a reference price for rice of $13.98/cwt that is paid on historic CCP
payment yields and on 85% of planted acres results in a effective price
level well below my average cost of production, so I find it hard to
imagine why I would plant simply due to this policy given these levels.
As I have noted earlier, we have a very diverse cropping mix, and my
planting decisions are based on a number of economic, agronomic, and
marketing factors, but farm policy that sets support levels below costs
of production is not a factor in planting decisions.
Research
We support the funding for our land-grant universities through the
research title, particularly the formula funding like the Hatch and
Smith-Lever that enable our universities to deliver initiatives so
important to our states. These initiatives are not only matched 7:1
with state dollars but finance important efforts on key issues at the
state level like herbicide resistance, water quality, profitable and
sustainable production practices and 4-H.
Conclusion
In summary, I appreciate the work of this Committee in crafting the
2008 Farm Bill and, more recently, the recommendations developed last
fall with your counterparts in the Senate. I know developing this next
farm bill will present its own set of challenges especially from
inadequate budget authority and international trade obligations.
Based on my experience in working with the rice and cotton
industries and the Arkansas Farm Bureau, I know they will work closely
with this Committee to ensure that we have an effective farm policy. It
is critical that we maintain provisions that allow us to be competitive
in world markets and provide support in times of low prices. Our
industries will evaluate different delivery systems as necessary to
accomplish these goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views today and I will
be happy to respond to any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Veach, you may proceed whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF RANDY VEACH, COTTON, RICE, CORN, WHEAT, AND
SOYBEAN PRODUCER, MANILA, AR
Mr. Veach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, and Congressman Crawford for bringing this field
hearing here to Arkansas. We really appreciate the opportunity
to testify before you.
I am a farmer from Mississippi County, Arkansas. I am a
cotton, rice, soybean, wheat, and corn farmer, predominantly
cotton. I farm with my wife, my son Brandon, and his wife.
Brandon is a fourth generation farmer and we farm some land
that my grandfather cleared and started farming. This is my
42nd crop, so I have been farming for a pretty good while.
I want to commend this Committee and for your leadership,
Mr. Chairman, in putting forth a bill before the Joint
Committee on Deficit Reduction. I think it needs to be noted
that this was the only Committee that did put forth a bill, and
we commend you on that.
I also serve as President of Arkansas Farm Bureau and I
neglected to say that earlier.
We must, as a country, get our house back in order. And
agriculture is ready to do our part. But we cannot balance our
Federal budget on the backs of agriculture. We cannot cut our
domestic support to the point where we lose our safety net. I
believe that the farm bill should be crafted to benefit all
sectors of agriculture. Farmers and ranchers risk it all every
year to feed, clothe, and shelter our nation and the world.
It is also very important to have a good farm bill that
will protect our rural communities. Our rural communities
depend upon agriculture and agriculture depends upon our rural
communities.
Commodity programs should take into consideration commodity
and regional differences which, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned
awhile ago. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work for all
regions and all commodities.
Agriculture is our state's largest industry, as Congressman
Crawford talked about. We bring an impact of more than $9.4
billion, a direct impact, and then an indirect impact of $16
billion. And 20 percent of all the jobs in the State of
Arkansas are directly related to agriculture. Arkansas is
number one in rice, number two in catfish and broilers, and
number three in cotton.
Agriculture must have a workable risk management program.
These programs consist of a combination of commodity programs
and crop insurance. Historically, commodity programs provided
price risk protection and crop insurance covered yield risk. In
much of the South, our yield risk is mitigated by irrigation,
about 80 percent of all row crops are irrigated in Arkansas.
But this also greatly increases our input cost. That is the
reason that crop insurance participation is lower in the Mid-
South than other parts of the country. Arkansas agriculture
needs a traditional program that provides price protection as
well.
The current marketing loan program, with increased loan
rates that reflect current prices, and a countercyclical
program with higher target prices calculated on planted acres
and current historic yields, would provide price protection.
Maintaining the marketing loan program is extremely
beneficial to all crops. We use the marketing loan program
extensively to help reach a higher price for our commodities,
and cotton and rice use it very much. Prices are cyclical. I
remember back in the 1970s I sold soybeans for $12.00 a bushel.
In 2001, we sold soybeans for $4.00 a bushel. So prices are
cyclical and we need that price protection.
2011 was a year of difficult and diverse weather. Flooding,
followed by drought and again flooding. And Chairman Lucas, I
think the drought was even more extensive in your state, and
the opportunity to irrigate is not as good as it is in our
state.
Arkansas growers, through drought, did not have the losses
that other states had, but we had a lot of losses due to
flooding. That is another example that a one-size-fits-all
program does not work effectively for our regions.
One point I wanted to make on flooding was that there is a
gap that we have in flood insurance. Crops that are stored on-
farm in storage in those facilities does not have the
opportunity to have insurance protection. The Federal
Government does not offer any protection for flooded grain in
stored bins and private industry does not either. So this is
something that needs to be addressed in the farm bill. I think
that there was also not an opportunity for a lot of those
producers to get the grain out of those bins and get them to
the market so they could pay off their marketing loans. I think
within Subtitle B, Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan
Deficiency Payments, the Secretary should have the ability to
extend the marketing assistance loans due to federally declared
disasters.
You know, I know there is a public perception regarding
direct payments. But I feel that I must caution you on an
overnight elimination of this program, and what it would do to
agricultural states' economy. For example, eliminating direct
payments would have a $243 million impact on Arkansas
immediately, which is 1,952 jobs. This change will affect
operating loans and rental agreements as well. Federal crop
insurance alone will not replace the loss protection direct
payments provide. Higher marketing loans--higher target prices
will replace some of that money and some of that protection
that will be lost by these direct payments.
We also support Congressman Peterson's bill when it comes
to dairy that offers a voluntary gross margin insurance
program. I think that we have also put one similar to this in
the State of Arkansas in place, and it has worked very
successfully. But I think this is also a reason that we need to
get a farm bill this year.
Research: we oppose any cuts in research funding. Our
increase in production is directly related to successful
research and our land-grant universities do a tremendous job.
Conservation: we want to maintain the conservation
practices and programs, current funding on that. EQIP, it is
especially important that we maintain the current funding level
in EQIP. EQIP is one of those programs that helps not only row
crops but livestock production as well.
I will sum up by saying in conclusion, it is a benefit to
our country to have a diverse agriculture industry. The farm
bill should be crafted to support all sectors of agriculture.
I appreciate the hard work of this Committee to ensure that
farmers and ranchers have a safety net that works for their
region and their commodity during times of decreased prices and
difficult weather, and allows our farmers to continue to
provide the safest, most abundant, and least expensive food
supply in the world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Veach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randy Veach, Cotton, Rice, Corn, Wheat, and
Soybean Producer, Manila, AR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Randy Veach,
a row-crop producer from rural Mississippi County, which is the largest
row crop county in the nation. I raise cotton, rice, corn, wheat and
soybeans. I farm with my son Brandon, who is the fourth generation to
farm the ground cleared by my grandfather and father. This will be my
42nd crop.
I am serving my fourth term as President of Arkansas Farm Bureau,
the state's largest agriculture advocacy organization with more than
220,000 member families.
I commend this Committee, with your leadership Mr. Chairman, for
putting forth a bill to the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction.
Agriculture was the only Committee that put forward a proposal, and you
should be congratulated for that.
We must as a nation get our house in order, and agriculture is
ready to do it part in that effort. We feel across-the-board cuts are
the fairest way to reduce our country's spending. We cannot balance the
Federal budget on the backs of agriculture, and the cuts should not be
so severe that eliminate the safety net that helps ensure adequate
supplies of food and fiber. I feel, in fact, that agriculture is
critical to our national security.
I believe the next farm bill should be crafted to benefit all
sectors of the agriculture community and all regions of the country. I
also believe it should be passed this year. Farmers and ranchers risk
it all to feed, clothe and shelter our nation and the world. A one-
size-fits-all approach will not work for all regions and all
commodities. Farm programs should take into consideration commodity and
regional differences.
Agriculture has a national impact of agriculture is $170 billion.
It is our state's largest industry with a direct impact of more than a
$9.4 billion and an indirect impact of more than $16 billion. We
exports more than $2 billion in agricultural products each year.
Arkansas ranks number one in rice, number two in catfish, broilers, and
number three in cotton.
Agriculture must have workable risk management programs. These
programs consist of a combination of Commodity Programs and Crop
Insurance. Historically, commodity programs provided price risk
protection and crop insurance covered yield risk. In Arkansas our yield
risk is mitigated by irrigation (we are 80 percent irrigated for row
crops). However, this greatly increases our input costs. That is the
reason crop insurance participation is lower in the Mid-South than
other parts of the country.
Arkansas agriculture needs a traditional program that provides
price protection.
The current marketing loan program, with increased loan rates that
reflect current prices and a countercyclical program with higher target
prices calculated on planted acres and current historic yields, would
provide price protection.
Maintaining the marketing loan program benefits all the crops, as
recent high prices of cotton, cotton placed under the CCC loan have
been steadily declining since the 2007 crop. The Mid-South accounts for
approximately 50 percent of cotton placed under loan. This is a perfect
time to increase loan rates, as commodity prices are up, as well as our
inputs (fuel, fertilizer, crop protectants, etc.) Prices are cyclical,
and these high prices are not sustainable.
November Average Cash Price Reported by USDA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop 1981 1991 2001 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton (lb) 63.00 62.40 30.77 90.40
Rice (cwt) 9.83 7.58 4.23 14.40
Soybeans (bu) 6.00 5.42 4.18 11.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you will see, 2001 was a very difficult year for agriculture.
The ``three-legged stool'' approach saved agriculture during the low
prices. The marketing loan and countercyclical program protected our
farmers against those times of low prices.
Cotton
Total value of cotton production in Arkansas totals $694.5 million.
Cotton is more than lint. Cottonseed production was 5.3 million tons
and equates to $118 million. It is used primarily by the livestock
industry with 50 percent used by dairy farmers.
U.S. farmers planted 14.4 million acres of cotton in 2011. This was
an increase of 34 percent from the previous year. Mid-South plantings
were just less than 2.5 million acres, a 29 percent increase.
2011 was a year of difficult and diverse weather; flooding,
followed by drought, and back to flooding.
Abandonment rates were up 34 percent. The highest since USDA began
reporting both planted and harvested area in 1909. The Southwest
growers were unable to harvest 60 percent of their cotton area. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, Oklahoma registered the largest abandonment, 83
percent of planted area being a total loss. I contend Arkansas growers,
through irrigation, didn't have the losses that our western neighbors
experienced.
This is another example of why a one-size-fits-all program will not
work effectively for all regions.
While flooding delayed planting in the Mid-South, our losses were
in yield, not abandonment. Arkansas cotton production experienced a 107
lb. decrease compared to 2010. The average price in 2010 for cotton was
$.89 lb. If you calculate the price of cotton with 107 lb. decrease it
equates to an average $95.23 reduction per acre.
Due to the spring floods, for the first time, we witnessed an issue
that needs to be addressed. Flood insurance is not offered to cover
grain stored ``on-farm.'' With more grain stored on farm, we need the
Federal flood insurance to cover on-farm grain stored in bins.
Another issue that was witnessed for the first time was grain in
the loan was unable to be delivered due to the flood. The Secretary
could not extend the provisions of the loan due to Section 1203(b). I
suggest amending Subtitle B, ``Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan
Deficiency Payments'' Section 1203(b) Extension Prohibited, by either
eliminating Section 1203(b) Extension Prohibited or establishing a
criteria for the Secretary to have the ability to extend the marketing
assistance loans due to Federal Declared disasters.
I understand public perception regarding direct payments, but I
feel that I must caution you on the overnight elimination of this
program and what it would do to the economy of several agricultural
states. For example, the elimination of DP would have a $243 million
impact on Arkansas' economy, and equates to an average of $40 per acre
in eastern Arkansas. In Iowa, the reduction is $473 million, Illinois
$418 million and Texas $390 million. This will be an immediate
reduction of the state's agricultural economy. This change will affect
operating loans, rental agreements and also reduce land values. An
immediate elimination of direct payments will cause Mid-South farmers
higher risk due to larger operation loans with less collateral. That
will increase pressures on agriculture lenders. I would caution the
Committee about a complete and overnight overhaul of farm programs.
That could affect markets, crop rotation, our state's agriculture
economy, and have unintended consequences in the marketplace.
Federal crop insurance will not replace the lost protection now
provided by direct payments. Higher marketing loan rates and higher
target rates will help provide the price protection needed by farmers.
Dairy
For the record, I want to express our support for Congressman
Peterson's bill to eliminate the dairy price support program and the
Milk Income Loss Contract program and to use the funding associated
with those programs to offer a voluntary gross margin insurance program
for dairy farmers.
Arkansas Farm Bureau lead an effort 3 years ago to create a
successful state program that assisted our dairy industry.
The main reason for this was to assist our dairy farmers during the
toughest of times, as the national program did not work and needed an
overhaul. Congressman Peterson's bill is the overhaul the dairy
industry needs to survive.
Research
We oppose any cuts to research funding. We recognize the key role
that agricultural research plays in making and keeping the farm sector
competitive, profitable and responsive to the country's changing food,
feed and fiber needs.
Our increase in production is directly related to successful
research. Research is an invaluable investment for agriculture and the
nation. Land-grant universities provide unbiased research that farmers
and ranchers rely on to make informed decisions.
We support the funding for our land-grant universities through the
research title, particularly the formula funding like the Hatch and
Smith-Lever that enables our universities to deliver programs so
important to our states.
These Federal investments are not only matched 7:1 with state
dollars, but finance programs on key issues at the state level, like
herbicide resistance, water quality, 4-H, as well as profitable--and
sustainable--production practices.
A pressing research issue is pigweed control in cotton and the
issue of glyphosate resistance.
Conservation
Funding for conservation practices and programs to help farmers and
land owners comply with Federal environmental regulations should be
maintained. I contend EQIP is the most beneficial conservation program,
as it helps all sectors of agriculture and should remain at current
funding levels.
We support the current conservation programs, given the fiscal
considerations and increasing worldwide demand for food; we strongly
support the ``working lands'' programs over the land retirement
programs. The five conservation programs without baseline beyond FY
2012 should not be extended by cutting funding elsewhere.
Payment Limitations/AGI
We oppose any changes to the current payment limitations or means
test. To be viable, we must recognize realistic economies of scale to
justify the large capital investment associated with farming.
Credit
We support the enhancement of the Emergency Loan Program to assist
farmers and ranchers during declared disasters. We feel that the
eligibility requirements should be modified for the program to meet the
needs of our farmers. We propose eliminating the 30 percent loss and
the two lender credit denial requirements.
Specialty Crop
We support our specialty crop farmers and encourage assistance on
research, food safety, marketing and promotions.
Livestock
We favor maintaining a livestock title.
In conclusion, our country needs a diverse agriculture industry.
Rural America counts on agriculture; in fact it is the primary economic
engine for our rural communities. At the same time, agriculture counts
on those rural communities. Anything that weakens our rural communities
has an negative impact on agriculture. So, in that way, we have a co-
dependent relationship.
The farm bill should be crafted to support all sectors of
agriculture. I appreciate the hard work of this Committee to help
ensure farmers and ranchers have a reliable safety net that works
during times of decreased prices and difficult weather, and one that
fits their region and their commodity. With that in place, U.S. farmers
will continue to provide the safest, most abundant, and most affordable
food supply in the world.
Thank you. And God bless America.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Veach.
Mr.Combs, you may proceed when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF PAUL T. COMBS, RICE, SOYBEAN, COTTON, CORN, AND
WHEAT PRODUCER; PRESIDENT, SUNRISE LAND COMPANY, KENNETT, MO
Mr. Combs. Thank you. Chairman Lucas, Congressman Crawford,
Congressman Neugebauer, and Congressman Stutzman; thank you for
holding this hearing today and for allowing me the opportunity
to testify.
My name is Paul T. Combs and our farms produce corn,
cotton, wheat, soybeans, and rice in the Missouri Bootheel. My
family is also in the farm equipment business with dealerships
in southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas.
I want to start out by thanking Chairman Lucas and Ranking
Member Peterson for the work they did in putting together a
farm bill last fall that would have served farmers and the
taxpayers well. I appreciated your efforts because you put
together a farm bill that worked for all farmers rather than
picking winners and losers. I also appreciated your work
because it was clear that you were not driven by personal
ideology of what farm bills should look like in concept, but
instead, what actually works with producers on the ground. And
finally, I thought it was extremely important that you did not
forget the lesson of 1998 where there was inadequate protection
in the event of low prices. That mistake was costly to farmers
and the taxpayers alike, and I hope it is not repeated.
It happens that what I so appreciate about the work you did
last fall is my main message about what the 2012 Farm Bill
should look like. The 2012 Farm Bill should not pick winners
and losers by forcing all farmers into a policy that works for
some, but not for others. Forcing everyone into a revenue
program would have that effect.
The 2012 Farm Bill should offer producers a menu of options
that meaningfully address the risks they face on their farm.
Price-based and revenue-based options and a STAX option for
cotton producers makes good sense.
The next farm bill should also meet what should be the
lowest common denominator in any farm bill, and that is to be
there when the bottom falls out on prices. Some people in
Washington, and even some of my fellow producers, forget the
basic economic lesson that what goes up usually comes down.
Every one of us will regret being a part of a farm bill that
would ignore this basic economic lesson. Revenue protection
without some minimum price protection such as you included in
the 2011 package would repeat the grave mistakes of the past if
we see prolonged periods of low prices. This sort of policy
would fail farmers.
The 2012 Farm Bill should offer producers a little
certainty at a time when there is little certainty. That means
enacting a 2012 Farm Bill in 2012 rather than kicking the can
down the road a year and leaving us to wonder what policy will
be beyond next year. It also means letting the ink dry on
substantial payment limitations and means testing reforms
included in the 2008 bill. If Washington is serious about
global competitiveness, it would do best to lose this sort of
social engineering that holds us back from competing against
heavily subsidized and protected foreign competition.
Last, Ranking Member Peterson has, time and time again,
suggested that crop insurance may one day be all we producers
have left. I hope that is not the case because crop insurance
does not work as well for farmers in this area, as it does for
Iowa corn and bean farmers where the typical coverage is 80 or
85 percent of revenue.
In the case of rice, roughly \1/2\ of our production is in
CAT and the other \1/2\ is at the 60 percent yield coverage. We
as an industry have been trying to change this for 4 years but
have so far been unsuccessful. Our industry will keep working
on it, but if the two policies that we have pending are
improved, we are still a long way off from being where
producers in the Midwest are relative to crop insurance.
So the bottom line is we are entering the farm bill debate
at a huge disadvantage as one of the main things that works for
us is the direct payment and that is the one thing that is
going to be eliminated under this bill.
Fortunately, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Peterson, you know this
well and you have worked with our industry to ensure that rice
farmers are not left out in the cold in this farm bill process.
And for that, we all thank you very much. We are grateful to
both of you.
Thanks once again for taking the time to be here today and
for the opportunity to hear perspectives of producers like
myself.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Combs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul T. Combs, Rice, Soybean, Cotton, Corn, and
Wheat Producer; President, Sunrise Land Company, Kennett, MO
Introduction
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this hearing concerning farm policy
and the 2012 Farm Bill. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony
on farm policy from the perspective of a producer who comes from an
area that produces many different crops and where we have a number of
cropping options.
My name is Paul T. Combs. I raise rice, soybeans, cotton, corn, and
wheat in Dunklin and Pemiscot counties in the Missouri Bootheel. In
addition to our farming operation, my family and I also own and operate
farm equipment dealerships in both Missouri and Arkansas.
I recently completed two terms on the board of the Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis. I also serve on several boards and committees for
farm organizations, including the USA Rice Federation.
Effects of Strong Farm Policy
As a producer who is involved in both production agriculture and as
an agribusiness supplier, I come to the table with a somewhat unique
perspective.
As a producer, I need long-term certainty in Federal farm policy
that will allow me to make business planning decisions on my farm. For
this reason, I believe it is imperative that Congress pass a 5 year
farm bill this year, not a short-term extension that leaves me in limbo
as to what policy will be in place. We are trying to grow our farm by
purchasing land when opportunities arise. We are trying to improve our
marketing options by expanding on-farm storage capacity so we can
better market our crops. These types of decisions require not only
long-term policy, but policy that will allow us to tailor our risk
management options to the needs of our farm.
As an agribusiness owner, I see firsthand the impact that
uncertainty and inadequate farm policy can have on producers when it
comes to their decisions about investing in new equipment for their
farms. Right now prices are decent for most of the crops in our area,
but we all know how cyclical commodity prices are, and every grower
needs a policy that will provide some downside price protection if (and
likely when) we see a steep decline in commodity prices. Without this
type of certainty, farmers, like any businessperson, will take steps to
minimize their exposure to risk, resulting in a pullback in investments
for their farm. This pullback starts first with their suppliers of
inputs (equipment, grain storage facilities, fertilizer) and then
begins to impact the majority of businesses in rural America. We've
seen this cycle play out over and over and I hope we will not repeat
the mistakes of the past by putting in place a farm policy that assumes
good prices are here to stay, and then we find out it is ill-equipped
to deal with the decline in prices that is sure to come.
Effective farm policy gives producers the confidence we need to
continue to invest in our farms and the confidence that lenders need to
extend the financing to producers to make these investments. During my
time on the Federal Reserve board, I saw the importance of not
hindering this access to credit.
2008 Farm Bill Review
The traditional mix of farm policies that were continued in the
2008 Farm Bill including the nonrecourse marketing loan, loan
deficiency payment, and countercyclical payments have not triggered for
most crops due to the current market price levels. Yet the cost of
inputs have increased in step with the rise in commodity prices so the
current levels of price protection afford very limited protection to
producers. However, I would note the importance of maintaining the
existing marketing loan which plays an important role in marketing of
our cotton and rice in particular.
As such, whatever its imperfections, the Direct Payment alone has
assisted producers in meeting the ongoing and serious price and
production risks of farming today.
Because the Direct Payment has been singled out for elimination in
the next farm bill, I believe that we must strengthen the remaining
policies in the 2012 Farm Bill to ensure that producers have the
ability to adequately manage their risks and access needed credit.
Crop Insurance
The current suite of risk management products offered through
Federal Crop Insurance has provided limited value to producers in the
Mid-South.
What farmers need from Federal crop insurance are products that
will help protect against increased production and input costs,
particularly for energy and energy-related inputs. Because crop
insurance does not cover the margin risk that some producers face, we
must work to develop a new generation of crop insurance products that
will provide more meaningful risk management tools that will aid in
protecting against sharp, upward spikes in input costs. I am aware that
the rice industry is currently pursuing development of such a product,
but it is important to stress that even if a new product is approved
this year, it takes several years to conduct a pilot to ensure the
policy is functioning properly. And it will be a long road to explain
the new product to producers and encourage evaluation of the policy,
particularly in areas like mine where we have not historically seen
high levels of participation in crop insurance. The bottom line is that
even if crop insurance is made effective one day for rice and other
crops currently under-served, insurance cannot replace the need for
farm policy under the farm bill for any crop.
Conservation
Conservation policies play an important role in production
agriculture by providing financial cost-share and technical assistance
to producers in their continual efforts to conserve water, soil, air,
and wildlife habitat. I support maintaining a strong conservation title
in the farm bill, in particular one that emphasizes working lands
conservation incentives, but not at the expense of the commodity
policies.
Voluntary, incentive-based, and science-based conservation
initiatives are needed, as is technical assistance. The Conservation
Security Program (CSP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are important working
lands initiatives that assist producers with protection of the
environment and conservation of natural resources and should be
reauthorized.
Rice producers in my area were some of the early participants in
the original CSP and we saw real benefits from this and the other
conservation initiatives.
I support the efforts undertaken last fall by the Agriculture
Committees to streamline and consolidate the conservation title as part
of the Select Committee process, and I urge you to continue with this
approach in developing the conservation title in the 2012 Farm Bill.
I would like to note that rice farming is one of the few commercial
enterprises that actually promotes wildlife habitat and improves
biological diversity.
Since the very nature of rice production requires that fields be
flooded for many months of the year, evidence shows unequivocally that
it plays a vital role in supporting common environmental goals, such as
protecting freshwater supplies and providing critical habitat for
hundreds of migratory bird species.
Without rice farming, wetland habitats in the United States would
be vastly reduced. A loss of this magnitude would have a disastrous
effect on waterfowl and a host of other wetland-dependent species.
The clear and positive benefits that commercial rice production has
for migratory birds and other wildlife species contribute not only to a
more interesting and diverse landscape, but also provide economic
benefits that support local economies and create jobs.
By providing an environment favorable to wildlife advancement, rice
production clearly generates positive benefits to the economy and
society.
Farm Bill 2012
Farm policy should be designed to support a strong and dynamic U.S.
agriculture sector.
As noted earlier, the 1996 Farm Bill's Direct Payments have
provided critical help to farmers in the Mid-South--offering capital
farmers could tailor to their unique needs.
However, given the pressure to move away from this policy to more
countercyclical policies, I support the following priorities:
The triggering mechanism for assistance should be updated to
provide tailored and reliable help should commodity prices
decline below today's production costs, and should include a
floor or reference price to protect in multi-year low price
scenarios.
Second, as payments would only be made in loss situations,
payment limits and means tests for producers should be
eliminated.
Third, Federal crop insurance should be improved to provide
more effective risk management for rice in all production
regions, beginning with the policy development process.
Price Protection Is Imperative
Given the price volatility for the crops I produce, and the fact
that most crops in my area are irrigated, most of the risk that I face
is on prices, not necessarily production. This is very true for my
rice, which is fully irrigated, but most of my others crops are
irrigated as well. To address this primary risk, I believe providing
effective levels of price support for all crops should be the central
focus of this farm bill, and honestly this is what farm policy has
historically been focused on and that should continue.
I hear some contend that a revenue-based policy with no reference
or floor price is the right approach to take in this farm bill and is
all that is needed when coupled with crop insurance. It seems to me
that this approach is flawed in several ways. First, this assumes that
crop insurance works equally well for all crop and regions, which I can
assure you is not the case today. Second, this assumes that we won't
face another 1998 through 2002 scenario where we have good commodity
prices that quickly fell to catastrophic levels dues to global factors.
Third, this assumes that if commodity prices fall then input costs will
decline in sync and proportional to the decline in prices. I have to
say that if history is any guide, then I believe all three of these
assumptions will prove wrong. And by not planning now for this type of
scenario, we are setting ourselves up for another situation where farm
policy will not be equipped to respond to this price decline. The
result will be a significant economic downturn in rural America,
followed by calls for Congress to provide additional economic
assistance in a time of large Federal budget deficits and debt.
In addition, what happens if the price of only one or two
commodities decline sharply? I can't imagine that input costs are going
to decline in this scenario, so producers of these crops are forced to
deal with a severely depressed price environment where our options are
to either stop producing all together, or shift into the other crops
with higher prices. This could have severe implications to the
infrastructure for the crops with depressed prices and reduced
production. We have seen this occur in some areas with both rice and
cotton infrastructure and I believe we can ill-afford a farm policy
that would not provide us with effective down side price protection to
forestall any further contraction of these industries.
For example, based on the farm bill process last fall, I believe
the reference price for rice should be increased to $13.98/cwt ($6.30/
bu). This level would more closely reflect the significant increases in
production costs for rice. And this reference price should be a
component of both the price-loss policy and the revenue-loss policy to
ensure downside price protection.
Producer Choice
In addition, there should be true options for producers that
recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach to farm policy does not
work effectively for all crops or even the same crop in different
production regions.
Here in the Mid-South where I farm, a price-based loss policy is
viewed as being most effective in meeting the risk management needs,
again largely due to our consistent production as a result of large
investments in irrigation infrastructure and being blessed with
adequate water resources. Specifically, this policy should include a
price protection level that is more relevant to current cost of
production; paid on planted acres or percentage of planted acres; paid
on more current yields; and take into account the lack of effective
crop insurance policies for many crops in my area.
Using rice as an example, this is a crop grown in a fairly limited
geographic area, yet there are distinctions between growing regions
that make a difference in what policy will work best for rice. In the
California production region, although the existing revenue-based
policy still does not provide effective risk management, efforts to
analyze modifications which will increase its effectiveness continue.
Since rice yields are highly correlated between the farm, county, crop
reporting district, and state levels, we believe the revenue plan
should be administered for rice at either the county or crop reporting
district level to reflect this situation rather than lowering guarantee
levels to use farm level yields. By setting loss triggers that reflect
local marketing conditions, delivering support sooner, and
strengthening revenue guarantees that account for higher production
costs as well as the absence of effective crop insurance, California
rice producers are hopeful that an effective revenue option can be
developed.
While I have focused on the need for a choice for rice producers in
different regions, this also applies for producers of most other
grains. I support having policy options available for corn, soybeans,
and wheat, which I produce, and believe that both a price-based policy
and a revenue-based policy should be offered as options for these
crops.
I indicated earlier that I am also a cotton producer. I want to
encourage the Committee to include the cotton industry's area wide,
risk management proposal in the new farm bill. It has been designed to
fit the new budget constraints, while providing a reasonable and
sustainable safety net for cotton producers. While it is certainly not
perfect and is not comparable to our current policy, it represents the
substantial reform necessary to provide a basis to resolve the
longstanding Brazil WTO case. It does fit the cotton industry's
situation far better than the revenue plans designed by Midwestern
interests for grains and oilseeds. And it preserves the marketing
assistance loan, with modifications, that is so important to our entire
industry. It is imperative that the Brazil case be resolved by the end
of 2012 to eliminate any possibility that Brazil will impose the
prohibitively high tariffs authorized by the WTO. Retaliation in the
form of high tariffs will disrupt U.S. exports and adversely impact
U.S. businesses across the board.
Bankability--SURE is not tailored to the multiple business risks
producers face. ACRE, while offering revenue-based protection, is
complicated by requiring two loss triggers; providing payments nearly 2
years after a loss; and provides no minimum price protection--it is not
bankable. For example, on farms I enrolled in the ACRE program I just
received this month the ACRE payments for the 2010 crop. This is not a
policy I can take to a lender and show that it will provide a
meaningful and timely safety net. The marketing loan and target prices
are plain and bankable--unfortunately the trigger prices are no longer
relevant to current costs and prices.
Defendable--It makes sense to provide assistance when factors
beyond the producer's control create losses for producers. I believe
that tailored farm policies are more defendable. For this reason,
updating bases and yields or applying farm policies to planted acres/
current production and their triggering based on prices or revenue,
depending on the option a producer chooses. However, policy choices
should not result in severe regional distortions in commodity policy
budget baselines from which reauthorized commodity policies must be
developed. Whatever is done should allow for proportional reductions to
the baseline among commodities.
Building a safety net to withstand multi-year low prices--Whether
in a revenue-based plan, or a price-based plan, reference prices should
protect producer income in a relevant way in the event of a series of
low price years. Ideally, this minimum could move upward over time
should production costs also increase, this being of particular concern
in the current regulatory environment.
No distortion of planting decisions--Any commodity specific farm
policy that is tied to planted acres must be designed with care so as
to not create scenarios that incentivize farmers to plant for a farm
policy. As I have followed the current farm bill debate since last
fall, I am amazed at some of the assertions about a price-based policy
distorting planting decisions and resulting in large acreage shifts.
The price levels that I understand were developed last year and how
they were factored based on acreage and yield percentages would have
meant they were well below our costs of production for all crops. This
idea that maintaining a price-based policy is somehow distorting, and
that a revenue-based policy that is based off historically high prices
is non-distorting is misleading.
Payment Limitations and Means Testing
I strongly oppose any further reduction in the payment limit and
adjusted gross income (AGI) levels provided under the current farm
bill. Payment limits have the negative effect of penalizing viable
commercial size, family farms the most when crop prices are the lowest
and support is the most critical. To be a viable farm, we must use
economies of scale to justify the large capital investment costs
associated with farming today. It is essential that producers maintain
eligibility for all production to the non-recourse loan. Arbitrarily
limiting payments results in farm sizes too small to be economically
viable, particularly for rice, cotton, and grain farms across the
Sunbelt. The current payment limit and AGI provisions have created
significant paperwork burdens and costs to producers to comply and
remain in compliance. As oppressive as these limits are, at a minimum
Congress should not make any further reductions or limits that further
penalize commercially viable farms.
2011 Efforts for Submission to the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction
I believe that the package prepared for recommendation for the
Budget Control Act of 2011 is a good framework on which to build the
2012 Farm Bill. The choice of risk management tools that producers can
tailor to the risks on their own farms, providing under each of those
options more meaningful price protection that is actually relevant to
today's production costs and prices. I appreciate the hard work of the
House and Senate Agriculture Committees and their staff to address the
budget constraints you are under, while working in a bicameral and
bipartisan fashion to achieve workable solutions for the farm bill.
Conclusion
Again, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to
offer my testimony this morning. I look forward to working with you and
your staff as we move forward in this process. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Combs.
Mr. Flowers, proceed when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BOWEN FLOWERS, Jr., COTTON, CORN, SOYBEAN,
WHEAT, AND RICE PRODUCER,
CLARKSDALE, MS
Mr. Flowers. First, I would l like to offer my thanks to
Chairman Frank Lucas and Members of the Committee for the
chance to provide input on the importance of an effective and
flexible farm policy. My thanks are also extended to
Congressman Rick Crawford for hosting today's hearing. My name
is Bowen Flowers and I operate a diversified family farm
partnership in and around Clarksdale, Mississippi, which is
about 150 miles south of Jonesboro. My crop mix includes
cotton, corn, soybean, wheat, and rice.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the daunting task facing this
Committee with the development of new farm legislation. Budget
pressures will mean addressing a broad array of interests and
priorities with less money. In my opinion, agriculture is
willing to take a proportionate contribution to deficit
reduction, but efforts to impose inequitable reductions on
agriculture should be strongly opposed.
With respect to production agriculture, I encourage this
Committee to take into consideration the diversity of
production practices, cost structures and risk profiles. A one-
size-fits-all farm program cannot address this diversity, and I
hope that the eventual farm bill will offer a range of programs
structured to address the needs of the different commodities
and production regions.
I also urge the Committee to complete the farm bill this
year, in advance of the expiration of the current legislation.
We need some certainty regarding farm programs as we look at
the long-term investments necessary to keep our farming
operations economically viable.
Although my operation has a diversified mix of crops, I
consider cotton my primary crop. As you are well aware, cotton
faces the additional challenge of resolving an ongoing trade
dispute with Brazil. In that dispute, a WTO panel found fault
with cotton's marketing loan and target price. In preparing for
the expedited farm bill debate, cotton producers had to make
some difficult policy decisions. To that end, the National
Cotton Council has proposed dramatic changes to upland cotton
programs by eliminating the target price and introducing a
formula that will allow the marketing loan to adjust lower in
times of low prices. In place of the target price as well as
the ACRE program and the direct payment, the cotton industry is
proposing a revenue-based insurance product that will address a
level of risks for which current insurance products do not
offer affordable options.
I strongly support the industry's proposal known as STAX,
and hope the Committee looks favorably on this option when
crafting the next farm bill. I commend the National Cotton
Council for developing this area-wide revenue-loss crop
insurance program. It should be noted since this is a crop
insurance program, producers would be required to pay part of
the cost of such coverage. Covering up to 95 percent of revenue
is especially important in my region, based on high cost of
inputs and thin margins. Several years of five percent or more
revenue losses would be economically devastating to my
operation.
While I am a diversified producer, it is important to note
that cotton production is the most single significant economic
driver in my area. It means jobs on the farm, in gins,
warehouses and through the production and processing cotton
cycle. The spin-off impact on rural communities in the Delta,
for input suppliers, equipment dealers, and others is also
significant. Even a moderately sized city such as Clarksdale is
very dependent on agriculture. Therefore, a viable cotton farm
policy is especially critical to our rural area.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to voice my concerns about
the efforts to further tighten payment limits or impose
arbitrary means tests. Effective farm policy must maximize
participation without regard to size or farm income.
In conclusion, I will touch briefly on two final points.
First, crop insurance is a critical tool for effective risk
management. I personally purchase crop insurance coverage on my
crops. With the STAX product, the cotton industry is proposing
to broaden the menu of insurance choices. I encourage all
existing products be maintained as well.
Second, conservation programs were strengthened in the 2008
Farm Bill, and I hope these programs will continue to provide
workable options for Mid-South farming operations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer these comments
and I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flowers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Bowen Flowers, Jr., Cotton, Corn,
Soybean, Wheat, and Rice Producer, Clarksdale, MS
First, I would like to offer my thanks to Chairman Frank Lucas,
Ranking Member Collin Peterson, and Members of the Committee for the
chance to provide input on the importance of an effective and flexible
farm policy. My thanks are also extended to Congressman Rick Crawford
for hosting today's hearing. My name is Bowen Flowers and I operate a
diversified family farm partnership in and around Clarksdale,
Mississippi, which is about 150 miles south of Jonesboro. My crop mix
includes cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the daunting task facing this Committee
with the development of new farm legislation. Budget pressures will
mean addressing a broad array of interests and priorities with less
money. In my opinion, agriculture is willing to make a proportionate
contribution to deficit reduction, but efforts to impose inequitable
reductions on agriculture should be strongly opposed.
With respect to production agriculture, I encourage this Committee
to take into consideration the diversity of production practices, costs
structures and risk profiles. A one-size-fits-all farm program cannot
address this diversity and I hope that the eventual farm bill will
offer a range of programs structured to address the needs of the
different commodities and production regions.
I also urge the Committee to complete the farm bill this year--in
advance of the expiration of the current legislation. We need some
certainty regarding farm programs as we look at the long-term
investments necessary to keep our farming operations economically
viable.
Although my operation has a diversified mix of crops, I consider
cotton my primary crop. As you are well aware, cotton faces the
additional challenge of resolving an ongoing trade dispute with Brazil.
In that dispute, a WTO panel found fault with cotton's marketing loan
and target price. In preparing for the expedited farm bill debate,
cotton producers had to make some difficult policy decisions. To that
end, the National Cotton Council has proposed dramatic changes to
upland cotton programs by eliminating the target price and introducing
a formula that will allow the marketing loan to adjust lower in times
of low prices. In place of the target price, as well as the ACRE
program and the direct payment, the cotton industry is proposing a
revenue-based insurance product that will address a level of risks for
which current insurance products do not offer affordable options.
I strongly support the industry's proposal, known as STAX, and hope
the Committee looks favorably on this option when crafting the next
farm bill. I commend the National Cotton Council for developing this
area-wide revenue-loss crop insurance program. It should be noted that
since this is a crop insurance program, producers would be required to
pay part of the cost of such coverage. Covering up to 95% of revenue is
especially important in my region based on high cost of inputs and thin
margins. Several years of 5-10% revenue losses would be economically
devastating to my operation.
While I am a diversified producer, it is important to note that
cotton production is the most significant economic driver in my area.
It means jobs on the farm, in gins, warehouses and on through the
production and processing cotton cycle. The spin-off impact on rural
communities in the Delta and other regions for input suppliers,
equipment dealers and others is also significant. Even a moderately-
sized city such as Clarksdale is very dependent upon agriculture.
Therefore a viable cotton farm policy is especially critical to our
rural economy.
As a cotton farmer, I understand that my ability to produce a crop
will be dependent on strong demand for my product. The U.S. cotton
industry sells both to domestic textile mills as will as international
mills, and both markets are extremely important. Fortunately, the 2008
Farm Bill included programs that benefit both markets.
In the case of U.S. textile mills, the 2008 farm law introduced the
Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. The program is a success story
that is revitalizing the U.S. textile manufacturing sector and adding
jobs to the U.S. economy. The program provides a payment to U.S.
textile manufacturers for all upland cotton consumed. The payment rate
from August 1, 2008 through July 31, 2012, is 4 cents per pound of
cotton used, and will be adjusted to 3 cents per pound beginning on
August 1, 2012. I encourage the continuation of this important program
in the new farm law.
In addition, the continuation of adequately funded export promotion
programs, including the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market
Development (FMD) Program, are important in an export-dependent
agricultural economy. Individual farmers and exporters do not have the
necessary resources to operate effective promotion programs which
maintain and expand markets--but the public-private partnerships
facilitated by the MAP and FMD programs, using a cost-share approach,
have proven highly effective and have the added advantage of being WTO-
compliant.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to voice my concerns about efforts
to further tighten payment limits or impose arbitrary means tests.
Effective farm policy must maximize participation without regard to
size or farm income. Artificially limiting benefits is a disincentive
to economic efficiency and undermines the ability to compete with
heavily subsidized foreign agricultural products. I appreciate the
pressures from some in Congress for even more restrictive limits, but I
would like to remind the Committee that the 2008 Farm Bill contained
significant changes with respect to payment limitations and payment
eligibility. In fact, the 2008 farm law included the most comprehensive
and far-reaching reform to payment limitations in 20 years. The
limitations were made more restrictive, and the adjusted gross income
test was substantially tightened. As part of the 2012 Farm Bill, I urge
this Committee to not impose any further restrictions on payment
eligibility including lower limits or income means tests.
In conclusion, I will touch briefly on two final points. First,
crop insurance is a critical tool for effective risk management. I
personally purchase crop insurance coverage on my crops. With the STAX
product, the cotton industry is proposing to broaden the menu of
insurance choices. I encourage all existing products be maintained as
well. Second, conservation programs were strengthened in the 2008 Farm
Bill, and I hope those programs will continue to provide workable
options for Mid-South farming operations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer these comments. I will
be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Flowers.
Mr. Burch, whenever you are ready to proceed.
STATEMENT OF TIM BURCH, COTTON AND PEANUT PRODUCER, BURCH
FARMS, NEWTON, GA
Mr. Burch. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. My name is Tim Burch. I am a native of Baker County,
Georgia which is located in the southwest part of the state. My
father, brother, and I run a diversified farming operation. We
have approximately 500 acres of peanuts, 1,500 acres of cotton
and 150 head of cattle. I have been farming for 37 years and
live on the farm of my grandparents. I serve on the Georgia
Peanut Commission and I am an alternate to the National Cotton
Council. I also am active in Georgia Farm Bureau.
It is critical that Congress pass a 5 year farm bill.
Farmers, agribusiness, and financial institutions need as much
certainty as possible in an industry that has a very large
number of variables impacting profits and losses.
When I began farming, the peanut industry was driven by a
Federal supply management peanut policy. In 2002, peanut
growers met with the House Agriculture Committee leadership and
asked the Committee to move our program policy from the peanut
quota program to a marketing loan type program. This marketing
loan program is what we have today. It has been very successful
for our industry. We support the current program as included in
the 2008 Farm Bill but we recognize that there is significant
effort to eliminate direct payments. All of our policy analyses
assume that direct payments are eliminated. For the last
several farm bills, peanut producers have relied on the
University of Georgia's National Center for Peanut
Competitiveness for farm policy economic analyses. The Center
has 22 U.S. representative peanut farms established and
maintained by the Center. As farm organizations, Members of the
House and Senate, as well as public institutions offered farm
policy concepts for the 2012 Farm Bill, the Center would
analyze each proposal, including multiple scenarios through the
22 U.S. representative farms dispersed throughout the peanut
belt.
What was evident with each of these alternative or revenue
type programs is that they did not work on the 22
representative farms. I recognize that some organizations
believe that a one-size-fits-all revenue program will work for
the U.S. agricultural economy. I do not agree. Our cost
structure and equipment needs alone are significantly different
than that of the Midwest and our peanut producers require very
specialized equipment. Why do these revenue proposals not work
for peanuts?
First of all, there is no consideration for irrigated
versus non-irrigated production practices. There are
significant yield differences for peanuts--at 1,100-1,400
pounds, based on Risk Management Agency's data and the U.S.
peanut representative farms. The Center's 2011 preliminary data
indicates that the yield differences could reach 3,000 pounds
and higher per acre in Georgia. National Agricultural
Statistics Service county yields do not separate out the
differences between irrigated and non-irrigated peanuts.
Second, there is no revenue insurance program for peanuts.
Third, peanuts do not have any source of predicted harvest
price.
Peanuts do not and will not have a futures market like
other row crops.
The Rotterdam price series with appropriate conversion
formula for peanuts is the best source. Our own U.S. Government
used the Rotterdam price series during the GATT trade
negotiations and the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service reports
that price series.
Utilizing NASS-CRD and NASS county yields will not work for
peanuts. None of the six Georgia representative farms analyzed
triggered on either the CRD criteria or the county level using
existing NASS yields. No CRD district that has one of the
Center's representative peanut farms outside of the Southeast
would trigger a payment. Peanuts have a greater variability of
yield within a county and CRD than any other crop excluding
cotton.
An Olympic average does not work to protect a farm from a
period of depressed prices or weather related depressed yields.
Given the 2011 peanut season, none of the non-irrigated
producers who had between no yield and 1,000 pounds would have
been helped by any of the proposed revenue proposals.
If we eliminate direct payments, what will work for the
peanut producers? After conferring with the Center over the
last 9 months, we believe producers need a policy choice to
manage risk, including revenue protection, price protection and
crop insurance. I support producers having a choice between a
countercyclical type program with a trigger price of $534 per
ton and a revenue program. The Center believes this target
price will serve as protection during periods of low prices.
USDA estimates that the market price for peanuts is over $1,200
per ton. I can assure you, just as any peanut producer or major
buyer of peanuts would, that $534 target price will not
increase peanut production or acreage. Please also note that we
have to rotate peanuts and if our rotation gets out of sync
then costs escalate and yields decline.
At the same time, peanut producers need a revenue program
that is a real viable choice for producers. This should include
a reference price of $534 per ton and a world market price
determined by the Rotterdam price analysis.
Mr. Chairman, you and other Members of the Committee were
successful in reforming payment limitation rules in the 2008
Farm Bill. Working with agricultural groups and Members of
Congress not on the Agriculture Committee, I believe the
reforms in the 2008 Farm Bill were equitable, and I ask that
the current adjusted gross income rules and payment limitation
restrictions be continued in the 2012 Farm Bill.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
the Committee today. You have a difficult task as you attempt
to reconcile a crisis in our Federal budget while assuring that
America has an adequate and safe food supply.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Burch, Cotton and Peanut Producer, Burch
Farms, Newton, GA
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is
Tim Burch. I am a native of Baker County, Georgia which is located in
the southwest part of the state. My father, brother and I run a
diversified farming organization. We have approximately 500 acres of
peanuts, 1,500 acres of cotton and 150 head of cattle. I have been a
farmer for 37 years and live on the farms of grandparents. We are a
family farm with a long, proud history. In addition, I am involved in a
cotton gin and warehouse as well as a peanut buying point, warehouse
and peanut shelling facility with 87 other growers in Georgia. Our
agribusiness was founded on the principle that family farmers had to
join together to market their products in order to have a future.
I serve on the Georgia Peanut Commission and am an alternate to the
National Cotton Council. I also am active with the Georgia Farm Bureau.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on The Future of U.S.
Farm Policy: Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill. Our family's livelihood
is based on agriculture and farm policy.
It is critical that Congress pass a 5 year farm bill. Farmers,
agribusinesses and financial institutions need as much certainty as
possible in an industry that has a very large number of variables
impacting profits and losses. A 5 year farm bill allows all segments of
agriculture the opportunity to achieve the economic impact that all of
us desire.
When I began farming, the peanut industry was driven by a Federal
supply-management peanut policy. In 2002, peanut growers met with the
House Agriculture Committee leadership and asked the Committee to move
our program policy from the peanut quota program to a marketing loan
type program. This marketing loan program is what we have today. It has
been very successful for our industry. We support the current program
as included in the 2008 Farm Bill but we recognize that there is a
significant effort to eliminate direct payments. All of our policy
analyses assume that direct payments are eliminated. For the last
several farm bills, peanut producers have relied on the University of
Georgia's National Center for Peanut Competitiveness (Center) for farm
policy economic analyses. The Center has 22 U.S. Representative Peanut
Farms established and maintained by the Center. As farm organizations,
Members of the House and Senate as well as public institutions offered
farm policy concepts for the 2012 Farm Bill, the Center would analyze
each proposal, including multiple scenarios through the 22 U.S.
Representative Farms dispersed throughout the peanut belt.
What was evident with each of these alternative or revenue type
programs is that they did not work on the 22 Representative Farms. I
recognize that some organizations believe that a one size fits all
revenue program will work for the U.S. agricultural economy. I do not
agree. Our cost structure and equipment needs alone are significantly
different than the Midwest with our peanut producers requiring very
specialized equipment. Why don't these revenue proposals work for
peanuts?
There is No Consideration for irrigated versus non-irrigated
production practices. There are significant yield differences
for peanuts--at least 1,100-1,400 lbs.--based on Risk
Management Agency (RMA) data and the U.S. Peanut Representative
Farms. The Center's 2011 preliminary data indicate that the
yield differences could reach 3,000 lbs. and higher per acre in
Georgia. National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS)
county yields do not separate out the differences between
irrigated and non-irrigated peanuts.
There is NO revenue insurance program for peanuts--all
proposals use revenue insurance as the core part of their
program where a producer is covered at the 65-85% level.
Peanuts had a GRIP yield insurance program but no peanut
farmers used it so RMA has discontinued the program. This
implies county yield based programs do not work for peanuts.
Peanuts do not have any source for a predicted harvest
price.
Peanuts DO NOT and WILL NOT HAVE A FUTURES MARKET like other
row crops. Multiple land-grant university studies and efforts
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture have all concluded that a
futures market is not an option for peanuts.
The Rotterdam price series with appropriate conversion
formula for peanuts is the best source. Our own U.S. Government
used the Rotterdam price series during the GATT trade
negotiations and the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service reports
that price series.
Utilizing NASS-CRD and NASS-County yields WILL NOT work for
peanuts. None of the six Georgia Representative Farms analyzed
trigger on either the CRD criteria or the county level using
existing NASS yields. No CRD district that has one of the
Center's Representative Peanut Farms outside the Southeast
would trigger a payment. Peanuts have a greater variability of
yields within a county and CRD than other row crops excluding
cotton.
An Olympic average does not protect a farm from a period of
depressed prices or weather related depressed yields.
Given the 2011 peanut season, none of the non-irrigated
producers who had between no yields to 1,000 lbs would have
been helped by any of the proposed revenue proposals.
If we eliminate direct payments, what will work for peanut
producers? After conferring with the Center over the last 9 months, we
believe producers need a policy choice to manage risk--Revenue
Protection, Price Protection and Crop Insurance. I support producers
having a choice between a countercyclical type program with a target
price of $534 per ton and a revenue program. The Center believes this
target price will serve as protection during periods of low prices.
USDA estimates that the market price for peanuts is over $1,200 per
ton. I can assure you, just as any peanut producer or major buyer of
peanuts would, that a $534 per ton target price WILL NOT increase
peanut production or acreage. Please also note that we have to rotate
peanuts and if our rotation gets out of sync then costs escalate and
yields decline.
At the same time, peanut producers need a revenue program that is a
real, substantive choice for producers. This should include a Reference
Price of $534 per ton and a world market price determined by a
Rotterdam price analysis.
In addition, to Producer Choice, our growers must have access to a
full range of workable and useful crop insurance products in order to
compete for acreage. Working toward these goals, the nation's peanut
farmers came together 2\1/2\ years ago to begin work with private
industry and RMA to develop a viable insurance program for peanuts.
This new program proposal is very much like the successful revenue
insurance policies for cotton and corn as well as several other crops.
This new peanut policy would take a farmers average production history
and let the farmer insure a percentage of it according to what the
farmer needs to have guaranteed. This part is not changed from the
present program, but what is different is that the farmer will be
assured to receive what the peanuts are actually worth if he has a
shortfall in production and not some arbitrary amount set in stone
months before planting time. The farmer will receive payment on what
the peanuts are worth at a certain period of time during the year, so
farmers know whether they can afford to plant. It is critical that we
have the support of RMA and the House Agriculture Committee to get the
peanut crop insurance program viably priced and implemented in 2013. I
would hope that the changes Congress makes for crop insurance, in the
2012 Farm Bill, would be to improve the programs and not harm crop
insurance products.
I indicated earlier that I am also a cotton producer. I want to
encourage the Committee to include the cotton industry's area wide,
risk management program in the new farm bill. It has been designed to
fit the new budget constraints, while providing a reasonable and
sustainable safety net for cotton producers. While it is certainly not
perfect and is not comparable to our current program, it represents the
substantial reform necessary to provide a basis to resolve the long-
standing Brazil WTO case. It does fit the cotton industry's situation
far better than the revenue plans designed by Midwestern interests for
grains and oilseeds, and it preserves the marketing assistance loan,
with modifications, that is so important to our entire industry. It is
imperative that the Brazil case be resolved by the end of 2012 to
eliminate any possibility that Brazil will impose the prohibitively
high tariffs authorized by the WTO. Retaliation in the form of high
tariffs will disrupt U.S. exports and adversely impact U.S. businesses
across the board.
Mr. Chairman, you and other Members of the Committee were
successful in reforming payment limitation rules in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Working with agricultural groups and Members of Congress not on the
Agriculture Committee, I believe the reforms in the 2008 Farm Bill were
equitable. I ask that the current adjusted gross income rules and
payment limitation restrictions be continued in the 2012 Farm bill.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
Committee today. You have difficult task before you as you attempt to
reconcile a crisis in our Federal budget while assuring that Americans
have an adequate, safe food supply.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Burch.
And for any of you in the audience who ever thought you
wanted to be a witness, now comes the fun part--you get to
answer questions from the Committee. With that, I recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brantley, some have suggested that using a reference
price established in law would result in producers planting for
the government program. Those same folks suggest that a 5 year
Olympic average price in a revenue program has no impact on
current planting decisions.
Can you elaborate on the factors you consider when you make
your cropping decisions and the role that reference prices
would play in those decisions?
Mr. Brantley. The role of the reference price as I see it,
or the view that I see that I looked at last fall, determining
whether we would grow more acres than is sustainable here in
Arkansas, is just not feasible. The $13.98 target price, that
figure that was given to us last fall, in all reality, you have
to look at it on a whole-farm basis, 85 percent times your
countercyclical yield, which in Arkansas is about 70 percent of
your normal yield, is well below the cost of production. So
those that say the target price reference price in that area,
the $13.98, would increase production are just, in my opinion,
dead wrong. Our true cost of production is in the $14.00 range.
If you average that across all the U.S., the Olympic average,
if commodity prices were high for a long time and then prices
fell, yes, that would work. But what if it is the other way
around.
I can see the Olympic averages creating more acres than the
target price.
The Chairman. So the goose should always be careful when
talking about the gander, huh?
Mr. Veach, I understand that Arkansas Farm Bureau recently
made a decision to dissent from the American Farm Bureau
policy. Can you talk about some of the reasons that the
Arkansas Farm Bureau determined it could not support the SSRP
proposal? And to your knowledge, along with that, is the
Arkansas Farm Bureau the only state that disagreed with this
approach?
Mr. Veach. Yes. The SSRP program is a deep loss crop
insurance program that triggers on regions. And that just
really does not work, especially for some of our commodities
here in Arkansas. We wanted the opportunity to speak to this
Committee and to our Congressional delegation on what we feel
like is a more workable plan for Arkansas agriculture, taking
into consideration those regional and commodity differences.
And to do that, it was for us to dissent from the American Farm
Bureau policy that is supporting the deep loss regional trigger
approach. And so we feel like that we need a more diverse type
of farm bill that will take into consideration these regional
and commodity differences.
Now we did not take that lightly. We deliberated on that
for a good long while, but we felt like it was extremely
important, for us to represent the producers in our state, that
we would dissent from that program.
The Chairman. Fair enough.
Mr. Combs, regarding the package the Committee developed
last fall, I remember reading an article where it was suggested
that a price option would cause rice acres in this country to
explode by 5 or 10 million acres. Do you agree with that
assessment? And why?
Mr. Combs. I think that article was put out by people
talking from their position and that was a different commodity
and, no, it is not going to result in an explosion. Like Mr.
Brantley pointed out, the plan that you had put forward, the
Committee put forward, only offered that price protection on 85
percent of your planted acres and then on historic yields. So,
farming is a lot--and the machinery business--if it was easy,
everybody would be doing it. And that is not the case with this
program.
The Chairman. Fair enough.
Mr. Burch, based on the analysis that the peanut industry
has done through the University of Georgia, could you discuss
if a revenue type shallow loss program would work for peanuts?
Mr. Burch. No, sir, it would not, on the fact that it does
not distinguish between irrigated and non-irrigated. There is
such a variability. On my own farm this past year, I had as
good an irrigated yield as I have ever had at an additional
cost. There was a 3,200 pound yield difference between my
irrigated and dryland crop this year. So not taking that into
consideration, it would not work.
The Chairman. Fair enough.
Mr. Flowers, my last question, my time is about to expire.
Did I understand you basically to say that commodity title
resources should follow production? That is a pretty amazing
concept for some of the folks that we serve with back East to
understand.
Mr. Flowers. We had a lot of hard decisions to make, since
cotton was kind of pointed out in the Brazil case, the target
prices were pointed out in the case and the marketing loans.
That is the reason we kind of came up with the STAX program to
take care of that situation.
The Chairman. I just could not help but note what I
understood your comment to be, resources should follow the
production. There are a lot of folks we serve with who want to
use the farm bill to do everything imaginable in the way of
directing resources. We will talk about that again in a moment.
My time has expired. I now turn to the gentleman from
Texas, who actually has fewer trees than I have in the 3rd
District of Oklahoma. Mr. Neugebauer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. I appreciate Mr. Crawford encouraging the
Committee to come to Arkansas, he is a great Member and I am
enjoying serving with him. We appreciate you all sending him to
help us do some great work for our country.
You know, one of the things since I have been in Congress,
this is my fifth term, I have been working a lot on crop
insurance. In fact, in the 2008 Farm Bill, we had a concept
that we had approved and passed out of our Committee.
Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, decided to
take that out of the farm bill. But I have reintroduced what is
called the Crop Risk Options Plan Act of 2011 and some of you
may or may not have seen that. And basically it talks about
taking a GRP or a GRIP policy and putting it on top of a multi-
peril to give producers some flexibility. Because one of things
I know, as Mr. Brantley pointed out, farming today is big
business. And in order to be competitive in the global economy,
unfortunately, it is more and more difficult for smaller
producers to do that. And so as you get into these large
operations, very diverse, it takes more and more capital and
more and more loans to do that. In order to make those
businesses viable, we need a very strong and effective crop
insurance, risk management for our producers.
One of the things that I think is an important part of that
is having the flexibility. For example, talking about the
regional trigger, the trigger for my crop bill is a county
trigger, which we think is more reflective of the conditions,
and not the region. Depending on how you draw geographical
regions, the ability to have different conditions within those
regions is very probable. Generally in a county, I think it is
easier to be more reflective.
One of the things I wanted to talk about, because we keep
hearing the price, some kind of a price protection, yield
protection, within these risk management policies. One of the
things we are going to be faced with is we are going to be
given a certain amount of money, our Committee is, to craft a
farm policy. So what I want to do is leave as much flexibility
in there. So one of the things I wanted to ask you to comment
on is when we look at being able to add some additional
features to this, obviously that increases the scoring. So
should we make, for example, some of these things options
instead of a mandatory part of the policy. So if a producer
wanted to buy price protection, for example, he could choose--
he or she could choose to do that or not. And that would impact
the cost of the policy, and the same way with some additional
yield protection. Should that be something that we are thinking
about or considering as we begin to look at the crop insurance?
And what is your feeling about, for example, having a county
trigger?
Mr. Brantley.
Mr. Brantley. I believe an option is exactly what we are
asking for, I think all of us would agree here at this panel.
An option of a price over revenue is exactly what we need.
Help me here, Mr. Combs, if you do not mind.
Mr. Combs. Well, we would like the price protection and
then also our industry is trying to develop a formula that
would also offer input cost protection. And it would be--and
the more options you can have on it, in theory, the lower it
should score. I mean if the producer wanted that level of
coverage, they should be able to purchase it. But we have to
have the help of RMA to get these policies approved. You know,
we have been beating our head against the wall for 4 years and
we had two concepts and we still have not gotten them approved.
Mr. Neugebauer. That is one of my frustrations as well. The
thing about what we set out to do with our bill was to take
existing products so we did not have to go out in the field and
test those. So it is basically just giving them the authority
to take existing products basically and combine those.
So, when you start talking about those options, obviously
it increases the cost of those, but when I look around this
table we see a lot of folks that have different commodities.
And so what we want to be able to do is allow you to determine,
for those particular commodities, what is the best option for
you. And not necessarily tie you into one policy to try to
manage the total farm operation.
Mr. Combs. I understand that, but existing crop insurance
products have not been successful in the rice industry. That is
the point that we would drive home.
Mr. Neugebauer. Those are the changes that I think we are
going to need to look at. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Veach, I want to direct my first question to you. As a
result of budget cutting and political environment and the
Brazilian WTO case against cotton, the cotton industry came up
with the STAX plan to serve as a primary risk management tool
for cotton growers. Can you give some detail as to whether this
type of coverage would work for Arkansas cotton producers?
Mr. Veach. I think that the STAX program, for a lot of the
cotton industry, cotton producing areas, would work very well.
And it would work in Arkansas as well, but I think with the
amount of irrigation that we have and how we mitigate that risk
in irrigation, that we need a little more protection in price.
I think that one of the best ways of doing that is if we have
these options. It has to be a viable option, and I think that
producers could decide if that program is the one that works
best for them, or if more of a price-based type program would
work better for them. I think those options have to be very
viable options. It cannot be just an option. It has to be one
that really provides a safety net. If we have options to
provide a safety net, then we have the opportunity to pick
which one of those works best for that particular commodity on
that particular type farmer's ground.
I think that we are not looking at great diversity in
programs. I do not think we can have a whole large assortment
of programs to pick from, but I think that we can--if the
Committee can come to some--where that we can have very viable
options, a couple, two or three, that producers can use the
choice to do that.
But I think the STAX program works very well for a lot of
producers, but some maybe would rather have more price
protection.
Mr. Crawford. Each of the witnesses gave some comments
about crop insurance and particularly as it applied to rice and
some specific issues there. I want to switch gears just a
little bit and talk about conservation.
And I will kind of direct this to each of you, but I will
start with Mr. Brantley. This Committee is going to need to
take a serious look at lowering the acreage cap with the CRP
and also deciding the future purpose of the program. Given the
increased demand for grain, high crop prices, and increasing
land values, what do you see as the future role of CRP and what
changes would you like to see in the program?
Mr. Brantley. I do not participate in the CRP program, so
to suggest changes, I do not know that I can answer that. But
conservation programs are very important to me and my family on
our farm, EQIP being the number one program. Water, we talk
about irrigation here on this panel, water storage is critical
for a rice crop here in Arkansas, so the EQIP program, I think
for me, should be first and foremost when we talk about
conservation programs. I do realize CRP is a big part of
conservation, plays a very important role. But I could not make
any recommendations today.
Mr. Crawford. Mr. Combs.
Mr. Combs. I share Dow's thoughts. I mean our farms
participate in EQIP and the Conservation Security Program and
the Migratory Bird Habitat Program and WRP. So we are in four
conservation programs and I think they are very important for
both our farms for conservation and then for other stakeholders
in the country, because they provide benefits for water fowl
and wildlife and other things.
But CRP is not a big deal in the Delta and so I feel more
confident to comment on these programs than I would be on the
CRP.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. And the reason I used CRP as an
example, just strictly as an example, it has just been around
for what, 25 years now, and so in general terms----
Mr. Combs. It is a big deal to a lot of people, it is just
not on--we are pretty tied to the NRCS office in our county,
but we are just not as much on CRP.
Mr. Crawford. Mr. Flowers, any input on that?
Mr. Flowers. CRP has been a good product in the Mississippi
Delta. There has been a lot of land going into CRP and WRP.
Like everybody else, we are 80 percent irrigated and a lot of
the land that is not irrigated has been put in CRP for
wildlife. Something I would like to see, we are starting to
have some water issues and we want to conserve our water for
future generations and one thing I would like to see is maybe
developing a CRP program where we could impound water and use
that for irrigation.
Mr. Crawford. Okay.
Mr. Flowers. EQIP has been very important to our area also.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent. Mr. Burch, last word on that.
Mr. Burch. I just do not see CRP as being critically
important in a time that we are needing to maximize our
production to feed this world.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now turns to the gentleman from Indiana for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
each of you for being here today.
Being a fourth generation farmer from Indiana, it is great
to sit here and listen to you all and your stories and your
experiences. And I believe that we in agriculture have a great
opportunity to lead in our nation's capital. And I appreciate
the Chairman's leadership on leading in the negotiations last
year with the Committee, the super committee, that was designed
to fix our country's problems, which I believe the Chairman did
the right thing in putting a bill together and crafting a bill
and being prepared. That is what farmers do, we are always
prepared for the worst and we are always trying to be prepared
for the best as well. But we focus on the worst probably more
than anything.
I have just a couple of questions, and really for any of
you, because you are--two of you are from Arkansas and the
others from other parts of the South here. You know, being a
farmer, I remember going into the bank with my father and I
always hated sitting on the farmer's side of the desk. I always
wanted to be on the banker's side. Well, today, I would rather
be on the farmer's side. The bankers, they have kind of taken
it on the chin lately.
Has credit availability changed for you all and how have
your experiences been with access to credit and the experiences
that you have. And what you may see with your neighbors around
your communities and the challenges, what experiences are
people facing right now in your communities.
Maybe we can start with Mr. Burch and just go right down
the line.
Mr. Burch. Well, in my area it is pretty much like I am
sure it is all over the United States, the people that do not
need to borrow have ready access to money. And the people that
need it are having trouble getting it. So it just depends on
your collateral situation. It is very tight for people that
have marginal operations.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Flowers.
Mr. Flowers. I am a director on a bank and it is really
important for us, we would like to see some kind of crop
insurance that the farmers in our area can afford and take
advantage of. I know the banks want to make sure that they have
pretty good collateral and stuff. Our problem is we do not have
the deep losses, but the losses between the deep losses and
what it actually costs to produce is where we have our
problems. So that is kind of what we look at. So that would be
very helpful if we had some kind of coverage that would take
care of that.
Mr. Combs. Typically in agriculture, credit is available
when times are good. And that is what we are seeing now. And
so, credit will tighten up when the prices decline and that is
why the farm bill is so important, because when credit does
tighten up, we need protections that can be offered in farm
policy in order to ensure that that credit still flows. I am
not saying that there is no lack of credit right now, because
there could be in individual cases, but everybody is wanting to
lend money to farmers today, compared to the late 1990s.
Mr. Veach. I think that if direct payments are done away
with, it is going to affect the lending quite a bit, especially
loans to rice producers and cotton producers in the fact that
you are going to lose what is a guarantee up front, but you are
going to have a certain amount of dollars coming in on that
operation. And those producers will have to be able to show
through their cash flow and the collateral that they can pay
that loan back without that direct payment. And that computes
out to $100 an acre or so for rice and $30 and $40 an acre on
cotton. And if you compute that out in rice in the State of
Arkansas on actual planted acres, you are looking at probably
at least close to $50 an acre now that you are going to have to
show to your lender that you can get by without that. And that
is going to be a big factor in getting loans.
Mr. Brantley. I would echo Mr. Veach's comments. The loss
of direct payments will make it very difficult. One thing to
note is how important our community banks are versus our larger
banks. The community banks understand us, they know us well,
they know farming, they know the risks. It is vitally important
that we keep those community banks in our neighborhoods and
keep them around versus large corporate banks who just strictly
look at the number and not necessarily a name or understand the
risk.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Brantley, real quick, we have the warning
light here, but could you give us a quick example. Rice seems
to be the one that you are most concerned about, across the
table here, about protection. Is that right? Cotton, Mr.
Flowers mentioned cotton as well. I mean, do you think there is
room for us focusing on those two particular crops? Do the
other crops need the direct payment program behind them?
Mr. Brantley. Rice is the most important on our farm. Yes,
I think direct payment would fit my farm best for all crops,
but rice being the most important because it is the most
politically traded commodity in the world, compared to the
other commodities.
Mr. Stutzman. Right. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair will yield to the gentleman from
Indiana 30 seconds, and would the gentleman yield to the
Chairman?
Mr. Stutzman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Flowers, you said you are on the board of
directors of a bank. My bankers tell me in Oklahoma, and I
assume it is the same across the country, that they are in a
more rigorous period of examination by the bank examiners. Long
gone are the days when it was just a simple process. It is now
a really horrendous process and that in every farmer's loan
file, not only do you have copies of participation in the farm
bill, but you also have to have all your crop insurance records
and all those things to prove that you are covering all your
bases. Is that your observation?
Mr. Flowers. That is definitely, we are going through more
and more rigorous examinations in the bank. First thing we look
at is what the direct payments are, what crops have you already
sold and what kind of insurance you have.
The Chairman. So it does not necessarily matter how great
your record is and how much confidence your banker has in you.
If he or she does not have all of those records in your file to
show the examiner, then the examiner comes down on the loan
officer, which causes complications. So for a variety of
reasons, these tools are absolutely necessities. Correct, sir?
Mr. Flowers. That is correct. The days of just knowing who
you are dealing with are over. You have to have everything
documented and every ``i'' dotted and crossed every ``t''. You
are correct.
The Chairman. Absolutely. Any additional questions for this
panel?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Seeing no additional questions from the
Committee for the panel, I would like to thank you for your
insights and your expertise. And you are dismissed, gentlemen.
As they are stepping away from the table and our next group
of witnesses in panel two are preparing to come forward, I
would like to introduce them. Mr. David C. Hundley, rice, corn,
soybean producer, Jonesboro, Arkansas; Mr. Mike Freeze,
aquaculture producer, Keo Fish Farm, Keo, Arkansas; Mr. Dan
Stewart, cow/calf producer, Mountain View, Arkansas; Mr. John
E. Owen, rice, soybean, corn, and cotton producer, John and
Annie Owen Farms, Rayville, Louisiana; and Mr. Walter Corcoran,
Jr., cotton, corn, peanut, soybean, grain sorghum, and cow/calf
producer, Eufaula, Alabama.
As they are setting up, once again, I thank the previous
panel for those very thoughtful statements and very insightful
answers to our questions. That is what this is all about.
Swing that microphone around towards you there, Mr.
Hundley, and whenever you are ready, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID C. HUNDLEY, RICE, CORN, AND SOYBEAN
PRODUCER, JONESBORO, AR
Mr. Hundley. Chairman Lucas, Congressman Crawford, and
other Members of the Committee and guests, my name is David
Hundley. I am a producer from Bay, Arkansas and I am also the
general manager for JHM, Inc., a third generation diversified
agricultural business that includes a cotton gin and a grain
elevator located in the First District. Thank you for holding
this hearing at my alma mater, Arkansas State University and in
the First Congressional District of the great State of
Arkansas, and for this opportunity to testify before you
regarding farm policy issues.
According to a recent study released by the University of
Arkansas, agriculture is the single largest industry in the
State of Arkansas, and the First Congressional District is by
far the most diverse in the state with several different
diverse crops being produced here, all contributing over $17
billion of value added to the Arkansas economy. That is
17 cents of every dollar that is generated in Arkansas of value
added. The contribution of the agriculture sector as a
percentage of GDP in Arkansas is greater than in any other
contiguous state, as well as the average for the Southeast
region of the United States. The Arkansas agriculture sector,
as a percentage of GDP is 10.73 percent and Arkansas is in the
top ten states in the production of ten agricultural
commodities.
An economically viable agriculture is essential for the
United States of America to remain the greatest country in the
world. The farm bill should be written for the good of the
country and not for the purpose of garnering votes for re-
election. In my opinion, we need smart policy that meets the
following criteria:
The 2012 Farm Bill should recognize the contribution of the
American farmer and work to preserve the farmer and farm family
by providing tools to manage risk, access credit, and ensure
the ability to create and maintain our farming population.
Farm programs should not favor the production of one
commodity over another. Farm programs should work for all
commodities and protect farmers against the unique risks
associated with each commodity and various methods of
production, such as irrigated production.
Farm programs should be fair and available to all producers
regardless of size, commodity grown, income, or business
structure. Means testing is not a fair or effective policy.
Setting such tests would be detrimental to the family farms of
Arkansas.
The farm bill should help farmers deal with the myriad
regulations that they currently face from multiple government
agencies. Many existing regulations put American producers at a
disadvantage to their foreign counterparts. On environmental
issues, farmers are land stewards that should be recognized for
their efforts to preserve the land for production and
conservation. Incentives to preserve the land work.
Congress should recognize that farmers receive very little
funding when compared to the nutrition components of the farm
bill. Any increase in funding for nutrition programs should not
be offset by cutting programs dedicated to American farmers. We
cannot bite the hand that feeds us.
Risk management tools should be uniquely tailored for each
crop. A one-size-fits-all program will not work, especially in
this region of the country. We need risk management tools for
protection against all risk including yield loss, price
declines, and input cost spikes. Without such a safety net,
lenders will not be willing to risk capital and credit will not
be available for farmers to operate.
Today, I am respectfully asking that we lay aside partisan
politics and engage the great base of knowledge and skills
possessed by the American farmer to craft a sound farm policy
that is based on real economic principles. While most farmers
are supportive of the current farm bill commodity programs, it
is clear that Congress wants to transition to a new safety net
risk management approach and away from direct payments,
regardless of the underlying commodity price. We need a new
safety net risk management approach. I believe the safety net
programs, including the direct payment program should be tied
to actual production costs of in-year production. Safety nets
should offer less in the good years and more in the lean years.
It needs to be a program that promotes efficiency to growing
progressive farmers, while not ignoring small family farms who
garner that same efficiency by engaging the entire family and
utilizing off-farm income. We are all American farmers and
neither should be admonished or admired through class warfare
more or less than the next.
In summary, the producers and citizens of Arkansas require
a strong agriculture industry to provide for their existence
and to contribute to the strength of American agriculture. I
believe that the entire country would be better served if the
base of knowledge and skills of the American farmer were
engaged in a serious discussion about the best ways to
construct a new out-of-the-box approach to really sound farm
policy. Their very existence today versus the opportunities
that Mother Nature provides on an annual basis is testament to
our ability to constantly adapt on a minute's notice. The
greatest threat today remains the monopolization of all the
industries that we as farmers rely on to purchase our daily
inputs. These monopolies have the ability to reduce their per
unit cost while at the same time the general public calls for
American agriculture to remain small family farmers.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my honor to be part of this
discussion and I want to thank you for holding this hearing in
the First Congressional District of the great State of
Arkansas.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hundley follows:]
Prepared Statement of David C. Hundley, Rice, Corn, and Soybean
Producer, Jonesboro, AR
Chairman Lucas, Congressman Crawford, other Members of the
Committee and guests, my name is David Hundley. I am a producer from
Bay, Arkansas and I am also the General Manager for JHM, Inc. a third
generation diversified agricultural business that includes a cotton gin
and grain elevator located in the First District. Thank you for hosting
this hearing in the First Congressional District of the Great State of
Arkansas, and for the opportunity to testify before you regarding farm
policy issues at my Alma Mater--Arkansas State University.
According to a recent study released by the University of Arkansas,
Agriculture is the single largest industry in the State of Arkansas and
the First Congressional District is by far the most diverse in the
state with cotton, grain, poultry, catfish, baitfish, livestock, sweet
potatoes and forest products all contributing over $17 billion of value
added to the Arkansas economy. That is 17 of every dollar generated in
Arkansas of value added. Arkansas agriculture provides 275,435 jobs
which is one in six of all jobs. The contribution of agriculture sector
as a percentage of GDP in Arkansas is greater than in any contiguous
state as well as the average for the Southeast region of the United
States. The Arkansas Agriculture sector as a percentage of GDP is
10.37%. Arkansas is in the top ten states in the production of ten
agricultural commodities.
Arkansas agriculture is responsible for generating jobs in all 20
industries in the North American Industry Classification System used
for economic analysis. Employment in the top five NAICS industries
total 197,599 jobs which accounts for 72% of all jobs in Arkansas being
generated by agriculture. The value being generated in these top five
industries total $12,274 Million. I believe it is obvious that
Agriculture is vital to the Great State of Arkansas as well as the
United States of America and it is imperative that the integrity this
industry is preserved with sound Farm Policy as there has never been a
great nation without a strong and sound agriculture sector.
An economically viable agriculture is essential for the United
States of America to remain as the greatest country in the world. In my
opinion, we need smart policy that meets the following criteria.
1. The 2012 Farm Bill should recognize the contribution of the
American farmer and work to preserve the farmer and farm family
by providing tools to manage risk, access credit, and ensure
the ability to create and maintain our farming population.
2. Farm programs should not favor the production of one commodity
over another. Farm programs should work for all commodities and
protect farmers against the unique risks associated with each
commodity and various methods of production, such as irrigated
production.
3. Farm programs should be fair and available to all producers
regardless of size, commodity grown, income, or business
structure. Means testing is not fair or effective policy.
Setting such tests would be detrimental to the family farms in
Arkansas.
4. The farm bill should help farmers deal with the myriad of
regulations that they currently face from multiple government
agencies. Many existing regulation put American producers at a
disadvantage to their foreign counterparts. On environmental
issues, farmers are land stewards and should be recognized for
their efforts to preserve the land for production and
conservation. Incentives to preserve land work.
5. Congress should recognize that farmers receive very little
funding when compared to the Nutrition components of the farm
bill. Any increase in funding for nutrition programs should not
be offset by cutting programs dedicated to American farmers. We
cannot bite the hand that feeds us.
6. Risk management tools should be uniquely tailored for each crop.
A one size fits all program will not work, especially in this
region of the country. We need risk management tools for
protection against all risks including yield loss, price
declines, revenue declines, and input cost spikes. Without such
a safety net, lenders will not be willing to risk capital and
credit will not be available for farmers to operate.
America today is made up of largely urban society and these urban
born, urban raised citizens take their daily food & fiber for granted.
Most of these same urbanites take the American Agricultural system for
granted and spend countless dollars fighting to over regulate and
destroy the same system that sustains their daily existence. While the
average American spends less of their disposable income than many other
developed countries on an excellent and ample supply of food they do
not understand that a 60 pound bushel of wheat that is worth $6 to an
American Farmer makes approximately 100 loaves of bread which sell for
an average of $3 per loaf. The American Media's misconception that a $1
bushel rise in the price of wheat causes bread to increase in price by
50% cannot be part of the policy process. Can this person be involved
or effective in creating a sustainable viable agriculture policy? The
average cost of the newest John Deere cotton harvester is over
$600,000. A farmer that needs to add an additional harvester should not
have to navigate a myriad of USDA regulations to justify its existence.
Today I am respectfully asking that we lay aside partisan politics
and engage the great base of knowledge and skills possessed by the
American Farmer to craft a sound Farm Policy that is based on real
economic principles. While most farmers are supportive of the current
farm bill commodity programs, it's clear that Congress wants to
transition to a new safety net risk management approach and away from
direct payments regardless of the underlying commodity price. I believe
safety net programs, including the direct payment program should be
tied to actual production costs and actual in year production. Safety
nets should offer less in the good years and not limited to an
arbitrary limit in the lean years. It needs to be a program that
promotes efficiency to growing progressive producers while not ignoring
small family farms who garner that same efficiency by engaging the
entire family and utilizing off farm income. We are all American
Farmers and neither should be admonished or admired through class
warfare more or less than the next.
In summary, the producers and citizens of Arkansas require a strong
agricultural industry to provide for their existence and to contribute
to the strength of American Agriculture. I believe that the entire
country would be better served if the base of knowledge and skills of
the American Farmer were engaged in a serious discussion about the best
ways to construct a new out of the box approach to really sound Farm
Policy. Their very existence today versus the opportunities that Mother
Nature provides on an annual basis is testament to our ability to
constantly adapt on a minutes' notice. The greatest threat today
remains the monopolization of all the industries that we as farmers
rely on to purchase our daily inputs. These monopolies have the ability
to reduce their per unit cost while at the same time the general public
calls for American Agriculture to remain small family farmers.
Mr. Chairman, It has been my honor to be a part of this discussion
and I want to thank you for holding this hearing in the First
Congressional District of the Great State of Arkansas.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Freeze, begin when you are ready, after you swing that
microphone around--yes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MICHAEL ``MIKE'' FREEZE,
AQUACULTURE PRODUCER; CO-OWNER, KEO FISH FARM, KEO, AR
Mr. Freeze. My name is Mike Freeze and I have been an
Arkansas fish farmer since 1983. I am Co-Owner of Keo Fish
Farms which has 1,300 acres of ponds in which we produce hybrid
striped bass and sterile triploid grass carp for live sales
nationally and internationally.
I would like to thank Chairman Lucas and my own Congressman
Rick Crawford and the remaining Members of the House Committee
on Agriculture for allowing me to address you about national
issues that impact aquaculture in the United States.
For aquaculture facilities that ship live product
nationally, our number one regulatory issue is the Lacey Act.
Written in 1900 and amended numerous times, including in the
2008 Farm Bill, the Lacey Act prohibits the international and
interstate trafficking of illegally obtained wildlife and fish
or parts thereof. When the Lacey Act was written, aquaculture
was practically non-existent, yet today our domesticated fish
are regulated as if they were taken from the wild. Of
particular concern is that that Lacey Act elevates the
violation of even misdemeanor state regulations to Federal
felonies simply because over $350 of domesticated product has
entered interstate commerce. Penalties for a Lacey Act
violation begin at $100,000 and 4 months incarceration in a
Federal penitentiary. This scenario is analogous to a $50
speeding ticket being elevated to a $100,000 speeding ticket
simply because you are driving on an interstate highway.
I am enclosing with my written testimony a copy of a report
by the National Agricultural Law Center entitled, Aquaculture
and the Lacey Act, in which author Elizabeth Rumley states,
``The Act should be amended to exempt domestically produced
aquatic species.''
Next, I would like to talk to you about aquaculture's
reliance upon the services provided by USDA/APHIS Wildlife
Services and Veterinary Services. Fish-eating birds are
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Wildlife
Services' verification as to the intensity and degree of bird
depredation at a particular aquaculture facility is a
requirement for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to issue a Bird
Depredation Permit to that facility. It would be impossible for
the private sector to address these depredation issues without
Wildlife Services' direct involvement.
Veterinary Services animal health inspection and
certification allow America's aquaculturists to market their
live aquatic animals nationally and internationally. Once
again, it is impossible for the private sector to address such
health certification issues that are codified in the national
and international law as requiring a Veterinary Services'
health certificate.
I understand in this time of budgetary constraints that
tough decisions have to be made. But our industry should only
have to take their proportional share of any funding decreases.
In the case of Wildlife Services, the entire aquaculture line
item of $1,063,000 in the Fiscal Year 2013 President's budget
was deleted at the request of APHIS without any stakeholder
input.
As you probably know, imported seafood contributes
significantly to our national trade deficit and reducing USDA
support to our industry will only cause this $10 billion
imbalance to increase.
Catfish farming and processing is a significant part of the
American aquaculture industry. The last several years have been
challenging for catfish producers and processors. Higher input
costs are impacting the industry and reducing its ability to
meet demand. According to USDA statistics, catfish processing
and overall fish inventory are down 35 and 25 percent
respectively from the previous year. While there are multiple
insurance products and Federal programs to protect crops and
livestock from market fluctuations, the catfish industry lacks
a tool to reduce the risk of volatility caused by rising input
costs or depressed market values.
I would urge the Committee to consider instructing the USDA
Risk Management Agency to include catfish and other food fish
within the Livestock Gross Margin and Livestock Risk Protection
insurance programs. These insurance programs allow farmers and
ranchers to purchase insurance policies to protect against
price and input cost volatility.
The 2008 Farm Bill included instructions for the USDA to
establish a voluntary fee-based inspection and grading program
for catfish. The USDA catfish inspection rule remains a top
priority for the catfish industry and the American public. The
Committee's past and continued support on this issue is greatly
appreciated.
USDA has undertaken a thorough process for the
implementation of this new responsibility. The comment period
closed on June 24, 2011, and of the 280 comments posted, 84
percent urged FSIS to include all imported and domesticated
catfish in the new regulations currently under consideration. A
broad definition of catfish is imperative to effective
inspection of catfish and catfish like products. Should USDA
make the unwise decision of including the more narrow
definition of catfish, more than 95 percent of all catfish like
imports will remain uninspected upon entry into the U.S.
market. Gentlemen, this is not a trade issue, this is a food
safety issue. And the American public deserves the
implementation of this rule at the earliest possible date,
using the broad definition, which includes the three families
typically consumed as food.
Additionally, the aquaculture industry has serious concerns
about FDA's proposed rule that would significantly change
regulations regarding unapproved drugs found in food products.
The FDA released this proposed regulation on January 25, that
would provide a simplified approval process for persons
requesting the import of food items containing residues of
animal drugs that are unapproved in the U.S. I believe that
U.S. consumers should have confidence that food products are
safe. There is great concern that this proposed rule signals a
move by the Administration towards allowing drugs to be used by
foreign producers that are prohibited in the United States. And
I would strongly urge the Committee to oppose this move by the
Administration.
Finally, one issue that impacts all farmers is the closing
of county FSA offices across the United States according to
criteria established in the 2008 Farm Bill. While the closing
of most of these offices is justified, occasionally a county
office with a moderate to heavy workload meets the closing
criteria while an adjacent office with a lighter workload does
not. Recent incentives for FSA employees to retire just prior
to the determination of which FSA county offices met the
closing criteria has exacerbated this issue. Therefore, I would
respectfully ask the Committee to consider enacting emergency
legislation that would allow each state FSA committee to
exchange the closing of one county office for another county
office, as long as the total number of offices closed within
that state remains the same.
Thank you, gentlemen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeze follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Michael ``Mike'' Freeze, Aquaculture
Producer; Co-Owner, Keo Fish Farm, Keo, AR
My name is Mike Freeze and I have been an Arkansas fish farmer,
since 1983. I am Co-Owner of Keo Fish Farm along with my business
partner, Mrs. Martha Melkovitz. Our farm has 1,300 acres of ponds in
which we produce hybrid striped bass and sterile triploid grass carp
for live sales nationally and internationally.
I would like to thank Chairman Lucas, my own Congressman Rick
Crawford and the remaining Members of the House Committee on
Agriculture for allowing me to address you about national issues that
impact aquaculture in the United States.
For aquaculture facilities that ship live product nationally, our
number one regulatory issue is the Lacey Act. Written in 1900 and
amended numerous times, including in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Lacey Act
prohibits the international and interstate trafficking of illegally
obtained wildlife and fish or parts thereof. When the Lacey Act was
written, aquaculture was practically non-existent, yet today our
domesticated fish are regulated as if they were taken from the wild. Of
particular concern, is that the Lacey Act elevates the violation of
even misdemeanor state regulations to Federal felonies simply because
over $350 of domesticated product has entered interstate commerce.
Penalties for a Lacey Act felony violation begin at $100,000 and 4
months incarceration in a Federal penitentiary. Thus, what may be a
misdemeanor state violation in both of the two states involved, is
immediately elevated to a Federal felony offense, simply because state
boundaries were crossed. This scenario is analogous to a $50 speeding
ticket being elevated to a $100,000 speeding ticket simply because you
are driving on an interstate highway.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that
enforce the Lacey Act and their enforcement division has historically
applied this act to the international and interstate movement of
private aquacultural products. In part this is because the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service does not recognize the private ownership of
aquacultural products. In March of 1990, a USFWS enforcement memorandum
placed a low priority on using the Lacey Act against aquacultural
producers except in instances where disease transmission or non-
indigenous fish species were involved. Unfortunately, this memorandum
has long since been forgotten. I am enclosing a copy of a report by the
National Agricultural Law Center entitled ``Aquaculture and the Lacey
Act'' in which author, Elizabeth Rumley states: ``The Act should be
amended to exempt domestically produced aquatic species''.
Next I would like to inform you about aquaculture's reliance upon
the services provided by USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services and Veterinary
Services. Wildlife Service's assistance with wildlife depredation at
aquaculture facilities is essential because such wildlife are often
protected by Federal regulations. In the case of avian depredation,
piscivorous birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
Wildlife Services verification as to the intensity and degree of avian
depredation at a particular aquaculture facility is a requirement for
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to issue a Bird Depredation Permit to
that facility. It will be impossible for the private sector to address
these depredation issues without Wildlife Services' direct involvement.
Veterinary Services aquatic animal disease inspection and control
programs are vital to protecting American aquaculture. Veterinary
Services' international programs and their interactions with OIE member
nations ensure that our aquacultural products are regulated in a
scientific manner. Without Veterinary Services essential animal health
inspections and certifications, America's aquaculturists will not be
able to market their live aquatic animals nationally and
internationally. The negative economic impacts from such a loss of
business may actually cause many aquacultural businesses to fail. Once
again, it will be impossible for the private sector to address such
health certification issues that are codified into national and
international law as requiring a Veterinary Services' health
certificate.
Fish farmers have worked for many years with USDA and Congress to
secure line item aquaculture funding for both of these agencies as only
these two agencies can provide the essential services listed above. We
understand that in this time of budgetary constraints that tough
decisions have to be made, but our industry should only have to take
their proportional share of any funding decreases. In the case of
Wildlife Services, the entire aquaculture line item of $1,063,000 in
the FY 2013 President's Budget was deleted at the request of APHIS,
without any stakeholder input.
As you probably know, imported seafood contributes significantly to
our national trade deficit, and reducing USDA support to our industry
will only cause this imbalance to increase. Currently, 84% of U.S.
seafood is imported and the U.S. seafood trade deficit has doubled
since 1989, reaching $10 billion in 2010. Therefore, I am respectfully
asking your assistance in restoring aquaculture's line item funding for
these two agencies back to historic levels.
Catfish farming and processing is a significant part of the
American aquaculture industry. The last several years have been
challenging for catfish producers and processors. Similar to other
sectors of the livestock industry, catfish producers are faced with
extraordinarily high feed and energy prices. These higher input costs
are impacting the industry and reducing its ability to meet demand.
According to USDA statistics, catfish processing and overall fish
inventory are down 35 and 25 percent respectively, from the previous
year's reporting. While there are multiple insurance products and
Federal programs to protect crops and livestock from market
fluctuations, the catfish industry lacks a tool to reduce the risk of
volatility caused by rising input costs or depressed market values.
I would urge the Committee to consider instructing the USDA Risk
Management Agency (RMA) to include catfish and other food fish within
both the Livestock Gross Margin (LGM) and Livestock Risk Protection
(LRP) insurance programs. These insurance programs allow farmers and
ranchers to purchase insurance policies to protect against price and
input cost volatility. Catfish and other food fish farmers would
benefit from access to these existing insurance products, allowing them
to purchase a product to protect against unexpected increases in feed
costs or drops in market pricing.
In addition, ``The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008''
included instructions for the USDA to establish a voluntary fee based
inspection and grading program for catfish. The USDA catfish inspection
rule remains a top priority for the catfish industry and the American
public. The Committee's past and continued support on this issue is
greatly appreciated. According to Import Refusal data and also FDA
Import Alerts, certain drugs and chemicals have been found in catfish
imported from China, Thailand and Vietnam and have resulted in the
following import refusals for Fiscal Year 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Refusals for Fiscal Year 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China 22
Thailand 4
Vietnam 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA has undertaken a thorough process for the implementation of
this new responsibility, including extensive public comment. The
comment period closed on June 24, 2011, and of the 280 comments posted
on the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) official
comment site, 84 percent, or 234 postings, urged the agency to include
all imported and domestic catfish in new regulations currently under
consideration by FSIS. The proposed rule offers two options for the
definition of catfish and seeks public comment. One option is to define
``catfish'' as including all species in the order Siluriformes, with
the three families typically consumed as food, including Ictaluridae,
Pangasius and Clariidae. A broad definition of catfish is imperative to
effective inspection of catfish and catfish-like products. Should USDA
make the unwise decision of including the more narrow definition of
catfish, more than 95% of all catfish-like imports will remain
uninspected upon entry into the U.S. market. This is not a trade issue,
this is a food safety issue and the American public deserves the
implementation of this rule at the earliest possible date, using the
broad definition, which includes the three taxonomic families of fish
that are typically consumed as food.
Additionally, the aquaculture industry has serious concerns about
FDA's proposed rule that would significantly change regulations
regarding unapproved drugs found in imported food. The FDA released a
proposed regulation on January 25th that would provide a simplified
approval process for persons requesting the import of food items
containing residues of animal drugs that are unapproved in the U.S. The
industry agrees with the FDA's advisory committee, the Veterinary
Medicine Advisory Committee, that any drugs used to treat animals that
Americans will consume should be based on food safety protections
currently employed by FDA to regulate drugs used by U.S. farmers. I
believe that U.S. consumers should be confident that the foods they eat
are safe. There is great concern that this proposed rule signals a move
by the Administration towards allowing drugs to be used by foreign
producers that are prohibited in the United States. I would strongly
urge the Committee to oppose this move by the Administration.
Finally, one issue that impacts all farmers is the closing of
county FSA offices across the United States according to criteria
established in the 2008 Farm Bill. While the closing of most of these
offices is justified, occasionally a county office with a moderate to
heavy work load meets the closing criteria, while an adjacent office
with a lighter work load does not. Recent incentives for FSA employees
to retire just prior to the determination of which FSA county offices
met the closing criteria has exacerbated this issue. Therefore, I would
respectfully ask that the Committee consider enacting emergency
legislation that would allow each State FSA Committee to exchange the
closing of one county office for another county office as long as the
total number of offices closed within that state remains the same.
Attachment
National Agricultural Law Center, University of Arkansas
An Agricultural Law Research Project
Aquaculture and the Lacey Act
by
Elizabeth R. Springsteen
March, 2010
www.NationalAgLawCenter.org
A National AgLaw Center Research Publication
Aquaculture and the Lacey Act
Elizabeth R. Springsteen
Staff Attorney
National Agricultural Law Center
Aquaculture includes the cultivation of aquatic species for human
consumption as well as for recreational or ornamental purposes. The
practice has a long history, tracing back through ancient Chinese
records indicating that carp was raised more than 4,000 years ago and
hieroglyphics in the tombs of the Pharaohs describing tilapia farming
in ancient Egypt. However, fish culture in the U.S. has a much more
limited history, beginning in the mid 1800s when Federal and state
hatcheries were built to raise sportfish species to stock public and
private waters. Attempts to commercialize aquaculture for food purposes
did not begin until the 1950s, with channel catfish farming in the
Mississippi Delta region. From those small beginnings it has become an
extensive industry, bringing in yearly nationwide revenue of $1.5
billion, according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture.
The practice of aquaculture is regulated at various levels of
government, with state and local authorities generally regulating
activities and issuing permits dealing with zoning, building, land and
water use, waste discharge, and aquaculture production practices and
species. Not surprisingly, each state's division of regulatory
responsibility and authority among their agencies or offices, as well
as the resulting regulations themselves, are all very different. They
have each been influenced by unique state socioeconomic histories and
the ecological differences between states. As a result, state
aquaculture regulation is a bewildering mosaic of species regulations,
with little to no consistency between geographic locations.
At the Federal level, agencies responsible for different areas of
regulation include the FDA, USDA, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service
(``FWS''), Army Corps of Engineers and National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (``NOAA'').
History and Provisions of the Lacey Act
One major statute with the potential to severely affect aquaculture
is the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. 41-48, a Federal statute passed in 1900
to protect wildlife. It was originally intended to combat hunting to
supply commercial markets, the interstate shipment of unlawfully killed
game, the killing of birds for the feather trade and the introduction
of harmful invasive species. The Lacey Act applies to all ``wild''
animals, specifically including fish and amphibians, even when those
animals have been ``bred, hatched, or born in captivity.'' It is
unlawful to ``import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or
purchase'' any fish or wildlife ``taken, possessed, transported, or
sold'' in violation of laws or regulations (state, Federal or foreign)
that are fish or wildlife related. In 2008, plants were added to the
scope of the Act.
One of the ways in which the Lacey Act can be triggered is by the
violation of a Federal regulation. If this happens, the offender can be
prosecuted under the Lacey Act even if no interstate shipment takes
place. For example, the Endangered Species Act is a Federal statute
that protects certain species. If an individual ``transport[s],
sell[s], receive[s], acquire[s], or purchase[s]'' a creature that has
been ``taken, possessed, transported, or sold'' in violation of that
law, that person may be prosecuted under either the Endangered Species
Act or the Lacey Act--even if they do not cross a state line.
However, the Lacey Act is also triggered when a state or Federal
law regarding fish or wildlife is violated by a product that has been
part of interstate commerce. Each state has its own protected,
prohibited, restricted or approved exotic or game species lists,
established by a state department of natural resources, fish and game,
environmental protection or agriculture, and the creatures on the list
can vary widely from one state to the next. For an example in this
situation, consider Minnesota. As of this writing, in Minnesota it is
illegal to transport ``prohibited invasive species'' on a public road,
and violation subjects the offender to a $250 civil penalty or a
misdemeanor (up to 90 days and/or $1,000). As a result, a company based
in Minnesota who transports one of these species to another part of the
state may only be prosecuted under the state law. A company based in
another state who transports one of these species on a Minnesota road,
however, may be prosecuted under the Lacey Act. This is important,
especially considering the disparity between the state and Lacey Act
penalties.
Lacey Act Penalties
Penalties for violating the Lacey Act are severe. If an individual
``knew'' or ``was generally aware of'' the illegal nature of the
wildlife and the value of the wildlife was over $350, he may be
prosecuted and convicted under the Act's felony provisions. If that
happens, the penalty is up to 5 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine
($500,000 in the case of an ``organization,'' including a business).
Misdemeanor prosecution may occur in two situations. The first is
if the defendant takes/possesses/transports/sells the prohibited
wildlife ``without exercising due care.'' ``Due care'' means ``that
degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under
the same or similar circumstances. As a result, it is applied
differently to different categories of persons with varying degrees of
knowledge and responsibility'' (Senate Report 97-123). Generally, due
care requires the judge to ask him or herself if the defendant, when
trying to follow the law, applied as much thought, planning and
prevention as would a normal, reasonable person in their situation.
It's important to remember that, as stated above, the amount of ``due
care'' a person must show changes depending on their knowledge and
responsibility level. As a result, an aquacultural producer
transporting their products across state lines will probably be held to
a higher standard of care than a child who is transporting his pet
goldfish during a cross-country move.
The second way in which a misdemeanor may be prosecuted under the
Lacey Act is if the defendant knew about the illegal nature but the
value of the wildlife was less than $350. It's important to note,
however that prosecutors may aggregate, or combine, violations for
charging purposes. Combining the violations can increase the value of
the wildlife, and potentially elevate the offense from misdemeanor to
felony status. Misdemeanor penalties are up to a year in prison and/or
$100,000 fine ($200,000 for organizations).
Further, false labeling of wildlife transported in interstate
commerce is also criminalized, regardless of intent. If the products
have a market value of less than $350, false labeling is a 1 year/
$100,000 misdemeanor, but if the value is greater than $350, the
offender may be charged with another 5 year/$250,000 felony.
Federal Enforcement of the Lacey Act
Federal enforcement of the Lacey Act is triggered in two
situations. First, it is triggered when Federal law is violated, even
if no interstate commerce takes place. For example, if an individual
possesses a creature that is illegal to possess under Federal law, the
Lacey Act may be enforced. Second, it is triggered when a state law
regarding fish or wildlife is violated by a product that has been part
of interstate commerce. Each state has its own protected, prohibited,
restricted or approved exotic or game species lists, established by a
state department of natural resources, fish and game, environmental
protection or agriculture, and the creatures on the list can vary
widely from one state to the next. For an example in this situation,
consider Minnesota. In Minnesota it is illegal to transport
``prohibited invasive species'' on a public road, and violation
subjects the offender to a $250 civil penalty or a misdemeanor (up to
90 days and/or $1,000). As a result, a company based in Minnesota who
transports one of these species to another part of the state may be
prosecuted under the state law. A company based in another state who
transports one of these species on a Minnesota road may be prosecuted
under the Lacey Act.
How does this affect aquaculture? Imagine that a single fish (or
even fish egg)--legal to possess in Wisconsin--is inadvertently loaded
with a 2,000 lb. truckload of other fish that had been sold to an
aquaculture producer in Minnesota. This single fish is on the Minnesota
prohibited list. Once the truck crosses the state line, it is stopped
by the Minnesota DNR, searched, and the prohibited fish is found. Both
the Wisconsin seller and the Minnesota buyer may be prosecuted under
the Lacey Act, and what would have been a maximum penalty of 90 days
and/or $1,000 from the state of Minnesota has now turned into a
potential year in Federal prison and up to a $100,000 fine. Moreover,
the seller may also be charged with false labeling (for failing to
include the prohibited fish in the list of the shipment's contents),
adding up to another 5 years and/or $250,000 to the sentence.
Minimizing Risk
The risks associated with the Lacey Act can, of course, be
minimized by only shipping products in-state. However, this is not a
reasonable or feasible option for many producers. For those producers
involved in interstate shipment of aquacultural products, the only
advice that may be helpful is to check, doublecheck and document every
step taken to ensure that regulated species are not transported,
because your freedom and livelihood might depend on convincing a judge
or jury that you exercised due care in trying to prevent it.
Aquaculturists can access the Injurious Species List, as authorized by
the Lacey Act, by visiting http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/
ANSInjurious.cfm. The National Agricultural Library is working on a
nationwide compilation of information describing species that are
regulated by the states, and it is located at http://
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/statelaws.shtml. This compilation is
still a work in progress, so aquacultural producers should still check
with the Aquaculture Coordinator in the destination state or their
state for regulated species information. Visit http://www.nasac.net/
for Coordinator contact information.
For more information on the legal aspects involved in aquaculture
operations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center's
``Aquaculture'' reading room, located at http://
www.nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/aquaculture/.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Example 1
Question: Producer A sells an unlabeled load of diploid black carp
to Producer B. Diploid black carp may be possessed in Arkansas.
However, it is on the Federal invasive species list, so it may not
be transported across state lines.
Charges
Against A: Trafficking
Against B: Trafficking
Example 2
Question: Producer A sells a load of catfish to Producer B, but it
is labeled ``whitefish.''
Charges
Against A: False Labeling
Against B: None
Example 3
Question: Producer A sells a load labeled ``catfish'' to Producer
B, and a black carp is included in the shipment.
Charges
Against A: False Labeling & Trafficking
Against B: Trafficking
Example 4
Question: Producer A sells a load labeled ``catfish'' to Trucker in
AR. A black carp is included in the shipment. Trucker drives the
shipment to AL, and sells it to Producer B.
Charges
Against A: False Labeling
Against B: Trafficking
Against Trucker: Trafficking
Example 5
Question: Producer A sells a load labeled ``fishfish'' to Producer
C. Possession of ``fishfish'' is legal is AR and WI, but illegal in
IL, where Trucker is pulled over.
Charges: No Lacey Act violation, as long as the load was correctly
labeled. Trafficking provisions do not apply to interstate shipment
if the shipment is en route to a state in which the fish or
wildlife or plant may be legally possessed.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart, whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DAN STEWART, COW/CALF PRODUCER, MOUNTAIN VIEW, AR
Mr. Stewart. I would like to thank the Committee for this
opportunity to speak at the hearing today.
My name is Dan Stewart. I have been a member of the
Arkansas Cattlemen Association for over 20 years, and have
served on their board. I am the current President of the Stone
County Cattlemen and served in that office several times. I am
a long time member of the Farm Bureau, and served on the Board
of Directors of the Arkansas Limousin Organization. I live up
in the hills of Stone County, Arkansas on a farm my family has
worked and owned for over 100 years and there has always been
cattle raised on that farm for as long as I can remember.
One of my first memories is my grandpa sitting me up on the
back of his big old Hereford bull. I tried that later as a
teenager at a rodeo with a whole lot less success. I try my
best to help my grandson to have the good memories of growing
up on a farm and to know the responsibilities and work that
comes with helping produce the food for our country and the
world. I borrowed money and bought my first herd of cattle at
the age of 16.
Compared to many others our operation is small, but when I
looked at the demographics I guess I am pretty much what you
could call the average cattle producer. The average age of a
farmer is 57 years old and the majority by far of the cattle
producers have 100 or less head of cattle in their herd. I feel
small farms and ranches are the heart and soul of our
communities and have a far greater value to our country than
just the quantity of animals that they produce.
Most producers I know pretty much have a no-nonsense
attitude when it comes to their cattle operations. If something
works, they keep it. If it does not, they will try something
else. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So my suggestions to you
are fairly simple.
First of all, we need easy access to the programs that the
government offers. It can be a real burden to drive long
distances to apply for programs or to sign papers. The road
systems in our part of the state are not always straight and
smooth. It is more than just the distance as the crow flies.
Not everyone has a computer or affordable access to the
Internet.
One of the programs that I take very personally is the
disaster assistance programs. A little over 4 years ago, one of
the longest track tornadoes on record started at Atkins,
Arkansas and left a continuous path of destruction nearly to
the Missouri state line, well over 100 miles long. The track of
this tornado went from one end of my farm to the other,
destroying all my fences, barns, and damaging and nearly
destroying our home. The very next morning, the CED from our
Farm Service Agency was out checking on the broken farms in his
area. That is why we need local offices staffed with people
that know the farmers and the land in their communities. The
counties that were affected by this storm were declared a
disaster area and we received financial assistance to reimburse
us for some of our expenses in rebuilding. Without that help, I
am not sure what we would have done.
Another thing I feel is important to cattlemen is the
conservation programs that help us preserve and protect our
natural resources. This is even more important with the
increasing concerns from the EPA and other environmental
agencies.
As a cattle producer and a user of feed, I am against any
subsidies for ethanol. I think these subsidies have
artificially raised corn prices to the point that it has really
affected the livestock industry. Ethanol should stand on its
own.
I would like to see our marketing system kept as free as
possible, but guard against anyone taking undue advantage of
that system.
To sum this all up, basically what I am saying is when we
are affected by natural disasters and forces beyond our
control, be there with the tools and the help we need to get
back to the point that we can continue to be productive. Give
us the guidance and assistance we need to protect our soil and
water, the most valuable resources that we have. Keep rules and
regulations to a minimum, but when there are mandates and rules
that prevent the use of our land or the ability to produce an
income from it, we should be properly compensated.
Let us continue to do the job that we should be doing, and
that is to produce the safest, most wholesome, and abundant
food supply in the world.
Thanks again for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Stewart, Cow/Calf Producer, Mountain View, AR
First of all I would like to thank the Committee for this
opportunity to speak at this hearing today.
My name is Dan Stewart and I've been a member of the Arkansas
Cattlemen Association for over 20 years, and have served as a State
Board Representative. I am the current President of the Stone County
Cattlemen and served in that office several times, I'm a long time
member of Farm Bureau, and served on the Board of Directors of the
Arkansas Limousin Organization. I live up in the hills of Stone County
Arkansas on a farm my family has worked and owned for over 100 years,
and there has been cattle raised on this farm for as long as I can
remember.
One of my first memories is of my grandpa sitting me upon the back
is his big old Hereford bull. (I tried that later as a teenager at a
rodeo with a lot less success.) I try my best to help my grandson to
have good memories of growing up on a farm and to know the
responsibility, and work that comes with helping produce the food for
our country and the world. I borrowed money and bought my first herd of
cattle at the age of 16.
Compared to many others our operation is small and I wondered why I
was invited here to speak today, but when I looked at the demographics
I guess I'm pretty much what you'd call the average cattle producer.
The average age of a farmer is 57 years old and the majority by far of
cattle producers have 100 or less head of cattle in their herd. I feel
that small farms and ranches are the heart and soul of our communities
and have a value to our country far greater than just the quantity of
animals that they produce.
Most producers I know pretty much have a no nonsense attitude when
it comes to their cattle operation. If something works they keep it,
and if it doesn't they try something else, if it ain't broke don't fix
it, so my suggestions to you are fairly simple.
First of all we need easy access to the programs that the
government offers. It can be a real burden to drive long distances to
apply for programs or sign papers. The road system in our part of the
state is not always straight and smooth. It's more than just distance.
Not everyone has a computer or affordable access to the Internet.
One of the programs I take very personally is disaster assistance.
A little over 4 years ago one of the longest track tornadoes on record,
started at Atkins, Arkansas and left a continuous path of destruction
nearly to the Missouri state line, well over 100 miles long. The track
of this tornado went from one end of my farm to the other, destroying
all my fences, barns, and damaging and nearly destroying our home. The
very next morning the CED from our Farm Service Agency was out checking
on the broken farms in his area. That's why we need local offices
staffed with people that know the farmers and the land in their
community. The counties that were affected by the storm were declared a
disaster area and we received financial assistance to reimburse us for
some of our expenses in rebuilding, without that help, I'm not sure
what we would have done.
Another thing I feel is important to cattlemen is the conservation
programs that help us preserve and protect our natural resources. This
is even more important with the increasing concerns from the EPA and
other environmental agencies.
As a cattle producer and a user of feed I am against any subsidies
for ethanol. I think these subsidies have artificially raised corn
prices to the point it has really affected the livestock industry.
Ethanol should stand on its own.
I would like to see our marketing system kept as free as possible,
but guarded against anyone taking undo advantage of that system.
To sum this all up basically what I'm saying is, when we are
affected by natural disasters and forces beyond our control, be there
with tools and the help we need to get back to the point we can
continue to be productive. Give us the guidance and assistance we need
to protect our soil and water, the most valuable resources we have.
Keep rules and regulations to a minimum, but when there are mandates
and rules that prevent the use of our land or the ability to produce an
income from it we should be properly compensated.
Let us continue to do the job we should be doing, that is to
produce the safest, most wholesome, and abundant food supply in the
world.
Thank you again for this opportunity,
Dan Stewart.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Owen, again, when you are ready, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. OWEN, RICE, SOYBEAN, CORN, AND COTTON
PRODUCER, JOHN AND ANNIE OWEN FARMS, RAYVILLE, LA
Mr. Owen. Chairman Lucas, Members of the Committee, thank
you for holding this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to
offer testimony on the 2012 Farm Bill. My name is John Owen and
I raise rice, corn, soybeans, and cotton in northeast Louisiana
where my wife Anne and I have been farming together for 30
years. I also serve as President of the Louisiana Rice Growers
Association and on several boards of the USA Rice Federation.
America's farmers can be proud of what we do. We have
helped carry our nation through not one, but two economic
recessions in the past 12 years. We have reduced our country's
trade deficit, we have ensured that Americans spend less of
their disposable income on food than anyone else in the world.
We contribute to national security by producing our own food
and fiber here at home and by feeding and clothing much of the
world. And I firmly believe that the U.S. farm policy that we
will discuss here today, a policy that costs a fraction of one
percent of the entire Federal budget, is essential to
continuing our success.
In short, U.S. agriculture is important to America and farm
policy is important to U.S. agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I do not have a great deal of
confidence in Washington these days. But I must say that you
and your Ranking Member, Mr. Peterson, and your counterparts in
the Senate demonstrated last year that not everything in that
town is broken.
When my wife and I were talking about my testimony for this
hearing and the kind of farm bill we would write this year
under the kind of constraints that you were facing last year,
we finally added it all up and concluded that it would look a
whole lot like what you and Mr. Peterson developed last fall.
All the key elements were there.
You started off by acknowledging that what works for the
farmers that you heard from last week in Illinois may not work
for Anne and me in Louisiana. We have different crops, a
different region and different risks. So importantly, you did
not try to shove us all into some neat policy box that looks
great in Washington, but falls apart on the farm. I really
thank you for that.
Another thing you did was to make sure that farmers were
not sold a bill of goods. Out of all the options that a
producer could choose from in the 2011 bill that you put
together, there was protection built into each of them to make
sure that if prices fell through the floor, there would not be
a crisis in farm country because a producer was allowed to pick
a false choice.
I have seen a lot of revenue proposals out there, and
nearly all of them do not have any price protection in them. If
prices collapse, the revenue the producer is guaranteed
collapses right along with it. I do not think all the producers
realize this across the country. But I am relieved that you
foresaw the problem and did something to prevent it.
On top of these extremely important things, both producer
choice and price protection, you also worked to improve crop
insurance, including nudging the USDA along to quickly develop
some risk management products that might hold out some hope for
rice producers, who have not had great success with crop
insurance in the past. And you also decided to let the ink dry
on payment limits and AGI rules that were written just 2 years
ago. Every one of these things is important to Anne and my
farm.
But I want to say one other thing. I know you took a lot of
unfair flack for defending the rice provisions of the 2011
bill. Your standing up for us does not go unnoticed in rice
country. We greatly appreciate that you recognized that all we
came to the table with was the direct payment, and that was
going to be gone. So you worked with us to give us a decent
alternative that we can still take to our banker and get a
loan.
In my 30 years in production agriculture, I have watched
farm policy evolve through five farm bills. The best
legislation built on previous farm policy and made adjustments
that were improvements and updates, but not radical shifts in
policy. I urge you to keep this in mind as you move forward
drafting our next farm bill.
The bottom line is, I believe--and maybe more importantly
my banker believes--the 2011 package that you put together
serves as an excellent framework for you to develop the 2012
Farm Bill.
Thank you for allowing me this time to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Owen follows:]
Prepared Statement of John E. Owen, Rice, Soybean, Corn, and Cotton
Producer, John and Annie Owen Farms, Rayville, LA
Introduction
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this hearing concerning farm policy
and the 2012 Farm Bill. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony
on farm policy from the perspective of a diversified producer.
My name is John Owen. I raise rice, soybeans, corn, and cotton in
Richland Parish in northeastern Louisiana and I have been farming in
partnership with my wife Anne for thirty years. In addition, I serve as
President of the Louisiana Rice Growers Association and on several
boards and committees of the USA Rice Federation, including the USA
Rice Producers' Group.
Importance of Agriculture and Cost-Effective Farm Policy
The U.S. agriculture sector should be proud of our contributions to
the U.S. economy. In a time of economic downturn, agriculture producers
have managed to remain profitable, create new jobs, and provide
consumers in the U.S. and all over the world with a safe and abundant
supply of food and fiber.
While U.S. agriculture is critically important to America, farm
policy is also critically important to U.S. agriculture.
I would urge lawmakers to reject cuts to U.S. farm policy that
would exceed the level specified in the letter by the House and Senate
Agriculture Committee Chairs and Ranking Members to the Joint Committee
on Deficit Reduction last fall. I am concerned that an attempt to write
a farm bill with budget reductions greater than the $23 billion
proposed last year will result in farm policy that is inadequate to
meet the risk management needs of producers.
2008 Farm Bill Review
The 2008 Farm Bill continued the traditional mix of policies
consisting of the non-recourse marketing loan, loan deficiency
payments, and the direct and counter cyclical payments. This past farm
bill made substantial changes to the payment eligibility provisions,
establishing an aggressive adjusted gross income (AGI) means test and
significant tightening of ``actively engaged'' requirements for
eligibility. The 2008 Farm Bill also included the addition of Average
Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) as an alternative to counter cyclical
payments for producers who agree to a reduction in direct payments and
marketing loan benefits. The bill also added Supplemental Revenue
Assurance (SURE) as a standing disaster assistance supplement to
Federal crop insurance.
To be honest, neither ACRE or SURE has proved much value for the
crops I grow on my farm. With some changes, a revenue-based policy may
be workable for some crops in some growing regions. But for crops that
I produce, I haven't seen a revenue-based proposal yet that would be
effective in the Mid-South. And particularly as it relates to rice
production in my part of the country, forcing me to depend on a revenue
policy for risk management will leave me with little to no price
protection, which is the main risk I face in rice. SURE has provided
little, if any, assistance to producers in the Mid-South who suffered
significant monetary losses in 2009 due to heavy rains and flooding
occurring prior to and during harvest, or the significant losses last
year as a result of spring flooding in the Mid-South. SURE's inability
to provide disaster assistance for such catastrophic events further
highlights the continuing gap in available policies designed to help
producers manage or alleviate their risk.
Whatever its imperfections, the Direct Payment alone has assisted
producers in meeting the ongoing and serious price and production
perils of farming today. Direct payments have provided critically
important capital to farmers that they could tailor to their unique
needs. This capital was used to help finance production costs, cover
shallow losses, and purchase crop insurance or to make capital
improvements to farming operations. While other options to direct
payments are being considered, we believe it will be very difficult to
improve upon their effectiveness.
I believe we must focus on strengthening farm policies in the 2012
Farm Bill to help ensure that all producers have the ability to
adequately manage their risks and access needed credit.
Crop Insurance
Crops grown in the Mid-South have traditionally been under-served
by crop insurance. As a result, we have on average lower coverage
levels and higher premium costs for most of our crops. This situation
has been improving in recent years, but we are still far from the day
when I as a Mid-South producer can say that crop insurance is the most
important part of farm policy for me. In fact, I think it is
inappropriate to believe that crop insurance can ever be the sole
policy producers rely on for risk management. Crop insurance is
designed to cover production shortfalls or price declines in a single
year. It is not designed to protect against price declines over
multiple years. And I find myself asking the question, and let me be
clear I hope we don't see this happen, but if crop prices decline again
in a scenario like we saw in the late 1990's how effective is crop
insurance going to be then? If corn prices are $2.50/bushel and soybean
prices are $5.00/bushel it is clear that a crop insurance revenue
policy is not going to be of much help to me as a producer with prices
at these levels.
From a rice grower's perspective I have additional concerns about
crop insurance. The risk management products offered under Federal Crop
Insurance have been of very limited value due to a number of factors,
including artificially depressed actual production history (APH)
guarantees, which I understand is also a problem for many other
producers; high premium costs for a relatively small insurance
guarantee; a lack of convergence between the cash and futures prices
for rice; and the fact that the risks associated with rice production
are unique from the risks of producing many other major crops.
What rice farmers like I need from Federal crop insurance are
products that will help protect against increased production and input
costs, particularly for energy and energy-related inputs. For example,
fuel, fertilizer, and other energy related inputs represent about 70
percent of total variable costs.
As such, rice producers enter the 2012 Farm Bill debate at a very
serious disadvantage, having only a single farm policy that effectively
works and that farm policy being singled out for elimination.
Commodity Futures Market
Another risk management tool that is becoming more important for me
as a producer is the use of the commodity futures market to hedge my
price risks for the crops I produce. As we see the coming changes in
the farm bill, I think the ability to effectively use the futures
market to price and market our crops will become imperative. Today I
have the ability to hedge the corn and soybeans I produce, but with
rice I am limited in the opportunity to hedge the crop due to issues
with the rice futures contract. The contract has suffered from a lack
of convergence between cash prices and the futures prices, and in some
cases there has been a negative basis as wide as $4/cwt. For the other
crops I produce, I am able to hedge my prices successfully, but for the
rice we grow, I am unable to do so.
2012 Farm Bill
First and foremost, I believe that the 2012 Farm Bill should be
reauthorized this year.
I know that due to budget restrictions, it will be necessary to
write the upcoming farm bill with fewer resources than have been
available in the past. Furthermore, some farm policies must be modified
to satisfy specific trade objectives as a result of the U.S.-Brazil WTO
case. The continuation of a multi-legged stool that includes the
marketing loan, countercyclical payments and the best mix of risk
management tools for producers.
I believe that the planting flexibility provided under the 1996
Farm Bill and the countercyclical policies that have been in place for
more than a decade now have served this nation and its farmers well. In
addition, the non-recourse marketing loan still serves an important
function by allowing producers the ability to utilize the loan for the
marketing of their crops. This is particularly important in both the
rice and cotton industries.
Given the aforementioned budget pressures and other considerations
facing Congress, I believe that the following priorities represent the
needs of producers in crops here in the Mid-South:
First, the triggering mechanism for assistance should be
updated to provide tailored and reliable help should commodity
prices decline below today's production costs, and should
include a floor or reference price to protect in multi-year low
price scenarios.
Second, as payments would only be made in loss situations,
payment limits and means tests for producers should be
eliminated, or at a minimum not tightened any further.
Third, Federal crop insurance should be improved to provide
more effective risk management for all crops in all production
regions, beginning with the policy development process.
Price Protection is Key
I believe the main purpose of farm policy is to provide protection
in the event of price declines, which are beyond the control of
producers. As noted earlier crop insurance can't provide this
protection across multiple years, and only protects against price
declines within a growing season. My understanding of the farm bill
package developed last fall by this Committee and your counterparts in
the Senate is that it included reference prices at levels more relevant
to today's cost of production and this reference price would provide a
floor for both a price-based option and a revenue-based option. I think
this is the most critical component of the next farm bill and must be
included in any policy option.
To use rice for an example, price volatility is the primary risk
producers face that they do not have other good means of protecting
against, with price fluctuations largely driven by global supply and
demand. Rice is one of the most protected and sensitive global
commodities in trade negotiations, thus limiting access to a number of
key markets. Costs of production have risen to a point where the
current $6.50 (loan rate)/$10.50 (target price) assistance triggers are
largely irrelevant. So I believe the first priority should be to
concentrate on increasing the prices or revenue levels at which farm
policy would trigger so that it is actually meaningful to producers,
and would reliably trigger should prices decline sharply.
The reference price for rice should be increased to $13.98/cwt
($6.30/bu). This level would more closely reflect the significant
increases in production costs for rice on our farm. And this reference
price should be a component of both the price-loss policy and the
revenue-loss policy to ensure downside price protection.
Options for Different Production Regions
Another important concept that I believe should be reflected in the
next farm bill is producer choices or options. It is easy to see that
not only are there significant differences in the policy needs of
various crops, but there are different risk management needs for the
same crop in different growing regions.
Whether it is the rice or corn on my farm in northeast Louisiana, I
have a different view of what policy will work best on my farm relative
to corn in Iowa or rice in California. Again, using rice as an example,
here in the Mid-South and the Gulf Coast production regions, a price-
based policy is viewed as being most effective in meeting our risk
management needs. Specifically, this policy should include a price
protection level that is more relevant to current cost of production;
paid on planted acres or percentage of planted acres; paid on more
current yields; and take into account the lack of effective crop
insurance policies for commodities like rice.
However, my friends producing rice in California have analyzed the
potential for a revenue-based policy that could work better in their
area to provide effective risk management. Efforts to analyze
modifications which will increase the effectiveness of revenue plan
continue. Since rice yields are highly correlated between the farm,
county, crop reporting district, and state levels, a revenue plan
should be administered for rice at either the county or crop reporting
district level to reflect this situation rather than lowering guarantee
levels to use farm level yields. By setting loss triggers that reflect
local marketing conditions, delivering support sooner, and
strengthening revenue guarantees that account for higher production
costs as well as the absence of effective crop insurance, California
rice producers are hopeful that an effective revenue option can be
developed.
Different perils confront producers of different crops. Producers
need a choice, just as producers were also allowed choices in the 2008
Farm Bill. A necessary part of providing a real choice is to ensure
that each option, revenue-based or priced-based, provides effective
protection in the event of price declines, particularly in multiyear
low price scenarios.
Tailored and Defendable Policy
I believe it makes sense to provide assistance when factors beyond
our control create losses. Generally more tailored farm policies are
more defendable. For this reason, I like the thought of updating bases
and yields or applying farm policies to planted acres/current
production and their triggering based on prices or revenue, depending
on the option a producer chooses.
Planting Flexibility
Direct payments are excellent in this regard. SURE or similar whole
farm aggregations tend to discourage diversification, which could be a
problem for farms in my area and across the Mid-South where we tend to
have very diversified farms. Whatever is done should accommodate
history and economics and allow for proportional reductions to the
baseline among commodities. Some commodities are currently more reliant
on countercyclical farm policies (ACRE/CCP) while others are receiving
only Direct Payments in the baseline. Generally, the least disruptive
and fairest way to achieve savings across commodities would be to apply
a percentage reduction to each commodity baseline and restructure any
new policy within the reduced baseline amounts.
I know there have been concerns raised about higher reference
prices distorting planting decisions and resulting in significant
acreage shifts including for rice. I have not seen analysis that shows
significant acreage shifts resulting from the reference price levels
included in the 2011 Farm Bill package. In fact, for rice specifically,
a reference price of $13.98/cwt that is paid on historic CCP payment
yields and on 85% of planted acres results in a reference price level
well below my average cost of production, so I find it hard to imagine
why someone would plant simply due to this policy given these levels.
Crop Insurance Should Be Maintained and Improved
Although crop insurance does not currently work as well for rice as
it does for other crops, the third priority would be to improve
availability and effectiveness of crop insurance for rice as an
available option. I would also support improvement to the product
development processes (we have struggled with two 508(h) submissions
for over 4 years and are still not completed with the process), and to
the APH system such that any farmer's insurable yield (pre-deductible)
would be reflective of what that farmer actually expects to produce. In
no case should the crop insurance tools, which are purchased by the
producer, be encumbered with environmental/conservation regulation or
other conditions that fall outside the scope of insurance.
2011 Budget Control Act Efforts
Although the details of the 2011 Farm Bill package that was
prepared by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in response to
the Budget Control Act were not disclosed, based on discussions and
reports I believe that package at least represents a good framework on
which to build the 2012 Farm Bill. The 2011 package included a choice
of risk management tools that producers can tailor to the risks on
their own farms, providing under each of those options more meaningful
price protection that is actually relevant to today's production costs
and prices. It also included provisions to improve crop insurance and
expedite product development for under-served crops such as rice.
I would note that the effective support for rice producers under
the price-based option was set well below cost of production and that
late changes to the revenue-based option minimized its potential as an
effective risk management tool for any rice producers, and that pay
limits and AGI rules would still serve as an arbitrary constraint upon
U.S. competitiveness globally. Still, even with these areas for
improvement, I want to express my appreciation to the Members and staff
that put enormous time and effort into what I believe represents a good
blue print for ongoing farm bill deliberations.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer my testimony today and I
will be pleased to respond to any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Owen.
Mr. Corcoran, whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF WALTER L. CORCORAN, Jr., COTTON, CORN,
PEANUT, SOYBEAN, GRAIN SORGHUM, AND COW/CALF
PRODUCER, EUFAULA, AL
Mr. Corcoran. I would like to thank Chairman Lucas and the
Members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide my
views on U.S. farm policy. I would also like to express my
gratitude to Congressman Rick Crawford for hosting this very
important hearing.
My name is Walt Corcoran from Eufaula, Alabama. Along with
my brother, nephew and our wives, we operate a diversified
family farming operation in both Georgia and Alabama. Our
principal crops include cotton, corn, peanuts, soybeans, and
grain sorghum. We also manage a 500 head cow/calf operation.
The majority of my crop production is dryland with about \1/3\
irrigated using surface water.
A sound and stable farm policy is critically important to
the economic viability of U.S. agriculture. I fully support the
Committee's commitment to conclude a farm bill in 2012. It is
critically important to provide certainty to those of us
involved in production agriculture since we make long-term
investment decisions based in part on Federal farm policy.
The 2008 Farm Bill has worked very well for my operation.
The combination of marketing loan, direct payment, and
countercyclical payments have provided a good safety net. I
appreciate the budget pressure facing this Committee and all of
Congress. Those pressures will lead to reduced funding for the
next farm bill and I want to stress that agriculture is willing
to contribute an equitable share to deficit reduction. But I
encourage this Committee to fight efforts to impose a
disproportionate burden on farm programs.
In addition to budget pressures, the cotton industry faces
a unique challenge in resolving the longstanding dispute with
Brazil. Because of these challenges, the National Cotton
Council has proposed an innovative revenue-based crop insurance
program known as STAX. This product replaces the direct and
countercyclical payments for cotton; thus, directly addressing
one of the programs found to be at fault in the WTO dispute. In
the opinion of the U.S. cotton industry, this structure will
best utilize reduced budget resources, respond to public
criticism by directing benefits directly to growers, and builds
on the existing crop insurance programs.
The findings of the WTO case also require that changes be
made in the marketing loan for upland cotton as part of the
development of the 2012 Farm Bill. I also encourage this
Committee to follow the industry's recommendation to introduce
a formula for determining the marketing loan level. That
formula will allow the marketing loan to adjust lower in times
of lower prices. The loan rate for a crop will be determined in
the fall prior to planting the crop and will have a range from
52 to 47 .
The House and Senate Agriculture Committees' proposal to
the Joint Budget Committee recognized the fact that because of
the diversity of crop needs, a one-size-fits-all approach is
not practical. I encourage your Committee to continue this
approach in your deliberations and tailor the various programs
to fit the needs and constraints of the individual commodities.
Farmers understand that agriculture is an extremely risky
endeavor, but we also understand that effective risk management
is the key to long-term viability.
Like the vast majority of farming operations across the
Cotton Belt, crop insurance and risk management tools are
critically important to my economic livelihood. Given the
diversity of weather and production practices, the menu of
insurance choices should be diverse and customizable, thus
allowing for maximum participation and the most effective
coverage. I have crop insurance on most of my crops. Last year,
because of the severe drought, it provided a measure of risk
protection that was critical to my farming operation. I
strongly urge that crop insurance not be weakened during this
farm bill.
In 2008, the introduction of enterprise unit pricing gave
us one more option for insuring against risks that are beyond
our control. I encourage the continuation of this option.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make these
brief comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corcoran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter L. Corcoran, Jr., Cotton, Corn, Peanut,
Soybean, Grain Sorghum, and Cow/Calf Producer, Eufaula, AL
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member
Peterson, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide
my views on U.S. farm policy. I would also like to express my gratitude
to Congressman Rick Crawford for hosting this very important hearing.
My name is Walt Corcoran, Jr. from Eufaula, Alabama. I along with my
brother, nephew and our wives, operate a diversified family farm
operation in both Georgia and Alabama. Our principal row crops include
cotton, corn, peanuts, soybeans and grain sorghum. We also manage a 500
head cow/calf herd. The majority of my crop production is dryland with
about \1/3\ of my acreage using surface water irrigation.
A sound and stable farm policy is critically important to the
economic viability of U.S. agriculture--I appreciate the dedication and
diligent work of this Committee during last fall's attempt at a joint
deficit reduction package. While that effort did not advance a farm
bill conclusion I fully support the Committee's commitment to conclude
a farm bill in 2012. It is critically important to provide certainty to
those of us involved in production agriculture since we make long-term
investment decisions based on Federal farm policy.
The 2008 Farm Bill has worked very well for my operation. The
combination of the marketing loan, Direct Payments and Counter-cyclical
Payments has provided a good safety net, and in recent years, has
required minimal Federal spending. I appreciate the budget pressures
facing this Committee and all of Congress. Those pressures will lead to
reduced funding for the next farm bill. I want to stress that
agriculture is willing to contribute an equitable share to deficit
reduction, but I encourage this Committee to fight efforts to impose a
disproportionate burden on farm programs. We support your Committee's
recommendation of $23 billion in budget savings as an equitable
contribution to deficit reduction.
In addition to budget pressures, this Committee is well aware that
the cotton industry faces the unique challenge of resolving the long-
standing trade dispute with Brazil. Because of these challenges, the
National Cotton Council has proposed an innovative revenue-based crop
insurance program known as STAX. This product replaces the direct and
countercyclical payments for cotton, thus directly addressing one of
the programs found to be at fault in the WTO dispute. In the opinion of
the U.S. cotton industry, this structure will best utilize reduced
budget resources, respond to public criticism by directing benefits to
growers who suffer losses resulting from factors beyond their control,
and build on the existing crop insurance program, thus ensuring no
duplication of coverage and allowing for program simplification.
The findings in the WTO case also require that changes be made to
the marketing loan for upland cotton as part of the development of the
2012 Farm Bill. I also encourage this Committee to follow the
industry's recommendation to introduce a formula for determining the
marketing loan level. That formula will allow the marketing loan to
adjust lower in times of low prices. The loan rate for a crop will be
determined in the fall prior to planting the crop and be set equal to
the average of the AWP for the two most recently completed marketing
years provided the 2 year moving average falls within a set maximum of
$0.52 and a minimum level of $0.47.
Other existing features of the upland cotton marketing loan should
be retained in the next farm bill. These include an effective
determination of the Adjusted World Price for purposes of loan
redemption in times of low prices. as well as the provision of storage
credits should the loan redemption price fall below the loan rate.
The House and Senate Agriculture Committee proposal to the Joint
Budget Committee recognized the fact that because of the diversity of
crop needs, a one-size-fits-all approach is not practical. I encourage
your Committee to continue this approach in your deliberations and
tailor the various programs to fit the needs and constraints of the
individual commodities.
Farmers understand that agriculture is an extremely risky endeavor,
but they also understand that effective risk management is the key to
long-term viability. While the goal of farm programs is not to
completely remove the risk associated with farming, farm programs
should strive to provide opportunities for effective risk management.
Like the vast majority of farming operations across the Cotton
Belt, crop insurance and risk management tools are critically important
to my economic livelihood. Given the diversity of weather and
production practices, the menu of insurance choices should be diverse
and customizable, thus allowing for maximum participation and the most
effective coverage. I have crop insurance coverage on most of my crops.
Last year, because of the severe drought conditions, it provided a
measure of risk protection that was critical to the economic viability
of my farming operation.
I strongly urge that crop insurance not be weakened during this
farm bill. In today's environment of volatile prices and high input
costs, effective risk management has never been more important.
In 2008, the introduction of enterprise unit pricing gave producers
one more option for insuring against those risks that are beyond their
control. I encourage the continuation of that option in the 2012 Farm
Bill.
Mr. Chairman, my brief comments do not provide an exhaustive look
at the many important programs included in the current farm
legislation. That said, there are a couple or others I would point out.
Assistance for our U.S. textile mills was introduced in the 2008 Farm
Bill, and I encourage that program to be continued in the next farm
law. In recent years, conservation programs have become increasingly
important and I hope those programs will remain useful options. Thank
you for the opportunity to offer these, and I look forward to the
opportunity to answer questions at the appropriate time.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. And I now recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Owen, in your written statement you said, ``It is
inappropriate to believe that crop insurance can ever be the
sole policy producers rely upon for risk management.'' Sole
policy. Expand just--and you did a good job in your testimony.
Expand just a little bit more on that if you would for the
record.
Mr. Owen. Well, the main problem with using crop insurance
as the sole basis risk management is that crop insurance cannot
protect you against a multi-year low price scenario such as we
experienced in the late 1990s. The indemnities for crop
insurance or the triggers are set in the winter and they are
generally based off Chicago Board of Trade futures, and when
those prices are low, then you have a product that provides no
protection from the beginning. So without an underlying
reference price, either countercyclical or through a revenue
assurance policy offered through the government that is
economically viable, then crop insurance is not a long-term
safety net for agriculture in the Mid-South, or as far as I can
see, anywhere in the country.
The Chairman. Very insightful plan, sir.
Mr. Stewart, you mentioned the importance of disaster
programs. So as a fellow cattleman, I ask this question and if
you do not mind me asking, have you participated in any of the
livestock disaster programs offered under the 2008 Farm Bill--
the Livestock Forage Program or the Livestock Indemnity
Program?
Mr. Stewart. What I have participated in is the NAP, the
non-insured disaster program. The LA--there are a lot of
letters and acronyms and it is almost like learning a new
language.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Stewart. But we did not qualify. It is pretty hard to
qualify in that Livestock Forage Program, so we did not. But I
have received payments from the NAP Program, which is the non-
insured. And as far as the Livestock Indemnity Program, I do
keep records of losses in case I would qualify, but so far I
have personally been lucky enough that I have not had to use
the LIP program.
The Chairman. One other question, Mr. Stewart. You
mentioned ethanol just a moment ago. From your perspective as a
cattleman, some would argue, with 45, maybe 50 percent of the
corn crop on average in the last couple of years going through
the ethanol cookers, that it has no real effect on the supply
of corn or the availability of feed. What do you think of that
comment that some people make.
Mr. Stewart. Well, that seems to be hard to believe. I do
not think the corn crop as a whole has gone up that much.
First, they were talking about the distiller's grain, but it
seems like that has not--we have not been able to utilize that
as a feed source like we were once led to believe.
The Chairman. On the previous panel, my colleague from
Arkansas noted about the Conservation Reserve Program and we
are seeing in some of the re-enrollments the acres come down,
which of course, CRP is a voluntary conservation program and I
am a great believer in voluntary conservation programs, by the
way, for the record. But as those CRP acres come down, that
seems to imply that producers are assessing grain prices and
determining we have to have more production. My cattlemen, pork
producers, poultry people, and turkey people at home tell me in
a pretty straight-forward way that the feed supplies have been
really tight the last 2 years. Do you see that when you buy
your 20 percent pellets?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, I do, sir.
The Chairman. So we have to have more grain. You would
agree with that statement.
Mr. Stewart. Yes, in order to keep the price where we can
afford it. You know, if you have the money, you can buy it, but
it makes it tough. And I know right now, cattle prices are
good, but as we all know, they do not last.
The Chairman. Exactly. Exactly. Looks like my time is about
to expire.
I now turn to the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes, Mr.
Neugebauer.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hundley, you mentioned that you were opposed to means
testing. A lot of folks are opposed to large farming operations
getting farm payments. I think in your testimony, you said it
would be detrimental to the family farms in Arkansas. Do you
want to elaborate on that?
Mr. Hundley. Yes. I think as you see from the previous
panel and this panel, the one thing that lenders and people
that extend credit like right now is the guarantee that a
deficiency payment provides. Not so much the deficiency
payment, but the guarantee. And I think means testing in itself
is almost a failed attempt to regulate a failed policy. You
know, the safety net that we need needs to be a safety net that
is available to every farm on every acre on every crop,
regardless of their size or their business structure. And I
think from that standpoint is what I referred to as means
testing would be detrimental to Arkansas farmers if it was just
you draw a line in the sand and say okay, you get it, you do
not.
Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Owen, you mentioned that reform to crop
insurance you thought would be an integral part of the next
farm bill. One of the things that we are going to have to do is
make choices because in this budget environment we feel like we
are going to be obviously dealing with a smaller amount of
funds to put together a good comprehensive farm policy in the
future.
Of the current policy that we have; in other words, talking
about looking at the baskets we have now, in your operation,
what do you think is the most important farm program that
exists today that we should work really hard to preserve. If
you had to pick one. And I know that is difficult and I am not
saying we are going to have to do that, but I am just trying--
we are going to have to prioritize this and we are trying to
get your thoughts.
Mr. Owen. It is not as difficult as you would imagine. For
my operation, countercyclical program is by far the most
important and the most defendable to the city people. Having a
meaningful reference price that we can take to a bank to get
financed, having a loan program that we can use to aid our
marketing is the most important. We need price protection and
we need yield protection. Price protection has to come from the
countercyclical type program. Yield protection should come from
insurance. And the most important factor by far though to my
operation is a countercyclical program with a reference price
that is meaningful.
Mr. Neugebauer. You know, one of the things that we have
seen is the countercyclical payments have actually performed
extremely well over the last few years, and that is the way the
program was designed, was when the price was low obviously you
had that safety net. But in many commodities, for the last few
years obviously, countercyclical payments have not come into
play. So that is a program--unfortunately that is one of the
programs that we have had trouble with the WTO. So obviously
that is something we will have to address.
Mr. Stewart, in this environment where we have just come
out of in Texas some pretty severe droughts and some other
parts of the country, what are some of the biggest challenges
for the cow/calf producer today?
Mr. Stewart. Well, like you say, regardless of whether you
attribute it to global warming or weather cycles or what, but
it seems like we are in a system of extremes. In our area, we
can have floods, massive floods all spring. Summer gets here
and we do not get another drop until next winter. And that
seems to be one of the biggest challenges as far as our forage
production.
Other issues--like most farmers and ranchers, we like to
look ahead and plan for the worst. And there are environmental
issues that possibly will be out there. Some of them, like the
dust issue, they say that was just a myth, but it concerns a
lot of farmers. And I would like to see some assurance that
stuff like that will not affect us in the future.
Mr. Neugebauer. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
Crawford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Real quick, we were talking with Mr. Stewart.
I want to talk about something that has been brought to my
attention by a number of folks. The testimony you gave
regarding your experience as a child and just kind of
describing the family dynamic on your farm.
The Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation in
regards to children working on farms, and to my knowledge, no
ag group obviously supported that initial proposal. But since
the backlash, the Department has said they will repropose the
regulation involving the parental exemption section only. Have
you read anything about that? And what would be the impact on a
family farm like yours if they were to tell you that you could
not allow your children to participate in production
agriculture?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I personally think it would be
devastating to the family farm, because at an early age, my
thought is you need to instill a love for farming. Farming in
our area especially is more than just an economic thing. It is
a way of life and something that you have to really want to do
because at times it is tough. And if you do not love what you
do, you are not going to stay in it. And if you instill that in
your children and grandchildren at an early age, we can
continue to have our family farms.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent, thank you.
Mr. Freeze, the Arkansas fish growing industry has been in
decline for the past few decades. Can you talk about some of
the factors that have contributed to that decline? And in
crafting the next farm bill, what would the suggestions be to
address those issues?
Mr. Freeze. Well, of course, the rising input cost, your
increase in feed and increase in energy costs, et cetera. They
affect the aquaculture industry or fish farms just like they do
other farmers. But probably this unlevel playing field that was
referred to with the seafood inspection is one of the big
issues. I think this Committee tried to correct that in the
2008 Farm Bill, but it has been almost 4 years now and still
the inspection of catfish coming into the United States has not
been transferred from FDA to FSIS. FSIS started inspections and
we are wondering how much longer this is going to take.
So other than that, some of the regulatory issues that I
talked about. I mean, I know all farmers feel as if they are
over-regulated but I think if you will add it up, for a fish
farmer, we are regulated by something like 30 to 40 different
state and Federal agencies. And it is just a real problem.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
In the time I have left, Mr. Hundley, many of the Members
of this Committee see farmers as the best stewards of the land
and I think certainly those Members that are present would
agree with that. But the EPA seems to think differently about
that. Congress has given producers the tools through cost-share
programs and voluntary incentive-based programs to improve
water, soil and air quality. Can you talk about the importance
of conservation programs in dealing with potential regulations
that we may be seeing with respect to EPA?
Mr. Hundley. I need to think about how to say this. When
you mention EPA, one of the problems, you say that there are
programs to help us mitigate some of those regulations. What I
see right now, it seems that we have an agency that is out
there making rules and trying to enforce rules that have
sidestepped even the Committee or even Congress sometimes. It
seems like, for instance, the fuel containment deal. I mean
just all of a sudden, here it comes. I don't want to look a
gift horse in the mouth on some of these programs that we have
to help offset these, but you know, we feel that the EPA is
over-reaching sometimes and we feel like you all should have
some input before it ever comes to us as an implementation of a
law.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. A little time left.
Mr. Corcoran, you want to comment on that with respect to
EPA on your farm?
Mr. Corcoran. Just as he was saying, they over-reach. I
think they are implementing or putting rules on us before we
know what is going on. As far as point source pollution in our
state. We had a big problem with trying to regulate--I think it
is everywhere--the waters under the Clean Water Act, trying to
regulate the nozzle as a point-source source of pollution. They
are far over-reaching regulations and we need to rein them in
somehow.
Mr. Crawford. Mr. Owen, final thought.
Mr. Owen. Well, first of all, I would say that farmers are
the original active environmentalists, instead of being
environmental activists. And EPA does need to be reined in. We
are excellent stewards of the land and I would put our record
up against any country as far as the way we take care of our
land, the way our pesticides are regulated, the way we use our
pesticides. We have a fabulous track record and we do not need
further regulation.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Stutzman, to conclude the questions for this panel. You are
recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we all know, there is plenty of volatility in
agriculture. As we see yesterday corn prices were down, today
corn and soybean prices are up 30 cents and 50 cents, just due
to crop reports. You know, we see a lot of volatility. Many
folks out East do not understand those challenges. We are
always trying to play--we have to play two sides of the game.
You have input costs and then you have your commodity prices
that affect us.
I appreciate Congressman Crawford so much. Being a corn and
soybean farmer from northern Indiana, rice is really a new crop
to me. I do not understand the complexities that you all face.
And one of the comments that Mr. Owen, you had in your
testimony, I would like to direct this question to Mr. Owen and
Mr. Corcoran. In your testimony, Mr. Owen, you cite ``What rice
farmers like I need from Federal crop insurance are products
that would help protect against increased production and input
costs, particularly for energy and energy-related inputs. For
example, field fertilizer and other energy-related inputs
represent about 70 percent of total variable costs.''
I know for myself as a corn and soybean farmer, I have
about the exact same situation for us. It is volatility in the
input side. Can you give me an idea--we are seeing a lot of
volatility in the corn and soybean markets. What are you seeing
on the rice side? I just have not followed those prices. What
is different about rice from corn and soybeans?
Mr. Owen. Well, first of all, rice has been working
towards, for the last 4 years with RMA trying to develop a
policy that would provide us with rising input protections in
fuel and fertilizer primarily. And the main thing that is
different about rice is the cost of running irrigation pumps.
When we have a drought scenario--and you have a 100 horsepower
motor on average in the Mid-South, 100 horsepower motor turning
24 hours a day trying to keep water on 100 acres of rice. Well,
most rice farmers are farming 750 to 1,500 acres of rice in
their rotational mix. That is a significant consumption of
diesel. And also when we have fertilizer price spikes such as
in 2008, it just runs your production cost through the roof. So
we are working with RMA to try to develop a product for rice,
which may very well work for corn and soybeans after it is
developed and up, but this is a pilot program that we are
trying to get through and developed. But I would say the amount
of diesel and electricity required to run irrigation systems in
drought periods is our main cost of running up our fuel.
Mr. Stutzman. And Mr. Corcoran, if you could talk a little
bit about the price of rice and how that market works.
Mr. Corcoran. I am not a producer of rice.
Mr. Stutzman. Oh, I am sorry, you are cotton. I am sorry
about that.
Mr. Owen and Mr. Hundley, if you could maybe comment on
that.
Mr. Hundley. Excuse me, the question again?
Mr. Stutzman. We see a lot of volatility in corn and
soybeans and I am a northern Indiana farmer and as Mr. Stewart
mentioned, ethanol has obviously played a huge impact in those
prices. Could you talk about the rice market? Do you see the
same volatility and what are the factors that affect the price
of rice.
Mr. Hundley. I think one of the things that I see with rice
is we do not have--the futures market is not an effective place
to hedge. Where you as a corn farmer, I mean, you can go in and
daily trade corn or soybean futures as an effective hedge, and
in rice, we do not have that.
I have some opinions of why that is, but I do not know if
it is true. A lot of the end-users do not use hedging as an
effective tool. So I think that is the biggest difference.
Mr. Owen. Mr. Stutzman, we are taking some steps and
working with CME and the rice industry to try to improve
convergence in futures. Another difference is rice is--you
know, the United States only grows about three percent of the
world's rice crop. However, we are the third or fourth largest
exporter of rice. And 96 percent, or 95 percent of the rice
grown in the world is consumed where it is grown. So the five
percent that is left for export can be extremely volatile in
price. Currently we are dealing with countries that are
subsidizing their exports, India, Thailand and Brazil at this
point. So that changes the dynamic a little bit.
And rice is an expensive crop to grow. Hopefully we will
get these things ironed out with the ability to hedge rice like
we use futures for corn and soybeans and wheat and cotton, but
we are not there yet. But we are working on it.
Mr. Stutzman. Well, my wife for some reason keeps putting
more rice on our plate at home, so you must be getting to her,
so we are trying to do our part and help consume the rice crop.
Mr. Owen. It is good for you.
Mr. Stutzman. It is good for you. With that, I will yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, all time
has expired.
Before we begin the process of concluding this hearing, I
would like to take just a moment once again to thank
Congressman Crawford for working very diligently to suggest the
quality of hearing we could have and the different perspectives
we could bring together. You were absolutely right, Rick, about
that.
And I would also like to thank Arkansas State University
for these wonderful facilities. Rarely do we have this quality
of a facility to have a field hearing in; thank you very much,
staff, faculty, administration for that.
And also, and I much attribute this to the fact that he was
an old House Member before he went to that other body on the
other side of the building in Washington, D.C., I would like to
note on behalf of the Committee a very special appreciation to
Arkansas's own Senator Boozman for coming and spending a half a
day with us. As a Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee
and a representative of this great ag state, he is just as
concerned and focused as we are all here today on trying to
figure out the things we need to determine so as to craft that
next farm bill. So raise your hand, John, you cannot hide over
there. Senators are Senators, you know.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. And with that, I would like to invite the
gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, to offer any closing
remarks that he might have.
Mr. Crawford. I thank the Chairman for his work in leading
the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives. I
want to say a particular word of thank you to the staff, the
Committee staff, who do the hard work and the heavy lifting.
They have done a wonderful job and I also want to thank the
staff here at ASU for hosting us today.
From the testimony we have heard this morning, it is
obvious that our farmers face many challenges. I am encouraged
though that as the Agriculture Committee begins the task of
writing a new farm bill, that we will be able to protect
farmers here in Arkansas and the Mid-South and across the
country.
So last, let me encourage everyone who did not get a chance
to have their comments heard, that we do want to hear from you,
you can submit your written comments for the record up until
May 20, you can do that online at www.house.agriculture.gov/
farmbill. That is a tough one to remember, get with us after
the hearing and we will be glad to write that down for you.
Again, you have until May 20 to submit your comments and we do
want to hear from you. Your opinion is very important.
Thank you so much, everyone for being here. And with that,
I yield back to the Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Any other closing comments from my colleagues?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Seeing none, thank you all again for being
here today. I think we have heard some truly valuable input
today and I would like to especially thank our witnesses for
their time and their willingness to answer questions to the
extent they have.
As I said when we started, there are some challenges that
vary by region and we need to tailor farm policy to reflect
those unique requirements. I think it is also true farmers and
ranchers across the country share some of the same experiences.
So whether you raise fish in Arkansas or cotton in Mississippi
or peanuts in Georgia, corn in Alabama or rice in Missouri and
Louisiana, you want the same things. You want smart policies
that allow you to keep producing food and fiber for America.
Your input is important as a piece of this puzzle in putting
together a farm bill that works for all farmers in all regions,
all parts of the country.
Once again, as my colleague Congressman Crawford said, if
you want to submit comments, opinions and have it included in
the official record, go to agriculture.house.gov/farmbill and
fill out that form and send it back to us. Your perspective is
vital to the process and I thank you all for participating
today.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 30 calendar days to receive
additional information and supplementary written responses from
witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the United States House Committee on
Agriculture is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m. (CDT), the Committee was
adjourned.]
THE FUTURE OF U.S. FARM POLICY: FORMULATION OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Dodge City, KS.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m. (CDT), at
the Magouirk Conference Center, 4100 W. Comanche, Dodge City,
Kansas, 67801, Hon. Frank D. Lucas [Chairman of the Committee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Lucas, Conaway, and
Huelskamp.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Matt Schertz, Nicole Scott,
Heather Vaughan, Suzanne Watson, John Konya, and Caleb
Crosswhite.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
entitled, The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation of the
2012 Farm Bill, will come to order.
Good morning. Thank you all for joining us today for our
final farm bill field hearing. Congressman Huelskamp, thank you
for hosting us in your district. I like doing things in the
neighborhood, coming from just across the line to the south,
and I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today
and extend a particular welcome to Scott Neufeld, who's come up
from my great State of Oklahoma. I'll talk about him a little
later.
This hearing is a continuation of a process that started in
the spring of 2010. Today, we'll build upon the information
we've gathered in those hearings, as well as the 11 farm policy
audits we conducted this past summer.
We used those audits as an opportunity to fairly evaluate
farm programs to identify areas where we could improve
efficiency.
The field hearings serve a slightly different purpose,
though. Today, we're here to listen. I talk to producers all
the time back in Oklahoma. I see them at the feed store; I meet
them in my town hall meetings; and of course, I get regular
updates from my boss, Linda Lucas, back home on the ranch. Yes,
those of you who know Linda understand exactly what I mean by
that, but I can tell you that the past three field hearings
have demonstrated the tremendous diversity of agriculture in
this country.
We started in New York, where the farming operations tend
to be smaller, and there are probably more trees in one acre
than you have in most counties in the Big First District of
Kansas, Tim. We learned how farm policy affects specialty crop
growers and dairy producers in the Northeast.
Next was Illinois, where we saw vast corn and soybean
fields and heard how crop insurance is a critical risk
management tool for farmers in the Corn Belt.
In Arkansas, we saw quite a few irrigated fields, and yes,
as a western Okie, I was a little envious of that, and we heard
why crop insurance isn't quite as effective of a risk
management tool in the Southeast.
Today, we'll hear from a wide variety of producers who will
no doubt have a different perspective than we got in those
other regions. That's why it's so important that we offer a
choice of policy options. The broad range of agricultural
production in our country is what makes our country strong, and
it also creates challenges, when we're trying to write a single
farm bill that supports so many different regions and
commodities.
While each sector has unique concerns when it comes to farm
policy, I'd like to share some of my general goals for the next
farm bill. First and foremost, I want to give producers the
tools to help you do what you do best, and that is produce the
safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply literally in
the history of the world.
To do this, we must develop a farm bill that works for all
regions and all commodities. It has to take into account the
diversity of agriculture in America. Even within commodities,
different programs work better for different regions, and
that's why it's virtually important--vitally, I should say,
important that the commodity title give producers options so
they can choose the program that works best for them, whether
it is by protecting revenue or price.
I'm also committed to providing a strong crop insurance
program for our producers. The Committee has heard loud and
clear the importance of crop insurance, and it will be the
backbone of our safety net. We will look for areas to improve
crop insurance as we move forward.
Last, we will work to ensure that producers can continue
using conservation programs to protect our natural resources.
I'm particularly curious as to your thoughts on how to simplify
the process so they are easier for our farmers and ranchers to
use.
Beyond those priorities, I know there are a number of
universal concerns facing agriculture across the country. For
instance, my producers in Oklahoma are worried about
regulations coming down from the Environmental Protection
Agency, the EPA, and how they must comply with those
regulations. I'm also aware that the death tax is creating
difficulties for farming operations. I want to hear how these
Federal policies are affecting producers here.
Today, we'll be hearing from a selection of producers.
Unfortunately, we don't have time to hear from everybody who
would like to share their perspectives, but we have a place on
our website where you can submit your comments in writing. You
can visit agriculture.house.gov/farmbill to find that form. You
can also find the address on postcards that are available
around the room, I believe.
As I said before, we don't have an easy road ahead of us,
but I'm confident that by working together, we can craft a farm
bill that continues to support the successful story that
American agriculture is; and with that, I would turn to our
host, my colleague from the House Agriculture Committee, Mr.
Huelskamp, for any comments he might offer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUELSKAMP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM KANSAS
Mr. Huelskamp. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased
and honored to host this field hearing for the House
Agriculture Committee, not far from my home town of Fowler and
not far from our family farm. I appreciate you and Congressman
Conaway and others that have taken the time and effort to hear
what producers think about the farm bill, and what a fantastic
place to be here and hear that, in the region once known as the
Great American Desert.
The pioneers turned it into one of the most productive
agriculture areas in the world with hundreds of thousands of
acres of wheat and corn and milo and soybeans, even cotton, and
millions of head of cattle and pigs, and not to mention ethanol
and dairy production.
We do this in a time of mixed news: A lingering and
devastating drought throughout much of the Plains, high
commodity prices and record exports, matched with high cost for
inputs and machinery and even a land price boom, an aging
producer population and labor shortages, a slew of expensive
government regulations from the EPA, USDA, Departments of Labor
and Transportation.
Additionally, we're all aware of the financial situation in
Washington. Overspending has led to a massive debt problem. As
America's farmers and ranchers, we will do our fair share, I
believe, to solve this problem, but so should the more than 80
percent of the farm bill spending for food stamps and other
welfare programs, and we also expect Washington to do with
less: Less regulation, less mandates, and less control over our
way of life.
Writing farm policy is especially difficult because there
are so many variables affecting agriculture: Market volatility,
monetary policy, international competition, the weather, and of
course, new regulations out of Washington. With these in mind,
the next farm bill must be designed with maximum flexibility
and effective risk management for our farmers and ranchers as
we feed a growing and hungry world.
In order to meet these goals, it's absolutely critical that
we actually listen and learn from the concerns and common sense
of America's farmers and ranchers, so let me again thank you
all for coming to share your thoughts with the Committee and I
look forward to hearing from you today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Huelskamp.
The chair requests that other Members submit their opening
statements for the record, so that witnesses may begin their
testimony and ensure that there's ample time for questions.
With that, I'd like to welcome our first panel of witnesses
to the table: Mr. Gary Harshberger, a corn, wheat, milo,
soybean and cow/calf producer, Dodge City, Kansas; Mr. Keith
Miller, a wheat, sorghum, corn, soybean and cow/calf producer,
Great Bend, Kansas; Mr. Dee Vaughan, a corn, cotton, sorghum,
soybean, and wheat producer, Dumas, Texas; Mr. Scott Neufeld,
cotton--sorry--wheat, sorghum, canola, alfalfa, cow/calf
producer from Fairview, Oklahoma; and indulge me for a moment,
as the Chairman of the Committee, to note that while he didn't
put it in his bio, he and his wife Brenda and their two kids
were recently named the Oklahoma Farm Bureau Family of the
Year. I think that's very impressive and thank you, Scott, for
bringing the real boss of your operation, Brenda, with you
today also.
With that, Mr. Terry Swanson. Mr. Swanson is a corn, wheat,
sorghum, sunflower, and cow/calf producer from Walsh, Colorado,
and with that, let's turn to, appropriately, our friend from
Dodge City. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF GARY HARSHBERGER, CORN, WHEAT, MILO, SOYBEAN, AND
COW/CALF PRODUCER, DODGE CITY, KS
Mr. Harshberger. Good morning. Is this on? Good morning,
Chairman Lucas, Representative Huelskamp, and Representative
Conaway. Welcome to western Kansas. Kansas's First
Congressional District is the number one agriculture producing
Congressional district in the nation. It's my honor to sit
before you today and offer my perspective on farm policy as the
Committee shapes the next farm bill. Thank you for holding this
hearing in Kansas and thank all of you for being here.
My name is Gary Harshberger. I'm a fourth generation Ford
County farmer. After graduating college in 1987, I returned to
the family farm. However, I can proudly say that I started
farming roughly about the age of 10. Today we raise corn, milo,
wheat, soybeans, and some cattle. I currently serve as Chairman
of the Kansas Water Authority. I serve on the Bonanza Bioenergy
board as well as the Arkalon Energy board of directors.
I know that ag programs have done more than their fair
share to reduce Federal spending and yet this bill will be
written with much less money. Thank you for your efforts in
trying to develop a farm package that works and can sustain
farmers through the next 5 years. My testimony today will focus
on five critical areas as they relate to my operation.
First of all, while this Committee does not have
jurisdiction over this particular area, I must share my concern
with over-regulation. On one hand, the government wants to cut
farm production--protection--cut farm protection, and on the
other, it wants to saddle us with costly regulations proposed
by out-of-touch politicians and bureaucrats. The child labor
laws stemming from the Department of Labor, as well as diesel
engine regulations coming from the EPA, are just two examples
of regulatory burdens that cost my farm and consumers money.
Over-regulation is cumbersome and costly and presents more
of a threat to our nation's agriculture than possibly would the
farm bill.
On to the farm policy. I know this Committee has heard from
producers across the U.S. that crop insurance is the most
important program to protect in the next farm bill. I would
like to echo that fact. The impact of the recent drought is a
testament to the uncertainty farmers face each year, and the
need to rely on crop insurance can never be more clear.
There are many ways to strengthen the program, such as a
personal T-yield system to current APH methodology, allowing a
producer's APH's to more accurately reflect his yield
potential. I would like--I would also like to see a better
system in place for insuring limited irrigation practices.
As water supplies diminish and water conservation practices
are adopted, crop insurance should reflect this trend. RMA
needs to be encouraged to implement the proposed limited
irrigation crop insurance programs for 2013.
Finally, please keep crop insurance tools purchased by
producers protected from environmental compliance requirements
or other--any other payment limitations that limit conditions
that do not belong tied to insurance.
There have been many policy avenues that have been offered
by the commodity title. Shallow loss and deep loss have both
been discussed. I believe a new program should protect yield
and price in some form, as well as allow for flexibility. If
revenue--if a revenue-type program is used, I believe a minimum
price yield and plug--minimum price and plug yield should be
included in a revenue-based program. My input prices have
dramatically increased since the time I began farming.
Recently, we have enjoyed higher commodity prices and positive
profit margins. However, historically, this shows that this
will not last, as input costs will increase until they meet or
exceed the costs of production.
Last year, for instance, I just saw a $48,000 increase in
the price of a combine. I feel a price--I feel a minimum price
will protect against a large drop in commodity prices and plug
yields will help in times of consecutive years of yield loss,
such as in a drought.
A farm bill should provide assistance when I suffer losses
beyond my control. I need a simple program in case of--in case
my operation suffers a disaster. ACRE and SURE did not provide
the efficiency and simplicity farmers needed, and while current
loan countercyclical programs are simple, production costs have
continued to rise, making 2008 levels no longer relevant to the
realities of costs today.
Water conservation is something I'm very passionate about.
Last year's drought has dramatically affected the water supply
in my region, as many others tied to the Ogallala Aquifer.
We need to build stronger incentives for producers to plant
less water-intensive agriculture commodities; strengthen
existing programs like AWEP, where dollars are already being
used towards water conservation; and allow use of conservation
practices that use new technologies currently eligible within
the NRCS's conservation stewardship program, all of which can
benefit groundwater conservation.
Last, I support the continuation of the farm bill energy
title. It's imperative our country sustains the national--our
national--our national security. Programs in the energy title,
like the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, have been
positive for the U.S. I am proud that I produce local grains
that go to local ethanol plants and contribute to renewable
fuel sources that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and
putting billions of dollars back into our local economies
instead of sending them overseas.
Many people talk today about cutting the energy title from
the farm bill, and some even question the Renewable Fuel
Standard in general. We have to remember that energy policy has
been instrumental in maintaining our markets for our grain, as
input prices and regulations have continued to increase
tremendously. Cutting the legs out from underneath ethanol or
biofuels at this time would be catastrophic.
In closing, I'd like to reiterate that crop insurance is
critical. I believe that the commodity title should be as
simple as possible, as to allow producers flexibility for what
works best in their region and on their farm. Finally, water
and biofuels are critical to our local economies, and programs
in the conservation and energy titles that benefit us in
producing domestic biofuels and sustaining our water should be
supported.
Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harshberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Harshberger, Corn, Wheat, Milo, Soybean, and
Cow/Calf Producer, Dodge City, KS
Introduction
It is my honor to sit here today before the House Committee on
Agriculture and offer my perspective on farm policy as the Committee
shapes the next farm bill. Thank you for holding this hearing in
Kansas, and thank you Chairman Lucas and Congressman Huelskamp for
being here.
My name is Gary Harshberger. After college, I returned home to my
family operation in Ford County and started farming in 1988 where we
grow corn, milo, wheat and soybeans, and we also raise cattle. I serve
as Chairman of the Kansas Water Authority and serve on the Bonanza
Bioenergy and Arkalon Energy board of directors. Water and renewable
energy can offer a sustainable future and are two areas I am
particularly passionate about.
I know that ag programs have done more than their fair share to
reduce Federal spending and yet this bill will be written with much
less money. Thank you for your efforts in trying to develop a farm bill
package that works and can sustain farmers through the next 5 years. My
testimony will focus on five critical areas as they relate to my
operation.
Cumbersome Regulations
Over-regulation has become a significant threat to the family farm.
Although I understand this Committee does not have jurisdiction over
this particular area, it is necessary that I share my discontent with
what is happening at the farm level today. A couple of examples to
highlight my concern are the Department of Labor's proposed child labor
laws as they relate to agriculture and the diesel engine regulations
coming through the Environmental Protection Agency. If the U.S. hopes
to stay competitive with the rest of the world, it cannot continue to
add more regulatory burdens on family farms like mine. These cost my
farm and consumers money and disrupt the family farm work ethic on
which this country was founded.
Federal Crop Insurance
Even though producers across the U.S. have echoed Federal Crop
Insurance as the most important program to protect in the next farm
bill, I must place emphasis on it myself because it is crucially vital
to my farming operation. The impact from the recent drought is a
testament to the unknown certainty producers' face each growing year,
and many are able to continue farming this year because of their
investment in crop insurance.
Improvements are needed in APH methodology and the county T-
yield system. A producer's insurable yield should reflect what
he and his lender actually expect to produce in a given year.
APH could be improved by using a personal T-yield system, which
would allow a producer's APH to more accurately reflect his
yield potential rather than the county's yield potential.
I would like to see a better system in crop insurance for
limited irrigation. Right now insurance is all or nothing.
There needs to be a viable policy in Federal crop insurance to
have limited type irrigation practices. There has been talk
about this at the state level, but nothing has been developed
yet. This type of policy would allow producers to raise feed
while using less water.
Please keep crop insurance tools purchased by the producer
protected from environmental compliance requirements or other
payment limit conditions that do not belong tied to insurance.
Commodity Title
Many avenues have been offered for a commodity title in the next
farm bill, and while proposals have focused on either a shallow loss
type program or a deep loss type program, I hope that our new program
protects yields and price in some form. I have not looked at how all
these different options would impact my farming operation, but I did
like the concept of being able to choose between policies, an
opportunity that I understand was in the fall draft of the farm bill.
If a revenue type program is used, I believe a minimum price and
plug yields should be included in a revenue-based program. My input
prices have dramatically increased since the time I began farming, and
while we have enjoyed higher commodity prices, history shows they will
not last. In order to protect my investment, I feel a minimum price
will protect against a large commodity price drop and plug yields will
help in times of consecutive years of yield loss, which I may soon face
if the current drought continues.
Without yield plugs, a scenario may be created where the program
has little value to dryland in this area and can no longer offer
protection to my farm if two consecutive years of yield loss are
realized. Therefore, I feel this component is necessary in a revenue-
based program.
A farm bill should provide assistance when producers suffer losses
beyond their control. I need a simple program to take to my banker in
case my operation suffers a disaster. ACRE is based on the state's
income, and I could suffer a total loss due to an isolated weather
event and never trigger a payment. The SURE program was very
complicated and slow to pay when we did have a loss. The current loan
and countercyclical programs are simple, but production costs have
continued to rise making the 2008 price levels no longer relevant to
the realities of costs today.
A set minimum price is needed to protect producer income in the
event of a multi-year low price situation. Ideally, this minimum could
move upward over time should production costs also increase.
Conservation Title
Last year's drought has dramatically affected the water supply in
my region and many others tied to the Ogallala Aquifer south of here.
As an irrigated farmer, water is something I am very passionate about.
Every drop of water is valuable and should be utilized toward its best
economic return, but when meters are over pumped and very little
recharge to the aquifer through rainfall takes place, lasting damage to
our water supply results.
Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill like the Agriculture Water
Enhancement Program (AWEP) under the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) targeted dollars toward water conservation and have laid
the groundwork for more focused programs, but I feel these programs
stand to be strengthened by providing stronger incentives to producers
to plant less water-intensive agricultural commodities. The
Conservation Security Program (CSP) is another existing program where
water-savings language can be applied.
Energy Title
I support the continuation of a farm bill energy title. It is
imperative our country sustains our national security, and produces as
much of our fuel in the U.S. as possible. I am a believer in the ``all
of the above approach.'' The energy title has helped to continue to
expand biofuels production outside the Corn Belt and outside of
traditional feedstocks. Programs in the energy title like the Bioenergy
Program for Advanced Biofuels have been positive for the U.S. I am
proud that I produce local grain that goes into local ethanol plants
and contributes to a renewable fuel source that will lessen dependence
on foreign oil.
Many people talk today about cutting the energy title of the farm
bill, and some even question the renewable fuels standard in general.
We have to remember that energy policy has been very valuable in
helping to maintain markets for our grain as input prices and
regulations have continued to increase tremendously.
Conclusion
In closing I would like to reiterate that crop insurance is
critical. I believe that the commodity title should be as simple as
possible and bankable. If there ends up being several different complex
proposals, then I would hope that I have the flexibility to choose
based upon my own operation. Finally, water and biofuels are critical
to our local economies, and programs in the conservation and energy
titles that benefit us while producing domestic biofuels and sustaining
our water should be supported. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF KEITH MILLER, WHEAT, SORGHUM, CORN, SOYBEAN, AND
COW/CALF PRODUCER, GREAT BEND, KS
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and the Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to join us
today and share some thoughts about the necessity of an
economic safety net for farmers and how possible improvements
to the current program would allow us to achieve these goals.
I currently farm in the middle of Kansas, Great Bend,
Kansas, and serve on the board of directors of Kansas Farm
Bureau and am the past Chairman of the United States Meat
Export Federation, but I'm here today under my own steam and
grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you.
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to thank you publicly for
having Representative Huelskamp host this hearing here in the
great city of Dodge City, and we're glad that he did that for
us, so we appreciate that, Tim.
Crop insurance is an important part of my operation and it
is imperative to it. Protection enhancement of crop insurance
programs ranks as the number one priority from a long list of
farm organizations throughout the United States, and I cannot
agree more. Agriculture is a highly erratic industry and is
influenced by many variables, and some are beyond a producer's
control. We can control seed, fertilizer, and those types of
inputs, but we cannot control the weather and the markets.
Simply put, during the development of the 2012 Farm Bill, crop
insurance must be a priority.
Enterprise units would allow farmers to access quality
coverage at a lower rate. These units are being used in certain
areas to--and we're having trouble with the irrigated and the
dryland differential because it currently, if you insure under
one, you have to be for both. We need more flexibility in that
program.
Limited irrigation should be a focus of the new program and
we should look for ways that we can do that in the new farm
bill. Limited irrigation will only help conserve the water
supply which is so very limited here in the United States.
Declining yields is another problem that we're having with
our crop insurance, and it's because of the excessive amount of
drought years and crop failures. Under the current situation,
the production history will go down and it will increase costs
to our consumers through their premiums. We need to find a
better way of keeping the crop in that system.
Improving data collection: Like many others, the data is
very, very important in the technology on my farm. It only
seems right that we should improve the data collection that FSA
and RMA are using, especially tying crop insurance together
with our other reporting services, so we would encourage you to
work on that.
Reform: as you know, the cuts in crop insurance for the
last few years have been between $12 and $20 billion.
Additional cuts would likely increase the premiums to our
producers and make it unable for a lot of producers to be able
to purchase that. We simply cannot afford additional cuts in
today's high risk marketplace.
Let me switch gears, Conservation: I live right next to the
Cheyenne Bottoms and conservation is a very, very important
part of my operation. I currently use EQIP in several different
ways to try and limit the amount of erosion in our area and
preserve that wetland.
Regulation, as you know, has been a major part of our
problem coming from the--from D.C. The CAFO regulations, EPA
regulations, Clean Water Act, all them have been giving us a
lot more new regulations coming down and we're having trouble
meeting all those regulations, and we sure would encourage you
to try and limit them.
Exports: I couldn't tell you enough about exports and
global economy and how the amount of opportunities we have
there. The Market Access Program is crucial for that to stay in
business. The multi-year impact of increased market development
spending is equal to $35 in agriculture export gains for every
dollar expended. That's a 35:1 return on investment. That is
crucial for the future of the United States to keep that
program intact.
So in closing, I would encourage you to read my entire
written testimony, because there are a lot more facts and
figures that are in that, and I sure thank you for the
opportunity for me to be able to share my thoughts with you as
a Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keith Miller, Wheat, Sorghum, Corn, Soybean, and
Cow/Calf Producer, Great Bend, KS
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to join you today to share
some thoughts about the necessity of an economic safety net for farmers
and how some possible improvements to the current program will allow us
to achieve this goal.
I'm a third generation farmer who grew up on the same farm where I
currently live in rural Barton County, Kansas. When I started farming
with my wife in 1976, my father was farming 400 acres and raised a few
hogs. Since then, the farm has grown to over 7,500 acres and is a
diversified grains, alfalfa and cattle operation.
All of my daughters and sons-in-law work on the farm at various
times, and my daughter, Dara, and her husband, Jason, work there full
time throughout the year. Whenever I'm away from the farm, I can count
on my family to ensure that things run smoothly with respect to the
day-to-day business on our farm.
I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to serve in a host of
leadership capacities, in my community, my county, my state, and even
internationally.
Our family is deeply involved in our church, where I serve on the
church council and I've had the good fortune to serve on my local
school board for a number of years, including a stint as President,
when we shepherded a major bond issue to pay for school improvements.
I currently serve on the board of directors of Kansas Farm Bureau,
and am a past Chairman of the United States Meat Export Federation.
But I'm here today under my own steam, grateful for the opportunity
to share my thoughts about the next farm bill and eager to engage the
Committee in this important dialogue.
Mister Chairman, please allow me to begin by publicly thanking my
own Congressman, U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp for his leadership
in the Big First U.S. House District of Kansas, and for arranging this
field hearing today in Dodge City.
Safety Net/Crop Insurance
Our family is deeply committed to agriculture and to rural America.
My wife, Connie, and I raised our daughters and run our farm with an
eye to the future generations of our family who will help feed, fuel
and clothe the world from our lands.
Stability through the use of effective risk management tools is
imperative for our operation. Protection and enhancement of crop
insurance programs ranks as the number one priority for a long list of
farm organizations in the 2012 Farm Bill process. I could not agree
more.
Agriculture is a highly erratic industry influenced by a multitude
of variables beyond the producer's control. Farmers can use top quality
seed, fertilizer, chemicals and best management practices, and still
not be able to control the weather or the markets. Profit margins in
the industry are such that it is critical that farmers have access to a
strong, viable and flexible risk management program.
Simply put, during the development of the 2012 Farm Bill, crop
insurance must be a priority.
In fact, there are several possible improvements that I would urge
the Committee to consider that would allow the program to better meet
the needs of producers in Kansas and across the nation.
Enterprise Units
Enterprise units allow farmers to access quality coverage at a
lower premium rate. The program should be made permanent, but
unfortunately, given the diversity between irrigated and dryland acres,
the concept doesn't work as well as it could. To address this situation
I would recommend introducing additional flexibility within the program
to allow producers to designate enterprise units by practice;
specifically, differentiating between irrigated acres and dryland
acres.
In drought years, this differentiation would have allowed us to
receive indemnity payments on the dryland acres while continuing to
attempt to bring a crop to fruition on our irrigated acres.
Limited Irrigation Products
Given our focus on the future we routinely look for ways to
maximize production while conserving water. One option I would
encourage the Committee to support is the concept of a limited
irrigation insurance product. Currently, producers have only two
choices: They must declare acres either irrigated or non-irrigated. An
irrigated designation implies application of adequate water to produce
the crop but also requires planting at higher population rates.
Properly developed, a limited irrigation product would encourage
conservation by allowing producers with limited or declining water
supplies to plant lower populations and set a lower yield goal while
maintaining insurance coverage at better than dryland levels.
Declining Yields
Many parts of the nation have now endured successive years of
disaster events. Under our current structure these consecutive bad
years result in declining Actual Production History and subsequently
increasing producer premiums.
Alternatives should be explored to rectify this situation and could
include the use of a personal `T' yield in addition to the adoption of
a higher yield plug to allow a producer's insurable yield to reflect
what he hopes to produce in a given year.
Improving Data Collection
Like many operations, we have aggressively implemented technology
on our farm. It seems only natural to continue to encourage the
implementation of technology at FSA and RMA as well as on the farm
allowing greatly improved accuracy in reporting and eventually adding
the potential for real time data collection.
We believe the 2012 Farm Bill should continue to encourage agencies
to embrace technology to better serve producers and allow for more
efficient delivery of all farm programs and indemnity payments.
Reform Wisely
As you're well aware, recent cuts to crop insurance and the
renegotiation of the SRA have resulted in $12 to $20 billion in
savings. Additional cuts will likely result in increased premiums to
producers or reductions in the products available or the level of
service companies are able to provide. We simply cannot afford
additional cuts in today's high risk marketplace.
American agriculture relies on a strong safety net, delivered
efficiently and effectively through the current public-private
partnership. Producers across the nation are concerned and opposed to
this notion that crop insurance delivery could be managed and delivered
through an existing Federal agency.
In addition, in no case should the crop insurance tools, which are
purchased by the producer, be encumbered with environmental regulation,
conservation requirements, or other conditions that fall out of the
scope of insurance. They should also not be subject to payment limits
or means testing, doing so would defeat the purpose of the programs and
reduce their effectiveness in ensuring that producers, no matter how
small or large have equal access to risk management tools and an equal
opportunity to continue to operate their farms.
Conservation
Let me switch gears and visit briefly about the importance of
conservation. My farm is literally just a stone's throw from Cheyenne
Bottoms. It's the largest marsh in the interior of the United States
and was designated a Wetland of International Importance in 1988.
The area is considered the most important shorebird migration point
in the western hemisphere. Approximately 45% of the North American
shorebird population stops at the Bottoms during spring migration.
Because of our farm's proximity to this special place, those of us in
Barton County understand and value the importance of conservation.
Farm bill conservation programs help producers enhance soil and
water quality, improve wildlife habitat, can assist with compliance
with Federal and state environmental rules, protect agricultural and
grass lands and provide various other benefits.
Working lands programs, in my opinion, provide the most bang for
the buck. Chief among those is the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program which seems to the best and most effective way to implement
multiple conservation practices. Whatever you can do to preserve EQIP
funding and programs should be a top priority.
On my farm, I take advantage of the benefits offered in EQIP three
different ways: Terracing of my fields, waterways and water
conservation. In addition, I have many acres enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program.
Regulation
Federal regulations are increasingly costly for the U.S. economy,
including for farmers and ranchers. And here, if you'll allow me, I'd
like to tip my hat to Congressman Huelskamp for his work keeping this
issue in the consciousness of the Congress.
In the last year alone, Federal regulators have finalized
regulations that ask farmers to draw up oil spill prevention plans for
their operations, apply for Clean Water Act permits for certain
pesticide applications and report certain air emissions. Unless the
courts rule otherwise, farms and ranches will likely be regulated for
greenhouse gas emissions, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing that Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) owners
report sensitive information on their operations to Federal regulators.
Given the wide application, cost and burden of Federal regulations, it
is critical that the process by which they are proposed and finalized
be open, transparent and fair to all, particularly the regulated
community.
Research
As you know, the world population is exploding. In any best case
estimate, agricultural production must produce 70 to 100% more by 2050.
Current efforts are likely to yield only a 40% increase in our
production by that time. We have significant work to do.
Federal programs must encourage both public and private investment
in efforts that will produce new information to improve soil,
environmental and socioeconomic conditions and allow producers to
continue to produce high quality, affordable food on a shrinking land
base.
We must also strive to improve the acceptance and implementation of
technology in agriculture. Our competitive advantage in world markets
will be maintained only through the continued support and encouragement
of technological advancements. To that end, our partners in the biotech
industry should be encouraged to cooperatively develop protocols for
products as they come off patent to allow producers to access and
implement cost effective practices on their operations.
Exports
I think we can all agree that in today's global economy, our
government needs to be a full-fledged partner in helping expand and
enhance agricultural export opportunities. The Market Access Program of
the existing farm bill works and should be retained.
Agriculture's trade surplus was nearly $30 billion 2 years ago.
It's forecast to be $24.5 billion this year. Agriculture is still one
of the few sectors of the American economy to enjoy a trade surplus,
and without it, the overall U.S. trade deficit would be even worse.
The multi-year impact of the increased market development spending
is equal to $35 in agricultural export gains for every additional $1
expended. That's a 35:1 return on investment.
The Market Access Program protects American jobs and increases farm
income. Every billion dollars in U.S. farm exports supports about 8,400
American jobs. Given that U.S. farm exports are forecast to be $131
billion this year, more than a million Americans can trace their jobs
to these exports, thanks in no small measure to MAP and related
programs that have boosted U.S. agricultural exports.
And finally, the Market Access Program is a great example of a
successful public-private partnership. It is administered on a
reimbursable cost-share basis, specifically targeting small businesses
and farmer co-operatives. While government's an important partner in
his effort, industry contributions are now pegged at more than 60% of
total annual spending on market development and promotion, up from
roughly 30% only 2 decades ago.
Conclusion
I manage my farm with a focus on longevity and sustainability. We
appreciate the partnership we have with the Federal Government and
programs to ensure stability in our efforts to produce food, fiber and
fuel. The 2012 Farm Bill provides new opportunities to further define
that partnership and to continue to protect and ensure that Americans
and consumers around the world have access to safe and affordable food.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts and our
operation with you today. Should you ever find yourself in Barton
County, Kansas, please, by all means, stop by for a cup of coffee.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Vaughan, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF DEE VAUGHAN, CORN, COTTON, SORGHUM, SOYBEAN, AND
WHEAT PRODUCER, DUMAS, TX
Mr. Vaughan. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank
you for holding this hearing here today. My name is Dee Vaughan
and I am a corn, cotton, sorghum, soybean and wheat producer
from Dumas, Texas. I currently serve as President of the
Southwest Council of Agribusiness, an organization comprised of
17 farm groups, 30 lending institutions, and about 70 main
street businesses in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, and
also here in Kansas.
I want to begin by thanking this Committee for working hard
to develop a consensus farm bill this last fall that not only
would have met the needs of all producers and all regions and
all crops, but have done so in a way that would have saved over
$23 billion for the taxpayers. I believe this year's farm bill
process should build upon the excellent work that was done last
fall.
There is one particular aspect of your work that I want to
especially thank you for, and that is your focus on price
protection. If Washington is truly serious about saving
taxpayer dollars and less government intervention, price-based
protection in the farm bill is the way to go about it.
Think about a farm bill that provides meaningful price
protection relative to today's production costs and price
situation that could still end up not costing the taxpayer a
dime for this protection over the next 5 years.
Conversely, if history is any guide, you can be sure that a
farm bill built on price protection, if needed, will prove to
be the cheapest of the alternatives that have been presented
before you. In short, a price-based farm bill policy that only
kicks in when it is absolutely necessary is the conservative,
fiscally responsible, and market-oriented approach that we
should be striving to achieve.
It seems that much of the farm bill discussion has centered
on revenue-based options, but there are concerns about this
route. First, I think there has been enough bad PR about direct
payments over the last few years that producers want to avoid
receiving any kind of a payment unless it is absolutely
necessary. I also think there is concern about the fact that no
policy should be so rich that it drives up input costs and land
costs, not to mention the criticism.
Second, I think there is a big concern that revenue
approaches cut off help to producers just when they need it the
very most, when revenue really drops, mainly due to prolonged
periods of low prices. That's exactly when producers need farm
policy most, and that's exactly when revenue approaches offer
the least protection.
Third, while I agree that revenue does not exactly
duplicate what crop insurance does, there is at least some
crossover, especially in the minds of the public and especially
in the minds of the critics of the farm bill and crop
insurance. It is important to remember in this exercise that we
must pass a good farm bill, but we must also be able to defend
it later.
In my view, what was so important about what you did last
fall is that you ensured that even if a producer chose a
revenue option, there would be price protection for that
producer if the bottom fell out, price-wise. You also worked to
protect crop insurance from harm, which is a top priority as
applied by farmers from across the country, and I totally
agree. Whatever you do, please do not harm crop insurance.
Proposals to link conservation compliance and to impose a
payment limit cap on crop insurance are thinly veiled attempts
to kill insurance for farmers. No question about it.
From my perspective, at least, the Supplemental Coverage
Option included in your plan of last fall could serve very well
as the revenue component of the farm bill and do so without the
negatives that I've mentioned about the revenue options.
In closing, I firmly believe that if you ask rank and file
farmers, no matter the crop, no matter the region of the
country, the vast majority of them would tell you that if they
were writing the farm bill, they would ensure that there is
real price protection and that crop insurance would not be
harmed in the process, but improved.
Maybe it's the West Texan in me, but I tend to think that
the right answer is usually the plain one. Washington should
keep it simple. We rely on crop insurance for what it does
best: Protect against production risk. We need an equally
effective policy that provides protection against low prices
over a sustained period of time such as we experienced in the
late 1990's and early 2000's. While shallow losses can be
devastating if they're repetitive, the risk producers fear most
is a drop in commodity prices to below cost of production that
lasts for several years.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the
2012 Farm Bill and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vaughan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dee Vaughan, Corn, Cotton, Sorghum, Soybean, and
Wheat Producer, Dumas, TX
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, Members of the Committee,
thank you for holding this hearing, and the important work you are
doing to craft a good farm bill.
My name is Dee Vaughan and I farm just about 200 miles southwest of
here near the town of Dumas, Texas. I grow all the major row crops that
work well in the Texas Panhandle--chiefly corn, cotton, sorghum, wheat
and soybeans. I have been fortunate in the past number of years to get
to serve in a number of leadership positions in farm and commodity
organizations--including serving as President of the National Corn
Growers Association from 2003 to 2004.
I currently serve as President of the Southwest Council of
Agribusiness, an organization comprised of 17 farm groups, including
producers of cotton, corn, wheat, grain sorghum, rice, peanuts and
cattle; 30 lending institutions; and about 70 main street businesses in
Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, and here in Kansas.
I want to begin by thanking this Committee--earnestly thanking
you--for working so hard to develop a consensus farm bill last fall
that not only would have met the needs of all producers, regions, and
crops in this country but would have done so in a way that would have
saved taxpayers $23 billion. I believe we as farmers can all be proud
of the fact that our rural representatives and agricultural leaders in
Washington were able to come together in this way--a real contrast to
how it appears other areas are working (or not working) in our nation's
government. In short, I believe this year's farm bill process should
build upon the excellent work that you did last year.
There is one particular aspect of your work that I want to
especially thank you for and encourage you in, and that is your focus
on price protection. Plain and simple, a collapse in commodity prices
is what keeps me up at night, and that is the risk I think this farm
bill should address. Happily, this approach is also the most cost
efficient. If Washington is truly serious about saving taxpayer dollars
and about less government intervention, price-based protection in a
farm bill, as a compliment to crop insurance, is the way to do it.
Think about the prospect of a farm bill that provides meaningful
price protection relative to today's production costs and price
situation that could still end up not costing taxpayers a dime over the
next 5 years. If the only thing title I of the next farm bill provided
producers was this kind of price protection, this no cost scenario is a
real possibility. Conversely, if a price-based farm policy did cost
money, if history is any guide, you can be sure that it will prove to
be the cheapest of all the alternatives.
Easy to understand, bankable price protection is not a unique
concept to me or anyone else and it certainly is not an unproven one.
But it does feel a bit novel amidst all the other complicated proposals
that are floating around out there which I'd be surprised if more than
a handful of people could actually explain to you if asked. But worse
than being complicated, these ideas--which all center on a revenue
guarantee based in part on a 5 year Olympic Average (OA) price--offer
farmers no real price protection and we know from experience that that
alone is a big problem.
The SWCA, which is made up of the major producer organizations from
five states as well as dozens of lenders, suppliers and processors, has
made price protection a key priority. This organization is unique in
that it brings a lot of diversity and experience to the table via the
leaders from these regional organizations, many of whom have served as
officers in national commodity organizations. This past Fall, our group
propounded a priorities document which is attached to this testimony in
its entirety. With respect to the price protection, it stated the
following:
``The priority in redesigning a countercyclical policy should
be to protect against deep and persistent price declines.
Whether achieved through a countercyclical revenue policy or a
price-based policy, the policy must provide effective
protection across commodities, and be reliable and bankable to
the producer. The marketing loan for commodities should also be
maintained and rates raised where practicable in order to
reflect today's costs of production.''
Of the systemic risks (those beyond the control of the farmer)
which farmers face, prolonged periods of low prices would be most
devastating to the economy and is most worrisome to SWCA members--
producers, lenders and agribusinesses alike. Production losses are
being addressed well by crop insurance. Single year revenue losses are
being addressed well by crop insurance. But if a series of events like
a strengthened dollar, above average yield worldwide, and a slowdown of
Asian economies struck, causing corn and sorghum prices to decline to
$3.00, beans to $7.00, wheat to $4.00, rice to $11.00 and cotton to
$.65, our current farm policy would be ineffective and rural economies
would suffer.
The SWCA does not, and I do not believe a 5 year Olympic Average of
price or revenue as a target provides adequate protection in this
situation either.
A 5 year rolling average price-trigger can offer assurance in the
first and second year of a price decline, but by the third year the
protection is severely eroded. And, of course, our experience from 1997
to 2006 would confirm that prices can remain below cost of production
for multiple years.
The current debate reminds me of the 1995/1996 timeframe when
economists assured us all that we had hit a new plateau of prices and
that growing world demand for food and fiber would keep prices high.
In 1995, the season average price for corn hit $3.24--an all time
high. But over the next 4 years, prices fell to $2.71 in 1996; to $2.43
in 1997; to $1.94 in 1998; and to $1.82 in 1999--that is a 44% collapse
in prices over 4 years that was absolutely devastating, and that I
expect most of us up here today would not have survived had it not been
for the ad hoc Market Loss Payments that was provided beginning in
1998.
How would have a 5 year Olympic Average price safety net have fared
during these times? Well it would have peaked in 1998 at $2.55, but
then trailed off over the next 4 years to $2.07 in 2001, and then $1.92
in 2002 and 2003. That is not what I, or my banker, would have
considered adequate price protection.
In 2010, the season average price for corn hit $5.40--a new all
time high. But what if we shed 44% over the next 4 years just as we did
in the late 1990's? How will farmers fare with corn prices at $3.02. I
can tell you for this farmer and the community of Dumas, Texas, the
answer would be not well.
The current 5 year Olympic Average for corn relevant to 2012 is
$4.55, which sounds like an attractive safety net. But if that safety
net is allowed to trail down over a couple years back to the mid $3.00
range or lower, then it is no longer helpful, and I expect farmers
would be seeking ad hoc assistance again.
Now I can tell you I am thrilled prices are still strong in the
2011 marketing year and 2012 planting season, and I am hopeful they
remain this way--but I am not confident they will. So bottom line, I
think building in more relevant protection while prices are high is
good insurance should prices go south again, as history has shown they
most likely will.
If one defines conservatism, fiscal responsibility, and market
orientation by the traditional measures of how much something costs and
how often it intervenes, price-based farm policy that only kicks in
when it is absolutely necessary is the conservative, fiscally
responsible, and market-oriented approach.
Regarding revenue program alternatives, specifically those targeted
at ``shallow losses,'' I would note just a few concerns. First, I think
there has been enough bad PR from Direct Payments that producers want
to avoid receiving any payment unless it is absolutely necessary. I
also think there is concern that no policy should be too rich so that
it drives up input costs and land rents, in addition to the criticism.
Second, I think there is a big concern that revenue approaches cut off
help to producers just when they need it most: when revenue really
drops, mainly due to a prolonged period of low prices. That's exactly
when farmers need farm policy most and that's exactly when revenue
approaches fold-up tent. Third, while I agree that revenue does not
exactly duplicate what crop insurance does, there is at least some
crossover and, in the minds of the public and especially the critics,
any effort to say there is no duplication between the two will be
regarded, however falsely, as merely parsing words. It is important to
remember in this exercise that we must not just pass a farm bill but we
must also one day defend it as well.
In my view, what was so important about what you did last fall is
that you ensured that even if a producer chose a revenue approach,
there would be price protection for that producer if the bottom ever
fell out. You also worked to protect crop insurance from harm,
something that so many farmers across the country say is there absolute
top priority.
I want to add my voice to the chorus and say, whatever you do,
please do nothing to harm crop insurance. Proposals to link
conservation compliance and to impose a pay limit on crop insurance are
thinly veiled attempts to kill insurance for farmers. Period.
From my perspective, at least, the Supplemental Coverage Option
included in your plan of last fall could serve very well as the revenue
component of the farm bill and could do so without any of the negatives
of the other revenue approaches that I just laid out.
In closing, let me just say this: I firmly believe that if you
asked rank and file farmers in the country, no matter what the crop or
region of the country, nine out of ten of them would tell you that if
they were writing the farm bill, they would ensure that there is real
price protection because that is the one thing crop insurance is not
designed to take care of, and that crop insurance should be not just
not harmed, but improved upon.
It may be the West Texan in me but I tend to think that the right
answer is usually the plain one. Washington should keep it simple. We
rely on crop insurance for what it does best, protect against
production and in-season price risk. We need an equally effective
policy that provides protection against low prices over a sustained
period of time such as was experienced in the late 1990's through the
mid-2000's. While shallow losses can be devastating if they are
repetitive, the risk that producers fear most is a drop in commodity
prices to below cost of production lasting for several years.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the 2012 Farm
Bill. I will be pleased to answer any follow-up questions you may have.
Attachment
October 12, 2011
Dear Member of Congress:
The Southwest Council of Agribusiness (SWCA) is a coalition of more
than 100 businesses standing with producer organizations from Texas,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado to promote agriculture and
policies that support this most important and fundamental of
industries.
Understanding that our nation's current fiscal situation, and the
super committee process designed to address it, may force an early
reconsideration of the policies of the 2008 Farm Bill, the SWCA offers
the following for your consideration.
Budget Issues
The members of the SWCA believe that farm policy designed to
support a strong and dynamic U.S. agriculture sector is vital to our
nation's economy and security interests. We also believe the current
mix of policies has proven a great success by reducing government
expenditures while providing a foundation for our nation's farmers to
diversify and create and grow markets, commerce, and jobs to emerge as
one of the few bright spots in the current dismal economy.
Accordingly, as Congress considers any revisions to these important
policies, we would ask that you carefully consider three important
overarching facts along with our specific recommendations:
First, stable agricultural policy makes for a strong
agricultural economy. In 2000, a time of great instability and
uncertainty, the U.S. value of farm sector production had
stagnated at $218.4 billion with little optimism for a
recovery. However, since the 2000 crop insurance bill, the 2002
Farm Bill, and subsequent improvements, farm sector production
value and other measures have shown steady growth, reaching a
net record $411.5 billion in 2011. Total net value added to the
economy from agriculture is also forecast to reach a new high
of $157 billion in 2011. As Washington seeks to provide greater
economic certainty through reform of the tax code, regulatory
relief, and other measures in order to fix all that is broken
in the economy, injecting uncertainty in the one sector of the
economy that is not broken seems especially imprudent.
Second, stable agricultural policy costs taxpayers less. From
1999 to 2001, the government spent an average of $22.4 billion
to shore up the floundering agricultural sector, which had been
injured by, among other things, lost trade, a strong dollar and
strong worldwide crop production. Over the last decade, this
has changed. For example, from 2009 to 2011, annual spending
will average $11.6 billion--roughly \1/2\ of the amount being
spent 10 years earlier. When markets turn again, it will be
more cost effective to have stable and predictable policy in
place to address the losses rather than work on an ad hoc basis
to provide costly disaster assistance.
Third, our growing world needs a strong and dynamic U.S.
agricultural sector. The global population is expected to rise
from seven billion to nine billion people by 2050, and so we
must become more productive on the world's limited arable land.
U.S. agriculture today leads the way in this regard, getting
more out of every acre of soil than any other nation, and doing
so in a sustainable way. We must not abandon this model.
Because of these critical facts, we strongly oppose cutting the
agricultural budget beyond the level that would otherwise be cut under
sequestration, which essentially mirrors the level of cuts recommended
by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. Agriculture has
consistently come in under budget over the past decade, and has made
significant contributions to deficit reduction both in its mandatory
policies (e.g., the 2008 Farm Bill and the 2010 crop insurance
negotiation) and in discretionary funding accounts. We also strongly
believe that the policies to achieve these savings should be developed
by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.
While the SWCA considers all areas of the farm bill important, and
specifically supports areas such as research funding and the FSA
guaranteed loan programs, we are focusing our comments on the principal
funding areas most likely to be affected should the super committee
process address farm policy.
Federal Crop Insurance and Title I Farm Policy
Since our nation's very beginning, we have had Federal policies in
place to promote strong U.S. agricultural production. These policies
have helped the U.S. agricultural sector become the most productive,
dynamic, conservation-minded and diverse agricultural sector in the
history of the world. Below are some specific policy recommendations we
provide to ensure we do not break with this important tradition that is
also a cornerstone of our economy and security.
1. Any countercyclical element of farm policy that would replace
the current countercyclical program, direct payments, SURE, and
ACRE, in whole or in part, must effectively work for all staple
commodities and producers. The policy should provide reliable
protection by commodity, but should be carefully designed to
not distort planting decisions.
2. Any cuts made to title I of the farm bill should be applied to
the respective commodities on a proportional basis.
3. The priority in redesigning a countercyclical policy should be
to protect against deep and persistent price declines. Whether
achieved through a countercyclical revenue policy or a price-
based policy, the policy must provide effective protection
across commodities, and be reliable and bankable to the
producer. The marketing loan for commodities should also be
maintained and rates raised where practicable in order to
reflect today's costs of production.
4. The separate countercyclical mechanism should compliment, not
compete with or duplicate, the protection that can be purchased
through Federal crop insurance. Moreover, crop insurance should
be improved, especially as it relates to insurable yields
(i.e., the Actual Production History system) and specific crops
such as rice and peanuts that are currently under-served. Rep.
Randy Neugebauer's ``Total Coverage Option'' area-based
supplemental insurance authority is a well-crafted and cost
effective option for shallow loss coverage.
5. Given declining budgetary resources, assistance should generally
be tailored to planted acres. However, we are concerned about
base acres, particularly in the western Great Plains, that are
currently in grass and receiving decoupled benefits. Because of
their conserving use, we would urge the consideration of
alternative positive incentives to keep this land in grass
where the economic benefits of breaking it out would be
outweighed by the potentially adverse environmental impact.
6. Finally, outdated payment limits and arbitrary means tests
should be eliminated, and USDA's definition of a ``farm''
should be updated. Notions of 2.1 million farmers in the U.S.
(based on USDA's definition which includes anyone who sells
more than $1,000 worth of agricultural production) lead to the
distortion of facts. Based on 2007 Census data, only 10% of
farms in the U.S. had gross sales over $250,000, and only
125,000 had gross sales over $500,000. These full-time family
farms are all-in every year and constitute the ``thin green
line'' that keeps America and much of the world clothed and
fed.
Title II Conservation Issues
In the Southwest region of the U.S., conservation policies have
provided important tools for farmers, ranchers, livestock producers,
and landowners to make sound investments that promote wise use of soil
and water resources. We are especially mindful this year of this fact
considering the severe drought that has gripped the region. With this
background, we offer the following principles:
1. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) should be preserved.
While we are open to reduction in the overall acreage cap, we
maintain that this policy has served as an effective means of
concentrating our farming efforts on the most productive land.
The Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) should be expanded,
especially if decoupled title I policies are substituted for
policies tied to planted acres.
2. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the most
important conservation policy, providing critical cost-share
and incentives for farmers and livestock-producers alike. The
EQIP model should be expanded, and funding for the Agricultural
Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) within it should be maintained
and better directed to encourage the best water conserving
practices in agriculture operations possible.
3. Given the critical water needs of a growing world population, a
greater emphasis should be placed upon water conservation in
all policies within the conservation title. The Southwest U.S.
has much it can teach the world about a wise use of scarce
water resources in agricultural production, but we feel
confident more can and should be done.
Regulatory and Competitiveness Issues
Agriculture is a business subject to sharp and unpredictable swings
in price, costs, and income, with producers operating on thin margins,
which generally, helps to explain the need for the farm and
conservation policies discussed above. This also explains why U.S.
farmers and ranchers are sensitive to regulations imposed by the
government. The imposition or threat of misguided environmental
regulations, including a rash of recent endangered species listings,
and the proliferation of manipulative regulations in the livestock
sector have all had a dampening effect on the rural economy, with no
apparent benefit. Accordingly, the SWCA is very supportive of efforts
by Senator Mike Johanns and Senator Pat Roberts to sequester the
regulatory activity and provide stability to the business environment.
We offer one specific proposal that is fully within the purview of the
House and Senate Agriculture Committees:
The USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) proposed rule should not be implemented because it will
encourage frivolous lawsuits and end alternative marketing arrangements
as we know them. Ultimately the proposed rule will set the beef
industry back 30 years by stifling the innovative efforts of U.S.
cattle producers to add value and enhance the quality and safety of
their products. The bottom line is that this is yet another example of
the government trying to interfere in the private market by telling
producers when and how they can market their cattle.
We hope that this information is useful as you continue to work to
develop sound farm policy in the context of ongoing deficit reduction
efforts. If you would like to know more about the SWCA and our
membership, please visit http://www.southwest-council.com.
Sincerely,
Southwest Council of Agribusiness.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Scott, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT NEUFELD, WHEAT, SORGHUM, CANOLA, ALFALFA,
AND COW/CALF PRODUCER, FAIRVIEW, OK
Mr. Neufeld. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Conaway,
Members of the Committee----
The Chairman. Scott, turn that microphone just a little bit
more towards us. Thank you.
Mr. Neufeld. Thank you for holding this hearing on the farm
bill. My name is Scott Neufeld and I'm a third generation
farmer operating in a partnership with my father. We have a
diversified operation, producing wheat, alfalfa hay for dairy
use, canola, and grain sorghum. We also have a cow/calf herd
and we raise stocker cattle on wheat pasture when the
conditions allow. My wife and I have been very active in the
Oklahoma Farm Bureau and I currently chair the Farm Bill
Advisory Committee.
If I were to sum up my views on the farm bill, my advice
would be straightforward and twofold. First, please keep
Federal crop insurance strong and use the opportunity to make
improvements; and second, make the focus of the farm bill be
about addressing price protection during a multiyear downturn,
a risk that crop insurance was never designed to address. If
Washington does these two things, this farm bill will be a
great success.
It's a testimony to the success of crop insurance
protection and the current farm bill that producers are
planting again this spring and moving forward with no outcry
for ad hoc disaster assistance. The risk management tools that
were in place during our recent drought were adequate and
cheaper than funding additional disaster programs.
Areas where crop insurance can be improved track closely
with the recommendations that Chairman Lucas and his colleagues
made last fall. These recommendations include improving actual
production histories to deal with multiple year losses so those
APH's, and ultimately insurance coverage, reflect true
production potential. I also appreciate the extensive
enterprise units and the ability to divide enterprise units
from irrigated versus non-irrigated practices.
Separate from the farm bill, I appreciate this Committee's
leadership in closely monitoring what USDA is doing regarding
crop insurance. In an effort to try to lower rates for some
producers, I'm concerned that it may price the rest of the
country out of coverage.
I also strongly oppose applying payment limits and means
testing to crop insurance. The agricultural economy has driven
many family-owned operations to become larger to spread risk
and investment in capital. Why do we penalize the larger
producer by restricting the amount of protection that he would
be allowed? We need to change our mindset to a per acre basis,
not a per operator basis. I also oppose entangling crop
insurance with existing conservation compliance requirements,
and I urge Members of Congress to oppose this effort.
As to the need for real price protection on the farm bill
side of the equation, nearly everyone in this room can probably
remember back to 2008 when we saw wheat prices climb to upwards
of $12 to $13 per bushel and we all thought we had reached a
new plateau; but then a year later, in the 2009 marketing year,
we can all remember seeing those prices drop dramatically to
levels we thought we would never see again.
I can remember going to the elevator the day that I saw
wheat prices with a ``$3'' in front of them and thinking to
myself, how am I going to make this work? Many producers were
forced to sell at that level as well. While short-lived, it
reminded me that the input costs that we deal with every day
don't cycle as fast as the prices being bid at the elevator.
On this issue, here is my deep concern. All the revenue
program ideas floating around out there will not provide the
kind of protection farmers need if the depressed prices we just
talked about remain in place for several years. If stuck at
those levels, Washington would be inundated by calls for costly
and unbudgeted emergency relief legislation. Neither taxpayers
nor farmers can afford to go down that road again, so I call on
Congress to focus the farm bill on providing real price
protection for farmers in these periods of prolonged low
prices. Fortunately, thanks to the Chairman and the work of his
Committee, the 2011 package to the select committee would have
met this basic test.
I would also like to stress the importance of NAP and the
Livestock Forage Program to livestock producers like myself.
Producers in my area also value the CSP and the EQIP programs.
These initiatives, along with the MAP and foreign market
development, along with aggressive agricultural research, are
all modest in investment dollars but still unsung heroes in
U.S. farm policy.
So let me start--let me finish where I started. As
producers, we have two factors that affect our ability to be
successful: yield and price. Please do not harm but build on
crop insurance to provide yield protection, and please don't
stray from the main mission of a farm bill; that is, providing
a safety net by offering sound multi-year price protection.
Passage of a 2012 Farm Bill would provide much-needed certainty
to the future of agriculture and the businesses that support
it. Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neufeld follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Neufeld, Wheat, Sorghum, Canola, Alfalfa,
and Cow/Calf Producer, Fairview, OK
Introduction
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, Members of the Committee,
thank you for holding this hearing in the heart of wheat country, where
producers understand and have experienced the need for sound farm
policy, especially over the last 18 months. I appreciate the
opportunity to offer testimony as a producer who is impacted directly
by the legislation that will be drafted.
My name is Scott Neufeld. I am a third generation farmer operating
in a partnership with my father. We have a diversified 3,000 acre
operation of wheat, alfalfa hay for dairy use, canola, grain sorghum,
and a cow/calf herd. We also graze stocker cattle on wheat pasture as
conditions allow. My wife and I have been actively involved with the
Oklahoma Farm Bureau (OFB) serving on county and state boards and
committees. Most recently, I was appointed to serve on the OFB Farm
Bill Committee, which was given the task of studying and providing
input into the drafting of the 2012 legislation. My wife also serves on
the Oklahoma Farm Service Agency (FSA) State Committee.
Current Climate
I first want to commend you and the Committee for leading the way
in the effort to produce bipartisan and bicameral legislation for the
Select Committee last fall. The effort to work together was commendable
and showed we can and will work out our differences in the current
climate. A great framework was built for the discussions that have been
ongoing these past several months. I understand the soaring and out of
control debt this country faces weighs heavy on each of you as it does
your constituents. I also recognize that in the face of increased
global demand for food commodities combined with a weaker dollar,
commodity prices are higher. But, as Chairman Lucas has stressed
numerous times, we should not be fooled into putting a weakened farm
policy in place. These current conditions occurring at a time where we
need to draft a sound farm policy present challenges and dangers.
The American public enjoys the safest, most abundant, and most
affordable food supply of any country in the world. Traveling abroad
will dispel any doubt one may have. Yet, the general public is becoming
more and more removed from where and how their food is grown and
processed. Consumer understanding of the risks and investments
agriculture makes on their behalf is under-appreciated. Somehow we must
continue to work to bridge that gap and fortify consumer rapport with
the American farmer. Public perception may only be perception, but
perception is reality and we must deal with this issue and not ignore
it. For example, in my opinion, the attack on Direct Payments is a
result of a misinformed public. We haven't done enough to educate the
public about how those payments are really used. From funding
conservation efforts to helping buy up crop insurance coverage to
making investments in our rural communities or replacing a piece of
well-used equipment, these are real expenses that help us efficiently
produce a safe food supply.
I would like to remind everyone of the recent past where in 2008 we
saw wheat prices climb to upwards of twelve to thirteen dollars a
bushel. We thought we were on a new plateau or so we hoped. A year
later in the 2009 marketing year, we saw those prices drop dramatically
to levels we thought we would never see again. I remember going to the
elevator the day we saw wheat prices with a $3 in front of it again and
thinking, ``How am I going to make this work?'' Many producers were
forced to sell at those levels to meet financial obligations.
Fortunately, that cycle didn't last long but it allowed us to
experience first-hand how the input costs that we deal with everyday
didn't cycle as fast as the prices being bid at the elevator.
Agriculture has been a bright spot and shining star in the current
nation-wide recession. We have continued to create new jobs and
establish a trade balance favorable to the U.S. economy. Let's not
forget how important agriculture has been to the well-being of rural
America as well as the supply of food and fiber to every U.S. citizen.
It is critical to work toward passing legislation during this
session to provide some certainty to producers across the United
States. An extension without a 5 year reauthorization is not adequate
to allay the uncertainty that exists out there. A great framework has
been put forth in the proposal to the Select Committee and the
conversations are in place now to produce a workable and acceptable
solution to the challenges agriculture face.
A Look Back
I was taught at an early age that a good way to make a plan forward
is to look back on the past and see what has worked and why, and see
what has not worked and why. The 1996 Farm Bill offered flexibility
that had not been experienced previously. In the global and volatile
markets of today, flexibility must remain a guiding principle as we
craft new legislation. The 2002 and 2008 Farm bills continued on those
principles including protection against low prices which lessened the
need for ad hoc disaster assistance and have provided good management
tools for producers to navigate risk. Did previous farm bills
accomplish their goals? In most cases they have served producers well.
Could they be improved? Always.
Some of the Challenges
As agriculture is transitioning, smaller bi-vocational producers
are discontinuing their farming interests and older generations facing
retirement are not selling their land but letting others operate it. It
is becoming more difficult for operators to explain to land owners
their options and keep current with sign-ups and know what they are
signing. In my area, crop share arrangements are a popular renting
agreement. While we as producers studied the options and knew which
choices would be to our benefit, the complexity of explaining the
details to a disengaged landowner has been an issue, therefore, causing
confusion and in some cases even noncompliance.
ACRE and SURE are two examples of programs that are too complex.
Program technicians in the local FSA office working scenarios on the
same producer would come up with two different results. Furthermore,
the triggers needed to make the program work encompassed too large of a
geographical region. The marketing prices needed to calculate payments
were far too removed from actual loss. Receiving a payment 14-16 months
after actual production loss is not beneficial.
During the last 5 years, we have also seen our input prices
steadily move higher. Most recently we have seen fuel prices soar.
Seed, insurance, taxes, labor, and fertilizer all continue to increase.
The CCP program has provided a floor but with the rising prices and
costs, these levels are no longer relevant and need to be adjusted to
offer true price protection.
Some of the Positives
When we look at the concepts of the 2008 Farm bill, we see it was a
multi-faceted safety net including these components: Crop insurance,
CCPs, MAL/LDPs, Direct Payments, ACRE, SURE, and conservation in the
form of EQIP, CSP, CRP, and LFP, etc. Farm policy has become complex
and for a reason. A ``one-size-fits-all'' approach cannot address the
differences across commodities and regions of the country and even the
same commodities across multiple regions. A cotton, peanut, or wheat
producer from the Southern plains has many different risks, markets,
and inputs as does a corn or soybean producer from the upper Midwest.
The same differences are evident from the producers in Arizona and
California to those in Pennsylvania and New York. Let's discuss several
of these farm policy components.
Crop Insurance
Crop insurance has been the one tool that has provided us with a
bankable guarantee to be able to go to our lenders and show them a
minimum of what we could expect out of a crop. It has been flexible and
provided coverage for most of the major crops in my area. I want to
express my appreciation for the pace at which we were able to provide a
full policy for Winter Canola in Oklahoma and the Southern Regions.
We have been pleased with the options and protection this tool has
given us. Many producers in Oklahoma, Texas, and Western Kansas would
be in a much different situation right now had it not been for a sound
Crop Insurance policy that protected us from the historic drought we
went through last fall, spring, and summer. While much of the drought-
pressured areas have received adequate rainfall, many areas still
remain well below normal and water sources for our livestock are not
replenished. Irrigation reservoirs in southwest Oklahoma are still at
less than \1/3\ capacity to begin the growing season. Pastures will
need rest to recover stands and nutrients needed to return to previous
levels of production. When we see the record amount of indemnities paid
out this last growing season and crop insurance coming under new
attacks, none of us should forget the seriousness of the drought we
have just come through. We should also remember the billions in cuts we
have already taken. It is a testimony to the success of crop insurance
protection that producers are planting again this spring and moving
forward with no outcry for ad hoc disaster assistance. The risk
management tools that were in place were adequate and cheaper overall
than funding additional disaster programs.
I also strongly oppose applying payment limitations and means
testing to Crop Insurance. The agricultural economy has driven many
producers to become larger to spread risk and investment in equipment.
A farmer producing crops on 1,000 acres of cropland has to have
adequate capital invested to efficiently farm these acres. A
partnership or family corporation that has gone together and is
producing crops on 10,000 acres has the same risk per acre as the
smaller producer. Why would we penalize the larger producer by
restricting the amount of protection they would be allowed? We need to
change our mindset to a per acre basis, not a per operator basis.
As producers already enrolled in the farm bill, conservation
compliance is already a requirement to participate so I cannot see the
need to entangle Crop Insurance with existing requirements and I urge
Members of Congress to oppose this effort.
It doesn't make sense to put limits on larger acreages when farmers
face payment limits under the farm bill. Crop insurance is their only
real protection. Taking protection away from larger farms, which are
still family-owned, will have a dramatic and negative economic and
social impact in rural communities.
There is unwarranted criticism that current Crop Insurance
offerings are driving up land and rent values and discouraging entry
level producers. I believe the converse is actually true. If a young
producer can't find levels that guarantee at least his variable costs
to be covered, a lender is less likely to finance him. A beginning
producer with limited capital and a higher level of debt to get started
doesn't have the ability to absorb the level of risk an established
producer does.
I am also aware of the process that the corn and soybean commodity
groups have been through in the re-rating of their actuarial tables.
The methodology is being reviewed to make sure it was sound and I am
concerned about what the re-rating could do to other crops in the
Southern Regions.
One area that Crop Insurance is not meant to cover is against
chronic low prices. We always hope that between the base price and the
harvest established price under crop insurance that there are break-
even scenarios at one of those levels. But, what happens when we hit a
multi-year downturn and don't have protection in place? Wheat prices at
$3-$4 don't offer much hope at our current input levels. One could
argue that if prices remain at these levels, we should just plant
alternative crops and under decoupled farm bill policies we do have
that option. That being said, the markets for those substitute crops
tend to move in the same direction. Price-based protection is
critically important to helping us stay in business during times of
chronically low prices.
Direct Payments
The Direct Payment portion of the current farm bill has become a
target for huge criticism. They have been hard to defend in times of
good profitability for agriculture. While maybe hard to defend against
unfair attacks, they have been easy to understand and administer for
FSA, one of the parts of the suite of farm bill policies that is green
box WTO compliant, and a payment you could take to the bank. An unseen
benefit of the Direct Payments not often talked about is the impact
they have on our rural economies. These payments are usually used
locally to pay expenses to the businesses that provide parts and
services we need which in turn support our local economies.
NAP and LFP
Another part of farm policy often overlooked is the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). In Oklahoma, forage crops are
important and many of these are grown on cropland acres but are not
insurable through Crop Insurance. Grazing is also a large part of many
of the wheat acres planted in our state. NAP has given us some
protection in years where forage has been well below normal. NAP is not
a ``solve all the problems'' policy, but it did provide about 20% of my
own farm's lost revenue to assist in the loss of production our alfalfa
hay crops experienced this past year. The indemnity made up only a
small portion of the production loss we faced, but it did help make
payments and get our operation through to hopefully a better year
ahead.
LFP or Livestock Forage Program also paid out indemnities this past
year in the drought stricken areas of our state. LFP did not keep us
from culling our herd size but this assistance did allow us to buy
several loads of feed we were short because of the inability to grow
forage of any kind this past year, and still maintain our genetics in
breeding stock. While this program does not have a baseline, it is my
suggestion that these programs be fully funded going forward.
CRP
CRP has been useful to move highly erodible lands out of
production. Because of the growth in the ethanol industry, feed grains
have been in short supply. We should consider bringing out some of the
acres that were enrolled in an environmentally responsible way to aid
in the production of additional feed grains. We will need to continue
to be careful stewards of the land and water resources we have enrolled
in CRP being careful not to disturb highly erodible lands. Seeing
pictures of the dust bowl reminds me that the conservation efforts put
forth in this area, and particularly in the drought regions of this
country, have prevented another dust bowl from starting again. Without
the combination of the CRP and no-till or minimum till cultivating
practices, the drought of 2011 would have been much worse. This is
testimony to the efforts of producers all over the United States and
their ability to be good stewards and adopt best management practices
for each tract of land they operate.
Conservation
Conservation initiatives need to remain a significant part of the
farm bill; however, I would urge the focus be on working lands rather
than land retirement initiatives. The current cost share initiatives
are working and most producers know how they work. I would encourage a
streamlining of initiatives similar to the proposal to the Select
Committee last fall, not as to impact the dollars spent but to again
make the initiatives less complicated and more user friendly. Producers
in my area like EQIP and CSP. With EQIP being a cost sharing initiative
to promote quality efforts on farms that need some additional work and
CSP offering incentives to engage in producer selected options to
improve the environmental quality of their farms, I can't help but
think they should be funded at current levels and other initiatives
streamlined to fit within the scope of these two initiatives. Modeling
new initiatives that producers already understand should be the goal.
Conservation is a priority of any responsible producer today.
Research
Our land-grant universities in partnership with ARS have been
critical in providing valuable non-biased research and extension
education to many of the seed, chemical and management techniques being
promoted to improve our efficiency. The role that ARS plays is often
not seen by producers and the public but greatly increase the
effectiveness of the research and extension efforts of the land-grant
universities. The Wheat Quality Labs play huge roles in our marketing
efforts. I urge continued emphasis on funding in the next farm bill to
promote the level of research that will ultimately help us to feed nine
billion people using less land and fewer resources.
Marketing
I want to express appreciation for the work in continuing to open
markets around the world. The Free Trade Agreements with Columbia, S.
Korea, and Panama will open more doors to the foreign agricultural
trade. I urge full funding of MAP and FMD marketing tools that continue
to work toward opening markets and maintaining existing ones around the
world. Many of these tools match producer dollars to assist with
marketing their commodities.
Importance of Not Affecting Planting Decisions
Red flags have been waved around concerning the part of the
proposal to the Select Committee that considered raising target prices
to more relevant levels. While flexibility is paramount and we do not
want a government program influencing planting decisions, the levels I
saw were still well below break-even prices and I cannot imagine how
they would drive planting decisions. In fact, given shallow loss
revenue programs would, by definition, trigger faster and more often,
it would seem that such programs that guarantee revenues based on
higher prices and yields would be more susceptible to this kind of
criticism.
Conclusion
Producers understand the crisis in our country and we are willing
to do our fair share in reducing the deficit. We need sound crop
insurance to cover the yield component of risk, price protection under
the farm bill to insure against steep and chronic price declines, and a
conservation title focused on improving practices on working lands. It
is a huge testimony to the success of crop insurance protection
combined with the other facets of farm policy that producers are
planting again this spring and moving forward while there was no outcry
for an ad hoc disaster program like there was in the late 1990s. We in
agriculture have the tools and management ability to absorb minor
changes in prices and yields. Concepts and program suggestions aimed at
insuring losses as little as 5-10% are not warranted. American Farm
Bureau has opposed these types of programs and stated that shallow loss
coverage is fiscally irresponsible. Our focus must remain on a safety
net that is based on crop insurance and protects from steep price
declines over time and due to unforeseen circumstances, not on
guaranteeing a profit.
I commend the efforts of you and your staff in the work that has
been accomplished this far. I thank you for the opportunity to offer
testimony as a part of the process and look forward to working with you
as we move this process toward the passage of a 2012 Farm Bill.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Swanson, turn that microphone just a little bit more
towards you and begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF TERRY SWANSON, CORN, WHEAT, SORGHUM, SUNFLOWER,
AND COW/CALF PRODUCER, WALSH, CO
Mr. Swanson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conaway,
Mr. Huelskamp. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Terry Swanson and I farm and ranch in southeast
Colorado with my wife, Marcella, and my son Miles and his
family. Our farm is located 20 miles from Kansas and 20 miles
from Oklahoma. Our principal crops are grain and forage
sorghum, wheat, corn and sunflowers, all grown under dryland
conditions. Our cattle operation includes a cow/calf enterprise
and growing stocker/feeder cattle. I'm here to speak on behalf
of my operation and others like it in my area.
Why am I here? This is a question I think that has to be
answered first. My son is a fourth generation farmer in Baca
County and is raising the fifth generation to make his home
there. We want to contribute to the nation's food supply and in
turn, to its economy, by providing an ample, reasonably-priced,
secure, safe food supply. In turn, we expect to be able to live
and have our livelihood in a relatively safe, secure
agricultural environment that will sustain us and those that
come after us.
It's important for me to acknowledge the work that the
Committee did last fall, presenting the Super Committee with a
package that not only addressed the needs of the ag community,
but it also saved our nation $23 billion. The product that the
Committee did put together did all of the--virtually all of the
things that I'm going to talk about here today. You should be
proud, and we are grateful.
We have had an unfortunate cropping sequence for the last 8
to 10 years in southeast Colorado. The rotation is one year of
good crops and the other one is one year of indemnity payments,
and those things are the only thing we've had to take to the
bank. Therefore, I strongly feel that the next farm bill must
have, like the rest of the people on the panel mentioned, have
crop insurance as its backbone. Please do no harm to crop
insurance, but rather, improve it with better APH methodology
and a T-yield system. Workable insurance products for forage
sorghum and trend yields will also help for all crops.
The commodity title: like crop insurance, the commodity
title must provide provisions for systemic risks, such as
drought, to be viable for this area of southwest Kansas,
Oklahoma Panhandle, Texas Panhandle, and all of eastern
Colorado.
There are two kinds of risks: one of them is production
risk and the other one is price risk. For the next farm bill to
accomplish the goals that we have set before us, we must
address both. As you can see, I have enough gray hair to show
you that I've experienced both of these risks many, many times,
and you can't afford to ignore either one of them.
The end product expressed in the commodity title must not
favor one crop over another at signup. I must be able to choose
my cropping decisions agronomically at the farm, rather than at
the FSA office, choosing whichever program will pay the best.
The program offered should not only pay out with the loss.
I should be able to provide the producer--it should be able to
provide the producer a bridge between successful crops and
markets and those that are difficult due to circumstances
beyond the farmer's control. These circumstances can be
environmental factors or they can be market influences that are
unforeseen and, therefore, unable to be offset with other risk
management tools.
I wanted to bring with me a bag of soil. I was going to
call it a bag of dirt, but my son is a soils major and he said
you have to call it soil, but I was advised otherwise, but
everything that we do starts with the dirt. If we don't take
care of the dirt, it won't take care of us. Therefore, I'm
passionate about conservation.
I live in the epicenter of the Dust Bowl. I know the
effects of poor conservation practices. I've implemented CSP
and EQIP contracts and their associated practices on my farm
and my ranch, and I've seen immediate positive results from the
technical support and the financial remuneration that these
programs can provide. They provide a segue from current
practices to those of enhanced conservation, not only for this
generation of producers, but for all who are on the land in the
future, and I might add, that's an investment in the
sustainability of this nation's food supply.
We live in a very water sensitive area. The crop that I
raise a lot of, sorghum, is the most water-efficient crop that
we have available. I would hope that we could have that
efficiency be expressed and encouraged in the conservation
title.
Again, provide the producer with the right choices and he
will effectively and safely produce an ample food for this
country's nutrition and security as well. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swanson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry Swanson, Corn, Wheat, Sorghum, Sunflower,
and Cow/Calf Producer, Walsh, CO
Introduction
I thank Chairman Lucas, Congressman Huelskamp and the entire House
Committee on Agriculture for holding this hearing in Kansas, the heart
of America and farm country. I also thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony on the impact future farm policy under the next farm
bill will have on my operation.
My name is Terry Swanson, and my wife Marcella and I grow grain
sorghum, wheat, corn, forage sorghum, sunflower, and raise cattle on
our farm and ranch in southeast Colorado near Walsh--an area that I and
those before me refer to as the epicenter of the Dust Bowl. It is a
challenging area to live and work, but we have been doing so for 42
years now, and there are several pieces in the farm legislation puzzle
that enable us to manage our risks and continue to live and operate
efficiently today. I live 20 miles from Kansas and 20 miles from
Oklahoma and am honored to share my Colorado perspective.
I appreciate the work put forth by this Committee in developing the
next farm bill and the bipartisan approach agriculture has taken up to
this point to try and develop a comprehensive farm bill package. I
realize the need now more than ever for this industry to work together
and look forward to working with the Committee to craft this set of
vital farm policy. Because it is an integral part of my operation, my
testimony will focus on multiple areas of farm policy as they relate to
my safety net.
Protect Federal Crop Insurance
My area experienced one of the driest periods of all time during
last year's drought. Keeping up with feed requirements for my cattle
and growing any crop at all were a struggle in 2011, but because I
invest in crop insurance to protect my business investment, I am able
to farm and ranch again in 2012. Crop insurance is by far the most
important component of my safety net, and I ask that the Committee does
not harm this essential program. I have some specific suggestions that
I believe would enhance the Federal crop insurance program.
I would suggest reforms to APH methodology and a better
county T-yield system to reduce the impact of local weather
events and allow the producer's insurable yield (pre-
deductible) to reflect what the producer and his lender would
actually reasonably expect to produce in that year. I believe a
personal T-yield system, which would allow a producer's APH to
more accurately reflect his yield potential, would be a
productive way to improve APH.
Forage sorghum is an important part of my operation, because
its high yield and low water use make it an ideal winter feed
crop for my livestock operation. A usable forage insurance
product would offer needed protection for diversified producers
like me.
In no case should the crop insurance tools, which are
purchased by the producer, be weighed down with environmental
compliance requirements or other conditions that fall out of
the scope of insurance.
I would encourage RMA to include all crops in any trend
yield program. It is unfair to allow certain counties and
certain crops to have this option.
2012 Farm Bill
I understand the Committee has considered various policy options
for title I. For both the health of my operation and my sensibility of
Federal farm programs, I prefer to have a deep loss, price protection
plan. Whether that protection is a reference price system or a revenue
based system, it is important that it be in the farm bill safety net
and producers have the option to choose what fits their operation and
risk appetite the best. In a revenue based program, it is critical to
have a reference price and plug yields. The reference price will
protect against a large commodity price drop and plug yields will help
in times of consecutive years of drought.
It seems that without yield plugs, in a situation with 2
consecutive years of loss, the protection quickly drops to a point
where the program would have little value and would provide almost no
protection for my farm. This component is necessary to ensure equity
among regions because I grow in a region with such high yield
variability.
Additionally, a revenue policy in conjunction with the potential
use of adjusted yields for certain commodities could eliminate the
important element of risk involved in growing a crop. This would create
a situation that would greatly distort planting intentions because a
farmer may be inclined to plant for the largest revenue guarantee as
opposed to the most prudent agronomic choice.
No matter which form of policy the Committee pursues, special care
must be taken to encourage crop diversity and rotation on the farm and
avoid a monoculture system which rejects agronomics in favor of farm
policy incentives. The environmental disaster of the Dust Bowl was
influenced in part by continuous monoculture cropping, and Federal farm
programs should not incentivize producers to repeat the mistakes of the
past. Based on both experience and a producer's understanding of the
program, I suggest the following:
A farm bill should not dictate or distort planting
decisions. Direct payments are excellent in that they are the
most flexible safety net available. SURE or similar whole farm
policies tend to discourage diversification, which could be
problematic for me and especially my geographic area. Any
commodity-specific program that is tied to planted acres must
be very carefully designed to avoid creating payment scenarios
that incentivize farmers to plant crops with higher inherent
value to maximize payments rather than making the wisest
possible agronomic decisions.
A program should be simple and bankable. The recently
expired SURE program had too many factors and was not tailored
to the many business risks producers face--it was not simple.
The current ACRE, while offering improved price-based
protection, is based on the state's income, not mine, so I
could suffer a total loss and not trigger a payment if the rest
of my state had no such misfortune--it is not bankable,
especially in a largely diverse state like Colorado. The
current loan and counter cyclical programs are simple and
bankable. Unfortunately, the 2008 price levels are no longer
relevant given current production costs. It is important to me
to have a simple, bankable program to take to my lender should
disaster strike my crop.
A farm bill should be targeted and defensible. It makes
sense to provide assistance when factors beyond the producers'
control create losses.
A farm bill should be built to withstand a multi-year low
price scenario. Whether in a price-based countercyclical plan
or a revenue loss plan, it will be important to have a set
minimum price that serves as a floor or reference price to
protect producer income in a relevant way in the event of a
series of low price years. Ideally, this minimum could move
upward over time should production costs also increase.
Finally, direct payments, while not necessarily tied to a specific
crop being planted, have proven to be a WTO compliant, efficient
payment for producers. It is one of the few parts of the current safety
net that give bankers certainty and will provide financing for our
producers. However, if the Committee decides to move away from this
program, it makes it that much more important that successor policies
be bankable.
Eliminate Dated Pay Limits
Given the likely possibility that a new farm program would have
less certainty for the producer (a likely decrease or elimination of
direct payments) and will therefore be designed to provide assistance
only in loss situations, the program should not be limited based on
arbitrary dollar limits, i.e., assistance should be tailored to the
size of loss. A producer should not be precluded from participating in
a farm program because of past income experience. In my area, farms are
large, both because it takes a lot of acres to produce a marketable
crop or to support each head of cattle and because the rugged nature of
farming and ranching here has driven many producers to so called
greener pastures since the Dirty 30s. As such, any internal program
limits on assistance should be percentage-based (i.e., 25 percent of an
expected crop value) and not discriminate based on the size of farm.
Build Incentives into Conservation and Energy Titles
I am personally passionate about conservation, and a variety of
farm bill conservation programs have allowed me to enhance
environmental improvement activities on my farm and ranch. I use EQIP,
CSP and CRP in various ways. All three have shown demonstrable results
over the life of the last farm bill. The value of these programs cannot
be overstated in a sensitive area like mine, and I urge the Committee
to maintain and strengthen conservation activities wherever possible.
For my part, I believe it would be beneficial to strengthen the
principles of water conservation language in the Ag Water Enhancement
Program (AWEP) of the 2008 Farm Bill to more specifically encourage
planting water saving crops and enhancing water quantity. Currently,
the program allows incentives for switching to lower water intensity
crops, but a vast majority of payments are going to other projects.
There is also a place for water conservation language in existing
Conservation Security Program (CSP) and Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP) language, and water conservation options should be
strengthened wherever practical. Using farm bill conservation programs
as a transitional support, farmers will be able to economically justify
switching higher value crops to lower water intensity crops over time.
In my area and across the Southwest, producers' near-term conservation
initiatives will help preserve and repair the Ogallala Aquifer that
this area relies upon.
Additionally, I support the continuation of a farm bill energy
title and specifically encourage continuing the Bioenergy Program for
Advanced Biofuels from Section 9005 of the 2008 Farm Bill. It has
enhanced markets in my area and I'm proud that farmers are contributing
to our national security by lessening oil from the Middle East.
Livestock in My Operation
Throughout the High Plains, most of the people I know have
livestock. The recent drought generated a tremendous feed demand, and
the dollars needed to offset the drought increased with it. Even so,
herd dispersement was rampant. Livestock producers have benefitted
greatly from the 2008 Farm Bill, especially during the drought.
Livestock plays a pivotal role in my operation, and we cannot forget
about the livestock producer in the next farm bill.
In conclusion, I know the Committee faces a difficult task in
balancing geographic and commodity differences. It is hard to make a
one-size-fits-all package, so I would just like to reiterate the most
important things to me are long term, deep loss price protection, a
solid insurance program and the ability for each producer to choose
among policies.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Swanson.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions and
would note to my colleagues, with the kind of bright and
insightful panels we have on both this and the next panel,
we'll have some definite flexibility in the amount of time
we're using.
Mr. Vaughan, you're probably aware that a letter from a few
of our national commodity groups was sent to the United States
Senate yesterday. Are you a member of any of those groups?
Mr. Vaughan. Yes, sir, I am.
The Chairman. Not to put you on the spot, but just simply
asking. The letter suggests that corn growers oppose any form
of price protection. As a corn grower, do you agree with that
perspective?
Mr. Vaughan. No. I'm a former President of that
organization and I'm a member of the Soybean Association and a
Farm Bureau member and a member of the Wheat Growers, and I do
not agree with that statement that was made in there, that they
do not support a price-based protective system, and that's what
we need. That's what we need out here in this country, if we
have multi-year losses like we had in 1997 through 2005.
The Chairman. They seem to say, or imply, and it says the
phrase that it would distort planting decisions and that a
shallow loss revenue plan based on the last 5 years of revenue
will not. Any concerns with that statement?
Mr. Vaughan. Yes, I do. Isn't it true that basically the
farm bill distorts planting in and of itself? I mean, what is
the purpose of the farm bill? It's to keep farmers producing so
that we don't have a situation where we create a huge surplus
and then prices go to the bottom and we just--farmers can't get
money to plant and so they just have to stop for a year. How
would that system work?
I mean, it takes a year. We're not like an auto plant where
we can shut down for 3 or 4 weeks and let supply and demand
come back into balance. It takes a year to grow a crop, and so
we have to keep producing. We need price protection that
enables us to--for lenders to keep lending, rural America to
keep working, and farmers to keep farming.
So with that said, I would say all policies distort
plantings to a certain extent; even crop insurance, the way
it's structured. I mean, we have to set a stake in the ground
and say, okay, this is the crop price, the guaranteed crop
price for the year for crop insurance, but what if it changes
three or four more times during the year? Obviously, those
planting--what that planting guarantee is for crop insurance
has an influence on prices, or on crop plantings; so even if
crop insurance has distorted the plantings to some extent, the
idea that revenue doesn't, I can't buy into that, because a
farmer--if prices are low for all commodities, which they
generally are all at the same time, and a farmer goes in and he
looks at it and he says, okay, I grew corn and soybeans. I'm
going to look at my revenue guarantee under my revenue plan,
I'm going to look at my crop insurance guarantee, and I'm going
to plant corn if it's the best one for under that system, or
I'll plant soybeans if it's the best, and so even that revenue
plan, that's where I disagree. When they say that the revenue
plan is not going to distort plantings to any extent at all,
that's--I think that's totally false.
The Chairman. Fair statement. Scott, why don't crop
insurance and these revenue programs provide the price
protection you need, from your perspective?
Mr. Neufeld. Well, from my perspective, obviously, we set a
base price in crop insurance usually in the fall months for us
wheat producers, and then there's a harvest price set during
the month of harvest, usually in the month of June, and you get
the greater of those two. If per chance we get into those years
of multi-year low prices and we have $3\1/2\, $4\1/2\ prices
that are set for those target prices and base prices during
those times, and you multiply that by your yield, your revenue
guarantee is well below your break-even, and I just--the crop
insurance, the way the crop insurance prices are set, if we get
into years at multi-low prices, the revenue guarantees don't
guarantee us a break-even anymore, where this year, it's just
the opposite, actually.
With this year, we had some great prices set during the
fall and we have good, good revenue guarantees, but if we get--
and our guarantees are well above our break-evens now, or
they're going to provide us a profit, anyway.
The Chairman. You rightly point out that there are a great
number of people out there who are misinformed, in your
testimony, about the importance of direct payments. Can you
give us an appreciation for the relevance of the direct
payments in your operation, the direct payments that have been
the foundation of the safety net of the last three farm bills?
Mr. Neufeld. Direct payments in my operation have amounted
to anywhere between an $8 to an $11 per acre type of a payment.
What can that do for us? What has it done for me on my farm?
It's allowed me to replace equipment that needed to be
replaced. It allowed me to buy some crop insurance, possibly
buy up-coverage on crop insurance, and I think one thing that
we don't see in direct payments are all the dollars that are
pumped into these rural economies through direct payments are
spent locally, so we don't often talk about the support that it
has been to our rural economies, but those dollars, in essence,
are rural economic development as well.
The Chairman. And as my colleagues would indulge me, I'll
continue, if you'd also expand. Now, there are some folks that
if they have their way, they would limit, put a pay limit of
$40,000 on the portion of your premium that the government
shares. How would that impact your ability to insure your crop,
obtain loans from the banker, and how would it affect young
farmers who are just starting out?
Mr. Neufeld. That's a good question. You know, the payment
limits on crop insurance premiums probably would not directly
affect my operation because I'm not large enough to get into
those levels where that would. But, I know many family-owned
corporations that it would affect their ability to buy the
level of crop insurance that they would desire.
A young producer just starting out, would it level the
playing field for them? I'm not sure. It probably wouldn't, but
it does--crop insurance does give us a bankable guarantee that
when we go to the bank, we can say this is the amount of
revenues that I'm going to get, regardless of the price or the
yield it happens to make.
The Chairman. And my farmers remind me, your neighbors, our
fellow neighbors in Oklahoma, that all those records have to be
in that loan portfolio file; that it's not just the banker that
wants it. It's the examiners who demand the bankers have that
in the file, so it's critically important.
Mr. Swanson, you talk about the importance of farm policy
not influencing a producer's planting decisions.
Given what you know about the effort last fall, in your
judgment, would that policy have influenced your planting
decisions if the farm bill had become a--the effort in the
Super Committee become the farm bill?
Mr. Swanson. Well, I have to yield to what Mr. Vaughan
said. I think all things influence planting decisions, and it
probably absolutely would. However, if we have--for instance,
if we had price--price protection and it was equitable across
the board, that should not influence your decision, just
because of that price protection; and so those things that were
put forth, I think were influenced--it influenced it, but it
influenced it probably a minimal amount.
The Chairman. I guess to go straight to the point, the
reference prices discussed in the 2000 Farm Bill effort, would
that have addressed your concern about the need for price
protection in periods of low prices?
Mr. Swanson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Miller, kind of a
philosophical question. You mention that you've grown your
operation, in your testimony, from 400 acres that your father
farmed to 7,500 now. When you listen to the national dialogue,
are you led to believe that large farms are bad and the idea of
the ideal farm is small, the family-owned farm?
Can you explain why you chose--that's what--if you listen
to the national dialogue, that's what you believe, based on
what you hear. Can you explain your choice to expand and could
you sustain your family today on that 400 acres your father
farmed in 1976? I know it's almost a simple, a silly question
to ask, but it's relevant for the record.
Mr. Miller. No, there's no way that we could survive on the
400 acres my father had when we started. The reason I grow my
farm is we pool assets; we pool machinery; we pool capital; we
pool buying power for buying large volumes of seed, fertilizer,
and everything else; and it's made the operation of our farm a
lot cheaper per acre.
My farm actually includes two other operators with me, my
nephew and my daughter and husband, and they absolutely could
not start without me helping them, and by pooling everything
together, we have the opportunity to do so.
The Chairman. Absolutely. My time has expired and I
appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. I now turn to the
gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the General Farm
Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee, and a fellow who
may have even fewer trees than you have or I have at home. Mr.
Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Well, I do represent a Committee called
``Notrees''. The first guy on the Committee, the Chairman, put
me on the Forestry Subcommittee. We went to the city limits of
Notrees, Texas. I had my picture taken by the city limit sign
and gave it to the Chairman and said, I'm probably not the
right guy to deal with forestry concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am reminded, though, that
sharing questions with the Chairman is like sharing a hamburger
with a lion. I learned everything I know from Pat Roberts. I'm
his son.
The Chairman. I was back then, too.
Mr. Conaway. I would like to just--I think Mr. Miller and
Mr. Harshberger may have mentioned it as well--turn to crop
insurance, the differentials or the differences between
irrigated practices and dryland farming and how that would work
if you were somehow to bifurcate insurance units into separate.
Can you kind of walk me through how you envisioned that would
work?
Mr. Miller. Well, what I'm concerned about is the--right
now, it's either dryland or it's irrigated, and if we would put
it by the enterprise units, we could have either separate
enterprises that have both the irrigated and dryland and that
would be----
Mr. Conaway. Separate?
Mr. Miller. Well, yes. We need to do something to be able
to differentiate, because our irrigation yields for corn in our
area are in the 140 to 170 range, and dryland is in the 50 to
60, and you can't commingle them and it's a real mess for us,
so somehow we need to address that issue.
The limited irrigation is also a real major issue with that
because, like last year, everybody told us we ought to shut our
wells down because everything was a total disaster, but the
crop insurance, where we had them insured for definitely for
irrigation, they said we had to keep running them, and that was
just water getting wasted, because the crop was already done.
Mr. Conaway. The GAO report on--it's still serving by the
folks who asked for the report. Can you guys, each of you, walk
us through how the impact of the $40,000 limit and--or tie in
conservation practices that you wouldn't otherwise have been
doing to get that, how do you see that being implemented and
impacting your operation? Anybody? Just start with Dee, anybody
with comments.
Mr. Vaughan. When that came out about a week ago, we did a
little analysis and what we discovered is that if a guy in
Texas, the Panhandle there, is buying 65 percent coverage, he's
basically getting about $40 per acre in subsidy; so in fact,
what it would do is limit it to about a thousand-acre farm. You
could go to your banker, and there are not many thousand-acre
farms in our area. In our area, they just don't work. You have
to be larger to get efficiency of scale.
So what you have is a situation where you'd either have to
go to your banker and say, well, I'm sorry, but I can insure a
thousand acres and everything after that was on its own, or
take a lower coverage. Maybe you could go to 5,100, but then
you have to go back to your banker as well and say, I'm
insuring my crop for less than what I did last year, so it's
going to have a tremendous impact. I mean, if that policy was
enacted, it would be a terrible policy.
As far as conservation compliance, I exceed what is in my
conservation plan anyway. I'm strictly a strip till and no-till
farmer. That's not in my conservation plan. It goes above and
beyond what I have to do, and as mentioned, our land is what we
do. It's our biggest asset. Why would we jeopardize it by
misusing it or abusing it?
Mr. Conaway. Sure. Scott?
Mr. Neufeld. As I read that GAO report, it was going
through my mind, something that I could equate this to that we
could get our heads around, and as I thought about it, natural
disasters hitting different communities in this country. In
essence, putting those limits on would be like saying that
we're going to give a FEMA disaster declaration and assistance
to Chicago the same as we are going to give to Minneola,
Kansas. Things are to scale in this country and our ag
production entities are that same way, and it's just like I
said, if we are going to limit farm size to 1,000 acres, that's
going to dictate what kind of risk you're going to be able to
take.
Mr. Swanson. I think we're getting into that philosophical
area real, real quick and deep in the weeds, but when we help
other things and other industries in this country, let's say
we're going to build a wind farm, we don't tell the wind farm
people that we're going to help you build the first eight
windmills and then you're going to have to build the other 27
on your own. We help them build all of them.
We don't help the airlines with a few, if we decided that
the airline industry needs to be a mom and pop type operation
and we're not going to let you have but a few airplanes. We
think you can serve with that, and so why do we not treat
agriculture as a business like we do other things, and the--
we're required to do that when we get financing. We're required
to do that.
Our country encourages growth, encourages progress, and it
seems to me like--and pardon me if I'm getting a little bit
sensitive here. Seems to me like the ag community is the only
one that's looked on disparagingly when we grow, and we have
some problems with that.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Kansas for 5 minutes, Mr. Huelskamp.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the first
question would be for Mr. Harshberger. I had invited someone
from the EPA to come here and listen, and it's my understanding
out of the thousands of folks that work there, no one had time
to come and listen, but if they were here, what would you tell
them about your desire to protect the environment on your
family farm?
Mr. Harshberger. It was mentioned by Mr. Swanson. It's
about the dirt, and I've always stated that farmers are active
environmentalists. Our livelihood depends upon the health of
that dirt, so we are the world's conservationist. Now, there
are some things that we can help with like, for instance, with
the water in eastern Kansas, we have an issue of sedimentation
in our reservoirs, and so with the funds like EQIP and AWEP,
we're able to enhance the streambeds to avoid that
sedimentation, so there are things that we're already doing.
We're already in tune with what we need for our farms, for our
dirt. There are some things that we can have assistance on to
take us to the next step forward, but I think we are the first
active environmentalists.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you. Mr. Miller, a question. You
mentioned exports and I have a broad background in that. Can
you describe for the Committee and the folks here what our
foreign competitors do that make it difficult for us to compete
internationally?
Mr. Miller. Yes. Our foreign competitors, for one thing,
all have animal ID and it's mandatory, and that particular
issue is causing us a lot of grief overseas. If you notice,
China just recently decided to take exports from Canada and
we're still not in there, and the only reason they did so is
because they had mandatory ID in Canada. That's becoming a
major issue for our country doing business overseas. A lot of
your businesses in Japan, Korea, and places like that actually
have TV monitors set up and you can scan a bar code on a
product and actually see where the product came from. The
consumer is driving it over there and it's an issue that we
don't--that we haven't been able to address here in the U.S.
The pork side does have mandatory ID, but the beef side
doesn't, so that's an issue we're going to have to tackle
somehow through either incentive, through voluntary or some
other method, but exports are booming overseas and the demand's
there.
The reports say that we have to double production by the
year 2050 in order to be able to feed all the people that are
going to be in the world, and we're in the prime area to
produce a lot of product and ship it overseas and make a
profit, but we have to make sure that we have the right safety
nets here now so that we all can stay in business and be able
to produce that food instead of ship it in from overseas.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you. Mr. Swanson, what are your
thoughts on conservation programs, the number of programs that
we have? There have been proposals to consolidate those,
consolidate applications. You're in an area, the epicenter of
the Dust Bowl. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about
that.
Mr. Swanson. Well, I'm all for improving bureaucratic
efficiency, and if that's--can you say those two words in the
same sentence? I'm not sure. But at the same time, we do know
that in order to administer something, we have to have a
bureaucracy to do it, and so if those consolidations make the
product that the farmer needs, the producer needs, the rancher
needs a better product, and makes it easier to access and to
implement, I'm all for it. If it saves us money in the process,
I'm all for it, but I think that we really do need to
strengthen our relationship with the local soil conservation
district boards. They know what's going on; they know what will
work in their area; they know what those things are; and those
bureaucracies need to listen to them, and so I guess that's not
a very good answer to a very good question.
Mr. Huelskamp. Mr. Vaughan, I have time for one more
question. Just curious. Talk about your cost of production.
Would you say generally what it is today or what it was
compared to, say, 5 years ago for, say, corn?
Mr. Vaughan. It's been up and down like a roller coaster
over the last few years. In 2008, it peaked. It was
approximately about $4\1/2\ a bushel growing a bushel of corn
that year, because of high natural gas costs. We irrigate, we
use natural gas, and it was a back-breaker that year, with
fertilizer costs.
Mr. Huelskamp. What was your average sale price that year?
Mr. Vaughan. Approximately around--we had forward
contracted a lot of product earlier and sold it for in the
$4\1/2\-$5 range, so it was basically a break-even year, even
though USDA reported record farm income that year. I talked to
a lot of producers that were in the same boat. It's back down
now because of energy cost.
Natural gas, of course, is much cheaper than it was in
2008, so it's--we're back down considerably.
Mr. Huelskamp. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I'd like to once again
acknowledge the outstanding insights that the first panel
provided to us today and dismiss you gentlemen. Thank you for
your participation and we'll now call the second panel of
witnesses to the table.
As they're coming up and the name tags are being placed,
we'll have on our second panel Mr. Frank Harper, a corn,
soybean, wheat, sorghum and cow/calf producer from Sedgewick,
Kansas. We'll have Mr. Kendall Hodgson, wheat, soybean, corn,
sorghum, alfalfa and cow/calf producer from Little River,
Kansas; Mr. Tom Giessel, a wheat, corn, sorghum, soybean,
alfalfa, and cow/calf producer from Larned, Kansas; Mr. Woody
Anderson, a cotton and wheat producer from Colorado City,
Texas; and Mr. Zach Hunnicutt, a corn, soybean, and popcorn
producer from Aurora, Nebraska.
One thing about it, when you have a hearing in our part of
the world, you have a diversity of production. That's
wonderful, and whenever you're ready, Mr. Harper, you may
begin.
STATEMENT OF FRANK HARPER, CORN, SOYBEAN, WHEAT, SORGHUM, AND
COW/CALF PRODUCER, SEDGEWICK, KS
Mr. Harper. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Huelskamp,
and Mr. Conaway. My name is Frank Harper and I thank you for
the opportunity to be here today. My wife and I, Mary, we have
a cow/calf backgrounding and farming operation near Sedgewick,
Kansas. Our cattle operation consists of both registered
commercial cows, and we typically background our calves and
then retain ownership through the feeding phase. Our farming
operation consists of wheat, grain sorghum, corn, soybean, and
includes both dryland and irrigated production. I currently
serve as President of the Kansas Livestock Association and
serve on the Board of Directors of the National Cattleman's
Beef Association, of which KLA is an affiliate.
The beef industry is a key segment of the Kansas economy,
and the Kansas beef industry is a major piece of the U.S. beef
industry. Kansas ranks third nationally with 6.1 million cattle
on ranches and in the feedyards. Those cattle generated $6.53
billion in cash receipts in 2010.
Development of the next farm bill is an important process
for livestock producers. The vast majority of my fellow
livestock producers believe the livestock industry is best
served by the process of free enterprise and free trade. Even
with its imperfections, free trade is more equitable than
regulated and subsidized markets, which often distort
production and market signals. We oppose attempts to narrow the
business options or limit the individual freedom of livestock
producers to innovate in the management and marketing of their
production.
I oppose the inclusion of the livestock title in the next
farm bill. The livestock title in the last farm bill attracted
proposals like the GIPSA rule, mandatory country-of-origin
labeling, and other items that are counter to the free
enterprise system that I support.
Items with industry-wide support can be included in the
miscellaneous title, just as they have been in every farm bill
prior to the 2008 bill.
I strongly oppose, as do the vast majority of Kansas cattle
producers, the proposed regulation issued by the Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration on June 22,
2010. In short, U.S. producers are concerned that the GIPSA
rule would greatly expand the role of government in marketing
livestock and eliminate producers' ability to market livestock
to capture the benefits of their efforts to improve the quality
of their livestock.
Over the years, I've invested in genetics that have helped
me improve the quality and consistency of the calves I produce.
To capitalize on this investment, I retain ownership of my
calves and feed them in a commercial feedyard. This allows me
to market my calves through programs like U.S. Premium Beef,
Certified Angus Beef, and other programs that allow me to earn
premiums for the high quality cattle.
The GIPSA rule would require purchases of my cattle to
justify paying more than the, ``standard price'' for my
livestock. If my competitors don't agree with the justification
the packer offers by paying me for my--more than the standard
price for my livestock, the packer could be sued. Common
business sense tells me it wouldn't be long before the packer
no longer would be interested in our agreement. This means I'll
be back to selling cattle at a price based on averages, instead
of actual value. My investment in superior genetics could be
lost or severely compromised.
The rule goes far beyond the intent of Congress. Members of
this Committee will recall several of the proposals contained
in this rule were either defeated or withdrawn during
consideration of the last farm bill. We strongly urge you to
take action to prevent the implementation of this rule.
Country-of-origin labeling continues to be an area of
concern for us. Last year, the World Trade Organization ruled
in favor of Canada and Mexico in their complaint against the
U.S. mandatory COOL program, and it is in the interest of the
U.S. beef industry to resolve this dispute before retaliatory
action is taken. Organizations like KLA and NCBA strongly
encourage the inclusion of language in the next farm bill to
address the WTO finding.
For additional questions, I would refer you to my written
comments. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here and
I'll entertain any questions at the appropriate time. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Harper, Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Sorghum, and
Cow/Calf Producer, Sedgewick, KS
Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Frank
Harper. My wife Mary and I have a cow/calf, backgrounding and farming
operation near Sedgwick, Kansas. Our cattle operation consists of both
registered and commercial cows. We typically background our calves then
retain ownership through the feeding phase. Our farming operation
consists of wheat, grain sorghum, soybeans and corn and includes
dryland and irrigated production. I am President of the Kansas
Livestock Association (KLA) and serve on the Board of Directors of the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), of which KLA is an
affiliate. I am very pleased to be with you today.
The beef industry is a key segment of the Kansas economy and the
Kansas beef industry is a major piece of the U.S. beef industry. Kansas
ranks third nationally with 6.1 million cattle on ranches and in
feedyards. Those cattle generated $6.53 billion in cash receipts in
2010. Kansas is a national leader in cattle feeding and beef
processing. The Kansas beef cow herd is the seventh largest in the
country at 1.43 million head. Also, the presence of Kansas State
University, the Animal Health Corridor and the proposed National Bio
and Agro-Defense Facility makes Kansas a world leader in animal health
research.
Development of the next farm bill is an important process for
livestock producers. Whether directly or indirectly, the provisions
included in the farm bill can have a dramatic impact on livestock
producers' businesses. I oppose agriculture policies that pit one
industry group against another, distort market signals and
inadvertently cause economic harm to the livestock sector.
The vast majority of my fellow livestock producers believe the
livestock industry is best served by the process of free enterprise and
free trade. Even with its imperfections, free trade is relatively more
equitable than regulated and subsidized markets which retard innovation
and distort production and market signals. We oppose attempts to narrow
the business options or limit the individual freedom of livestock
producers to innovate in the management and marketing of their
production.
I oppose inclusion of a ``Livestock Title'' in the next farm bill.
The livestock title in the last farm bill attracted proposals like the
GIPSA rule, mandatory country-of-origin labeling and other items
counter to the free enterprise system I support.
Items with industry-wide support can be included in the
``Miscellaneous Title'', just as they have been in every farm bill
prior to the 2008 bill. I ask for the support of Members of this
Committee in opposing a livestock title in the next farm bill.
GIPSA Proposed Rule on Livestock Marketing
I strongly oppose, as do the vast majority of Kansas cattle
producers, the proposed regulation issued by the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) on June 22, 2010. I would
refer you to comments filed by KLA and NCBA which may be found at
http://www.kla.org/proposedgipsarule.aspx. Although USDA has not
advanced the most egregious portions of the regulation for final
rulemaking, the threat remains, especially after the current
appropriations restriction expires in September.
Beef producers throughout Kansas and the United States are
concerned the proposed regulation would greatly expand the role of
government in marketing livestock and eliminate producers' rights and
ability to market livestock to capture the benefits of their efforts to
improve the quality of their livestock.
As outlined in both sets of comments, the regulation outlines new
definitions to be used to interpret the Packers and Stockyards Act that
would expand the jurisdiction of USDA over all marketing arrangements.
USDA would require the reporting of marketing arrangements and then
would post them on the USDA website. Producers participating in
marketing arrangements would have limited ability to protect their
private information from public disclosure.
The proposed regulation has broad application and may include
existing contractual arrangements if the agreement between the buyer
and the seller were modified by the parties. The proposal also would
require buyers to justify any discount or premium paid. USDA then would
review these transactions and make determinations of violations based
upon its judgment, not marketplace economics.
The proposal includes new definitions of ``competitive injury'' and
``likelihood of competitive injury'' and new listings of circumstances
that may be considered ``unfair, unjustly discriminatory and deceptive
practices or devices.'' Both sets are so broad that mere accusations,
without economic proof, would suffice for USDA or an individual to
bring a lawsuit against a buyer.
The proposal's new listings of criteria that USDA would use to
determine whether an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage was
made by a buyer include requiring the buyer to make similar offers to
all livestock producers; requiring the buyer to make price premium
offers in a manner that does not discriminate against any other seller;
and requiring the buyer to make offers known to all sellers if such
offer is made to one or more seller.
We believe these provisions would negatively impact producers and
consumers in the following ways.
Lost Opportunities and Lost Profits: Cattle producers are concerned
this regulatory proposal, coupled with the risk of litigation from USDA
and citizen suits, likely would cause buyers to withdraw marketing
arrangements rather than run the risk of litigation, civil penalties
and potential revocation of licenses.
If marketing arrangements were restricted, producers and consumers
would be the losers. The proposed regulation would restrict cattle
producers' freedom to market their cattle as they see fit. It would
limit their opportunity to capture more of the value of their cattle
and eliminate important risk management tools. Regulating marketing
agreements would impact nearly 65% of the fed cattle market.
The proposed regulations ultimately may remove products consumers
prefer. Producers have responded to consumer demand by finding
innovative ways to develop and market premium quality and branded
products. These alternative marketing arrangements have allowed
producers to get paid for the added value. These arrangements ensure a
consistent supply of livestock and poultry that meet the requirements
of such programs. Without this consistent supply, these programs cannot
be sustained.
The 2007 USDA GIPSA Livestock and Meat Marketing Study found
reducing or eliminating the use of alternative marketing arrangements
(AMAs) would negatively affect both producers and consumers. No segment
of the beef industry, from the ranch to the consumer, would benefit
from the reduction or elimination of these marketing arrangements. The
GIPSA study results showed if AMAs were reduced 25%, the 10 year
cumulative effect would be a loss of $5.141 billion for feeder cattle
producers; a loss of $3.886 billion for fed cattle producers; and a
loss of $2.539 billion for consumers. If marketing arrangements were
eliminated, the 10 year cumulative losses for producers and consumers
would be as follows: feeder cattle producers--$29.004 billion; fed
cattle producers--$21.813 billion; and consumers--$13.657 billion.
Combined losses across all segments would exceed $60 billion.
Loss of Privacy/Risk of Litigation: The proposed regulation
requires packers to file copies of marketing arrangements with USDA.
Packers may assert some information is confidential and request that it
not be released. However, producers who are parties to the marketing
arrangements would not have the same opportunity to claim privacy. This
means confidential producer information could be posted on USDA's web
site for producer competitors to view. The regulation would lessen the
burden for bringing an action against a packer. Packer livestock
purchase records likely would be a part of any litigation. Producers
participating in questioned transactions likely would be drawn into the
litigation.
Negative Restructuring of the Industry: I believe the potential
elimination of marketing arrangements likely would encourage vertical
integration. In order to satisfy consumer demand currently being met
through the use of marketing arrangements, packers may choose to own
livestock in larger numbers (today, packers directly own less than 5%
of the market) rather than risk litigation.
While the regulation is couched in many legal terms and arguments,
it would have a real impact on producers like me. Over the years, I
have invested in genetics that have helped me improve the quality and
consistency of the calves I produce. To capitalize on this investment,
I retain ownership on my calves and feed them in a commercial feedyard.
This allows me to market my calves through U.S. Premium Beef and other
programs that allow me to earn premiums for my high quality cattle.
The proposed regulation would require purchasers of my cattle to
justify paying more than a ``standard price'' for my livestock. What is
a standard price and who sets it? The regulation seems to infer that to
be the role of government. I strongly oppose the government setting
``standard prices'' for my livestock. If my competitors (other
producers) don't agree with the justification the packer offers for not
paying me a ``standard price'', the packer may be sued. Common business
sense tells me that it wouldn't be long before the packer no longer
would be interested in our agreement. This means I'll be back to
selling cattle for the same average price as everyone else. My
investment in superior genetics would be lost.
I believe the proposed rule will set the beef industry back to a
time when all cattle received the same average price and beef demand
was in a downward spiral. The rule also goes far beyond the intent of
Congress. Members of this Committee will recall several of the
proposals contained in this rule were either defeated or withdrawn
during consideration of the last farm bill. We strongly urge you to
take action to prevent the implementation of this rule.
I believe the best course of action to protect U.S. beef producers
is to delete the language which led to the proposed GIPSA rule. To that
end, I support language striking Sec. 11006, Part 1 of the Food,
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.
Livestock Ownership Restrictions
Another marketing related issue of concern is efforts to restrict
packer ownership of livestock. I strongly oppose H.R. 4284 and its
Senate companion, S. 2141. While the bills target packers, they could
more accurately be described as restricting producers' choice of when
to market their livestock. Study after study has shown packer ownership
levels have no impact on market prices. In fact, the 2007 GIPSA study
found limiting marketing opportunities in the beef industry would have
significant negative effects for both producers and consumers.
I ask Members of this Committee to reject any attempt to include
language such as that contained in H.R. 4284 in the next farm bill.
Country-of-Origin Labeling
The vast majority of beef producers have supported voluntary
country-of-origin labeling (COOL) programs. These producers believe the
market will provide the information and attributes consumers desire and
are willing to pay to receive. The number of branded beef programs
being utilized by beef producers is a testament to the signals provided
by the market.
Despite broad beef industry opposition, the current mandatory COOL
program was included in the last farm bill. Producer groups like KLA
and NCBA actively engaged in the development of the regulation in an
attempt to limit the record-keeping burden for the industry. While we
believe the requirements of mandatory COOL have been relatively benign
for most producers, the same cannot be said for all beef industry
participants.
Last year, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favor of
Canada and Mexico in their complaint against the U.S. mandatory COOL
program. Although the U.S. Trade Representative has appealed the
ruling, we believe the original decision is likely to stand.
It is in the interests of the U.S. as a whole, and the U.S. beef
industry in particular, to resolve this dispute before retaliatory
action is taken. Canada and Mexico are among the largest trading
partners for the U.S. In terms of exports, Canada and Mexico represent
the number one and two destinations for U.S. beef products. In 2011,
Canada and Mexico purchased more than $2 billion worth of U.S. beef and
beef products, nearly 40 percent of our total beef export value.
I strongly support the inclusion of language in the next farm bill
to address the WTO finding. My preference would be language making the
meat portion of the COOL program voluntary. An alternative approach
would be to adopt the concept of substantial transformation wherein
meat from any animal processed in the U.S. would be labeled as
``Product of the U.S.''
Conservation Title
Several conservation programs authorized in previous farm bills
have played an important role in assisting farmers and ranchers enhance
our nation's natural resources for food production, wildlife habitat,
and water quality. In Kansas, the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP) is improving habitat for grassland-nesting birds under
consideration for listing as threatened or endangered species,
enhancing the health of grazing lands, improving water quality near
lakes used for public drinking water, improving soil quality,
conserving groundwater and reducing soil erosion. In Fiscal Year 2010,
our state NRCS personnel completed over 900 contracts impacting over
213,000 acres of our state's agricultural landscape. One important
feature of EQIP has been its focus on livestock operations. I recommend
a continued focus of 60% of EQIP funds toward livestock projects.
My personal experience with EQIP has been very positive. EQIP
helped enable me to make the transition to no-till farming. The cost-
share funds made it feasible for me to make the investment necessary to
complete that transition. I know many similar stories where EQIP has
facilitated operational changes that have positively impacted
environmental quality.
Farm and Ranchland Protection Program and Grassland Reserve Program
(GRP) conservation easements are in strong demand by our state's
agricultural landowners who desire to sell their development rights to
protect their lands for future generations of farmers and ranchers. In
many instances, selling a conservation easement has been a helpful tool
for estate and succession planning as today's landowners prepare for
the next generation of farmers and ranchers.
Kansas leads the nation in the number of GRP agreements. To date
this program has permanently protected over 36,000 acres of high-
quality native grasslands, through 66 GRP conservation easements in
Kansas. We realize GRP does not have baseline funding for the next farm
bill, but we encourage Congress to reauthorize this program and give it
favorable consideration for its share of funding.
I encourage Members of this Committee to remind your colleagues
that Federal funds spent on conservation are a good investment in our
country's natural resources and the ultimate beneficiary is the general
public. In addition, conservation program spending is not an
entitlement as participants are required to use these funds on the land
and, in many instances, are required to invest their own time and
personal funds as a match or cost-share contribution.
Conservation Easement Tax Incentive
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 included a provision
to extend the income tax incentive for qualified conservation gifts,
including donated conservation easements. This extension expired
December 31, 2011.
I support making this incentive more permanent, as proposed in H.R.
1964, the Conservation Easement Incentive Act of 2011. This bipartisan
bill is sponsored by 302 Members of the House, including several
Members of this Committee. I encourage this Committee to consider
including similar language in the next farm bill.
Research
My fellow cattle producers and I fully recognize the current
economic situation facing the Federal Government and the need to reduce
the Federal deficit. That said, I believe there are a number of
programs worthy of continued funding in the farm bill. One area that
plays a significant role in the livestock industry is the research
title. Funding for livestock production research continually has
declined since the 1970's. The beef industry does support increased
funding for research on production practices, animal diseases,
nutrition, food safety, and environmental impacts of the industry. Of
these, the most critical programs administered by USDA are in the area
of animal health.
I would encourage the Committee to closely look at this title and
identify ways we might be able to do more with less to ensure the
health of our U.S. beef herd. Finding ways to increase investment
opportunities, whether through public or private partnerships, will be
vital to the security and viability of our agricultural industry and
food supply. As we look to further expand international trade
opportunities, animal health issues will become even more important
with our international trading partners. It is imperative that we
continue to invest in research on animal health issues to help U.S.
producers remain competitive in the global marketplace.
Related to animal health research is the proposed National Bio and
Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) currently planned for construction in
Manhattan, Kansas. NBAF will house research on important foreign animal
diseases now being conducted at the aging facility on Plum Island. This
research is essential to protecting U.S. livestock from potentially
devastating diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease. Research
scientists are close to developing several important vaccines that
would mitigate the impact and help contain a foreign animal disease
outbreak. It is important that research continues.
Due to the nature of the pathogens used in this research, the
strictest and most modern bio-security and containment measures are
necessary in this type of facility. Although the Plum Island facility
has served its purpose well, it has reached its useful life. Given the
importance of the research, it is imperative that development of a new
facility move forward. We believe the Manhattan site is an appropriate
location for the new facility given the proximity of the animal health
corridor and the existing bio-security level 3 facility. We ask for the
support of this Committee in moving forward with an appropriately
designed and funded facility.
Government Mandates for Production Practices
Cattle producers recognize and respect their obligation to provide
for the well-being and care of their cattle. It is my responsibility to
raise my cattle in a humane and compassionate manner and I take that
responsibility seriously. I am concerned with legislation that has been
introduced in the House (H.R. 3798) that would require the Federal
Government to dictate production practices for food producing animals.
Knowing the intent of this bill is focused on the laying hen industry,
I still have serious concerns about the precedent of the Federal
Government getting in the business of telling producers how to raise
their animals, taking the decision away from farmers and ranchers and
the animal health professionals and animal scientists with whom they
consult. I am concerned the legislation will stifle the scientific
research and industry innovation that ultimately benefits animals.
Prescriptive production mandates are a clear disincentive to
continually improve our industries based on the latest science.
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) currently is
developing international, species-specific standards for animal care.
This process is guided by scientists and veterinary experts who have
made the decision to move away from prescriptive housing requirements
and instead have adopted outcome-based requirements. Current U.S.
industry guidelines are science and outcome-based. We closely monitor
each OIE guideline to ensure our industry standards remain consistent
with any science-based OIE standards. I urge you and your colleagues to
carefully evaluate the role of the Federal Government in determining
animal production practices. I believe those decisions are best kept in
the hands of the animal scientists, veterinarians, farmers and ranchers
who care for these animals every day.
Animal Disease Traceability
The beef industry long has been supportive of animal identification
for animal health purposes. We strongly believe the goal of any program
should be to enable the cattle industry, state and Federal animal
health officials to respond rapidly and effectively to animal health
emergencies. We do appreciate APHIS recognizing the shortcomings of the
previously proposed NAIS and that it had become a barrier to achieving
meaningful animal disease traceability in the U.S.
The beef industry has advocated for a species specific and phased-
in approach. The proposed Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program
does this with Phase 1 only applying to cattle more than 18 months of
age. We look forward to an objective, robust assessment of Phase 1
before moving forward with inclusion of any cattle under 18 months in
Phase 2. We are concerned as the proposed rule does not provide for a
separate rulemaking process for Phase 2. We encourage APHIS to
reevaluate how they plan to proceed for this age group and allow for a
separate rulemaking. This group of cattle is much larger, more complex,
and has increased logistical, technical and financial challenges for
cattle producers and animal health officials.
We also are concerned USDA's cost-benefit analysis may be flawed
and not adequately represent the total cost to the cattle industry for
Phase 1 and especially for Phase 2 of the program. The beef industry
consulted with agricultural economists who indicate there is not enough
information provided for a separate cost/benefit analysis. Therefore we
requested more information in order to adequately evaluate APHIS'
economic analysis of the ADT rule.
Proposed On-Farm Child Labor Regulations
I am very concerned about the impact of recent proposed changes to
on-farm child labor regulations. I applaud the Department of Labor's
desire to enhance the safety of young people working on farms and
ranches. A safe working environment is a primary concern of all farmers
and ranchers. However, I am concerned the proposed regulations will
stifle the ability of young people to work in agriculture.
The list of prohibitions in the proposed rule is long and many are
very vague or overly broad. Overly burdensome regulations often do more
damage than good. I believe parents are better positioned to make
decisions about the types of tasks assigned to young people on farms
and ranches.
We need more, not fewer, opportunities for young people to learn
about agriculture and the potential for a career in agriculture. Not to
mention the responsibility and work ethic developed when working with
livestock or caring for crops. I appreciate the support shown by
Chairman Lucas and several Members of this Committee in sponsoring H.R.
4157, the Preserving America's Family Farms Act. I encourage every
Member of this Committee to become a cosponsor of this bill.
Commodity Title
Finally, I would like to comment on the commodity title.
Historically, the cattle industry has hesitated from weighing in on
prospective title I programs. Recent proposals, however, including
those made during negotiations on the Super Committee proposal, cause
some concern.
Current commodity programs are relatively uniform, with each
commodity crop participating in the direct payment, counter cyclical,
marketing loan and crop insurance programs. Discussions that involve
creating segmented commodity programs for individual crops pose a real
threat to the livestock industry. Creating individual commodity
programs increase the risk that farmers will fail to heed market
signals and continue to grow crops in low demand and fail to increase
production of crops in higher need.
In the next farm bill, it is crucial that commodity programs not
pick winners and losers. While the structure of commodity programs may
change, cattle producers urge Members of this Committee to maintain
uniformity of programs across all commodities.
Conclusion
As you can see, the vast majority of cattle producers believe
markets free from government interference best serve the beef industry.
We prefer a farm bill that does not restrict our marketing options or
distort market signals. We look forward to working with you as the next
farm bill is developed.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hodgson, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF KENDALL HODGSON, WHEAT, SOYBEAN, CORN, SORGHUM,
ALFALFA, AND COW/CALF PRODUCER,
LITTLE RIVER, KS
Mr. Hodgson. Chairman Lucas, Representative Huelskamp, and
Representative Conaway, thank you for coming here today. I
appreciate your willingness to listen to what I and others
would desire for a new farm bill.
My name is Kendall Hodgson and I live in central Kansas,
near the town of Little River. I'm a fourth generation farmer
and rancher. My great-grandfather homesteaded on the banks of
the Little Arkansas River across from an Indian camp in 1871. I
farmed for 33 years, first in partnership with my father and
now with my wife. We have two boys in high school and a
daughter in grade school, and I think every day of what I need
to do to make it possible for any of them to continue to farm
if they would so choose.
I operate a diversified farm, producing wheat, soybeans,
grain sorghum, corn and alfalfa. I also operate a cow herd to
give me something to do in the winter.
We are here today to visit about what would be an
appropriate safety net for farmers in this area. It is my
belief that farms are less able to withstand a total crop lose
without some form of income today than they were in the past.
In today's business environment, we cannot afford to stumble.
Our first priority should be a viable crop insurance
program that covers not only a single year loss, such as last
year's disastrous drought, but also multiple years of low
production that caused declining APH's. Crop insurance may be
our best tool, but it's not a perfect product. County T-yields
are helpful, but sometimes they don't reflect what a producer
and his lender would expect to produce in any given year.
Direct payments have been very beneficial to the Great
Plains, but seem to have fallen out of favor with many groups,
and they're an easy target for budget cutters. A possible
alternative to direct payments could be some type of revenue
product that is triggered when price times yield are below some
threshold. It might make some sense to use an area, such as a
crop reporting district, to set these triggers. Farm level
revenue is what we are actually most concerned about, but in
reality, we have that with multi-peril crop insurance. Some
form of area-wide program would be more budget friendly and
give another layer of protection to production agriculture. The
ACRE program seemed to have the right idea, but with a
statewide trigger, really makes it unusable for the Great
Plains area.
In any of these programs, I would ask that the Committee be
mindful of WTO compliance. We think of ourselves as a nation of
laws, and we really have more to lose by noncompliance than we
have to gain. The payments to Brazil is the one that comes to
my mind. It really is a black eye for our farm programs that
only invite criticism from our detractors.
Conservation is something very near and dear to my
operation. I realize I'm only on this Earth for a short time
and I feel great responsibility to conserve those natural
resources that I am privileged to manage, and I think this is a
very appropriate rule for government to maintain the wealth of
the nation in cooperation with those private operators.
I know that the CRP part of the conservation has and will
have a role in protecting fragile lands, but I can also see in
some instances that better farming techniques can make better
use of that land. I'm skipping through my testimony here.
Conservation on working lands, in my opinion, is where the
rubber should meet the road; again, in cooperation with the
steward of the land, I think would have the most impact. Any
system of production that leaks nutrients or soil out of it is
not sustainable, and that, to my mind, is what conservation
should be about.
Basic research is not part of this title I that we're
talking about today, but it is of utmost importance to
agriculture. Agriculture is a great success story. Let's not
forget to keep funding the kind of research that keeps private
and corporate entities--that private or corporate entities
cannot justify to enable producers to be even more efficient in
the future.
Another topic not in title I is trade promotion. These
public and private shared funds have proven to be dollars well
spent. Agricultural exports continue to be one of the shining
stars in our balance of trade with other countries.
In summation, I would ask the Committee to please maintain
the flexibility of a program that would be proposed to allow
individuals who have different needs to have some benefit. I
remember what it was like before Freedom To Farm, and I don't
want to go back. I thank the Committee for the time, and would
be happy to answer any questions they may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodgson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kendall Hodgson, Wheat, Soybean, Corn, Sorghum,
Alfalfa, and Cow/Calf Producer, Little River, KS
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee I appreciate your willingness to come to Kansas today to hear
what I and others would desire for a new farm bill.
My name is Kendall Hodgson and I live in central Kansas near the
town of Little River. I am a fourth generation farmer and rancher. My
Great Grandfather homesteaded on the banks of the Little Arkansas River
across from an Indian camp in 1871. I have farmed for 33 years, first
as a partner with my Father and then as a sole proprietor with my wife
when he was no longer able to get around. We have two boys in High
School and a daughter in grade school and I think every day what I need
to do to make it possible for any of them to continue to farm if they
so chose.
I operate a diversified farm, producing wheat, soybeans, grain
sorghum, corn and alfalfa. I also operate a cow herd that gives me
something to do in the winter.
We are here today to visit about what would make an adequate safety
net for farmers in this area. It is my belief that farms are less able
to withstand a total crop loss without some income today than they were
in the past. In today's business environment we cannot afford to
stumble.
Our first priority should be to maintain a viable Crop Insurance
program that covers not only single year losses such as last year's
disastrous drought but also multiple years of low production which will
cause declining APH's (average production history's). Crop Insurance in
one of the best tools we have to keep us whole in the bad years as well
as helping us market our crops prior to harvest with more confidence
when it makes sense to do so. Crop insurance may be our best tool but
it is not a perfect product. Any crop insurance product needs to have
plugs to fill the multiple years of low yields that can and will occur
in this part of the country. One suggestion I have heard is to have
better methodology to the formation of APH's. County T-yields are
helpful but sometimes don't reflect what a producer and his lender
would expect to produce in any given year. The closer to the individual
farm those expectations can be formulated the better.
Direct Payments have been very beneficial to the Great Plains area
but seem to have fallen out of favor with many groups and are an easy
target for budget cutters. A possible alternative to Direct Payments
could be some type of revenue product that is triggered when price
times yield are below some threshold. It might make sense to use some
area such as a crop reporting district to set these triggers. Farm
level revenue is what we are most concerned about but in reality if we
have that with multi peril crop insurance. Some form of area wide
revenue program would be more budget friendly and would give another
layer of protection to production agriculture. The ACRE program seems
to have the right idea but by having a statewide trigger makes it
unusable for the Great Plains area. I like to point out that there is
more variability in environment from the western border of Kansas to
the eastern border of Kansas that there is from the eastern border of
Kansas to the East Coast.
In any of these programs I would ask the Committee to be mindful of
WTO compliance. We like to think of ourselves as a nation that follows
the law. We stand to lose more by noncompliance than to gain. I
understand the realities of the Brazilian threat of a WTO suit
concerning our cotton program and our subsequent payments to Brazil to
keep that suit from happening but this is something of a black eye for
our farm programs that only invite criticism from our detractors.
Conservation is something that is near and dear to my operation. I
realize that I am on this Earth only a short time and I feel a great
responsibility to conserve the natural recourses I that am privileged
to manage. This is a very appropriate role for government to maintain
the wealth of the nation in cooperation with the private operators on
the land.
I know that CRP has and will have a role in protecting fragile
lands but I also can see that with better farming techniques we can
make better use of some of that land. 21 years ago I spent a month in
India and to see how they scrambled for every bit of land to grow
something on was quite a contrast to our government paying us to not
produce. I fully realize that we are not India nor would I want us to
be but I can see the need in the future to put lands where appropriate
back into production.
Conservation on working lands in cooperation with the steward of
the land would have the most impact of any conservation program.
Preserving our natural resources by not only keeping the soil on the
land where it ought to be, but by preventing excess nutrients and crop
production chemicals from going down the river is our ultimate goal. A
system of production that leaks either soil or nutrients out of it is
not sustainable.
Basic research may not be part of the title I portion of the farm
bill that we are discussing here today but I would be remiss if I did
not remind the Committee that modern agriculture is a great success
story. We produce far more with fewer resources that at any time in
history. We didn't get here by accident. Let us not forget to keep
funding the kind of research that private or corporate entities can't
justify that will enable producers to be even more efficient in the
future.
Another topic that may not be in title I is trade promotion. These
public-private shared funds have been proven to be dollars well spent.
Agricultural exports continue to be one of the shining stars in our
balance of trade with other countries. Exports also help relieve the
burdens of abundant productions that we have endured in the past.
In summation I would ask the Committee to please maintain the
flexibility of any program that would be proposed to allow individuals
who have different needs to see some benefit.
I thank the Committee for their time and would happy to answer any
questions they may have.
Kendall Hodgson.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Giessel, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ``TOM'' GERARD GIESSEL, WHEAT, CORN,
SORGHUM, SOYBEAN, ALFALFA, AND COW/CALF
PRODUCER, LARNED, KS
Mr. Giessel. Chairman Lucas, Representative Huelskamp, and
Representative Conaway, thank you for the opportunity to share
what I think are the most important issues to consider in the
next farm bill.
My name is Tom Giessel. I'm a fourth generation family
farmer from Pawnee County, Kansas. My brother Jay and I raise
winter wheat, grain sorghum, corn and alfalfa, and a small
percentage of the land is irrigated. We formerly had a cow/calf
herd as well. I'm a member of five cooperatives and Kansas
Farmers Union, and participate in several other farm and rural
organizations. I've taken an active interest in farm policy
since 1975.
One of the foregone conclusions of the farm policy debate
is that direct payments will not be part of the next farm bill.
While I understand the concerns that many farms have with the
end of this support, the experience I've had on my farm shows
that the fixed payments don't amount to that much. Last year I
received about $10 per acre through direct payments. Just in
fertilizer alone, I spent over $220 an acre preparing irrigated
corn for planting this year. These costs might make direct
payments seem insignificant, but I would much rather see the
$10 an acre be used to support programs that will kick in when
I really need it. The loss of direct payments is overblown and
I encourage the Committee to find a way to provide assistance
when it's actually needed.
There has been much discussion about crop insurance as the
base of the next farm bill. That makes sense. Just about all
crop insurance products work very well when prices are high.
However, when prices return to normal times, crop insurance may
not be as appealing. From my perspective as a crop farmer, I
have seen relatively few high price spikes and rarely was in a
position to take advantage of them. In my 37 years of farming,
I have rarely sold $5 wheat and $4 corn. When prices are low,
which are more common than when prices high, a revenue product
that doesn't provide much help will not be attractive. Because
of this, crop insurance should not be the only component of the
next farm bill. Farmers need a safety net that works in time of
need; not just all the time.
I appreciate that there are limited budgets and limited
appetite for farm payments. While many of the proposals of the
farm bill commodity title try to solve the problem presented by
shallow or deep losses that might not otherwise be covered by
crop insurance, none of them address the prolonged market
failures, either very low or, actually, very high prices. The
Committee should be proactive in finding a solution that
addresses these realities.
I support the Market-Driven Inventory System, or I'll use
the acronym, MDIS, which is voluntary farmer-owned and will
allow commodity markets to work better. MDIS takes the tops off
the peaks and fills the valleys. It dampens the volatility, so
it's not damaging all sectors of ag--that is so damaging to
some sectors of agriculture.
A study by the University of Tennessee found that between
1998 and 2010, government spending on direct and
countercyclical payments and disaster programs was $152
billion. With MDIS, it would have been only $56 billion, a
savings of nearly almost $100 billion. With MDIS, net farm
income averaged only slightly lower, which is impressive,
considering the savings and the effective safety net provided
by the program. MDIS will reduce price volatility, which helps
farmers, livestock producers, biofuels industry, consumers, and
the hungry around the world. MDIS will also make sure that
farmers receive the bulk of their revenue, even in some tough
times, from the market and not the mailbox. I urge you to
consider the Market-Driven Inventory System as a farm program
that will function as a true safety net.
As a rural resident, I understand the importance of
delivery of these farm programs. It is essential that farmers
and ranchers have access to FSA and other USDA agency offices.
I also encourage the Committee to push for greater autonomy and
authority for FSA County Committees to meet the needs of
farmers in their local areas.
Additionally, I know that regulations have been discussed
at length by this Committee. I agree that farmers should be
able to operate their enterprise without much trouble from
anyone. Nonetheless, I cannot think of a single one of my
neighbors who have gone out of business because of too much
regulation. I can, however, point to many that have had to sell
their farm or their cow herd because of under enforcement of
antitrust laws, manipulation of commodity markets, and other
lax protection from those of greater power than the farmer.
My final thought would be on conservation, and for me,
conservation must be more than just a title on a farm bill. You
know, starting with about the 1996 Farm Bill, farmers have been
encouraged to try to grow two blades of grass where only one
has grown before. All our production is costly in so many ways.
Specifically, it drains resources; resources that we are
borrowing from future generations. Conservation is an ethic; an
ethic which farm policy should be built around.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my ideas and I'll
answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giessel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas ``Tom'' Gerard Giessel, Wheat, Corn,
Sorghum, Soybean, Alfalfa, and Cow/Calf Producer, Larned, KS
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you the important
issues, as I see them, for Congress to consider in the next farm bill.
My name is Tom Giessel and I'm a fourth-generation family farmer from
Pawnee County, Kansas. My brother Jay and I raise winter wheat, grain
sorghum, corn, and alfalfa, with a small percentage of the land
irrigated. We formerly had a cow/calf herd as well. I'm a member of
five cooperatives as well as Kansas Farmers Union, and participate in
several other farm and rural organizations. I have taken an active
interest in farm policy, especially since 1975, and have followed the
ebb and flow of concepts to ensure that family farmers, ranchers and
rural America have an opportunity to thrive.
I know that today's budget environment is challenging, but I also
understand that tomorrow's budget situation is not likely to be any
more favorable. The agriculture community has been clear in saying it
is willing to bear its fair share of cuts in order to contribute toward
deficit reduction, but they must be proportional to cuts in other
sectors. I respectfully urge Members of the Committee to consider the
critical and tenuous nature of our nation's food security when
considering the next farm bill. Production agriculture is a primary
economic driver, and as such, when production agriculture prospers, a
multiplier effect results and jobs and tax revenues at the local,
state, and national levels are added without raising tax rates.
Spending reductions that adversely impact the productivity and
profitability of production agriculture are counterproductive to our
overall national economic interests. Family farmer- and rancher-owned
and operated food, fuel, and fiber production is the most economically,
socially and environmentally beneficial way to meet the needs of our
nation.
Our national farm and food policy affects all Americans, urban and
rural, food producers and food consumers. We have the opportunity to
shape this important policy only once every few years. Our nation's
family farmers, who are those most vulnerable to risk, need an
effective and fiscally responsible safety net to mitigate the effects
of weather and market volatility in order to achieve our food and
energy security goals and to preserve jobs in rural America. As the
Members of the Committee know, agriculture is an industry that is very
different from any other, with market behavior that defies typical
supply and demand economics, high input costs, and the constant risk of
weather disasters threatening our nation's producers. Farmers should
not receive support in the good times, but farm policy should instead
provide economic security to farmers, who have little market power, in
bad times. Our nation's farmers need a more effective and fiscally
responsible safety net to mitigate the effects of weather and market
volatility and to achieve our food and energy security goals.
Additional Farm Bill Priorities
Congress should continue investments in rural America through farm
bill conservation and energy programs. Demand for these initiatives
remains high and yet these programs are chronically under-funded in the
annual appropriations process, which results in program backlogs.
Congress should provide a flexible conservation toolbox in the 2012
Farm Bill that includes streamlined program delivery for working lands,
land retirement and easement programs, coupled with significant Federal
funding and flexible local planning authorities.
Additionally, the 2008 Farm Bill included language that established
and continued important research, animal health, marketing, and
disaster programs related to livestock production, which brought
additional interests into the farm bill process. The livestock title
mandated country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat, fish, perishable
agricultural commodities, and assorted other food products, which has
been a long awaited and very beneficial law for farmers and consumers
alike. A livestock title should be a part of the 2012 Farm Bill and
must maintain the progress established by the previous farm bill.
National nutrition policy must address both the quantity and
quality of food available to needy Americans, and nutrition programs
should place an emphasis on fresh and local food to ensure that
Americans of all income levels have access to healthy, nutritious
foods. The local food procurement directive of the 2008 Farm Bill must
be continued and further emphasized in the 2012 Farm Bill, and further
incentives should be provided for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) and other Federal nutrition program recipients to use
their benefits at farmers markets, achieving dual objectives of
providing healthy food to those who need it most and supporting family
farmers and ranchers.
Market-Driven Inventory System: An Overview
In 2011, a study by University of Tennessee's Agricultural Policy
Analysis Center (APAC), under the leadership of Dr. Daryll E. Ray,
director, and Dr. Harwood Schaffer, research assistant professor,
developed a farm program concept that would moderate extreme volatility
in commodity markets while allowing farmers to receive their income
from the marketplace rather than from government payments, saving the
Federal Government a significant amount of money in the process.
The Market-Driven Inventory System (MDIS) developed by Dr. Ray is
an agricultural commodity program that mitigates price volatility,
providing advantages to livestock producers, the biofuels industry, and
to hungry people in this country and around the world. In addition, it
would reduce government expenses, increase the value of crop exports,
and maintain net farm income over time. The central feature of MDIS is
a voluntary, farmer-owned and market-driven inventory system that
operates under market forces during normal conditions but moderates
prices at the extremes. Inventory stocks activity would only be
activated when crop prices become so low or so high that normally
profitable agricultural firms are not provided with reasonable
investment and production signals. By working with the market, MDIS
would ensure that farmers receive their income from the market instead
of from government payments.
In the wake of the extreme commodity price volatility seen from
2006 to 2010, many of our international counterparts have revitalized,
constructed or made plans for a grain inventory management system on a
national level. The international community has also of late called for
the establishment of a global `` `virtual' internationally coordinated
reserve system for humanitarian purposes,'' first mentioned in the G8
Leaders' Statement on Global Food Security at the Hokkaido Toyako
Summit on July 8, 2008, and more recently at the November 2011 G20
summit in Cannes, France.
This two-phase study found that MDIS can provide the functions
sought by American family farmers and ranchers and our international
brothers and sisters. The first portion of the study (Phase I) is a
rerun of history from 1998 to 2010 with one change: the commodity
programs during that period are replaced with MDIS. The second (Phase
II) uses the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 10 year baseline
released in February 2012 as the starting point for the analysis.
Because 10 year-ahead baseline projections lack real world variability,
a pattern of shocks that roughly mimic the variability experienced by
crop agriculture from 1998 to 2010 were imposed on the projections.
The POLYSYS simulation model, developed by APAC, is the analytical
model used in this analysis. POLYSYS simulates changes in policy
instrument levels and/or economic situations as variation away from a
baseline situation. Crop allocation decisions are made with linear
programming models using county-level data as a proxy for farm-level
decisions. The crop prices and demands as well as all livestock
variables are estimated at the national level. National estimates of
revenues, costs and net returns are also estimated.
MDIS Phase I: A Historical Analysis
Phase I explores the extremely volatile commodity price period
between 1998 and 2010 using historical data as the baseline. In this
portion of the analysis, the actual historical supply, demand and price
numbers are compared with what those numbers are estimated to have been
had MDIS been in effect.
During the 1998 to 2010 time period, actual government payments for
the eight program crops (corn, wheat, soybeans, grain sorghum, barley,
oats, cotton and rice) totaled $152.2 billion, excluding crop insurance
premium subsidy payments. If MDIS had been in place during this time,
farmers would have received $56.4 billion from the government (in
storage payments), while earning roughly the same net farm income over
the period as historically received (figures 1 and 2). With MDIS in
effect, annual net farm income would have been, on average, higher in
the early part of the period (1998 to 2005) and lower in the latter
part of the period (2006 to 2010) but for the full 13 years under MDIS,
net farm income averaged only slightly lower ($51.1 billion versus
$52.1 billion). MDIS would have proven to provide an effective safety
net for farmers, remove the volatility from the commodity market and
reduce government payments by approximately \2/3\.
Figure 1: Government Payments for 8 Crops: 1998-2010
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 1 compares the Federal cost of the farm bill programs that
were implemented from 1998 to 2010 to the cost of MDIS if it
had been in place during this time frame. The analysis found
that, had MDIS been implemented instead of the farm bill
programs that were in place, the Federal Government would have
saved more than $95 billion over the 13 year period.
Figure 2: Realized Net Farm Income, 1998-2010
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 2 compares net farm income from the farm programs that
were implemented from 1998 to 2010 to what net farm income
would have been had MDIS been in place during this time frame.
The analysis found that net farm income would have remained
virtually unchanged over the 13 year period.
For the entire 13 year period, the value of production under the
baseline policies was $413 billion while with MDIS it would have been
$446 billion--a difference of $2.6 billion per year. Crop prices were
significantly higher under MDIS in the early part of the period, and
for the full 1998 to 2010 period prices were higher by $0.25, $0.50 and
$1.00 per bushel for corn, wheat and soybeans, respectively, compared
to actual prices.
Had MDIS or a similar inventory-based commodity program been in
effect from 1998 to 2010, the value of crop exports would have exceeded
the actual value of exports during that period (figure 3). A higher
crop price does cause a reduction in the quantity exported, but that
decline is less than the increase in price. As a result, the value of
exports increases with rising prices and decreases with price declines.
As an aside, this property does not bode well for the future direction
of the change in value of agricultural exports over the next few years
if prices decline.
Figure 3: Annual Value of Exports for 8 Crops (1998-2010)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 3 compares the historic export value of the eight program
crops from 1998 to 2010 to their value if MDIS had been in
place during this time frame. The analysis found that, had MDIS
been implemented instead of the farm bill programs that were in
place, the export value of the eight program crops would have
been greater over the 13 year period.
MDIS Phase II: Future Projections
Phase II is based on USDA baseline projection data for 2012 to 2021
as the beginning point of the analysis, but production shocks were used
to mimic the variability that crop and livestock agriculture
experienced between 1998 and 2010. Crop yields ten percent above the
baseline for the eight major crops for the 2012 through 2014 crop years
were imposed, and in the 2017 and 2018 crop years a ten percent
decrease below baseline yields was used, along with a five percent
decline in 2019. The purpose of these yield shocks was to reproduce
price conditions similar to those that were seen in 1998 through 2010--
a timeframe that saw both low prices accompanied by massive government
payments and record high prices. The resulting comparisons below are
between this shocked baseline assuming continuation of current
commodity programs and the MDIS alternative. The MDIS simulation
includes the same production shocks.
Government payments with a continuation of the current programs and
shocked production total $65 billion over the 10 years from 2012 to
2021. With MDIS in place, government payments are estimated to total
$26 billion, or 60 percent less (figure 4).
Figure 4: Government Payments for 8 Crops: 2010-2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 4 compares the projected Federal cost if current farm
programs are extended to the projected net farm income under
MDIS from 2010 to 2021 under three scenarios. First, if current
programs are extended and annual values match USDA's baseline
projections; second, if current programs are extended and
supply/demand shocks are felt (as described earlier in the
document), and; third, if supply/demand shocks occur but MDIS
programs are in place. The analysis projects that government
payments would be $39 billion lower if MDIS is implemented
rather than extending current programs.
Net farm incomes averaged over the 10 years are nearly identical--
$79.2 billion per year under the current programs and slightly higher
with MDIS, $79.6 billion (figure 5).
Figure 5: Realized Net Farm Income, 2010-2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 5 compares the projected net farm income if current farm
programs are extended to the projected net farm income under
MDIS from 2010 to 2021 under three scenarios. First, if current
programs are extended and annual values match USDA's baseline
projections; second, if current programs are extended and
supply/demand shocks are felt (as described earlier in the
document), and; third, if supply/demand shocks occur but MDIS
programs are in place. The analysis projects that net farm
income would be slightly higher under MDIS than under current
programs in either scenario.
Because crop prices average higher with MDIS than under the current
program, the value of exports over the 10 year period is higher with
MDIS by $15 billion, or $1.5 billion per year, on average (more in the
first part of the period and less in the latter part of the period)
(figure 6).
Figure 6: Value of Exports--8 Crops, 2010-2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fig. 6 compares the projected export value of the eight program
crops from 2010 to 2021 to their projected value if MDIS is in
place during this time frame. The analysis projects that, if
MDIS is implemented instead of extending the current farm bill
programs, the export value of the eight program crops would be
$15 billion more over the study period.
MDIS: Mechanics
For Phase I, the beginning corn loan rate is halfway between the
variable cost of producing a bushel of corn and the corresponding total
production cost. In 1998 that number is computed to be $2.27 per bushel
of corn. The 1998 loan rates for other crops are then computed to be in
the same proportion to corn loan rates as those legislated by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 (the 1996
Farm Bill) in order to minimize distortion, except for grain sorghum,
for which the loan rate is raised to be equal to that of corn, and
soybeans, for which the loan rate is raised to $6.32. The loan rates of
all crops are adjusted for 1999 through 2010 using USDA's prices-paid-
by-farmers chemical input index.
The analysis for Phase II of the study follows the approach and
most of the basic specifications used for Phase I. The loan rates for
this analysis (all in dollars per bushel) are: $3.50 for corn, grain
sorghum and barley, $2.49 for oats, $5.28 for wheat and $8.97 for
soybeans. The loan rates have the same proportion to corn as the loan
rates in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm
Bill). Loan rates are held constant for the full 2012 to 2020 period.
The maximum quantities of grain allowed in the MDIS inventory in
both Phase I and Phase II are specified to be 3 billion bushels of
corn, 800 million bushels of wheat and 400 million bushels of soybeans.
Inventory maximum levels for other program crops would be set as
appropriate. Farmers with MDIS recourse loans are paid $0.40 per bushel
per year to store the grain and are required to keep the grain in
condition.
With MDIS in operation, markets work uninterrupted until prices are
estimated to fall below a recourse loan rate or, if MDIS inventory is
available, prices exceed 160 percent of the loan rate.
When prices fall below the loan rate, the model estimates the
amount of grain that farmers would need to put under recourse loan with
the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to raise the market price to or above the
loan rate, which is the ``price'' that FSA uses to value the grain used
as collateral for the loan. If a market price is estimated to exceed
160 percent of the loan rate, the model checks to see if there is an
inventory stock in the MDIS farmer-owned inventory. If MDIS inventory
is available, the model computes the quantity needed to lower price to
about 160 percent of the loan rate and allows that amount of stock onto
the market. Setting the release price at 160 percent of the loan rate
is the key to establishing a functional system. The market does not
work as effectively within the model at higher or lower loan rate-
release price ratios.
The grain under MDIS must stay in inventory, that is, it cannot be
redeemed by paying off the loan and marketed until the price goes above
the release price of 160 percent of the loan rate and notification is
specifically received. With MDIS in effect, all government payment
programs (countercyclical payments, loan deficiency payments, fixed or
direct payments, etc.), except MDIS inventory storage payments and crop
insurance subsidies, are eliminated for corn, grain sorghum, oats,
barley, wheat, and soybeans. An optional set-aside would be available
for use at the Secretary's discretion if MDIS inventory maximums are
reached and prices fell below loan rates. Rice and cotton are not
included in MDIS and are assured to remain eligible for current program
payments.
History of Commodity Programs--How Did We Get Here?
With the adoption of the FAIR Act of 1996, which extended the
marketing loan program to all crops, the holding of grains either by
the Commodity Credit Corporation or farmers in a farmer-owned reserve
was made ineffective. Part of the logic behind the end of these grain
storage programs was the belief that if there were a need for stocks,
participants in the commercial sector would buy up those stocks at a
low price and later sell them at a higher price with no cost to the
government. Recent history has demonstrated that those commercial
inventories simply did not come into existence and the market has seen
numerous countries impose harmful export limitations of their
domestically produced foodstuffs in the face on citizen concern over
food shortages. In the U.S., we have even heard concerns from the
livestock sector over the availability of sufficient feed supplies.
The 1996 Farm Bill instead established the present system of direct
and countercyclical payments. Almost immediately after the 1996 bill,
the market changed and commodities prices began to decline. From 1996
until 2004, the value of agricultural exports fell from an all time
high of $27.3 billion to $10.5 billion.\1\ From 1996 until 2005, corn
prices fell to an average of $2.06 per bushel, wheat an average of
$3.03 per bushel and soybeans an average of $5.33 per bushel.\2\ The
elimination of reserves and new incentives to plant program acres
combined to result in widespread overproduction, devalued crop prices
and thus an increase in the amount paid in government subsidies. The
resulting system had no way to moderate wild swings in supply and
market volatility that has proven detrimental not only to family
farmers but also to consumers in developing countries, industries
dependent upon agricultural commodities for inputs and rural economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jerardo, Alberto. February 2004. ``The U.S. Trade Balance . . .
More Than Just a Number.'' U.S. Department of Agriculture-Economic
Research Service.
\2\ Ray, Daryll, et. al. March 2012. ``An Analysis of a Market
Driven Inventory System (MDIS)'' University of Tennessee Agricultural
Policy Analysis Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In times of high commodity prices, such as current market
conditions, target prices are set so low that even in the case of a
market downturn, the countercyclical program does not reflect the
rising cost of production or provide an adequate safety net. Direct
payments are increasingly indefensible to the public and unnecessary
for farmers, as they get distributed based on historic production,
regardless of current market price.
As a result, from 1998 to 2010, government payments for crops
totaled $152.2 billion.\3\ If MDIS had been in place for corn, wheat
and soybeans between 1998 and 2010, government payments to farmers
would have been reduced by nearly \2/3\ to $56.4 billion, the value of
exports would have increased, average commodity prices for farmers
would have been higher, damaging price volatility would have been
substantially reduced and overall farm income would have been left
effectively unchanged.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDIS and the Federal Deficit
As Congress continues to seek ways to reduce the Federal deficit,
any serious discussion regarding controlling government expenditures
should include MDIS. APAC's analysis over the 10 years from 2012 to
2021 found that government payments with a continuation of the current
program and shocked production remain unsustainably high, totaling $65
billion. However, with MDIS in place, estimated government payments
over the same period total $26 billion, a 60 percent reduction (figure
4).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ray, Daryll, et. al. March 2012. ``An Analysis of a Market
Driven Inventory System (MDIS)'' University of Tennessee Agricultural
Policy Analysis Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDIS could save tens of billions of dollars paid under existing
government payment programs and the additional tens of billions in
``emergency'' payments and government subsidies to revenue insurance
programs otherwise needed to offset the almost inevitable periodic
severe collapses in grain prices. Under MDIS, grain farmers receive
their income from the market and grain demanders are not subsidized or
overcharged.
Permanent Disaster Programs
The unpredictability and inefficiencies associated with ad hoc
disaster programs led to the inclusion of the Supplemental Revenue
Assistance Program (SURE) and other related programs, such as the
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees and Farm-Raised Fish
Program (ELAP), the Livestock Indemnity Program, and more, in the 2008
Farm Bill. These permanent disaster programs were intended to allow
farmers and ranchers to recover quickly from devastating weather
without waiting for piecemeal disaster assistance. Unfortunately, that
set of programs was inadequately funded and oversight challenges
postponed many of the rules and regulations needed to implement the
programs. Even in 2010, there were farmers still awaiting their claims
for 2007 losses. SURE and similar initiatives were a hard-won victory
for family farmers and ranchers and those programs' guiding
principles--to protect farmers against catastrophic yield losses--ought
to be included and appropriately implemented in the next farm bill.
In the next farm bill, permanent disaster programs must be funded
at a level that makes them effective and eliminates the need for ad hoc
payments. Partial advance payments should be made available so that
assistance can be quickly provided in times of desperate need. Decision
makers must ensure that we can continue the work that was done with
SURE and other programs in 2008. Returning to a system of ad hoc
disaster programs is likely to be much more costly for both the Federal
Government and for farmers. Not only are ad hoc programs expensive, but
they are also difficult to administer, extremely political, and not
solely influenced by real conditions and/or need. Between 1996 and
2002, when the commodity title was removed from the farm bill,
approximately $30 billion was spent on ad hoc disaster programs.\6\ The
cost to extend SURE and similar disaster assistance programs for 5
years in a 2012 Farm Bill is projected to be $8.9 billion,\7\ and
baseline funding for the permanent disaster programs expired in 2011.
It should also be noted that any disaster program would likely be less
costly if the MDIS concept were also included in the next farm bill.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USDA Economic Research Service, retrieved from http://
www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/FinfidmuXls.htm.
\7\ Congressional Budget Office.
\8\ Ray, Daryll, et. al. March 2012. ``An Analysis of a Market
Driven Inventory System (MDIS)'' University of Tennessee Agricultural
Policy Analysis Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though permanent disaster programs were enacted in the 2008
Farm Bill, ad hoc disaster relief efforts were authorized in 2010. This
is likely due to the fact that SURE and the other programs were not as
effective or fast-moving enough to satisfy the needs of farmers who
were affected by disaster. If disaster programs were strengthened,
these legislative solutions would likely be unnecessary. It should also
be kept in mind that disaster programs are among the few farm bill
programs that provide roughly equal benefits to both farmers and
ranchers. Including a set of previously unaffected sectors of
agriculture in Federal farm policy would generate more support for the
overall farm bill.
It is important that farmers do their part by responsibly sharing
in the inherent business risks of their farm. The distribution of
disaster aid must remain linked to crop insurance participation, and
SURE participants should be required to purchase more than just
catastrophic (CAT) coverage so that they are able to reasonably recover
some of their losses through crop insurance.
Any improvements in disaster programs should not come at the
expense of program delivery. County FSA staff who service these
programs are pushed to the limits of their resources as it is, and
their offices need adequate funding and modern technology in order to
continue to serve our country's farmers. A consistent, predictable and
stable backup plan for farmers struck by weather-related problems is
the most important benefit of having a permanent disaster aid program.
Any efforts to improve upon it should not interrupt the positive
results SURE and other disaster programs provided.
Risk Management
Crop insurance is an important safety net mechanism that provides
assistance to farmers only when assistance is needed. It is fully
compatible with MDIS and, as such, crop insurance must remain a
cornerstone of farm policy. Risk management tools must be made
economical for all farmers, regardless of crop or geographic region,
and more insurance products should be made available that protect
against changes in the cost of production. Farmers also need protection
against losses due to weather-related disasters, high input costs or
devastatingly low prices. There should also be efforts aimed at
streamlining and eliminating duplication among existing farm bill
programs. Risk management provisions in the next farm bill should
extend the availability and affordability of Federal Crop Insurance
Programs to farmers in portions of the country that have not
historically carried significant levels of crop insurance, thereby
reducing the need for disaster aid.
I support the reestablishment of compliance requirements for
Federal crop insurance eligibility so that all existing or new crop and
revenue insurance or other risk management programs are subject to all
conservation compliance provisions.
Crop insurance coverage should be improved for organic producers,
including ending the existing surcharge on organic policies and the
full implementation of coverage levels based on organic prices.
Additionally, crop insurance products and other risk management tools
should be developed for specialty crop producers. Funding levels for
crop insurance must remain adequate as it is the most critical and
effective safety net for farmers and crop insurance has already been
subjected to recent significant cuts.
Recent budget cuts to crop insurance, which subtracted from the
farm bill baseline, were made since the last farm bill. We urge
lawmakers to carefully consider the effects of reduced funding for crop
insurance programs. Cuts should not come at the expense of greatly
increased risk management costs for farmers. Continued vigilance should
be maintained to prevent the abuse of crop insurance programs, but crop
insurance must remain a part of the next farm bill. Costs associated
with the Federal Crop Insurance Program have risen as crop insurance
has taken on additional importance in the suite of safety net tools in
the farm bill. Although costs have increased over the long run, total
costs of the crop insurance program were cut nearly in half between
2008 and 2010. Most of the savings came from reductions in net
indemnities, although reductions to administration and overhead
subsidies for approved insurance providers have made for decreased
spending as well.
There are also a few adjustments to the mechanisms of the crop
insurance programs that should be considered. All risk management
programs should be based upon Actual Production History (APH), and for
situations that the APH is not available, the qualified yield for a
farm should not be set at a lower level than that of county FSA
calculations. In order to protect farmers in the event of successive
crop disasters, we also urge the establishment of APH yield floors.
These common sense approaches to crop insurance will help to ensure
that losses are accurately reflected in indemnities.
Crop insurance is not the be-all and end-all for a farm safety net.
Without reducing the volatility that plagues agriculture commodity
markets with MDIS, revenue-based crop insurance products will be
extremely expensive in high price periods and will provide little, if
any, assistance to farmers when prices collapse. Farmers would much
rather see a farm policy that also includes MDIS and disaster
assistance programs to moderate the volatility of the agricultural
marketplace and yields so that farmers can continue to farm.
MDIS Benefits Stakeholders
MDIS holds numerous benefits for a variety of stakeholders,
including farmers, the environment, livestock producers, the ethanol
industry, taxpayers and the food insecure worldwide.
MDIS Benefits Farmers
MDIS helps smooth out some of the wild price swings that can put
some farmers out of business. By providing a greater level of income
certainty, MDIS helps farmers plan for the future without decreasing
farm income. Land prices and input costs rise dramatically when
commodity prices rise, but when prices drop, these costs do not drop
correspondingly. With a reasonable loan rate, farmers could make long-
term investments in their farming operation that improve their long-
term profitability.
Farmers who put their corn, wheat and/or soybeans into the
inventory system would benefit from the receipt of storage payments.
They would also benefit from the future sale of their stored commodity
at the higher release price. With MDIS in effect, annual net farm
income was higher, on average, in the early part of the period from
1998 to 2005 and lower in the latter part of the period from 2006 to
2010, but for the full 13 years, the MDIS net farm income averaged only
slightly lower ($51.1 billion versus $52.1 billion). The low-price
years would reduce the tendency to capitalize higher returns into land.
While sufficient to keep current land in production, the moderated
prices do not provide the kind of price signals that would lead to an
over-expansion of productive capacity and lower prices over the longer
term. Net farm incomes averaged over the 10 years are almost identical
($79.2 billion per year under the current program and slightly higher
with MDIS at $79.6 billion). From 1998 to 2010, farmers would have
benefited from price signals that more accurately reflect the supply/
demand situation at a given time, than when futures prices reflect
herd-following speculative behavior on the part of some market
participants.
MDIS Benefits Conservation
MDIS holds significant conservation benefits because price
stability puts less pressure on environmentally sensitive land. During
high price years, for example, demand pressures on land is reduced
because farmers will not be incentivized to break native grassland or
bring Conservation Reserve Program acres back into crop production.
During low price years, net farm income would remain higher under MDIS.
This means that farmers have more money to invest in conservation in
order to meet their cost-share requirements under programs such as the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
MDIS Benefits Livestock Producers
Less volatile commodity prices under MDIS help livestock producers
keep input costs more stable and help prevent skyrocketing grain
prices, which can bankrupt livestock producers. In the 2006 to 2010
period, higher prices put some producers over the financial edge;
however, MDIS would have reduced commodity prices to a more reasonable
and survivable level. Livestock producers are vulnerable to rapidly
increasing feed prices, which they cannot quickly pass on to the
consumer. Overall, MDIS would have provided livestock producers and
industrial users with security in the availability of feed supplies and
a more reasonable range of prices.
MDIS Benefits the Ethanol Industry
Abnormally high commodity prices are also damaging to the ethanol
industry and can cause disruptions in the supply chain. Having access
to a stable supply within a more predictable price range allows ethanol
producers to engage in long-range planning. MDIS decreases price
fluctuation faced by ethanol plants and ensures more stable production,
which in turn helps put America on the road to energy independence.
MDIS Benefits Taxpayers
Throughout the study period, government payments for crops totaled
$152.2 billion. Had MDIS been in place from 1998 to 2010 rather than
the existing programs, taxpayers could have saved more than $95 billion
compared to what the Federal Government actually spent on farm
programs. This is a nearly 60 percent reduction in expenditures.
Government payments with a continuation of the current programs and
shocked production total $65 billion over the 10 years from 2012 to
2021; with MDIS the estimated cost is $26 billion, also a 60 percent
reduction.
Equally important, MDIS addresses perceptions among some consumers
that the government is giving unwarranted handouts to farmers. By
setting up a system that allows the price to range closer to costs of
production, these policies allocate the costs to the major users of
commodities, both domestic and international, rather than expecting the
U.S. Federal Government to subsidize their purchases. In addition to
the benefits they would receive under MDIS as taxpayers, U.S. consumers
would benefit from more stable commodity prices that would reduce the
volatility of food costs. While commodity prices under MDIS increased
in the 1998 to 2005 period according to the model, the farm portion of
most processed food costs that U.S. consumers eat is relatively small,
resulting in minimal long-term pressure on food prices. Average
commodity prices in the 2006 to 2010 period under MDIS would not have
increased as much as they did under existing policies, reducing upward
pressure on food prices.
MDIS Benefits the Impoverished
In developing nations, a small increase in commodity prices can
mean the difference between putting food on the table and going hungry.
MDIS reduces the price swings that cause many people who are directly
reliant upon staple crops like corn to go hungry when they can no
longer afford food. Importers of U.S. corn, wheat and soybeans would
have been assured of a stable supply of storable commodities, reducing
the need for countries to protect local supplies of grains.
With farmers constituting as much as 60 to 70 percent of the poor
in developing countries, higher prices in the 1998 to 2005 period under
MDIS would not adversely affect these farmers because of the large
amount of food that they produce for self consumption. In addition,
they would receive a more stable income for the product they do sell
into the market. In times of high prices, many subsistence farmers and
urban poor are often priced out of the market, increasing the number of
chronically hungry persons in the world. As a result of the price spike
in 2007 and 2008, more than 200 million people fell into the
chronically hungry category. By moderating the price spikes, MDIS
reduces the price pressure on the poor in developing countries. In
addition, MDIS assures participants in the marketplace of an adequate
supply of grain, reducing the hoarding tendency, which often results in
localized price spikes.
Conclusion
Many challenges lie ahead in the writing of the next farm bill.
Funding will be tight and it will be critical to come together in a
bipartisan manner to outline the top priorities for the omnibus
agricultural legislation.
The average American pays less than ten percent of his or her
disposable income on food, which is the lowest rate of any
industrialized nation in the world. It is a fantastic bargain. This
deal is the result of our national investments in agriculture through
farm policy, which have ensured that America's farmers and ranchers can
continue to provide the safest and most abundant food supply in the
world. The primary purpose of the next farm bill ought to be as a
strong safety net that protects farmers and ranchers during tough times
for the health of our nation and our rural economies. A forward-
thinking and well-designed safety net will be much more cost-effective
than reactionary legislation that is put forward in times of
emergencies.
When writing the next farm bill, lawmakers must be penny-wise, but
not pound-foolish. The MDIS program will have a cost, but as the study
by the University of Tennessee demonstrates, it will save money in the
long term. Permanent disaster programs, too, save money. For example,
the U.S. spent $30 billion between 1996 and 2002 in emergency and ad
hoc disaster programs to help farmers and ranchers when prices
collapsed and the farm bill had no safety net for them.\9\ Keeping that
in mind, the cost to extend SURE and similar disaster assistance
programs for 5 years, which could have replaced those ad hoc disaster
programs, is $8.9 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ USDA Economic Research Service, retrieved from http://
www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/FinfidmuXls.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must also complete the next farm bill this year to protect
against even further cuts to agriculture. USDA cut $4 billion from
agriculture programs by renegotiating the Standard Reinsurance
Agreement in 2011. Congress approved a budget reduction to agriculture
programs of more than 15 percent for Fiscal Year 2012, a cut that was
two to three times deeper than the average across-the-board reduction
in discretionary spending. By waiting until 2013 or later to complete
the next farm bill, there may be even less funding available, making it
nearly impossible to pass a farm bill that will protect America's
family farmers and ranchers in tough times.
By coming together in a strong, bipartisan fashion, it is possible
to craft a fiscally responsible 2012 Farm Bill with an adequate safety
net to protect America's family farmers and ranchers and to help make
rural communities vibrant. On behalf of the members of National Farmers
Union, thank you for the opportunity to outline our priorities and I
look forward to working with you to enact this critical legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF WOODY ANDERSON, COTTON AND WHEAT PRODUCER,
COLORADO CITY, TX
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Woody Anderson,
predominantly a dryland cotton farmer in West Texas, Colorado
City, Texas. Actually, the locals call it ``Colo-ray-do'' City.
It's located in the rolling plains, right in the middle of
Midland and Abilene and Lubbock and San Angelo. I want to thank
you and the rest of the Committee for the opportunity to share
my views on the next farm legislation this morning. I'd also
like to thank, a special thanks to my Congressman, Congressman
Mike Conaway, for his work on this Committee and for his work
as Chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and
Risk Management, and for the great job he does for the 11th
District of Texas.
Agriculture is one of the most important industries in
Texas and in the United States. As a result, an effective farm
bill that supports production agriculture is also an effective
jobs bill for the general economy. Overall, U.S. farmers have
been benefitting from relatively high commodity prices, when
compared to historical averages. However, it is important to
remember that the cost of essential inputs, such as seed, fuel
and fertilizer, are also at historically high levels. As a
result, profit margins for many remain thin. Higher prices have
also brought increased market volatility. When coupled with
increasingly unpredictable weather, the risk of producing a
crop has never been greater.
As a dryland producer in Texas, I have firsthand experience
of the risk that farmers face. In 2011, Texas suffered the most
devastating drought since records have been kept. On my farming
operation, I was unable to harvest even an acre of cotton that
I had planted last year. Without the safety net provided by
crop insurance and other programs, all authorized by farm
legislation, it would have been virtually impossible to survive
that devastating loss.
As this Committee works to reauthorize farm legislation, I
appreciate the challenges that are posed--that have been posed
by difficult budget times in Congress and by those in Congress
that continually question the need for farm programs. While
agriculture is willing to make a proportionate contribution to
deficit reduction, it's vitally important that budget
constraints and farm program critics not be allowed to
undermine the effectiveness of our farm safety net.
With respect to production agriculture, I strongly
encourage this Committee to take into consideration the
diversity of production prices, cost structures, and risk
profiles. What works for my operation isn't going to be the
same as for farmers in California, North Dakota, Iowa, or even
here in Kansas. A one-size-fits-all program cannot address this
diversity, and I hope that the eventual farm bill will offer a
range of programs structured to address the needs of different
commodities and production regions.
I also urge the Committee to complete the farm bill this
year. We need some certainty regarding farm programs as we look
to investments necessary to keep our farming operations
economically viable and to assure our bankers that there is
going to be an adequate safety net.
While I occasionally grow other crops, I consider cotton to
be my primary crop. The 2008 Farm Bill served cotton farmers
extraordinarily well and, in recent years, has required minimal
Federal outlays. However, deficit reduction efforts are placing
unprecedented pressure on the existing structure of farm
programs. The cotton industry also faces the unique challenge
of resolving the long-standing WTO Brazil case.
In order to respond to the challenges of designing the most
effective safety net with reduced funding and to make
modifications that will lead to a resolution of the WTO case,
it is very important that the next farm legislation includes
the cotton industry's proposal of a new revenue-based crop
insurance program which will result in strengthening the
grower's ability to manage risk. By complementing existing
products, the Stacked Income Protection Program, or STAX for
short, will provide a tool for growers to manage that portion
of their risk for which affordable products are not available
currently. This revenue-based crop insurance safety net would
be combined with a modified marketing loan that is adjusted to
satisfy the WTO case. Even with those modifications, the
marketing loan will remain an important source of cash flow for
our producers and our merchants.
Given the diversity of weather and production practices,
the menu of insurance choices should be diverse and
customizable, allowing for maximum participation and effective
coverage. In the 2008 Farm Bill, the introduction of enterprise
unit pricing gave producers one more option for insuring
against risks that are beyond their control. I strongly support
the continuation of that option in the 2012 Farm Bill and would
urge consideration of expanding it to allow a producer to apply
enterprise unit pricing to the acres that are separated by
irrigated and non-irrigated.
As a farmer who understands the vital importance of
effective insurance products, I am very concerned about the GAO
report that calls for limits on insurance payments. My concern
is founded in the fact that crop insurance is a basic safety
net that only indemnifies a grower when he incurs a loss. Even
then, the grower is not made whole and is only compensated for
a portion. For Texas, I can assure this Committee that any
limits on eligibility requirements that deny farmers the
opportunity to purchase affordable insurance products will
completely undermine the ability to secure production
financing.
Farmers understand that agriculture is an extremely risky
endeavor, but they also understand that effective risk
management is a key to long-term viability. While the goal of
farm programs is not to completely remove the risk associated
with farming, farm programs should strive to provide
opportunities for effective risk management, and for me
personally, I think STAX accomplishes that goal.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide these
comments and I look forward to any questions at the appropriate
time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Woody Anderson, Cotton and Wheat Producer,
Colorado City, TX
I am Woody Anderson, a predominantly dryland cotton and grain
producer from Colorado City, Texas. Colorado City is located in the
Rolling Plains of Texas, right in the middle of Midland, Abilene, San
Angelo, and Lubbock. I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member
Peterson for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on the next farm
legislation. I would also like to offer a special thanks to my
Congressman, Representative Mike Conaway, for his work on this
Committee, his chairmanship of the Subcommittee on General Farm
Commodities and Risk Management, and for his dedicated representation
of 11th District of Texas.
Agriculture is one of the most important industries in Texas and
the United States. Numerous businesses, financial institutions and
individuals provide supplies, financing and services to the farmers and
ranchers that produce our nation's food and fiber. In Texas, it is
estimated that farm and farm-related employment accounts for 14% of all
jobs. As a result, an effective farm bill that supports production
agriculture is also an effective jobs bill for the general economy.
Overall, U.S. farmers are benefitting from relatively high
commodity prices when compared to historical averages. However, it is
important to remember that costs of essential inputs such as seed, fuel
and fertilizer are also at historically high levels. As a result,
profit margins remain thin. Higher prices have also brought increased
volatility. When coupled with increasingly unpredictable weather, the
risk of producing a crop has never been greater.
As a dryland producer in Texas, I have first-hand experience of the
risks farmers face. In 2011, Texas suffered the most devastating
drought since record-keeping began. Statistics cited in a recent report
by the Texas Comptroller indicate that direct and indirect losses from
the drought are approaching $9 billion. On my farming operation, I was
unable to harvest even an acre that I had planted to cotton. Without
the safety net provided by crop insurance and other programs authorized
by the farm legislation, it would be virtually impossible to survive
such a devastating loss.
As this Committee works to reauthorize farm legislation, I
appreciate the challenges posed by the difficult budget climate in
Congress and by those in Congress that continually question the need
for farm programs. While agriculture is willing to make a proportionate
contribution to deficit reduction, it is vitally important that budget
constraints and farm program critics not be allowed to undermine the
effectiveness of our farm safety net.
With respect to production agriculture, I strongly encourage this
Committee to take into consideration the diversity of production
practices, cost structures and risk profiles. What works for my
operation isn't going to be the same as farmers in California, North
Dakota or Iowa. A one-size-fits-all farm program cannot address this
diversity, and I hope that the eventual farm bill will offer a range of
programs structured to address the needs of the different commodities
and production regions.
I also urge the Committee to complete the farm bill this year--in
advance of the expiration of the current legislation. We need some
certainty regarding farm programs as we look at the long-term
investments necessary to keep our farming operations economically
viable; and to assure our bankers that there is an adequate safety net.
While my farming operation occasionally includes grain production,
I consider cotton to be my primary crop. The 2008 Farm Bill has served
cotton farmers extraordinarily well and, in recent years, has required
minimal Federal outlays. However, deficit reduction efforts are placing
unprecedented pressure on the existing structure of farm programs. The
cotton industry also faces the unique challenge of resolving the
longstanding Brazil WTO case.
In order to respond to the challenge of designing the most
effective safety net with reduced funding and to make modifications
that will lead to the resolution of the Brazil case, it is very
important that the new farm legislation includes the cotton industry's
proposal of a new revenue-based crop insurance program which will
result in strengthening growers' ability to manage risk. By
complementing existing products, the Stacked Income Protection Plan, or
STAX for short, will provide a tool for growers to manage that portion
of their risks for which affordable options are not currently
available. This revenue-based crop insurance safety net would be
combined with a modified marketing loan that is adjusted to satisfy the
Brazil WTO case. Even with modifications, the marketing loan will
remain an important source of cash flow from merchandisers and
producers.
Farmers understand that agriculture is an extremely risky endeavor,
but they also understand that effective risk management is the key to
long-term viability. While the goal of farm programs is not to
completely remove the risk associated with farming, farm programs
should strive to provide opportunities for effective risk management.
STAX accomplishes that goal.
Given the diversity of weather and production practices, the menu
of insurance choices should be diverse and customizable, allowing for
maximum participation and effective coverage. In the 2008 Farm Bill,
the introduction of enterprise unit pricing gave producers one more
option for insuring against those risks that are beyond their control.
I strongly support the continuation of that option in the 2012 Farm
Bill, and would urge consideration for expanding the option to allow a
producer to apply enterprise unit pricing to acres that are separated
by irrigated and non-irrigated practices.
Regarding crop insurance products, there has been increased
scrutiny given to those programs as indemnities for the 2011 crop have
increased. However, despite the dramatic increase in indemnities for
last year's crop, total indemnities remain below total premiums, and
thus, the program is operating at a loss ratio less than 1.0.
As a farmer who understands the vital importance of effective
insurance products, I am very concerned about a recent report by the
Government Accountability Office that calls for limits on insurance
programs. My concern is founded in the fact that crop insurance is a
basic safety net than only indemnifies a grower when he incurs a loss.
Even then, the grower is not made whole and is only compensated for a
portion of his loss. The value of crop insurance coverage is based
directly on the expected market value as determined in the futures
market. In Texas, essentially all farmers purchase insurance on all of
their acres in crop production. For cotton, most acres have coverage
between 60 and 70%. If a grower receives an indemnity under that type
of policy, that indemnity leaves a 30 to 40% loss that is
uncompensated. Now, there are efforts by GAO and some in Congress that
attempt to deny that basic coverage to producers by imposing arbitrary
limits. I would also oppose any conservation compliance requirements in
order to be eligible for Federal crop insurance benefits. For Texas, I
can assure this Committee that any limits or eligibility requirements
that deny farmers the opportunity to purchase affordable insurance
products will completely undermine the ability to secure production
financing.
Along those lines, I also encourage this Committee to resist
efforts to further tighten existing payment limits and income means
tests on other support programs. Artificially limiting benefits is a
disincentive to economic efficiency and undermines the ability to
compete with heavily subsidized foreign agricultural products.
Artificially limited benefits are also incompatible with a market-
oriented farm policy.
As a final point, cotton farmers understand that our ability to
produce a crop is directly tied to there being a strong and stable
demand from the textile manufacturers that produce yarn, fabric and a
wide variety of textile and apparel products. We are fortunate to sell
our cotton to mills in the United States, as well as several countries
in the international market.
For U.S. mills, the 2008 Farm Bill introduced an economic
assistance program, and I am pleased to say that the program has been a
resounding success. We have seen a revitalization of the U.S. textile
manufacturing sector, as evidenced by new investments and additional
jobs. I urge this Committee to continue this program in the new farm
bill.
To maintain a healthy presence in highly competitive export
markets, continuation of adequately funded export promotion programs
such as the Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development
Program is critical. Individual farmers and exporters do not have the
necessary resources to operate effective promotion programs which
maintain and expand markets--but the public-private partnerships, using
a cost-share approach, have proven highly effective and have the added
advantage of being WTO-compliant.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments
and look forward to answering your questions at the appropriate time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hunnicutt, you may begin when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HUNNICUTT, CORN, SOYBEAN, AND POPCORN
PRODUCER, AURORA, NE
Mr. Hunnicutt. Thank you, Chairman Lucas and the rest of
the House Agriculture Committee, for the opportunity to discuss
the upcoming farm bill and its impact on my operation and the
general farm economy.
My name is Zach Hunnicutt and I'm a fifth generation farmer
in Hamilton County, Nebraska, raising irrigated corn, soybeans,
and popcorn with my father and brother. My wife Ann and I have
two kids who will hopefully be the sixth generation on the farm
one day. I've been farming full-time for 5 years, and though
not representing any particular group today, my wife and I do
serve on the Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee for Nebraska
Farm Bureau and American Farm Bureau Federation.
While the country's been mired in a protracted recession,
constantly looking for evidence of green shoots, the
agriculture section of the economy has flourished. Given the
recent prosperity and the historic Federal budget deficit, the
farm bill will be a target for cuts. I understand that the
burden to reduce budgets will be shared across the board.
However, I would encourage the Committee to ensure that farmers
and ranchers are not penalized for this success by bearing an
unequitable share of the cuts and would urge the Committee to
provide an environment that allows flexibility for farmers to
respond to market signals, to maintain healthy programs that
have proven successful, and to take care in crafting a bill to
make it as easily explained to the public as it can be.
Federal crop insurance has been a valuable tool for our
operation and I would strongly oppose harming this program. The
ability to purchase insurance that protects against
catastrophic losses provides an effective risk management tool,
especially for beginning farmers. When I began farming, the
availability of crop insurance was important in securing
operating capital, and this is definitely a factor for many
others in my situation. It does not and should not guarantee a
profit, but establishing a known flow of revenue and mitigating
severe risk factors are invaluable for acquiring operating
loans.
I would also urge the Committee to maintain the public-
private partnership with crop insurance companies, rather than
moving the servicing of insurance to the Farm Service Agency.
The time and resources required to effectively manage insurance
policies would be too great to add on to the responsibilities
already taken on by the FSA.
In recent years, we've seen multiple hail events during the
growing season, and even with a staff dedicated solely to
adjusting and processing claims, it can take several months to
sort out all the details. Piling these responsibilities on the
FSA office would harm both the insurance program and the
management of FSA's current functions. Our insurance agents and
adjustors do an outstanding job of managing this complex and
time-sensitive process, and it would severely weaken the entire
program to take it out of their hands.
Any safety net provisions, conservation programs, insurance
programs, or any other agricultural aspects of the farm bill
should have the following aims: To allow farmers flexibility to
respond to market signals; to be as streamlined as possible;
and to be easily explained to the public.
Creating incentives for farmers to make decisions based on
government payout rather than what the market is dictating is
the last thing any of us want to see, as it will undermine the
whole program and distort the market, as well as discourage
innovation and production. A safety net should protect from
catastrophic loss, but not guarantee profit for participants.
Streamlined programs will reduce the cost to maintain and
will provide simple, more easily understood options for
producers. This is obviously a challenging goal, with the
myriad agricultural products represented in the farm bill, but
one that's worth the payoff. It's likely that budget cuts will
force this to happen in some manner. My hope is that it will be
done in a way to maximize efficiency, rather than just to cut
costs.
Finally, it's imperative that this policy be easily
explained and defended to the public. Agriculture is on display
and under the microscope like never before and there will be
much public scrutiny of any government spending in this arena.
We're in a time where the 24 hour news cycle has been shortened
to the 140 character cycle. Misinformation and
misunderstandings, like we saw with the recent pink slime
debacle, can have tremendous impacts in a very short amount of
time. It's critical that the aims and motivations of this
legislation be presented in a way that makes sense to an ever-
more interested public.
This legislation is being crafted at a unique time of
record farm prosperity and record deficits, and with critical
elections looming. It's my hope that a bill that meets the
needs of producers and fits in the current environment of
budgetary cutbacks can be passed yet in 2012.
Thank you for your time, the opportunity to provide input,
and I will be open to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunnicutt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Zachary Hunnicutt, Corn, Soybean, and Popcorn
Producer, Aurora, NE
I would like to thank Chairman Lucas and the House Agricultural
Committee for the opportunity to discuss the upcoming farm bill and its
impact on my operation and the general farm economy.
My name is Zach Hunnicutt, and I am a fifth-generation farmer in
Hamilton County Nebraska, raising irrigated corn, soybeans, and popcorn
with my father and brother. I have been farming full time for 5 years.
While the country has been mired in a protracted recession,
constantly looking for evidence of green shoots, the agriculture sector
of the economy has flourished. Given the recent prosperity, and the
historic Federal budget deficit, the farm bill will be a target for
cuts, and I understand that the burden of reduced budgets will be
shared across the board. However, I would encourage the Committee to
ensure that farmers and ranchers are not penalized for this success by
bearing a greater share of the cuts, to provide an environment that
allows flexibility for farmers to respond to market signals, to
maintain healthy programs that have proven successful, and to take care
in crafting the bill to make it as easily explained to the public as it
can be.
Federal Crop Insurance has been a valuable tool for our operation,
and I would strongly oppose making any cuts to this program. The
ability to purchase insurance that protects against catastrophic losses
provides an effective risk management tool, especially for beginning
farmers. When I began farming, the availability of crop insurance was
important in securing operating capital, and this is definitely a
factor for many other beginning farmers. It does not--and should not--
guarantee a profit, but establishing a known flow of revenue and
mitigating severe risk factors are invaluable for acquiring operating
loans.
I would also urge the Committee to maintain the public-private
partnership with crop insurance companies, rather than moving the
servicing of insurance to the Farm Service Agency. The time and
resources required to effectively manage insurance policies would be
too great to add on to the responsibilities already taken on by the
FSA. In recent years we have seen multiple hail events during the
growing season, and even with a staff dedicated solely to adjusting and
processing claims it can take several months to sort out all of the
details. Piling these responsibilities on the FSA office would harm
both the insurance program and the management of FSA's current
functions. Our insurance agents and adjustors do an outstanding job of
managing this complex and time-sensitive process, and it would severely
weaken the entire program to take it out of their hands.
Any safety net provisions, conservation programs, insurance
programs, or any other agricultural aspects of the farm bill should
have the following aims: to allow farmers flexibility to respond to
market signals, to be as streamlined as possible, and to be easily
explained to the public.
Creating incentives for farmers to make decisions based on
government payout rather than what the market is dictating is the last
thing we want to see, as it will undermine the whole program and
distort the market. Innovation would be discouraged in this type of
setup as well. Safety nets should protect from catastrophic loss, but
not guarantee profit for participants.
Streamlining programs will reduce the costs of maintaining them and
provide simple, more easily understood options to producers. This is
obviously a challenging goal with the myriad agricultural products
represented in the farm bill, but one that is worth the payoff. It is
likely that budget cuts will force this to happen in some manner, and
my hope is that it will be done in a way to maximize efficiency rather
than just to cut costs.
And finally, it is imperative that this policy be easily explained
to the public. Agriculture is on display and under the microscope like
never before, and there will be much public scrutiny of any government
spending in this arena. In a time where the 24 hour news cycle has been
shortened even further to the 140 character cycle, misinformation and
misunderstandings can have tremendous impacts in a very short amount of
time. It is critical that the aims and motivations of this legislation
be presented in a way that makes sense to an ever-more interested
public.
This legislation is being crafted at a unique time of record farm
prosperity and record deficits, with critical elections looming. It is
my hope that a bill that meets the needs of producers and fits in the
current environment of budgetary cutbacks can be passed yet in 2012.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to provide input in the
development of the farm bill.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hunnicutt.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Anderson, you mentioned that you grow wheat in addition
to cotton, so set your cotton hat to the side for just a
moment. What would be the most effective safety net for your
wheat crop?
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for that wheat
getting in there. I am not a for-profit wheat producer. I grow
cotton. I grow----
The Chairman. That's what my wife accuses me of being.
Mr. Anderson. The wheat that I grow is for conservation
tillage, for rotation purposes, and I'm going to have to punt
on that question on wheat production for profit. I'm primarily
a cotton producer. I do grow grain sorghum for a rotation crop.
The Chairman. Fair enough. In our discussions last fall, we
looked at requiring RMA to separate irrigated and non-irrigated
policies by practice, both on an enterprise unit and a crop-by-
crop basis. What would that option--would that option benefit
your farm?
Mr. Anderson. It would help me greatly. I have two circles
under irrigation and 30 acres of drip, 4,000 acres of dryland,
and we used enterprise units on my farm last year. We were so
dry at planting time, with the limited water that I had, I
never turned my circles on. I certified them all dryland. Had I
been forced to--had I gotten the crop up to a good start and
been forced to irrigate it, it would have cost my whole farming
operation about $100,000; so if we could separate those from
dryland and irrigated by practice, I think it would vastly
improve the choice for producers that have both.
The Chairman. One more question. In your written testimony,
you talk about the heavily subsidized foreign competition. Can
you describe some of your competitors, what they're doing?
Mr. Anderson. The cotton industry, Mr. Chairman, has been
concerned for some time about internal policies in China and in
India, and I guess a good case in point here of late would be
India's prohibition on exporting cotton in from their country;
and the subsidies, the per pound subsidies that China's growers
have been benefitting from, I think currently, the subsidy to
cotton in China is about $1.23 a pound; so access to their
markets and the manipulation in their internal policies that
they can regulate stocks, and consequently, stocks around the
world, and how they put those stocks back on the market vastly
affects what we do.
The Chairman. Do you believe the United States Trade
Representative is doing anything to challenge any of these
issues; challenge them, so to speak? You can answer that
carefully. I understand that.
Mr. Anderson. I know that our Trade Representatives have
this information before them, and I'm not sure how obvious the
response has been to that information. I do know that they've
been made aware by the cotton industry of some of the
challenges that we have in getting our products into those
markets.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Harper, you mentioned in your
testimony, I think your written testimony, H.R. 3798, the Egg
Products Inspection Acts Amendments of 2012, which was recently
introduced. The legislation, for some of the folks here with us
today, would impose specific production standards for egg
farmers. It would define physical cage size dimensions, air
quality conditions, labeling requirements and other production
practices in a Federal law. As a cattle producer, do you
believe it's appropriate to impose Federal standards on
livestock producers that are the result of a, shall we say in a
polite way, a negotiated agreement between a trade group and an
animal rights group?
Mr. Harper. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
question. This legislation is truly a concern for me as a
livestock producer. I think sometimes we're tempted to go down
a path that seems to maybe, at the time, seem like a
comfortable solution to a near-term problem. The problem with
adopting production practices, I think we as producers out in
the country are the best at determining what production
practices are best for our livestock and are best for
efficiencies and best for producing the most amount of product
we can. I think that going into that area of adopting those
practices--probably the biggest concern for me is I think it
limits innovation in the future.
I think it--you know, we're constantly striving to improve
our production practices and that's obviously with--I'll just
state, for example, the amount. You know, we have about half as
many cows as we did back in the 1950s and 1960s and we're
producing as much beef as we were back then, and that's just a
great example of the innovation that industries do on their
own. I think to get tied into particular production practices
is really a concern for livestock producers.
The Chairman. And to steal the question, if you've got a
problem, is it fair to share it with all your friends, too, so
to speak? Yes, I understand where you're coming from.
Mr. Harper. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Hodgson, the Committee will take a
serious look at lowering the acreage cap for the Conservation
Reserve Program, and also in the process of deciding the
purpose of the program in the future. Given the increased
demand for grain, because there is a variety of uses we didn't
have for it 15 years ago out there, high crop prices,
increasing land values, what do you see as the future role of
the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP? And along with that,
what changes would you like to see, if any, in the CRP program?
Mr. Hodgson. I would not do away with CRP. I'm not
advocating that, and really, I say I think some of this could
go back into working lands, and I think that's going to happen
anyway. As you say, the higher price of land and higher price
of grain, I think people are going to make the choice, if the
government doesn't raise their rental rates, to say we can make
more money producing than preserving, conserving, so you know,
the acreage caps, I know they're talking about changing. I
don't know if that's a dramatic difference. I think a lot of
this, it's going to come down to what will the government do
with the rental rates, and if those aren't changed
dramatically, I think obviously, a lot of that land's going to
come back into production.
The Chairman. A lot of my neighbors in Oklahoma say that if
we're going to put 45, 50 percent of the corn crop through the
ethanol cookers, depending on what crop yields are and weather
conditions are in any given year, that from a livestock
perspective, from an animal and food, human food perspective,
we have to have more product. There is a driving effort in some
areas out there, not in opposition to renewable fuel, not in
opposition to ethanol. But, to simply say if the Federal
Government is going to mandate 13 billion gallons of ethanol,
we've got to have more, because the classic retort to me this
last winter was a certain amount of those 20 percent pellets
that were being bought by cow/calf operators were basically
made out of crud out of the bottom of the bins. We have to have
more feed grain, so CRP, in the tough budget circumstances
we're in, and the other issues we're dealing with, is just one
of those things on the table.
I now turn to the gentleman from Texas for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Woody, I
appreciate those kind words. I just wish my mom was in the
audience. She'd have been really happy. Thank you very much.
Woody, you briefly mentioned the STAX program and the
relatively difficult effort within the cotton group at large to
come up with that program. Could you give us some sense, are
all producers just ecstatic with this or are they just, are
some folks on the other side looking at it and saying, ``Gosh,
you're trying to cut a fatter hog than everybody else.'' Can
you give us some perspective on how STAX came together?
Mr. Anderson. I don't think any way you look at it, Mr.
Conaway, it would be cutting a fat hog. It has been a very
difficult process to reach consensus in transforming cotton's
policy over the last 12 to 18 months. The STAX product is a
result of a hard look at the WTO findings and what might best
get cotton off the front page, if you will, and how we deal
with limited resources going into this farm bill under those
budget constraints that I know you're well aware of.
We have consensus within the cotton industry. We had--we've
held--we've actually, in the process within the council, have a
farm policy task force as an area, a council-wide group. We
have an American Cotton Producer farm policy task force, and
you actually have the Chairman of both of those groups in your
district. It's not been an easy process, but we have reached
consensus. The growers across the belt are fully behind the
STAX proposal.
It doesn't--the diversity we--even within the cotton
industry, one size doesn't fit all. That's why it's important
that STAX in some areas will allow producers to insure revenue
from 70 to 90 percent, where they may not be carrying a 65 or
70 percent underlying buy-up coverage. In our area, obviously,
we're going to carry the buy-up coverage and look at the
revenue side of it, depending on what the price selection and
crop insurance is that year.
Mr. Conaway. In your testimony, you mentioned there was a
combination of STAX and modified marketing loan program. Can
you talk to us about how the marketing loan program works in
your enterprise?
Mr. Anderson. The marketing loan in my enterprise is a
little different. I don't market my own cotton. I market it
through a co-op pool through the PCCA in Lubbock, but it allows
the pool and producers, too, to level out the payments off that
crop throughout the marketing year. It allows them to have an
orderly marketing of the crop and not just hold it and dump it
on the market at one point in time. It also provides the
security to the financial institutions and our bankers that
allow them to see that there is going to be a bottom price on
their loan.
Mr. Conaway. All ten of the witnesses have asked for
choices; have asked for options; have asked for not to have a
one-size-fits-all program, but we also have immense criticism
of the complication of the existing safety net, ACRE, SURE, all
those kinds of things. One-size-fits-all has a certain elegant
simplicity to it, but nobody wants that.
Anybody on the panel want to speak to us? Do you
realistically think that we can craft something that will do
all those things where you get all those choices, be
explainable to your banker and to the financiers and others,
and avoid the criticism of being too complicated for producers
to comply with? Any of the panel want to take a shot at that?
Mr. Anderson. Let me take the first shot, Mr. Conaway. At
the risk of stepping on some toes, and I certainly don't intend
to, not in this room, in 1996, we had a simple farm bill and it
was purported to be a simple farm bill, Freedom to Farm, and it
was just going to be a straight payment kind of program and it
did not fit all of us, and ultimately, we had to go back in
1980 and look at the DCP kind of program, or 1985, the DCP
program that we've enjoyed for the last three farm bills.
The STAX part of the proposal is a crop insurance-based
program, and it shouldn't be too difficult to explain as we
develop it in the buy-up policy and in the gap coverage policy
in STAX.
Mr. Conaway. Anyone else want to take a shot at that?
Mr. Hodgson?
Mr. Hodgson. I do think we need flex--options. You know, I
heard somebody say we actually get paid for making management
decisions, so different programs for different areas of the
country. You know, people in the next county farm differently
than I do. In the next state or next area, obviously they've
got to have some difference in programs.
Mr. Conaway. So your consensus would be, even if it does
complicate your business, you would prefer choices and options,
rather than one-size-fits-all programs?
Mr. Hodgson. I would, yes.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. We turn to
our host from the great State of Kansas, Congressman Huelskamp,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Same questions, I
guess. First, Mr. Harper, you're the cow/calf producer here.
The others kind of do a little bit of it, and you made some
reference in testimony about the livestock title. I understand
that as well. There are other things in the farm bill, I
presume, that impact the bottom line for beef producers. We are
in cattle country here, and can you tell me what one or two
things in the farm bill would create the most difficulty for
the livestock industry and which you would be most concerned
about?
Mr. Harper. Thank you for the question, Mr. Huelskamp. I
think a couple things. You know, the conservation programs are
a very important part to livestock producers as well as crop
producers. I think programs like EQIP have been very good for
implementing conservation practices in the livestock industry.
Things such as pasture improvements by distribution of water,
better distribution of water, cross fencing and things like
that, EQIP funding has been very important as far as getting
certain operations under compliance with the regulatory issues;
things along those lines.
You know, one thing that has been a concern, and it's been
kind of talked about quite a bit, is a possible proposed ban on
packer ownership. I think that's a big concern for livestock
producers like myself. In these volatile times, I'm sure there
have been volatile times in the past, but in my term since I
started farming after college here about 20 years ago, it's
certainly the most volatile times that I've seen. The way we
manage that volatility is probably as unique as our individual
farming operations. When you take an opportunity away from
livestock producers to market their livestock by banning the
particular ownership or narrowing the time frame that a
particular sector can own cattle, I think that's a big concern
for us. We'd just like to have the freedom to market livestock
the best way we see fit, and we truly feel like the livestock
producers are the best to do that.
Mr. Huelskamp. Mr. Hunnicutt, you mentioned you had a
couple kids here that you have. I've got my 10 year old here,
so I want to ask you about the Department of Labor regulations,
whether you've heard about that, dealing with child labor. He's
listening closely to your answer. Tell me your thoughts on
that.
Mr. Hunnicutt. Well, we're getting into planting season.
We've been doing some field work and I've had my 4 year old son
out there with me and before he starts playing with my iPad
after a couple hours out there, he's asking all kinds of
questions and I'm telling him why I'm out there strip tilling,
why it's good for the soil, what's going on, and he's up in the
big tractor in a closed cab, buckled in. I mean, he's safer
there than he is in our car going down the highway, and because
I farm in partnership with my dad and brother, I wouldn't be
able to do that if these regulations pass.
I mean, just the--I understand some of the ideas behind it,
the idea of maybe there's some labor out there that's being
treated badly, but this goes so far beyond. I mean, this is a
sledgehammer to kill a mosquito kind of idea, just the loss of
knowledge that we'd have to pass on to kids just from them
working on the farm. You know, I got my--my Social Security
savings goes back to when I was 5 years old walking soybean
fields, you know. That kind of thing that would be gone. I
mean, it would be--that would harm our farm economy more than
about anything else that could happen.
Mr. Huelskamp. I have a question on bankers and credit, Mr.
Hodgson. Can you describe any changes in the credit markets
with some of the regulations out of Washington, or as we do
have a credit title in the farm bill, can you discuss any
suggestion of what we need to do within that arena?
Mr. Hodgson. I guess I'm not real familiar with what's
going on there. I guess I wouldn't--I don't know.
Mr. Huelskamp. Mr. Anderson or Tom, do you have any
comments on those?
Mr. Anderson. I would, actually. I serve on the loan
committee on a little small bank in my community, and
regulations have really tightened up. Like Mr. Chairman,
Chairman Lucas said earlier, we have to have in the file the
insurance product. We have to have cash flow stated. We have a
file for every producer.
The Chairman. Along with a tax return.
Mr. Anderson. Along with a tax return, yes, sir.
Regulations have really tightened up, particularly on the small
community banks. The larger banks that have the staff to handle
it, I think it's probably not been nearly the burden on, but
the small community rural banks, it's really been a problem
for, and our producers, too.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time. I would
note to my colleagues on the Committee, one of the things I
learned in my stewardship under then Chairman Roberts at the
House Agriculture Committee a few years ago, it's good to be
Chairman. Therefore, I'm going to ask one last question in my
role as Chairman.
Mr. Hunnicutt, you said the safety net should protect from
catastrophic loss. Can you define what a catastrophic loss
would look like in your operation and the best way you think
protection against that kind of loss could be addressed?
Mr. Hunnicutt. Well, up to this point in time I've been
farming, I fortunately haven't had to deal with that sort of
situation.
The Chairman. Lucky man.
Mr. Hunnicutt. I have a lot more years coming, hopefully.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Hunnicutt. You know, we have a lot of storms roll
through our part of Nebraska. You know, we--drought isn't such
a--that isn't a concern in our area because we're irrigated, so
we're pretty well covered with that. I mean, we could be pretty
well devastated with a hailstorm. I mean, you can get pictures
from storms, luckily not around us last year, but you couldn't
tell that there was corn out there. It looked like it was
winter, covered with all the hail. You know, when--if we had
half of our acres get hit by that and we're not able to insure
that properly, we're out that cost of production there. I mean,
that would be--that sort of thing would hit us pretty hard. I
mean, I'm--when you talk about catastrophic loss, you're
looking more at things that are outside of our control, like
the weather and that sort of thing, not just economic changes.
The Chairman. One last question. You, of course, say that
the safety net should protect against that catastrophic loss
and not guarantee profit for participants. Have you had an
opportunity to review any of the farm bill proposals that have
been offered by a variety of the groups, and if so, do you have
any concerns about that any of these would, ``try to guarantee
a profit?''
Mr. Hunnicutt. I haven't had the opportunity to review any
of the proposals yet at this point. We've looked at those in
the upcoming months, but I think there might be a tendency by
some out there to want to kind of promise the Moon or look to
make sure we can take care of things. I would look at it more
as, I need to manage my business and if there is a bad loss or
a repeated loss over several years, that's the sort of
situation where you look at a safety net; not just to cover
general losses that would come in the course of production.
The Chairman. Absolutely. Absolutely. I believe all the
time has expired for questions. As is the custom when we're in
the home district of one of our Agriculture Committee Members,
before we adjourn, I would invite Mr. Huelskamp to make any
closing comments he might have.
Mr. Huelskamp. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A fascinating
number of witnesses and the testimony thereof, and real
interesting, and I might say for the audience, in looking
across here, about the diversity. We see folks here with five
or six or two or three or four different crops. Other parts of
the country, it's not quite that way, but it makes sense and
shows how difficult it is to write a farm bill with that many
crops in just this area, and we have the rest of the country.
I certainly appreciate the Chairman and my other colleague,
Mr. Conaway, for joining us here and I want to thank the
Committee staff. It is a long ways from Washington. I actually
like it that way, Mr. Chairman, but it is a long ways to get
here, and I do appreciate you coming here and listening.
This is the fourth and final field hearing, and I just want
to say on the Chairman's behalf, I just wanted to get out,
honestly, get out of Washington, D.C., and hear what real
producers have to say before we get started on the farm bill. I
thank you for accepting the invitation and being here today. I
know it was quite a trek for many here, and I thank you.
The Chairman. Absolutely, Tim, and I want to thank you all
again for being here today also. I think we've heard a lot of
truly valuable input today. I'd especially like to thank our
witnesses for their time.
As I said when we started, there are some challenges that
vary by region. We need to tailor our farm policy to fit those
unique requirements. I think it's true that farmers and
ranchers across the country share many of the same experiences.
Whether you're raising corn in Kansas, wheat in Oklahoma,
cotton in Texas, soybeans in Nebraska, sorghum in Colorado, we
face many similar challenges and your input is an important
part of the puzzle as we put together this farm bill, a farm
bill that will work for all farmers in all regions of the
country.
Once again, I would like to remind everyone listening to
our hearing today here in the room also that the House
Agriculture Committee has a website where you can learn more
about the 2012 Farm Bill. In addition, you may submit comments
to be considered a part of the Committee's farm bill hearing
record. Your comments must be submitted using the website
before May 20, 2010. That website is agriculture.house.gov/
farmbill.
Your perspective is vital to this process and I thank all
of you for participating today. Under the rules of the
Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for
30 calendar days, to receive additional material and
supplemental written responses from the witnesses to any
question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m. (CDT), the Committee was
adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Compilation of Responses to Farm Bill Feedback Questionnaire, 2012
----------
NOVEMBER 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
PREFACE
Prior to writing a new farm bill, the House Committee on
Agriculture traditionally embarks on a series of field hearings
throughout the United States. The purpose of these hearings is
to gather comments and information from those whose livelihoods
are most affected by the policy that the farm bill creates. For
those who did not get a chance to testify at the field
hearings, the Agriculture Committee created an online
questionnaire through which any interested party could submit
constructive suggestions for the upcoming farm bill. The
responses are presented here, in alphabetical order, by
individual name.
The Committee would like to thank all those who
participated in this process. The information presented in this
compilation will be helpful in the formulation of the next farm
bill.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Comment of Ms. Maya
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:24 p.m.
City, State: Columbus, NM
Occupation: Retired--Artist--Alternative Living
Comment: Our organization uses EM (effective microorganisms) from
Teraganix--a digestive microbe developed in Japan by Dr. Higa. We have
one of the best wastewater lagoons in the state of NM. I use EM in
compost, on plants. I use no pesticides. I worked with USDA in Las
Cruces and was appalled at their support of pesticides and poisons
rather than leading edge alternative safe methods. Our current methods
are killing the planet, the soil, the air, the water.
______
Comment of Christina Abate
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 3:35 a.m.
City, State: Chester, NY
Occupation: Engineer
Comment: More localized farming and perennial crops please. Also,
please aid in protecting farmers against the biofuel industry and
international agribusinesses such as Monsanto or Cargill.
______
Comment of Debra Abbott
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 6:06 p.m.
City, State: Chico, CA
Occupation: School Garden Educator
Comment:
1. Increase subsidies for those who are growing healthy fruits and
vegetables for the citizens of this country. For too long, the
corn, soybean and wheat agribusinesses have been the main
recipients of subsidies, and as a result, there has been a
dramatic increase in obesity, diabetes and heart disease in
this country.
2. Nutrition programs that provide food for those who are most at
risk of nutritional deficiencies--children, the elderly and the
disabled--must be fully funded.
3. Fully fund those programs that support socially disadvantaged
farmers and sustainable food production systems.
4. Fund studies that research the effects of agricultural chemicals
on the health of the population
Thank you,
Debra Abbott.
______
Comment of Barbara Abersold
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 12:09 a.m.
City, State: Boise, ID
Occupation: Retired Teacher
Comment: I would like the subsidies to stop for large industrial
farms. I want to see support for local organic growers. I am against
GMO crops in general and dislike the wide spread use and overuse of
pesticides that are poisoning our water supply and us.
______
Comment of Santos Abeyta
Date Submitted: Monday, April 16, 2012, 9:12 a.m.
City, State: Albuquerque, NM.
Occupation: Catholic Deacon/Spiritual Advisor for St. Vincent de
Paul Society
Comment: Just speaking for food needs in the Albuquerque
metropolitan area: Holy Family Parish is currently serving an average
of 300-350 families each month with a food box.
All of the food distributed comes to us through the Roadrunner Food
Bank (RRFB). We have very little food in the form of USDA commodities
this past year. We have had to depend on free fruits and vegetables
from RRFB to supplement the food boxes.
It is imperative that our U.S. Government increase the USDA
commodities, to at least previous years' levels, so that the
unemployed, low wage and people on SSI and the elderly on fixed incomes
have an adequate level of food supplies.
Thank You for your consideration. There should be no reason why any
person living in the USA should go hungry.
______
Comment of Jon B. Abrahamson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:26 p.m.
City, State: Waconia, MN.
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Vegetables.
Size: Less than 50 acres.
Comment: I have a right to have pure food and water. Not a bunch of
so called food with chemicals, hormones, vaccines, antibiotics, or
fetal flavor enhancers in it!
You Are What You Eat!
BTW: I was leading the charge against Monsanto's Ethoxiquin that
was killing our pets some 20 years ago! Same science then as today.
Thank you,
Jon B. Abrahamson,
Waconia MN.
______
Comment of Beth Abrams
Date Submitted: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 1:03 p.m.
City, State: San Francisco, CA.
Occupation: Nonprofit Director
Comment: Please do not cut or reduce SNAP, which is a critical
lifeline to millions of Americans. Half of food stamps recipients are
children. I direct a food program in San Francisco that feeds 2,000
people a week and are strained to feed to people that we serve. In
fact, we are in danger of closing down due o lack of funds. Cutting
food stamps strains all the smaller safety nets to the breaking point.
The bottom line is that if you cut food stamps, mass starvation will
result, in the richest country in the world. This goes against the
ethics of this country, every major religion, and the values that
determine a society that claims to uphold human decency and basic human
rights. Do not cut SNAP!
______
Comment of Bonnie Acker
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 6:02 a.m.
City, State: Burlington, VT
Occupation: Artist and Farm 2 School Volunteer.
Comment: Around Vermont, we have been building an amazing Farm 2
School movement where food-service staff, farmers, students, teachers
and others from the community are getting wonderful local foods into
our school cafeterias. There is no greater happiness than to see
children--from all walks of life--enjoying delicious, nutritious meals
and excited about growing food. At the Integrated Arts Academy here in
Burlington--where the children speak 23 languages other than English--
all 300 students helped plant 300 raspberry seedlings last week. They
cheerfully shared shovels, laughed as they discovered worms, and
dreamed about the harvests to come. They were so proud of their work.
May all people in this country be granted enough nutritious and
delicious food to live healthy and happy lives. I ask all of you to
fund food-assistance programs to an even greater extent than ever
before. People here in Burlington, Vermont and in so many other
communities will be so uplifted. Thank you so very much.
______
Comment of Sheila J. Acker
Date Submitted: Monday, March 26, 2012, 12:28 p.m.
City, State: Rock Island, IL
Occupation: Farm Owner/Rent Acreage.
Comment: Please ensure our next farm bill encourages organic
farming and enables both small and large farms to attain this status
without undue costs.
Please also ensure standard farming does not affect organic farming
(cross contamination).
Our children deserve the health that comes with non-genetically
engineered food. Scientific studies have proven GMO's alter our genes
until we can no longer reproduce. Please do not do this to the next
generation.
Sincerely and thank you,
Sheila J. Acker.
______
Comment of Sophie Ackoff
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:41 p.m.
City, State: Cold Spring, NY
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Vegetables
Size: 50-150 acres
Comment: Dear Chairman Lucas,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the House
Committee on Agriculture on the next farm bill. My district
representative is being copied on this testimony. I am a young farmer
currently farming in the Hudson River Valley. I know that this country
desperately needs young farmers and I have been proud of the programs
such as the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program that help
the next generation of growers gain the essential skills necessary to
farm. Glynwood, the farm at which I currently work, is launching a
farmer incubator program thanks to BFRDP funding. This program is going
to give many young farmers an opportunity for land and resources. These
resources are very difficult to obtain on our own! I ask that the
Committee endorse all of the provisions of the Beginning Farmer and
Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236), including:
Mandatory funding for Individual Development Accounts at $5
million per year. This program helps new farmers raise capital
to start farm businesses and is tested and proven by
organizations like Practical Farmers of Iowa and the California
Farmlink.
Mandatory funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program at $25 million a year. This program funds
essential education for new farmers around the country.
Authorize a new microloan program, to enable young and
beginning farmers to better access FSA loan programs.
Revise FSA rules to make loan programs more accessible to
more young and beginning farmers.
Reaffirm the existing cost share differential for BFRs
within EQIP. Also, reaffirm the advance payment option allowing
beginning and socially disadvantaged producers to receive an
advance payment for the project's costs for purchasing
materials or contracting services, but increase the limit on
the advance payment from 30 percent to 50 percent of costs.
Amend the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to
make farm viability part of the purpose of the program and to
give discretionary authority to the eligible entities that
implement the program to give priority to easements with an
option to purchase at the agricultural use value, deals that
transfer the land to beginning and farmers and ranchers,
applicants with farm succession plans, and other similar
mechanisms to maintain the affordability of protected land.
These and other provisions within the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Opportunity Act will help new growers succeed and I urge you to include
them in the next farm bill.
Sincerely,
Sophie Ackoff.
______
Comment of Roberta Actor-Thomas
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 6:22 p.m.
City, State: Lakeport, CA
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Poultry/poultry products
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: Real reform is needed. The Earl Butz policy of ``get big
or get out'' has devastated American small farms and rural communities.
We struggle to create local markets for local products from small farms
but face dumping by the big beneficiaries of the farm bill. Last I
heard, the local food pantries are getting commodities at 10? per
pound. How about a subsidy for local growers of healthy meat and
poultry, fruits and vegetables instead of dumping diabetes-causing
trash food on our rural communities?
______
Comment of Richard Acuzzo
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:18 a.m.
City, State: Chico, CA
Occupation: Unemployed
Comment: We need healthy food that is raised and grown properly. We
need small farmers to be helped with subsidies and subsidies for large
farmers to be reduced or eliminated. Raw Milk and Raw Milk products
must be legalized.
______
Comment of Audrey Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:54 p.m.
City, State: Renton, WA
Occupation: Mother
Comment: As a mother I am very concerned about the direction of
unhealthful practices of food production and the Big-Ag protectionism
bias from Federal government. Small farmers, especially those producing
organic foods, need the MOST protections rather than the least, as it
now stands. Taxpayers do not want to subsidize the least healthy foods,
such as corn and soy! Subsidies should be reserved for small organic
farming only.
Specifically, I support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
______
Comment of Brenda Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:48 p.m.
City, State: Minneapolis, MN
Occupation: Mediator, Communication Teacher
Comment: I am writing to request that your consideration of the
consequences of this act for the next seven generations.
In doing so, you will see the wisdom of:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
To deviate from the progress we are making with local, sustainable,
organic foods will bring further harm to people and the Earth.
Profits do not drive sustainable business. Profits are the outcome
of doing work in harmony with human and Mother Nature. Non-sustainable
business harms humans and Mother Nature.
I grew up on a farm. That farmland is now a smothered with
chemicals. I eat organic food. I will never support agribusiness as it
is now. I teach others the hazards of chemicals and the benefits of
wholesome organic foods.
Our taxes need to support people's health and well-being.
The green revolution is over. The rest of the world has rejected
GMO foods.
We have a responsibility to work with nature. While at times
harder, it is also more fulfilling, rewarding and, of course, it is
sustainable.
We must work together to ensure farms and farmers produce healthy
food that generate sustainable profits over time, rather than `gross'
profits from unhealthy `food stuffs' in the short term.
This is the way of all of us, all business, the future to be
healthy.
Beginning from the ground up is the way for us to work that works
for everyone on the planet together.
Most sincerely,
Brenda Adams.
______
Comment of Constance Adams
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 2:25 a.m.
City, State: The Villages, FL
Occupation: Retail
Comment: It's very important to me as a consumer to count on
products grown in the USA or elsewhere not to be genetically modified
or if they are then it should be mandatory to have labels stating that
it is put on it. I feel that with what I have read regarding Monsanto
that it is a big bully & also money hungry. I for one detest being used
as a guinea pig by anyone. Please help our local farmers be able to
grow what they want with the seeds they so choose without Monsanto
locking them in to having to purchase their seeds every time. Also as a
consumer who purchases organic items I don't want Monsanto's seeds
cross breeding with that either. Please help our country be the best
producer of great produce! Big business is Not always the best &
farmers as well as consumers should deserve a fair choice in that to as
well as better selections! It might not matter to some but it does
matter to me & my family/friends too.
Thank you kindly for your time.
Sincerely,
Constance Adams.
______
Comment of Glory Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:06 p.m.
City, State: Eau Claire, WI
Occupation: Retired
Comment: Please write a bill that supports small, family farms; not
large corporate farms or confined animal operations. Include support
for programs that support the poor to the extent that they now do--
nothing less. Please do not include any support for out-of-country
farmers in Brazil or anywhere else. This support is for only American
farmers and American citizens. In no way offer any kind of support to
corporate conglomerates such as Monsanto, those spewing pesticides/
herbicides, or GM seeds.
______
Comment of Joyce Adams
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 9:12 a.m.
City, State: Boynton Beach, FL
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: I have allergies to sulfate and sulfites. It is important
that I have healthy food. Please do what it takes to keep chemicals off
of our food. I would like all children to have access to healthy food.
Thank you!
______
Comment of Judith Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:04 p.m.
City, State: Seattle, WA
Occupation: Retired
Comment: Look around you . . . Americans are in a health crisis. We
are one of the unhealthiest nations on this planet, with so many
resources at out finger tips and yet we continue to poison ourselves
and our children. The facts bear this out . . . consumers and
scientists are finally in agreement that the way and what we eat
determines our health. Young girls today are facing a crisis that no
one talks about. They are maturing at an alarmingly young age. Tumors
of the reproductive system are on the rise. Girls are losing their
ability to reproduce due to these rapidly growing tumors. And where do
they come from? Growth hormones in animals that we eat and milk that we
drink; chemical toxins in our food that cause synthetic estrogen to
grow in our bodies. Stop this madness! Support organic farming and
ranching practices! Stop letting the big agricultural machine run the
show. Show that you care for the people of America.
______
Comment of Lisa Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:47 p.m.
City, State: Lake Pleasant, MA
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Other
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: We are new farmers. We just bought a farm because we were
tired of watching local farm land be sold and because my daughter and I
have MANY food sensitivities. I have to meticulous about reading
labels.
I think it's a disgrace that for my tiny farm I have to make my jam
in a commercial kitchen so that I can sell it on a small local farm
stand, but Monsanto gets a pass on responsibility.
I can't be a responsible parent and can't take proper care of us
both if I'm reading a label that is missing information.
Monsanto just keeps taking. Now they need to join the rest of us.
Down with Monsanto and the Bullying.
______
Comment of Marina Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:01 p.m.
City, State: New York, NY
Occupation: Artist
Comment: Organic Farming will help solve many of our crises,
including climate change (global warming), health (cancer and many
illness), environmental degradation (land and water bodies) Please READ
Maria Rodale's, Organic Manifesto. Truth To Power! We are all
connected. Monsanto CEO eats Organic while promoting GMO's and chemical
farming. Disgraceful. Vote your conscience.
______
Comment of Martha Adams
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 6:38 a.m.
City, State: Toledo, OH
Occupation: Writer
Comment: I fully support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
I do not support:
Taking food from the mouths of the hungry to create a $33
billion new entitlement program that guarantees the income of
profitable farm businesses. That's on top of $90 billion in
subsidies for crop and revenue insurance policies.
Cutting $4 million from organic research funding and cut
funding to support Beginning Farmers in half.
The subsidized insurance program Congress proposes which
will allow giant commodity farmers and insurance companies to
walk away with billions in taxpayer dollars while putting the
land, soil and environment at greater risk.
Sincerely,
M.J. Adams,
Toledo, Ohio.
______
Comment of Nancy Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:21 p.m.
City, State: Le Roy, MN
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Nuts
Size: 50-150 acres
Comment: Please include the following in the new farm bill:
Support for the next generation--beginning farmers and
ranchers
Making healthy food widely available to all Americans
Protecting our natural resources and help farmers care for
their land
Driving innovation for tomorrow's farmers and food
entrepreneurs
Reforming outdated subsidies and restoring fiscal
responsibility in farm policy; and
incentives for renewable energy and energy conservation.
Thank you.
______
Comment of Shirley Adams
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 8:29 p.m.
City, State: Evanston, IL
Occupation: Retired
Comment: Please reduce pesticide use, support land conservation,
and encourage more organic farming. Reduce subsidies to large growers
and increase subsidies for small farmers. Focus on healthier food for
all citizens. Stop the use of GMO foods that carry pesticide protection
within them.
______
Comment of Tiffany Adams
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:41 p.m.
City, State: Langhorne, PA
Occupation: Registered Nurse
Comment: The health of our country strongly depends on the health
of our food. We need to move our focus from growing cheap, commodity
crops that only serve to feed the obesity epidemic and, in turn,
support growing rates of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart
disease; to growing varied, fresh, local fruits and vegetables in
nutrient dense soil, using sustainable farming practices. We need to
make these foods inexpensive and available to all Americans. We owe
this to our children: to reverse the trend of shorter lifespan and
increasing deaths from preventable illness in our country. This is why
I support the full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286.) I also support fully funding
conservation programs, such as the Conservation Stewardship Program,
and making sure that enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied
directly to compliance with conservation programs. I support the
implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236), as well as maintaining the EQIP Organic
Initiative. Thank you for your serious consideration on this important
topic.
______
Comment of Kathryn Adamsky
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:21 a.m.
City, State: Union, ME
Occupation: Home Gardener
Comment: I would like the farm bill to represent the interests of
the consumer. Healthy, non-GMO, pesticide free food should be available
to all people. Small farms are wonderful because these people live
their beliefs and improve the community. Our food should not be a
strictly profit driven business run by huge corporations that have no
interest in the quality of the product except for its ability to fill
their wallets. As a tax payer I expect that the government will use my
tax money to protect my interests. That is the original purpose of our
government--to protect us from abuse and harm by unethical peoples
(corporations). Food and shelter are necessary basics and they should
not be exploited or the choices limited by those with power (money). I
ask that you do not bow to the money and corruption that threatens to
take over this essential piece of our lives. Thank you.
______
Comment of Balthasar Adell
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:47 p.m.
City, State: Los Angeles, CA
Occupation: Educator
Comment: Now that the Internet actually exists, and I have access
to information which is far away from me, but directly affects me, I
have to ask myself, why does our government subsidize the production of
high fructose corn syrup when we know it contributes to heart disease?
It's really evil and you should be held accountable.
______
Comment of Jonah Adels
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:21 a.m.
City, State: Putnam Valley, NY
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Specialty Crops
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: As a small farmer in the Hudson Valley, it is vitally
important to my livelihood that support for local food systems and care
for the environment be supported in the upcoming farm bill. Too long
has the farm bill funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands
of agribusiness giants at the expense of small farmers. We are the ones
producing the food that will feed New York as gas prices increase. We
are the ones creating jobs. Don't make our job harder. Just the
smallest cuts in subsidies to the largest producers and insurance
guarantees to commodity producers would allow massive job creating,
small business supporting changes to our local food systems here in NY.
We need your support! Please preserve, as a matter of justice, the
vital nutritional assistance programs, and cut the programs that are
legitimately wasteful, that distort the free market by tipping the
scales in the favor of corporate giants, and the big government that
supports it. Funnel just a percentage of those cuts into support for
small farms, local food systems, and conservation programs, and you
will win the votes of the growing percentage of my generation who is
scraping a living by producing food for all of our families.
Specifically, please support in the next farm bill:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Thank you!
______
Comment of Carolyn Adessa
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 8:46 a.m.
City, State: Mamaroneck, NY
Occupation: Social Services
Comment: Please vote to Subsidize Small Family Farms and Organic
farmers, Provide Food Stamps for the Poor. Stop Subsidizing Huge
Agribusinesses. Please, vote with your conscience not with the
influence peddlers.
______
Comment of Adirondack Council
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:57 p.m.
City, State: Elizabethtown, NY
Occupation: Environmental Nonprofit
Comment: Dear U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Agriculture,
On behalf of the undersigned, thank you for reviewing our comments
regarding the 2012 Farm Bill. We represent a variety of organizations
that support farming in Northern New York.
Despite the significant budget issues we all face in 2012, we are
continuing to collaborate and work towards addressing the Agriculture
and Forestry challenges in the North Country of New York State and
beyond.
While a strong local farming movement is emerging, there are still
considerable threats and challenges that farmers in the Champlain
Valley and St. Lawrence Valley face. The 2012 Farm Bill has had
significant improvements but we believe there are several programs that
must be supported by legislation and funding. We are especially
concerned with the following issues:
Forest Biomass for Energy Program
The undersigned requests that the Committee continue to support
research & development of renewable energy. We ask that you authorize
appropriations to encourage forest biomass for energy production
especially in the Northeast region of the United States.
Environmental Quality incentives Program Organic Initiative &
Conservation Stewardship Program
These valuable programs assist in the growth of organic farming and
conservation of ecologically important lands. These programs
administered by NRCS help to encourage improvement of conservation
efforts of farm & forest. We ask that the committee fully maintain
support of these opportunities for the American people.
GE/GMO Drift Contamination Mitigation and Research
We ask the committee to address our concerns over the damaging,
rapid proliferation of GE/GMO plantings on our region's scarce and
precious healthy soils, including the unregulated contaminating drift
of GE/GMO patented pollen, herbicide resistant weeds, and unwanted
seeds onto adjacent, unadulterated farmlands, a rapidly increasing
threat to the financial viability of the sustainable farming movement
and its non-GMO, non-chemical soil conservation practices.
Rural Development
We strongly urge the Committee to continue supporting Rural
Development programs. Investing in rural development initiatives helps
small farms and communities access support services, such as
slaughterhouses and quality health care. Rural America needs help to
improve their struggling economies and community health.
The Local Farm, Food & Jobs Act
The farm bill should support family farms, expanding farming
opportunities and investing in the local economy. Programs are needed
that will help regional agriculture address production, processing and
distribution problems while improving consumer access to healthy foods.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act
We ask that the Committee fund this act as it supports economic
opportunities for beginning farmers, ranchers, and military veterans
through loans and other development programs. Programs like the
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, 4-H programs
and others have provided great assistance and should be continued.
Research and educational programs are critical to the health and well-
being of Americans in the future.
The Expanding Access to Farmers Markets Act
This amendment of the Food Stamp Act will improve access to healthy
foods and increase purchases through the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program), WIC (Woman, Infants and Children), School Food
Programs, Senior Farmers' Market Program, and the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Programs. We the undersigned, believe that continued and
enhanced support of these programs are essential to growing
agricultural economies and nutrition education.
The 2012 Farm Bill can be an excellent tool, having a positive and
uplifting effect on the rural farming economies of Northern New York
State. Much like the New England States to our east, we have an
emerging local farming economy that can provide food and farm products
in a sustainable manner to the residents. The bill also provides secure
farm bill funding for critically important programs that support family
farms, expand new farming opportunities, create rural jobs, and invest
our local food and agriculture economy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Houseal, Executive Director,
Adirondack Council;
Kate Fish, Executive Director,
Adirondack North Country Association;
John Bingham, member
Ag Natural Resource Advisory Committee, Cornell Cooperative Extension.
______
Comment of John Adkin
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:26 p.m.
City, State: Punta Gorda, FL
Occupation: Retired
Comment: We desperately need an Organic Foods Bill! We have
children and grandchildren who need organic foods to survive. Please
don't let the huge agricultural farms kill our family!
______
Comment of Janet Adkins
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 1:43 p.m.
City, State: Lawrenceville, GA
Occupation: Food Services Employee--Public Schools
Comment: Please make our farm bill with our children's' health in
mind. We already know well that there are too many chemicals in use and
inspection needs to be more thorough to prevent foodborne illnesses.
Our children are the future leaders of our once-great nation.
______
Comment of Stephen Adler
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:15 p.m.
City, State: Luray, VA
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Dairy, Livestock, Poultry/poultry products, Vegetables
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: We are a small local farm. The farm bill needs to work for
the small farmer also. Help us help the local population of concerned
healthy eaters.
______
Comment of Louis D. Agnew
Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 8:19 p.m.
City, State: Milwaukee, WI
Occupation: Chemist
Comment: Dear Honorable Gwen Moore,
With the new Food Farm and Jobs Act, it seems pertinent that we
should be taking into consideration that we are in an era of extreme
weather events, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, drought, heavy snows
or rains that cause mudslides and deep soil erosion, and, for whatever
reason, it may be short term or it may be here to stay for awhile.
In light of this, it is important that we both look towards
mitigating the severity of potential crises for agriculture, focusing
heavily on conservation measures wherever possible, as well as taking a
serious look as soil conservation and soil nutrient conservation
practices.
Second, but in no way less important, is maintaining a nutritious
food supply chain, not only measured in calories, but in mineral
nutrients, vitamins and flavor, for the most vulnerable people in our
society, including school children, families, elderly, minorities and
immigrants.
Some of the programs that are important to the solution to these,
most recently of great concern issues are:
The Value-Added Producer Grants Program (VAPG) which
provides seed money to help farmers innovate in agriculture and
create jobs while securing a sustainable path to market-based
farm profitability,
The Conservation Stewardship Program needs to be improved by
ranking applications exclusively on their conservation
benefits. Farmers count on CSP and other conservation programs
to conserve soil for future generations, keep water and air
clean, and create habitat for wildlife--all while farming
profitably.
We need to guarantee $25 million per year in mandatory funding for
the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program. We need a
national strategy and commitment to support beginning farmer and
ranchers entering agriculture. Without new farmers, we are missing out
on the new knowledge and innovations that can facilitate the goals of
sustainable agriculture.
To protect soil and survive uncertain weather conditions, the best
strategy is one with an emphasis on close attention to the situation
combined with a willingness to innovate. One of the best programs we
can fund is the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative
at $30 million per year as mandatory funding. Investment in
agricultural research is vital to continued productivity and innovation
in growing and diverse sectors of American agriculture.
Also, we must provide flexibility for states to use existing food
procurement programs to purchase fresh, healthy food from local farmers
and ranchers, especially for school meal programs so that our nation's
children can become healthy and productive members of our society.
Finally, we should scale back the more uncertain factors in
agricultural experimentation today, such as diminishing the rate at
which trans-genetic crops that depend upon complete vegetative removal
or non-crop removal, which otherwise holds soil in place during severe
weather events. The money removed from this sort of research should go
towards the more organic engineering strategies that use plant and
beneficial organism combinations to effect food production systems.
Such systems have higher probabilities of remaining productive during
severe weather events, as well as being more reflexive and adaptive in
the face of such events.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Louis D. Agnew.
______
Comment of Ann Aguilar
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 10, 2012, 2:04 p.m.
City, State: Oak Park, IL
Occupation: Disabled Adult
Comment: Dear Members of the House Committee on Agriculture,
As a person who receives SNAP benefits and volunteers for a food
pantry I strongly urge you to refrain from eliminating the food stamp
program. It is not only vital to me, but to millions of Americans who
are disabled, living below the poverty level, etc.
Thank you for your concern.
______
Comment of Isabel Aguilar
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 2:28 a.m.
City, State: Lakewood, CO
Occupation: Biology Student
Comment: We all Americans deserve to know what we eat, what we feed
our children. It is important understand highly toxic food, organ
damaging organisms, are in the market today. It needs to be removed
completely from the shell urgently. Let's start working together to
plant seed of life. Our generation are facing uncertain future; we
cannot allow Monsanto continue his experiment with our children. Our
children deserve organic food and natural. Let's, plant organic corn,
organic soy, organic cotton seed and so on. We cannot destroy our
planet also by spraying contaminants products like Round Up which is
causing pollution and degrading our home. No, let's take action now!
Monsanto must be arrested for crime of the humanity, there are many
evidences how detrimental damaging caused Monsanto around world. There
are kids with no arms, what would you do if that baby were your? There
are many human beings with detrimental deformities, people dying with
cancer, we have to raise our voice today! In Argentina for example,
there are people suffering and Doctors and authorities are being deaf,
blind, and ignoring the sad reality of their own people. We cannot
continue with crossed arms without moving our finger.
______
Comment of Basheerah Ahmad
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 9:53 a.m.
City, State: Atlanta, GA
Occupation: Fitness Expert
Comment: As a health and wellness provider I see firsthand, how
detrimental the lack of healthy food choices can be. People are losing
their battle on health everyday either due to poverty, ignorance, and
often indifference. This situation will only become worse if our
government takes away funding from programs that actually are helping.
______
Comment of Maimoona Ahmed
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:18 p.m.
City, State: Concord, CA
Occupation: Retired
Comment: We need to protect our future, our children and
grandchildren. Farmers were once 90% of the U.S. population. They are
disappearing at a rapid rate. We depend on family farms to produce
natural food without the GMO ingredients which are shown to destroy the
health of all of us. Agriculture should not just be a business for
profit but a business to maintain and enhance the health of all
Americans. Food and water are the basis of life. You can protect us by
endorsing all provisions of the Local Foods, Farms and Jobs Act, fully
funding conservations programs, maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative
and implement all provisions of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Opportunity Act.
______
Comment of Tracey Ahring
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 2:19 a.m.
City, State: Dennard, AR
Occupation: Self-employed
Comment:As a lifelong citizen of this country, I am tired of
organic and family farms being shoved aside in order to subsidize
bloated, unhealthy, and unsustainable agribusiness.
It's easy to forget now, but this country was founded on the backs
on small family farms, producing a wide variety of safe, healthy,
organic foods.
And it is way past time to honor that heritage.
Agribusiness has done nothing but produce cheap, toxic food that
rewards a limited few with profits while eating away at the vast
majority of lives and land on which it relies.
And I'm tired of its attempts to put a stranglehold on my freedom
to choose what I feed myself and my family.
If this is indeed the United States, then I should be able to
choose the very basics of my existence--and that means safe, healthy,
organic food, produced by families that truly care about the land and
keeping it fertile for decades to come.
Not agribusiness and its Monsantos and Cargills, who wish to
control now and forever the very basics of life and drive all
alternatives to extinction--un-American activity at its most extreme.
Therefore, I am requesting a farm bill that honors the real farmers
of this nation and all its citizens--one that finally stands for the
people and against the corporate welfare that's propped up that
parasite called agribusiness.
I am also requesting the full endorsement of all provisions of the
Local Foods, Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286):
1. Fully funding conservation programs, such as the Conservation
Stewardship Program, and making sure that enrollment in any new
insurance subsidies are tied directly to compliance with
conservation programs.
2. The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer and
Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
3. Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Thank you.
______
Comment of Debbra Aiken
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:54 a.m.
City, State: Coppell, TX
Occupation: Home Gardener
Comment: Freedom is what our country was built on. It is and should
be my right to feed myself my own food I have grown, without GMO's or
at least properly label them. Your children eat this same GMO food.
Don't you care what you are doing to them? Or is it only lining your
pockets with corporate money you care about? Stop interfering with my
rights.
______
Comment of James Ainslie
Date Submitted: Saturday, March 24, 2012, 12:58 p.m.
City, State: Hoffman, IL
Occupation: Retired Federal Worker, Volunteer at USDA Food Pantry
Comment: Facts:
(1) Hunger in our country is continuing to increase.
(2) Food insecurity is a growing issue that is affecting our
retired population and the very young.
(3) The farm bill constitutes less than or equal to 2% of our
Federal Budget.
Comments:
While I believe that all programs need to be reduced to enable our
country to address the growing deficit, the current parameters of the
SNAP program should continue. There has been discussion in the media of
changing the program to block grants. This is the wrong direction for a
program that is effective and is among the most efficient in the
Federal government. Block Grants for food assistance, given to states
will ensure that high population areas will be serviced at the expense
of low population areas that have the same requirements.
The concept that private donations can fill the void is fallacious
reasoning. Currently the private sector is trying to help fulfill the
need, but private funding and assistance during troubled financial
times is not a certain solution. I am optimistic that the country is
started down the road for economic recovery, however, it is far from
certain.
This legislation needs to be accomplished this year. Too many stake
holders need to know their future. These stake holders include the
farmers and the 49 million individuals who are food insecure. The SNAP
program and the Food Banks/Pantry system is only providing 51% to 55%
of the monthly meal requirements. Significant reductions or major
rewrites to the formula for providing benefits would result in serious
negative results for the individuals using this service.
I urge the members of congress to be prudent but also compassionate
in enacting legislation that affects your constituents that need
assistance. Visit food pantries in your district and see first hand the
human cost of not supporting this important legislation.
______
Comment of Rev. David Aja-Sigmon
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:33 p.m.
City, State: Brooklyn, NY
Occupation: Pastor
Comment: House Agriculture Committee, Thank you for considering
what is best for our citizens and the farms.
As someone who daily works with the poor but also has an awareness
of national issues in farming. I would like the committee to re-focus
the farm bill. It seems like we are more interested in investing in
powerful agribusiness (subsidies go to them at a rate that far
outweighs small independent farmers) losing the governments money. If
we were really considering the U.S. government's money we wouldn't give
it all in subsidies to huge successful businesses, then expect the poor
to foot the bill through cutting food stamps programs in a terrible
economy.
Therefore, I would like to endorse the following measures:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Sincerely,
Rev. David Aja-Sigmon.
______
Comment of Fred Albach
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:58 p.m.
City, State: Burbank, CA
Occupation: Retired
Comment: I support small farmers and I oppose any and all actions
taken by government and large agribusiness which hinders the small
farmer. Too many regulations make it difficult for the small farmer to
survive. Why do I support the small farmer? Because the quality of his
good is generally superior to that grown on a large corporate farm.
______
Comment of Carrie Albarado
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:15 p.m.
City, State: Pflugerville, TX
Occupation: Homemaker
Comment: I have a love/hate relationship with food. Food is a
unifying substance that we all need to survive, and with the wrong
knowledge and the funding of the wrong programs the country becomes to
hate food. With the right programs and the right knowledge, food
becomes a positive enlightening aspect that can and should be shared by
all. End the profits of large non-sustainable monoculture by ending the
subsidies, the funding, and make policies where the true cost of the
``bad'' production of food is captured. Only then can we begin to grow
and learn to love, not hate, our food. I support local, organic, and
sustainable agriculture and can only hope that it becomes feasible for
everyone to be able to attain such.
______
Comment of Robert Albee
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:46 p.m.
City, State: Williams, OR
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Fruits
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: I ask that small producers such as myself be considered as
you formulate where to allocate farm bill funds. Small, organic
producers are committed land stewards that require funding assistance
to implement programs and farm improvements that lead to a cleaner
watershed. Fair allocation of government funds to those implementing
sustainability will encourage even more participation in agro-ecology.
______
Comment of Jaime Alcoba
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 9:33 a.m.
City, State: Miami, FL
Occupation: Office Support
Comment: This farm bill would be good because it better allows
those who want to stay as farmers to do so. We should not take our hard
won agricultural lead overseas the way we did other industries.
______
Comment of Dawn Alexander
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:02 p.m.
City, State: Monroe, WA
Occupation: Sales Representative
Comment: I am a consumer and I am tired of the ``frankenfoods''
that fill our grocery stores, causing obesity in America. I do not
purchase any of this food. I am all for cutting back on large corporate
agriculture subsidies. I am against GMO foods and if the food is
genetically altered--it needs to state that on the label. I am all for
supporting more Organic Farms in this country. We need to stay safe and
healthy.
______
Comment of Elizabeth Alexander
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:28 p.m.
City, State: Cranbury, NJ
Occupation: Clergy
Comment: Please support sustainable organic farming in New Jersey.
Also, help prevent GMO farming that interferes with organic farming. My
grandfather was a NJ farmer who suffered the consequences of using
unsafe pesticides in the early 1900s. Today our communities want
nutritious and safe fresh local foods to eat.
______
Comment of Simone Alexander
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:38 p.m.
City, State: Chicago, IL
Occupation: Employee at Community Based Organization
Comment: Please ensure that we prioritize the needs of our farming
communities before large agribusiness, and that we continue to support
the families across the country who are struggling to put enough food
on the table and relying on programs like SNAP to do this. The farm
bill has incredible potential to support the livelihood of small
farmers and improve our food system, while also maintaining a strong
safety net that is so necessary in this economy.
______
Comment of Peseri Alexandra
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 02, 2012, 10:50 a.m.
City, State: Oyster Bay, NY
Occupation: Student
Comment: Dear Representative,
The following is a list of priorities I feel the farm bill should
incorporate:
I would like to see increased assistance for young, beginning
farmers, in the form of microloan and agricultural education programs.
The farming population is aging, and newer, younger farmers will need
to establish themselves. It would benefit our country's agricultural
economy and livelihood to help beginning farmers.
Conservation efforts, although funded generously, have begun to
degrade due to lack of stringent enforcement. Water quality is a major
issue and often occurs due to agricultural runoff. Farmers sometimes
feel burdened by government regulation in this area, but still, water
quality remains an issue. The Federal government needs to find a
medium, whereby rules will be enforced, but also, where farmers are not
too strained. Promoting organic agriculture is a feasible and
beneficial option that can reduce the degradation of water quality,
since it uses less pesticides.
Indeed, funding for organic and integrated farms, both of which use
less pesticides and result in much less environmental harm than does
conventional agriculture, is essential.
Thank you for your time.
______
Comment of Suzanne Alford-Hodges
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:29 p.m.
City, State: Russellville, AR
Occupation: Small Business Owner--Retail Picture Framer and Gallery
Owner
Comment: Dear Representative Womack, bills that promote health,
education about real food and sustainable agriculture while allowing
our independent farmers to thrive is critical to turning around our
unhealthy population. Lawmakers are subsidizing non food products and
the uninformed public is wasting money and destroying their health
buying these heavily advertized non-foods. Place high taxes on non-
foods, like soft drinks and flavored ``water''! Stop subsidizing
chemical creations like high fructose corn syrup and genetically
modified foods. I believe that the big agri food business is in the
same category as big banks: Making huge profits at the expense of the
health of our nation, physically and economically. I'd be interested to
know if you are familiar with Michael Pollan's books, in particular,
The Omnivore's Dilemma? If not, may I send you a copy?
Suzanne Alford-Hodges
______
Comment of Michelle Alioto
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 9:58 p.m.
City, State: Oak Park, IL
Occupation: Student, Mother
Comment: I spend many of my community service hours at the local
food pantry and see what a difference a little money makes in feeding
thousands of families per month. Why cut this Federal budget to feed
these poor families? Please put my tax dollars to good use and take
care of our struggling neighbors. Thank you for your time.
______
Comment of Mary Allemier
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 10:23 a.m.
City, State: Hesperus, CO
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Vegetables
Size: 50-150 acres
Comment: I am a beginning farmer and would like to see more support
for the industry. I feed my family and sell a small bit at the local
farmers market, but we could do so much more with a little guidance and
financial help. Please consider these things in any new farm bills
introduced.
______
Comment of Barbara Allen
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 7:02 p.m.
City, State: Alexandria, VA
Occupation: Retired
Comment: As an active member of the faith community, our
congregation supports and collects a variety of canned goods, pasta,
jellies, peanut butter and other food supplies. We also collect
personal hygiene and baby items each first and third Sunday of each
month.
Although as one congregation, we have increased the amount of
supplies donated each month, the food pantry often has empty shelves
that must be replenished because of the high need of our neighbors.
Too many of our brothers and sisters, and our neighbors are still
out of work or are paid a low wage that makes it difficult for them to
take care of their families without the benefit of our local food
pantries to meet the needs of our neighbors.
We demand that you pass a strong Farm bill that protects programs
like SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program), TEFAP (the
emergency food assistance program), and CSFP (commodity supplemental
food assistance program) which help provide food for our local
neighbors and millions of America's most vulnerable seniors, children
and working poor.
Thank you.
______
Comment of Christina Allen
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 8:37 a.m.
City, State: Elko, NV
Occupation: Warehouse Associate
Comment: We need good quality produce in the markets and we need to
ensure that the seeds we buy will be safe for all farmers including
back yard enthusiasts. No GMO seeds! Please help us find a solution
that will feed America and keep us safe and free of altered and
unhealthy food.
______
Comment of Diann Allen
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:51 p.m.
City, State: Cupertino, CA
Occupation: Designer, Writer
Comment: It is important that You take feeding the people that you
represent in a healthy way. We must reward the best stewards of our
main resources--our land, water and air--and stop providing biggest
funding for those that deplete Our resources. Feeding our entire
population healthy foods, is of utmost importance for a healthy future.
We have seen how poor diet has impacted the health of our population
and has filled the pockets of industrial giants across the board. Your
next steps are being watched and scrutinized. Take positive action to
support the people and our land. And don't be confused about the term
``people.'' A picture of a corporation will never be included as part
of the true definition of what a person is. Are you a person? Take
action to support clean farming.
______
Comment of Jerrold E. Allen
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 8:14 p.m.
City, State: Falls Church, VA
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Vegetables
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: I would like to offer my views and expectations on the
upcoming farm bill. It is time--in fact long overdue--to pass a farm
bill that is truly in the interest of the American people.
The large ``agribusiness'' companies do not need public support.
They have adequate resources for what they are trying to do, which is
frequently not in the public interest. The farm bill should foster
policies that set a new direction.
1. A new farm bill should support small farmers. It should
implement all provisions of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Opportunity Act (H.R. 3235)
2. A new farm bill should support local agriculture. It should
fully endorse all provisions of the Local Foods, Farms and Jobs
Act (H.R. 3286)
3. A new farm bill should support the trend toward organic farming.
It should maintain the EQIP Organic Initiative.
4. A new farm bill should support agriculture for food, not for
fuel. Subsidies for corn ethanol are neither good food policy
nor good energy policy.
5. A new farm bill should support a movement away from the toxic
chemical monocropping agriculture that has damaged so much
soil, weakened nutritional values, and caused illness among
consumers, to say nothing of farm workers. It should fully fund
conservation programs, such as the Conservation Stewardship
Program.
6. A new farm bill should end subsidies to large agricultural
corporations--but the proposed subsidized insurance program is
not a satisfactory replacement because of its opportunities for
fraud and abuse.
Agriculture is and always will be the foundation of a healthy
economy--all must eat. Please offer a farm bill that considers the
overall public welfare and not that of agricultural corporations
looking for a handout.
______
Comment of Jonathan Allen
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:59 a.m.
City, State: Brookline, MA
Occupation: Electronics Design Engineer
Comment: My parent's families were all farmers, and so had healthy,
unpolluted lifestyles. Without a well balanced farm bill, such living
will become totally extinct, and our options as consumers will be
eliminated.
______
Comment of Lynn Allen
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:00 p.m.
City, State: Santa Fe, NM
Comment: Maintaining safe food, Air, Water, and environment is
fundamental to life of all species--including us!
Please protect and enhance that safety by cutting the subsidies to
large corporate interests, and maintaining support for ``real people''
who are devastated by the current economy. Corporations Are Not Real
People, regardless of their legal status and what politicians may say.
Real People need support, not corporations, especially corporations
with ``Net Profits''!
Your obligation is to the majority of real people, not to corporate
interests.
We want to watch you as you serve the real peopled future of this
nation and act according to the mission of your governmental
department.
______
Comment of Marie K. Allen
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:01 p.m.
City, State: Waco, TX
Occupation: Landscape Consultant
Comment: We need healthy people to have a healthy nation. Unless we
have healthy, sustainably produced food, we cannot become or remain
healthy. Small, local farms are in the best position to provide such
food.
______
Comment of Matt Allen
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:11 p.m.
City, State: Raleigh, NC
Occupation: Environmental Geologist
Comment: I would like to see subsidies for big agriculture removed
as well as subsidies for corn ethanol. I would like to see more support
for small local farmers and incentives for people to get into small
farming. The future of our agricultural system is in danger by big
agriculture. The food that we currently eat is nutritionally poor and
loaded with pesticides and artificial fertilizers. Please open this
dialogue and give it some serious thought.
______
Comment of Mitchell Allen
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 9:33 p.m.
City, State: Clinton, WA
Occupation: Engineer
Comment: Local economies are in disparate need, and a locally
focused, small farmer focused farm bill is one of the best ways to
support and stimulate local economies.
______
Comments of Trisha Allen
Date Submitted: Friday, April 27, 2012, 9:16 a.m.
City, State: Hobe Sound, FL
Occupation: Wine Consultant
Comment: I am for food labeling, in particular the country wide
lawsuits involving Monsanto and what percentage of ingredients in our
foods that are ``UN-naturally'' added. I have a friend who has been a
beekeeper and am horrified by the over whelming influence this company
has had over the quality of our foods. The people are watching how
congress and senators vote on this issue very closely. Do the Right
Thing, and stop voting with your pocket books and political gain for
yourselves!
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 03, 2012 9:15 a.m.
Comment: We need GMO labeling on every product Monsanto touches
with their conglomerate over our food sources and what they are doing
not just in this country, but around the world. We Need Not Be Afraid
of their $$$ available to fight legislation to keep these bill off the
Nov ballets around this country. I am contacting all state legislators
and friend and family to be aware and make our voices heard on this
issue. It is Very important to me and my family's future.
______
Comment of Whitney Allen
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 03, 2012, 11:50 a.m.
City, State: Forest Park, IL
Occupation: Social Worker
Comment: I am a social worker on the West Side of Chicago and every
day I see the impact of hunger in these communities. TEFAP and SNAP are
absolutely essential resources for millions of Americans. Please do
everything you can to strengthen funding for TEFAP and SNAP and oppose
proposals that would change SNAP's structure or reduce funding,
restrict eligibility or reduce benefits.
Thank you.
______
Comment of Dr. John Alloway
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:24 p.m.
City, State: Cabin John, MD
Occupation: Natural Physician
Comment: As a physician and nutritionist, I am appalled at what
passes for food in this country. All you need to look at is the health
of Americans to see that a much better food situation is super
necessary. Pass the organic food bill or you will see much worse health
situations in the future.
______
Comment of Miriam Allred
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 10:06 a.m.
City, State: Salt Lake City, UT
Occupation: Technical Writer
Comment: Programs like SNAP, TEFAP, and CSFP provide vital
assistance to many Americans. I want to live in a country where
everyone has the food that they need. Please protect these programs.
______
Comment of Katherine Almeida
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:47 a.m.
City, State: Somerville, MA
Occupation: ESL Teacher
Comment: I would like my food to remain local so I know what is in
it and who grows it. I am willing to pay higher prices for it, but
above all, I want my food to be food, not a genetic lab experiment.
______
Comment of Mike Altemose
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 2:09 p.m.
City, State: Hartford, CT
Comment: Our country (USA)is still in a recovery process from not
only what happened on Wall Street, but also from past natural
disasters. For proof look at what is happening here in Hartford:
shootings and robbery in the streets and at home, people still being
laid off from companies in large numbers. Kids being pulled by
authorities from their families. Now, to make it worse, Congress is
considering cutting the SNAP program that just started and put the
burden on D.S.S. and the people they are trying to help. What's up
America? This has become the land of the broke and hungry not free and
brave.
______
Comment of Andrew Altman
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:14 p.m.
City, State: Wyncote, PA
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: I will be teaching my students about the new
recommendations for healthy eating. Then I will teach my students about
how our government supports farmers. Will my students learn that our
country supports healthy eating or huge industrial farm businesses? You
decide. I urge you to support fruit and vegetable growers as well as
small family farmers and others using humane and sustainable farming
practices.
______
Comment of Armand Altman
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 6:13 p.m.
City, State: Hyde Park, VT
Comment: Please support this bill, and hopefully your not
influenced by the lobbyists. This bill is not only for the health of
your family now, but your grandchildren, and future children.
I hope that your not another politician who compromises his vote
and values to support the lobbyists on this bill!
______
Comment of Billy Altom
Date Submitted: Monday, April 02, 2012, 3:18 p.m.
City, State: North Little Rock, AR
Occupation: Advocate for People/Farmers with Disabilities
Comment: April 2, 2012
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Honorable Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson and Distinguished
Members of the Committee:
Rural policy is driven in large part by the farm bill. The farm
bill, however, covers much more than agriculture. Disability issues
have generally had little consideration in the bill, with the exception
of some attention to housing and technology (e.g., AgrAbility). It is
time to change that, and infuse disability into relevant parts of this
important rural legislation. This is why the Association of Programs
for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) believes that people with
disabilities in rural America need to be recognized in the 2012 Farm
Bill.
APRIL is a national membership organization dedicated to advancing
the rights and responsibilities of people with disabilities in rural
America. We provide leadership and resources through a national network
of rural centers for independent living, organizations and individuals
concerned with the unique aspects of rural independent living. The goal
of APRIL is to work with others to find solutions to common problems
and to bring rural issues in independent living into focus on the
national level.
Farmers and ranchers with disabilities were rightly recognized in
1990 with the creation of the AgrAbility programs. APRIL, and its
members, work closely with the state and national program to insure
farmers and ranchers with disabilities can remain in their vocation. We
seek the same recognition for other rural people with disabilities in
this bill.
The health and economic vibrancy of the rural American landscape
affects everyone. This includes people with disabilities. Therefore,
APRIL urges policy makers to specifically recognize people with
disabilities in the reauthorization of the farm bill.
APRIL would urge policy makers to include people with disabilities
in all sections of the bill relating to the titles on rural
development. For example, in the current bill the section describing
``underserved and disadvantaged'' populations should specifically
include people with disabilities in the list of populations mentioned.
Second, APRIL urges members of Congress to fulfill its promise to
rural people with disabilities seeking employment. In 2008 the bill
included a new program in Title VI, Subtitle A, Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act, specifically section 6023.
The short title defined the new program:
The Secretary shall make grants to nonprofit organizations, or to a
consortium of nonprofit organizations, to expand and enhance employment
opportunities for individuals with disabilities in rural areas;
And,
Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012.''.
While section 6023 was authorized in the bill and a recommendation
of the proposed level of appropriations was included in the bill, no
appropriation was ever made, and rules to establish the program were
not promulgated.
This reauthorization creates an opportunity for policy makers to be
inclusive of all rural Americans as we strive to strengthen our
communities.
Respectfully Submitted,
Billy Altom,
Executive Director,
Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living,
[Redacted].
North Little Rock, AR 72114
______
Comment of Jose Alvarado
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:04 p.m.
City, State: Colorado Springs, CO
Occupation: Technical
Comment: Large agribusiness does not care about the health effects
all the toxins agribusiness uses to produce crops that jeopardize our
nation's health thus putting greater strain on our healthcare system
and ultimately the general health of our nation. Its All About Profit
Only!
______
Comment of Jose D. Alvarado
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 9:41 p.m.
City, State: San Pablo, CA
Occupation: Agriculture Engineer
Comment: As consumer, I have the right to know what is the content
of my food, as well when I buy clothes, the labels describe me the
material of what the clothes are made.
Sincerely,
Jose D. Alvaado,
USDA/APHIS/PPQ Officer.
______
Comment of Ana Alvarez
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 3:01 a.m.
City, State: Clermont, FL
Occupation: Disabled ex EMT
Comment: Farmers and eaters across the U.S. benefit from a fair and
healthy farm bill. We have to stop the subsidies that guarantees more
income to the profitable farm businesses, they don't need it. We have
to stop the $4 million cut from organic research funding and the cut in
\1/2\ to the funds to beginning farmers. We have to stop that new
subsidize insurance program that leading sustainable agriculture
advocates are calling rife with opportunities for fraud and abuse.
While congress is looking to get rid of direct payments to
commodity farmers, the subsidized insurance program it proposes to
replace it with will allow giant commodity farmers and insurance
companies to walk away with billions in taxpayers dollars while putting
the land, soil and environment at greater risk. By failing to place
limitations on crop insurance subsidies and to re-attach soil erosion
and wetland conservation requirements to crop insurance programs, the
Committee has failed to do the full reform that it needed. We can't
allow this to happen. We need a real reform and a healthy organic
future.
______
Comment of Margarita Alvarez
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 9:04 p.m.
City, State: Chicago, IL
Occupation: House Wife
Comment: I am currently working on the data collection side of a
research project assessing fresh food accessibility in the United
States, and is related to child obesity, and I have traveled dozens of
communities across the contiguous U.S. and have seen almost no fresh
fruit and vegetable availability that is sourced locally. I drive the
streets and roads of these, many times rural, communities and find so
much agriculture, but none that is destined to be sold locally. More
often than not they are commodity crops, or crops to be shipped
hundreds or thousands of miles away. I have been in towns that have
plenty of grazing land, and many times land roaming with grass-fed
cattle, but just around the corner at the local diner, the meat served
didn't come from the town itself, it comes from a large agribusiness
type company, thousands of miles away, from where the local chain
supermarket purchases its meat. This is extraordinarily inefficient!
Please make it so that significantly more food is sourced locally in
more places across the country. Make this viable for the farmers and
the public. One of the Only places where I have seen a local bounty of
fresh fruits and vegetables readily available via produce stands
scattered all over the roads is on the way to Madera California, which
produces all kinds of fruits, vegetables and nuts. It is embarrassingly
ridiculous how poorly we have reversed progress, as compared to our
European counterparts, who have been sourcing so much of their foods
locally as has been the case for centuries. Why is it so easy to help
large scale agriculture, with subsidies but not small scale
agriculture? Why is government so stubborn to change this, when they
can see that the only ones that benefit are the ruthless, insatiable
large agribusiness companies that seem to run it all. Enough of this,
it is slowly killing us all. I want to feel proud of the food I eat. I
want to be healthy and I want the land to be healthy. Soybean and Corn
byproducts should never more be a priority over fruits and vegetables.
That kills. Don't you understand, a healthier nation, is better and
less of a costly for the nation. We all know somebody affected by
obesity or are obese ourselves, so it is obvious obesity is a top
killer in America, and you can do something about it, but will you?
______
Comment of Veronica Alvarez
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 3:36 p.m.
City, State: Honolulu, HI
Occupation: Restaurant Worker
Comment: We need an Organic Farm Bill. As humans, we cannot
continue to ignore the fact that unsustainable petroleum based farming
methods will leave the vast majority of us unhealthy and hungry in the
long run. We need to take care of our 'aina and our ohana. Food stamps
are an important part of keeping people with roofs over their heads and
getting families food they need during these uncertain economic time.
Mahalo for serving the interests of Hawai'i and all the people here.
______
Comment of Erv Amdahl
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:22 p.m.
City, State: Sierra Vista, AZ
Occupation: Residential Remodeling Design and Sales
Comment: When the original farm bill was enacted many years ago, it
was to help the family farm, but somewhere along the way, it lost its
intended purpose and the majority of money goes to corporate farms.
That needs to end and go back to helping the small farms and organic
farms that produce healthier crops and less or not contaminated by
chemicals or genetically modified genes that who knows what the dire
consequences could be many years down the road. We already know of many
harmful things happening because of genetically modified crops and my
guess is, that it's only the beginning of all the problems we'll find
out in the future, many of which that are already known but hidden by
the likes of Monsanto for their own greed.
______
Comment of Sharilyn Ame
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:56 a.m.
City, State: Corvallis, OR
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Dry Beans & Peas, Field Crops, Poultry/poultry products
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: It is time to support small farms, organic farms, and
local production for local markets. Food security of regional crops for
regional markets needs to become a priority as we enter into an era of
increasing fuel insecurity, global climate change, and the
corresponding imminent need to wean ourselves off of egregious waste of
fossil fuels in food production and distribution.
We must also encourage the transfer of farmland from the aging,
soon-to-retire-farmers into the hands of younger, emerging farmers,
thus protecting farmland from development and resource extraction. If
we are to maintain our freedom and autonomy as nation, proactive
recruitment of the next generation of farmers on their own terms is
crucial.
More money needs to be set aside for expansion of organic
production. Subsidies to big corn and soybean producers must be
curtailed, for the health and future of American children is suffering
(this is the first generation in recorded history slated to have a
lower life expectancy than their parents!), as is the health and future
of our soil, our water, and our democracy.
______
Submitted Letter by American Jewish World Service; Bread for the World;
CARE; Church World Service; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy;
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns; Mercy Corps; Modernizing Foreign
Assistance Network; Oxfam America; Partners In Health; Partnership to
Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa; United Church of Christ Justice and
Witness Ministries; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church
and Society
May 2, 2012
Hon. Frank D. Lucas, Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Howard Berman,
Chairwoman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Lucas, Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Members
Peterson and Ranking Member Berman,
We the undersigned organizations write to voice our strong support
for U.S. international food aid programs, and request that these
critical, life-saving programs be strengthened through reforms to
improve effectiveness and efficiency. Through programs authorized under
the farm bill, U.S. food aid is estimated to have reached more than 65
million people in fiscal year 2010. Emergency relief and development
programs supported through food aid can make a difference in the lives
of people in need. Benefits include preventing or reversing
malnutrition in young children, meeting the food needs of victims of
man-made or natural disasters and improving food security for
chronically poor households.
This year's reauthorization of the farm bill presents an
opportunity to evaluate current program authorities to determine
whether they continue to best meet both emergency and development
needs. We hope you will take this opportunity to increase the
flexibility of the current food aid program structure while maintaining
U.S. leadership on global hunger and food security. By building on
program improvements introduced in the Food, Conservation and Energy
Act of 2008, U.S. food aid can reach millions of additional people
while maintaining current spending levels.
As you contemplate further updates to the food aid program, we
would urge your attention to two specific issues:
The expanded use of local and regional procurement as an
additional tool for delivering food assistance;
The increased provision of non-food resources to cover
program expenses coupled with heightened efficiency targets for
monetization activities.
Local and regional procurement:
Since 2008, the United States has increased support for local and
regional procurement of food aid (LRP), including through Section 3206
of the 2008 Farm Bill which authorized a $60 million pilot program to
implement and study LRP activities in both emergency and non-emergency
settings. The LRP pilot has been shown to save money and time, adding
an important and versatile tool which can be used to reach people in
need. We urge the Agriculture Committee to incorporate greater use of
LRP across food aid programs authorized in the farm bill. Toward this
objective, we strongly encourage you to maintain and expand authorities
currently provided on a pilot basis under Sec. 3206 of the 2008 Farm
Bill. Authorized funding should be set at no less than $100 million
annually.
Increased resource flexibility and addressing monetization:
For most food aid programs, limited funding exists to support the
implementation of complementary food security activities alongside
direct food distribution. Monetization, the sale of food aid
commodities in developing country markets, is commonly used to generate
funds needed for these activities. The process of monetization has
proven to be an inefficient means of supporting complementary food
security activities: according to the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), between fiscal year 2008 and 2010, $219 million in food aid
resources was lost as a result of low cost-recovery rates in
monetization activities. The same GAO report found that cost recovery
for monetization activities averaged 58 percent for USDA administered
programs and 76 percent for programs administered by USAID.
In many instances, the use of monetization is not the optimal
solution to fund development activities and would not be employed if
alternative cash resources were available as part of the food aid
programs authorized through the farm bill. In order to address current
program limitations, we urge you to incorporate changes that will
increase available non-food resources in food aid programs and improve
efficiencies in monetization activities. Specifically:
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program authorizes the ``procurement of agricultural
commodities and the provision of financial and technical
assistance'' to carry out school feeding and maternal and child
nutrition programs. This model, in which an implementing
partner can request both cash and commodities for program
activities, should be replicated in the Title II program.
Additionally, section 202(e) of the Food for Peace Act
should be expanded. Currently, this section authorizes up to
13% of the appropriated levels of the Title II budget to be
provided for use in the areas of program logistics, management
and certain program-related costs. The Agriculture Committee
should expand applicable uses of 202(e) resources and lift the
existing 13 percent limit to 18 percent.
In conjunction with increased cash resource availability,
the use of monetization should be curtailed in instances where
substantial cost recovery cannot be obtained. Consistent with
previous practice and guidance provided by USAID, the farm bill
should direct USAID to utilize monetization in instances where
at least 80% cost recovery can be achieved, and to use cash
resources to fund complementary program activities in countries
that cannot achieve this threshold. Oversight, including
through regular, public reporting of monetization cost recovery
levels achieved by implementing agencies (USAID and USDA) and
post-monetization market impact assessments, should also be
supported in legislation.
We appreciate your thoughtful leadership on this issue and look
forward to working with you to craft improvements to U.S. food aid
programs to ensure that they meet the humanitarian and development
needs of the 21st century.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
American Jewish World Service Oxfam America
Bread for the World Partners In Health
CARE Partnership to Cut Hunger and
Church World Service Poverty in Africa
Institute for Agriculture and Trade United Church of Christ Justice and
Policy Witness Ministries
Maryknoll Office for Global United Methodist Church, General
Concerns Board of Church and Society
Mercy Corps
Modernizing Foreign Assistance
Network
CC:
Members of the House Committee on Agriculture;
Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
______
Comment of Gary Ammirati
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:52 p.m.
City, State: Los Angeles, CA
Occupation: Customer Service
Comment: I have started a small organic edible garden on my land,
because it is so hard to trust that food created by others is healthy.
I support the following:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
I believe we need to get off our dependency of oil, almost all
pesticides and fertilizers are petroleum based and therefore toxic to
humans, that is a good place to start, stricter regulations on the
chemicals used in farming, but most of all we need to move from our
current large farm farming practices to bio-dynamic farming practices.
______
Comment of James Amory
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:04 p.m.
City, State: LeRysville, PA
Occupation: Cheesemaking Consultant
Comment: Small dairy farms in general have lower costs and higher
profit per cow than mega-dairies, yet we are losing the small units.
The ``Margin Insurance'' proposals of NMPF, DFA and others does nothing
to address this problem, and introduces insurance companies and more
speculation into milk pricing.
Please address the real issues of chaotic and manipulative milk
pricing.
______
Comment of Laurie Amsler
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:59 p.m.
City, State: Albany, NY
Occupation: Furniture Sales
Comment: Instead of money going to big business like Bayer and
Monsanto . . . I will no longer buy their products . . . we should be
looking into making organic farming better . . . how to work with
nature not against her . . . If we don't stop we are going to kill
ourselves . . . that's right . . . we are already are . . . please do
the right thing and pass this bill.
______
Comment of September Amyx
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 4:10 a.m.
City, State: Marysville, CA
Occupation: Retired Military/Disabled
Comment: I used to be a Veterinary Technician for the U.S. Air
Force, and part of that job was public health, inspecting food. I find
the situation concerning GMO foods, food additives, and the rate of
illness and obesity in our country more than alarming. Do you actually
realize what sort of quandary our country will be in without good,
healthful, `as God made it' food? You are already seeing the results of
low level long term exposure to pesticides and GMO crops; super bugs,
subtle but significant alterations in human development, and strange
new diseases. Please, do the USA and all of us, including you, a favor.
Stop, Think. Whatever your decision is based on, morals, greed, or
corporate coercion, it will affect everyone for a far longer time than
anyone thinks or has said to you. You've seen what fracking has done to
some water supplies, despite all the assurances that it was totally
safe. Don't let our food supply suffer the same fate by human
manipulation through genetic tampering or unwise use of chemicals,
however 'natural' it may presented. Please, I'm asking YOU to be the
moral, ethical, and incorruptible government official who makes the
difference.
______
Comment of Amy Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:39 p.m.
City, State: Saugerties, NY
Occupation: Disabled
Comment: We MUST move towards organic agriculture in order to
survive on planet Earth: global warming has become an obvious reality
and organic agriculture sequesters CO2 while non-organic
agriculture adds greatly to the CO2 burden. For this reason
I support the following:
Full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods, Farms
and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286);
Fully funding conservation programs such as the Conservation
Stewardship Program and making sure that enrollment in any new
insurance subsidies are tied directly to compliance with
conservation programs;
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236); and
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Comment of Caroline Anderson
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 09, 2012, 7:58 p.m.
City, State: Tucson, AZ
Occupation: Diagnostic Medical Sonographer
Comment: These last 4 years have been so incredibly difficult for
so many, losing jobs and homes, and now we are left with so many more
families of all kinds who are struggling to just survive from day to
day. Please, while the rest of the country is getting back on their
feet, don't forget those having the hardest time just trying to keep
sustenance in their children's mouths until they can find a step up to
more self-reliance. By passing the farm bill, we hold a helping hand to
give those programs which help struggling families something to hang
onto until they can again be productive themselves.
______
Comment of Carolyn Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:15 p.m.
City, State: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Occupation: Interior Designer
Comment: I want access to clean, unadulterated, organic food as a
means by which to maintain my health and well-being. I also understand
that Nature has ways of regaining balance that has been undone by
monocultural farming, which tend to be devastating to human and other
life. Therefore, I support independent, organic farming in which the
care and nurturing of the soil is the best means by which to avoid
pests and to grow the most abundant crops.
______
Comment of Christopher J. Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 2:19 p.m.
City, State: Madison, WI
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: Dear Farm Bill committee,
I am writing to express my hope that you will improve the farm bill
so that it better serves America's health and environmental needs.
Programs that support projects to put more healthy foods in the hands
of low-income income individuals (and really all families) demand
support in the midst of an obesity epidemic that is taking a staggering
tool on lives and our health care bills. At the same time, I hope
you'll also support programs that provide training for current and
aspiring farmers so that they can develop farming methods that reduce
agriculture's environmental impacts. Without this piece we are taking
great risks with our shortsightedness. Thank you for your time and
attention.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Anderson,
High School Biology teacher.
______
Comment of Dae Anderson
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:09 p.m.
City, State: Utica, NY
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Vegetables
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: Please stop subsidies for Big Ag Commodity crops & offer
more support for ``Specialty Crops'' (i.e., fruits and veggies). Do Not
Allow a Cut to SNAP (food stamp) benefits. People are hungry and need
more food money as prices are going up all the time. I am disabled and
need this assistance. Please help support greater Conservation spending
to protect our lands and waters and to heal the damage that has been
done by corporate interests.
Thank you Mr. Hannah.
______
Comment of Elizabeth Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:12 p.m.
City, State: Brooklyn, NY
Occupation: Graphic Designer
Comment: Living in an urban environment far removed from the
production of the food that we eat, it is important to ensure that we
have access to the best options for both consumers and producers alike.
Reducing the gap from farm to table by supporting local farmers, and
keeping that option affordable for all city-dwellers and not just the
wealthiest, is essential.
______
Comment of Eric Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, March 23, 2012, 5:04 p.m.
City, State: Viola, IL
Occupation: Forestry Consultant
Comment: I realize that shrinking Federal budgets will result in
program cuts and reductions. I want to express how useful EQIP has been
for so many landowners that just want to do the right thing. Please
work to maintain funding for EQIP.
I spoke briefly to Representative Schilling following the House Ag.
Committee hearing in Galesburg. I wanted to give further feedback on
EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Program), a program about which
Rep. Schilling inquired. As a forestry consultant I have worked with
the EQIP program since about 2007. Each year the program has been
tweaked and improved by the NRCS to be evermore relevant to landowner
needs. As a consultant I work with an ever growing number of private
landowners (currently about 50) mostly in Illinois, but some in Iowa.
In a recent conversation with two long-time timber buyers nearing
the end of their careers, the discussion turned to the diminishing
quality of hardwood timber in our region. They lamented landowners not
planting trees 30 and 40 years ago on harvested timber property. The
remaining trees, which were forgotten about and allowed to grow, were
low quality or undesirable species (with some exception obviously).
This low grade stock makes up much of the mature timber that present
day landowners, interested in forest management, must nurse back to
health.
EQIP is helping make forestry sustainable in corn and soybean
country. It off sets the cost of planning, planting new trees, managing
invasive plants, and removing undesirable weed trees, mostly on non-
tillable acres. The short term effects of EQIP improve wildlife
habitat, aesthetics and work to decrease erosion. Longer term, managed
forestry will produce even better wildlife habitat and high quality
forestry products.
In the short term EQIP has created interest in managing and making
more productive otherwise forgotten farmland and allowed me, as an
entrepreneur, to take a passion for conservation that sprouted growing
up on the farm in Kansas, matured through my time as a U.S. Peace Corps
Volunteer, and blossomed into a job for myself, two full time employees
and a number of seasonal employees, in a few short years.
______
Comment of Gail Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:56 p.m.
City, State: Roswell, GA
Occupation: Retired
Comment: It is difficult, at best, to comprehend that I am actually
having to write a letter asking my government, the USA, to support the
planting and harvesting of non poisonous food. Wouldn't you think this
is a no brainer? No one, not even your Grandchildren, wants to eat
foods that have been genetically altered and poisoned. How long can you
sustain life while breathing, drinking and eating toxins? Please use
your common sense and support H.R. 3286 and H.R. 3236, as well as fully
funding the Conservation Stewardship Program. Also make sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs. Last but not least, the EQIP
Organic Initiative must be maintained. Please don't cut your noses off
to spite your faces. Do this for the People!
______
Comments of Glen Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:56 p.m.
City, State: Lacey, WA
Occupation: Retired Government Professional
Comment: The farm bill must include:
Help for poor people in the U.S. And Also in other countries
to eat healthful, nutritious food.
Protection for consumers Against genetically modified food
and Against domination by large agribusiness corporations.
Protections for small family farms and organic farms.
Labeling of foods containing genetically modified
ingredients
Labeling of meat and poultry that came from ``factory
farms''
Vigorous Inspection of poultry by USDA officials, rather
than by poultry processing company employees.
Date Submitted: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06 a.m.
Comment:
(1) Protect environmental quality from destructive farming
practices (e.g., conserve soil, water, etc., limit pesticides).
(2) Protect Small Family Farms from huge agribusiness.
(3) Stop Subsidies to huge farming operations and to nasty crops
such as tobacco and sugar.
(4) Protect Farm Workers from exploitation.
(5) Stop Genetically Modified Crops.
(6) Make school lunches Healthy And Nutritious without sugar and
junk food, but with fresh fruits and vegetables, and with whole
grains.
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:37 p.m.
Comment: Fully Fund programs to help poor people, children, the
elderly, and other vulnerable demographic groups. Fully Fund programs
that protect the environment. Fully Fund programs that help Small
Farmers and Organic Farmers. Stop Subsidizing Big Agribusiness,
Polluters, etc.
______
Comment of Joy Anderson
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:18 p.m.
City, State: Reno, NV
Occupation: Yoga Instructor
Comment: Get your heads out of your wallets and into the health of
this and future generations, money means nothing if you do not have
your health No more food devoid of nutrients!
______
Comment of Leonora Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 7:40 a.m.
City, State: Stockholm, NJ
Occupation: Docent
Comment: I urge you to support the farm bill. Many seniors need our
help just to be able to put food on their tables. Our older Americans
shouldn't have to choose between food or medication, or food and rent.
Let's think of ALL seniors and care for them.
______
Comment of Marilyn Anderson
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:51 a.m.
City, State: Mill Valley, CA
Occupation: Bookkeeper
Comment: We need to stop supporting big AG that uses pesticides and
GMOs that are harmful to our health, and change focus to supporting
local family farms that provide good healthy food. Subsidies for Big AG
have to stop. Let's use that money instead to provide school lunch
programs that teach kids healthy eating habits and in the long run cut
our health care costs.
______
Comment of Mark Anderson
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:01 a.m.
City, State: Bailey, CO
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Greenhouse/nursery, Vegetables
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: Community and school greenhouses using hydroponic growing
systems can be a profitable self sustaining way for communities to
learn about the importance of locally grown organic produce. They do
not require fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides or any other foreign
chemicals an use less than 10% of the water required by traditional
farming methods.
For more information on the solution to our agricultural problems
call Mark: [Redacted].
______
Comment of Nathanial Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:13 p.m.
City, State: La Crosse, WI
Comment: Something is killing honey bees, and even as billions are
dropping dead across the world, researchers are scrambling to find
answers and save one of the most important crop pollinators on Earth.
What is called ``colony collapse disorder'' hit bee keepers all
over the world including \1/2\ of the U.S. last spring. Now it has
spread to all but a handful of states.
Hives can go from healthy and active to dead and gone.
``In the Australian story, researchers have dissected bees that
have died, and they have found that their immune systems have ``totally
gone to pieces''.'
As the global collapse of honeybee populations threatens the
sustainability of the world food supply, some European organizations
are at least trying to do something about it. Today, Britain's largest
agriculture co-op announced it would ban eight pesticides thought to be
causing colony collapse disorder. (One of them is called imidacloprid.)
In Germany's Baden-Wurttemberg state, 500 million bees died in
Spring 2008, due to the insecticidal seed treatment agent clothianidin.
Another example is the case of a Swabian beekeeper, who destroyed his
whole honey harvest because it contained pollen of the GM corn MON810,
after an administrative court declared the honey as `non marketable'.
So far, there are few answers, but there is a long list of
possibilities, which include pesticides and genetically modified crops,
also known as GMOs or GMs.
However, I have been learning that not much is known about the
accumulating impact of pesticides on insects, animals and even people
when you consider, in this modern world how many combinations of
pesticides are used. One pesticide by itself might not destroy honey
bees, but what happens when farmers spray herbicides, fungicides,
insecticides and rodenticides on land that also has genetically
modified crops with pesticides built-in?
The United States grows nearly \2/3\ of all genetically engineered
crops. Last year about 130 million acres were planted with GMs. Much of
the soy, corn, cotton and canola have had a gene inserted into their
DNA to produce pesticides systemically throughout the plants created
and patented by Monsanto. Monsanto also produces genetically modified
crops designed not to die when herbicides are sprayed on them. In a
perfect biotech world, only the weeds would be killed. But Mother
Nature has a way of outwitting human designs. So, now the weeds are
becoming resistant to the herbicide sprays and frustrated farmers are
putting on more and more poisons.
What this genetically engineered trait does is allow a farmer to
spray the herbicide right on the crop, which would have killed the
crop, would kill the soybeans, prior to introduction of this gene. The
gene comes from a type of bacteria that is found in the soil and it
makes the plant immune to the herbicide.
The consequence of this is that glyphosate and Roundup, which is
sold by Monsanto--the same company that also sells the seed of the type
of soybeans that are immune or resistant to the herbicide--that
herbicide has become the most widely used herbicide in the world. The
consequence of that is you have one particular herbicide used on a
tremendous amount of acreage in the U.S. and elsewhere, especially
Argentina and Brazil.
As any biologist would expect, when you have such tremendous
pressure on weeds to try to survive this herbicide, some of the weeds
that are resistant are selected for and all their competition is killed
off. The resistant weeds then proliferate and can no longer be
controlled by glyphosate. Then you have a situation where the use of
this herbicide has gone up, and on probably millions of acres, other
herbicides are having to be used as well as glyphosate in order to
control the resistant weeds.
So, what we've been seeing in the past few years is that the
overall level of herbicide use is increasing, and it will almost
inevitably continue to increase. In this case, it's causing the rise of
these resistant weeds and the increased use of herbicides and
potentially, may be harming amphibians to boot.
The active ingredient in Round-up is the isopropylamine salt of
glyphosate. Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme
involved in the synthesis of the amino acids tyrosine, tryptophan and
phenylalanine. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated (moves
through plant sap) to growing points. Weeds and grass will generally
re-emerge within one to 2 months after usage. Because of this mode of
action, it is only effective on actively growing plants. Round-up is
not effective as a ``pre-emergence herbicide.'' Monsanto also produces
seeds which grow into plants genetically engineered to be tolerant to
glyphosate which are known as Round-up Ready crops. The genes contained
in these seeds are patented. Such crops allow farmers to use glyphosate
as a post-emergence pesticide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds.
Soybeans were the first Round-up Ready crop, which was produced at
Monsanto's Agracetus Campus located in Middleton, Wisconsin. Current
Round-up Ready crops include corn, sorghum, cotton, soybeans, canola
and alfalfa.
So here we have it: GMO's Round-up and other pesticides are killing
our Bee's, without them the whole world will face starvation!
It is the big pharmaceutical companies that need to be stopped. In
the end, they will not only be killing bees, they will be killing us.
It's time we do something!
Kill the poison, save the Bees!
______
Comment of Raymond Anderson
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 3:04 p.m.
City, State: Cottage Grove, MN
Occupation: Lifetime Learner
Comment: Eliminate competing objectives:
Cheap food that contributes to poor nutrition that leads to
poor health is not cheap.
USDA Organics permits additive (carrageenan) shown to cause
inflammation, diabetes, and neoplasia. Dr. Joanne K. Tobacman
is convinced beyond doubt that it should be eliminated from
food. Industry misrepresents the dangers and cannot be trusted.
______
Comment of Regina Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 12:44 p.m.
City, State: Portland, OR
Occupation: Urban Planner/Project Manager
Comment: It is critical that government programs provide a ``level
playing field'' for those engaged in farming, so that small scale and
sustainable (non-industrial method) farms can produce and allow farmers
to make a good living. The benefits of small scale, sustainable farms
to their communities, regional health (by providing very high quality
product), and the environment (by providing food products closer to
where they are consumed, cutting out ``food-miles'' travelled) are
extremely important impacts that should not be overlooked. Please make
sure the Farm Bill 2012 supports small scale, sustainable farming!
______
Comment of Robert Anderson
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 6:33 p.m.
City, State: Decorah, IA
Occupation: Biologist
Comment: Please retain or expand conservation programs. With the
current high price of corn at this time conservation and protection of
soil is taking a back seat. We are losing waterway and buffer strips
like mad. Iowa is taking on what could be called scorched Earth with
little or no CRP or conservation programs. It is extremely depressing
to see all conservation efforts being put under plow all for high
fructose corn syrup and ethanol. Please retain conservation programs or
better yet expand them. Again, it so very depressing to see all of the
conservation efforts being pulled out all in the name of high corn
prices. There is little or no CRP left in my area of NE Iowa. I am
seeing many conservation efforts like waterways, buffer strips being
plowed under for a product that has little to do with food for man.
______
Comment of Sharon Anderson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:49 p.m.
City, State: Hammond, OR
Occupation: Senior Citizen with Health/Nutrition Needs
Comment: Please support all provisions of the Local Foods, Farms
and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286) and implementation of all provisions of the
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
We in Clatsop County, OR have a great interest in developing a
sustainable local food economy, with many young people starting up new
farms. They face nearly impossible road blocks on a regular basis.
Because they are not large enough to qualify as a ``small farm'' they
cannot get reduced interest rates on loans to buy their land, which
will cost one young couple an additional $89,000 in interest over the
course of their 30 yr. loan.
These people love farming more than anything else they've ever done
in their entire life, they generously donate time and product to local
food projects and represent a bright future for our area.
Please help them.
______
Comment of Shel Anderson
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 7:27 p.m.
City, State: Durham, NC
Occupation: Retired
Comment: I understand the value of corporate agriculture, but I do
not want it to be the only option in our country. Having good
conservation policy; having opportunity for young farmers to enter the
occupation; providing for farmers' markets and grants to small
producers to get extra value for their crops; supporting the organic
farms; and making sure that all agricultural investments by taxpayers
do NOT go to large corporations--these are my concerns.
______
Comment of Sylvia Anderson
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 3:33 p.m.
City, State: Albuquerque, NM
Occupation: Retired
Comment: Subsidies and supports for Organic growers. No subsidies
or support for growers or producers using government land grazing,
chemicals, hormones or GMO products.
______
Comment of Corlissa Andis
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:13 p.m.
City, State: Fremont, CA
Occupation: Hairstylist
Comment: We need balance.
These gigantic ag-farms are a nightmare environmentally. This bill
needs to encourage new farming, local farming & organic farming. Do you
realize many kids don't know that carrots & potatoes grow in the
ground? This is a very noble profession. Community gardens & education
are important for our children to experience the importance of farming
& feeding the world.
______
Comment of Darian Andreas
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:28 a.m.
City, State: Falls Church, VA
Occupation: Health/Education
Comment: Dear Congressman Moran,
I am very concerned that reforms in Agribusiness may take this
country several steps backward. Insurance subsidies should only be
provided to those who meet a minimum conservation standard, and we need
more, not less, incentive for new small farmers who use sustainable
farming methods. I support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
______
Comment of Caroline Andrews
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:14 p.m.
City, State: Fullerton, CA
Occupation: Retired Teacher
Comment: The government subsidies and support for big agriculture
have been a big part of the obesity epidemic in this country, with
hybridized staples and processed food full of additives like high
fructose corn syrup becoming the standard diet of so many Americans.
It's times to focus support on organic farmers who grow healthy food so
that Americans will have a healthy choice.
______
Comment of David Andrews
Date Submitted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 6:10 p.m.
City, State: Lubbock, TX
Occupation: Disabled
Comment: It is time for the Farmers of America to stand on their
own 2 feet just like everyone is expected to do. We are not guaranteed
a wage amount, so nor should the farmers that think they have to have
brand new tractors and equipment every year or so. I know a lot of
farmers as I have grown up around farmers all my life, and they do not
need my taxpayer money to make a living. I am sick and tired of
supporting millionaires, I also think we need to do away with the CRP
Program, which only pays people to own land. I had to buy my land
without any assistance, so I expect people that own land to have to pay
for it just as I had to.
______
Comment of Elaine Andrews
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 12:09 a.m.
City, State: Boulder, CO
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Specialty Crops
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: I believe that the future of food security in this country
and the ability of global agriculture to feed the world's people rest
with local farmers selling directly to their communities and a plethora
of small, biodiverse, independent farms engaged in adapting creatively
to changing climatic conditions. This is in contrast to the current
trend of relying more and more on industrialized agriculture.
Vulnerable monocultures, and high-tech chemicals and practices. Please
include in future agricultural legislation, clear support for research
in organic and low-tech farming practices and the removal of obstacles
making it difficult for small farmers to make a go of it.
______
Comment of Yvonne Andrews
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 6:26 p.m.
City, State: Limington, ME
Occupation: Lic. Vet Tech
Comment: I do not want to eat GMO products, I buy organic seedlings
for my garden when I don't start my own seeds, try not to eat too many
prepared foods that are not organic and encourage my friends and family
to do the same, we need your help!
Thanks.
______
Comment of Jan Angel
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:37 a.m.
City, State: Littleton, CO
Occupation: Educator
Comment: There is a gap growing that can lead to a complete closure
of communication between the political representatives and the
intelligent constitutes that they represent. Just because large
quantities of the educated populace have not chosen to go into politics
as a career it does not mean that they are not informed or action
oriented. The intelligent and educated factions are indeed aware of the
manipulation of our food quality by those who seek to ignorantly make a
greedy profit by growing chemically toxic produce. This continued
practice will eventually lead to the downfall of these corporate
practices. There might be the belief that politicians are the most
educated and powerful. Yet the fact remains that if enough educated and
concerned citizens want healthy food . . . there is nothing that can
stop that from happening here in the U.S. We are at that point. Please
step up to this and set up a structure that defends American health and
well being and turns away from corporate farming practices that are
based upon the least intelligent and obviously lowest self serving
motives.
______
Comment of Donald Angell
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 1:35 a.m.
City, State: Battle Creek, MI
Occupation: Retired
Comment: I urge you to pass a farm bill that strongly supports
local, small, family farms. Agribusiness is about profits, not healthy,
safe food, humane treatment of animals, and protection of the
environment. Do you job to support the thousands of small farmers who
you represent, not the handful of agribusinesses that throw money at
you. Remember who you work for!
I support:
the full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
______
Comment of Karen Angstadt
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:47 p.m.
City, State: Port St. Lucie, FL
Occupation: Homemaker
Comment: I support the following initiatives for the farm bill:
1. The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods, Farms
and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
2. Fully funding conservation programs, such as the Conservation
Stewardship Program, and making sure that enrollment in any new
insurance subsidies are tied directly to compliance with
conservation programs.
3. The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer and
Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
4. Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
It is essential that agriculture policies adapt to the most urgent
needs of the American people--even if they negatively impact large
industrial agribusiness. The American people need access to more
affordable vegetables and fruits and less over-subsidized and over-
processed grains.
I understand that funds are scarce and this is why I ask you to put
the needs of the American people ahead of the interest of industrial
farming corporations.
In the interest of improving our health and nutrition, the desire
to reduce obesity and new cases of type 2 diabetes, and the opportunity
to support best practices for growing more nutritious foods, Please
overhaul where the money goes. Support the needs of the people who are
eating.
______
Comment of Natalie Angstreich
Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 12:00 p.m.
City, State: New York, NY
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Field Crops, Forestry, Fruits, Greenhouse/nursery, Nuts,
Specialty Crops, Vegetables
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: As an urban grower and educator in nutrition and health,
it is essential to keep the funding lines for nutrition and nutrition-
education programs supported.
Any cuts to SNAP are unacceptable, as they are the only systemic
address of gross income inequality as it manifests in food insecurity.
Otherwise we are starving the poor, what's that for compassion?
Please support the following:
Community Food Projects Program--$10 million per year to
help communities build food self-reliance.
Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program--$20 million
per year to develop farmers market capacity and create food
hubs to connect farmers with schools, hospitals, grocery stores
and other markets.
Hunger-Free Community Incentive Grants--An average of $20
million per year for a new SNAP local fruit and vegetable
incentive grant program at farmers markets and other healthy
food retailers.
This is the LEAST allocation for healthy food, instead of
commodities that are pushed on the American public, fueling heart
disease, obesity, and diabetes.
It's time to put our farm subsidies, IF ANY, where they belong: on
fresh fruits and vegetables and nuts and seeds: Real Nutrition.
______
Comment of Jennifer Anson
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 4:55 a.m.
City, State: Gilbert, AZ
Occupation: Registered Nurse
Comment: I support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Please do not cut organic research and support for beginning
farmers. I know how much better I feel when I eat organic and as a
citizen feel this is too important of an area to cut funds from. It is
bad enough GMO's are not labeled but to take funding away from our
healthy options as citizens should not be allowed and I should have a
right to voice supporting funding to the health of myself and family.
Our children are not science experiments and healthy alternatives to
biotech need to be available and supported.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Anson.
______
Comment of Cheryl Anthony
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 10, 2012, 11:12 a.m.
City, State: Fayetteville, GA
Occupation: Unemployed
Comment: America cannot afford to cut food stamp benefits! So Many
people are still out of work, and barely able to survive. Perhaps the
approval process for receipt of food stamps needs to be re-vamped to
ensure that only those people who are in dire straights receive them,
but cutting food stamps for those who depend in them for their survival
would be devastating for many, many Americans.
______
Comment of Jamie Antone
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:32 p.m.
City, State: Houston, TX
Occupation: Retail
Comment: I support an Organic Farm Bill to stand up for farmers,
eaters and the environment.
If Congress and the current Administration are serious about the
health of America's citizens, our environment and the economic
viability of independently owned family farms, they will:
Implement a $25 billion plan to transition to organic food and
farming production, to make sure that 75 percent of U.S. farms are
U.S.D.A. organic certified by 2025.
Feed organic food to all children enrolled in public school lunch
programs by the year 2020.
Pass a Beginning Farmer and Rancher Bill to place a million new
farmers on the land by 2020.
Link conservation compliance with government-subsidized insurance
programs and create a cutoff so each farm receives government funds for
land only up to 1,000 acres.
______
Comment of Beth Appel
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:53 p.m.
City, State: Chicago, IL
Occupation: Rabbi
Comment: We need a farm bill that supports sustainable agriculture.
We need a farm bill that helps the neediest of this country's citizens
with SNAP benefits. We need a farm bill that prioritizes the production
and distribution of healthy foods.
______
Comment of Sally Applegate-Rodeman
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 12:15 p.m.
City, State: Indianapolis, IN
Occupation: Retired Teacher
Comment: Dear Representative Burton,
As your constituent, I favor a farm bill which makes healthy and
even organic food widely available to Americans. I would like the bill
to support the family farmer and the next generation of farmers. The
bill needs to support farming while protecting the American
environment. No special subsidies or incentives need be given to large
agribusiness concerns such as Monsanto or Bayer. I support the Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative and the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Development Program. Both are relatively inexpensive to
fund, at $30 million and $25 million respectively, and would do much to
improve America. Thank you.
______
Comment of Lisa Arbuckle
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:54 p.m.
City, State: Gilbert, AZ
Occupation: Healthcare
Comment: Mr. Flake:
We cannot allow programs for healthy and organic grains, fruits &
vegetables to be cut. These are exactly the programs that need to have
additional funding. If you want to take money OUT of the budget--take
it from big ag corporations like Monsanto that have killed our soil and
have stolen the soul from the farming industry.
These big ag companies make billions of dollars a year. WHY are we
paying them subsidies? They should be paying all of us in order to
subsidize our health care costs for their poisonous products.
Make no mistake, the politicians who are supporting the big ag
monster will not keep their jobs in the next election. The veil has
been lifted and it's time our politicians are held accountable for
their greed and corrupt dealings.
I fully support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Do The Right Thing. Stand up for People and stand up for our future
on this planet.
______
Comment of Lisa Arends
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:38 p.m.
City, State: Brooklyn, CT
Occupation: Manager
Comment: Please:
Protect our food chains, streams and environment.
Protect and encourage locally grown organic farming.
All human beings should have access to natural foods free of
pesticides, chemicals and genetic modifications.
All food should be properly labeled to allow consumers to
make informed choices to protect themselves from allergic
reactions and cancer causing food additives.
Fully fund conservation programs, such as the Conservation
Stewardship Program, and making sure that enrollment in any new
insurance subsidies are tied directly to compliance with
conservation programs.
Fully fund local agriculture initiatives.
Allow local food processing facilities to minimize
nationwide Salmonella & other food borne illnesses.
Implement Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunities.
Maintain Organic Initiatives.
Endorse honest labeling for all food.
Mandate farm to school initiatives to get locally produced
healthy fruits & vegetables in the hands & mouths of our school
children.
______
Comment of Robert Argue
Date Submitted: Friday, April 27, 2012, 9:16 a.m.
City, State: Bridgman, MI
Occupation: Nonprofit Coordinator
Comment: TEFAP and SNAP are sometimes the only way that children,
low-income parents and senior citizens have anything to eat during the
day. Do not cut these programs.
______
Comment of Alto Arie
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 12:37 p.m.
City, State: Cranston, RI
Occupation: Musician
Comment: Yo, I think that the way our food is produced is whack.
There are chemicals in everything from garlic to grape fruit! I
honestly feel that we should stop all use of pesticides and other crazy
stuff I don't even know about. I am a compassionate Vegan and know that
the dairy-egg-meat industry is ruining the world as we know it and
greatly damaging our health! I think that farmers markets are good
because they grow locally and build communities . . . Plus they are
good for the economy because people can use food stamps to buy
vegetables and fruits . . . This message is meant to support the House
Agriculture Committee and hopefully inspire people to partake in wiser
and more reasonable practices regarding the cultivation, distribution
and promotion of whole organic plant based food sources. If you agree
you have my support 110%.
Be Vegan Make Peace,
Mr. Alto Arie.
______
Comment of Shivani Arjuna
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:20 p.m.
City, State: Belgium, WI
Occupation: Wellness Consultant
Comment: We need REAL reform. Please support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
It would be a terrible mistake to cut $33 billion from the food
stamp program while leaving farm subsidies unscathed and/or spending
$33 billion to guarantee the income of profitable farm businesses.
Cutting funding for organic research and Beginning Farmers is
another terrible idea.
While getting rid of direct payments to commodity farmers, the
subsidized insurance program proposed to replace that would allow giant
commodity farmers and insurance companies to walk away with billions in
taxpayer dollars while putting the land, soil and environment at
greater risk.
We need Real reform!
______
Comment of Andrew Arlt
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:12 a.m.
City, State: St. Paul, MN
Occupation: Teacher (Science)
Comment: As an environmental and science educator in a low-income,
high-needs alternative school, I have seen the effect that limited food
resources for things like school lunch and community food access
programs can have on children and families.
Nutrition programming for schools and communities must be stepped
up if we are going to be able to provide a skills-based change for
hunger. Money for school garden initiatives, community gardening
programs, and local or urban farms must be a priority over subsidizing
and supported agribusiness.
By returning money from corporate agribusiness and reallocating
funds towards smaller scale, family operations, we will be providing
jobs, stability, and food security for a new generation of farmers--
even for those with no family history of farming.
Please help redistribute and fund the local farm and food system in
America!
Sincerely,
Andrew Arlt.
______
Comment of Casey Arman
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:57 a.m.
City, State: Waitsfield, VT
Occupation: Interior Design and Sales
Comment: Please stop supporting and subsidizing big business farms
and predatory corporations like Monsanto. I believe your support and
funding should instead be directed at supporting smaller, locally and
family owned agricultural producers, especially those that operate
using environmentally friendly, sustainable farming practices and
organic growing methods.
______
Comment of Ken Armijo
Date Submitted: Thursday, April 12, 2012, 7:07 p.m.
City, State: Bosque, NM
Occupation: Farmer
Comment: I participate in a food drive every month through the
Saint Vincent de Paul Society and the New Mexico Roadrunner Food Bank.
We donate food for over 100 families living in poverty conditions. The
food we donate is mere subsistence that these hard-working folks from
Veguita, Las Nutrias and La Joya, New Mexico depend on. Please do not
let the TEFAP food fund decrease again. We need this fund.
______
Comment of Katharine Armstrong
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 7:16 p.m.
City, State: Denver, CO
Occupation: Urban Forager
Comment: Let's support the small sustainable family farms and let
the big AgBiz fend for themselves. I do not want my tax dollars to go
for the producers of toxic food-like substances. I want to support the
healthiest ways of producing foods, including healthy for the
environment and the soils.
______
Comment of Robin Armstrong
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:42 p.m.
City, State: Glastonbury, CT
Occupation: Taxpayer
Comment: It is absolutely Criminal that our government allows big
agribusiness to poison our food supply without giving the people so
much as a warning. If GMO foods were as good as the real thing,
corporations should have no issue with simply labeling them. By the
fact that Monsanto threatens to sue the state of Vermont for requiring
labeling is a clear indication that GMO's are poison. Organic farming
can not be threatened by corporate greed. Wake Up and do what is right
for the human race--require GMO farming to be completely isolated so it
does not contaminate the Earth, allow organic farmers to sue
agribusiness for crop contamination if GMOs are not contained, force
agribusiness to pay for the environmental destruction they have caused,
just like big oil and tobacco, and most of all require GMO foods to be
Labelled so that we can make a democratic Choice!
______
Comment of Stanley Armstrong
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:28 p.m.
City, State: Martinez, CA
Occupation: Hardware Store Sales
Comment: Please consider our agriculture future as a gold mine. Our
agriculture needs to keep us strong and healthy. We need to eliminate
toxins from our foods. We need to be responsible with our soil for
future generations to survive.
______
Comment of Susan Armstrong
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 7:57 a.m.
City, State: Hackettstown, NJ
Occupation: Writer
Comment: Organic farming is crucial to the health of our country
and planet. It is a crime that the food supply, obviously essential to
life, is in the hands of chemical companies like Monsanto, a creator of
agent orange and other deadly products. Small sustainable farms, run by
farmers who respect and understand the land as a living organism should
be supported, not criminalized. Many countries do not even allow GMO's
yet in the so called land of the free, we are fighting for the simple
right to label these poisons.
``A society that no longer recognizes that Nature and Human
Life have a sacred dimension and an intrinsic value beyond a
monetary value commits collective suicide.'' Hedges
Thank you and please allow your humanity to speak instead of your
bottom line.
______
Comment of Vivienne Armstrong
Date Submitted: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 5:31 p.m.
City, State: Dallas, TX
Occupation: Registered Nurse
Comment: I am a registered nurse at The Visiting Nurse Association
of Texas. I see senior citizens struggling to meet their daily
nutritional needs. I recall some who have gotten only a sack of potato
chips and a can of high sodium soup from a food bank! With traditional
food streams declining, the area agencies continue to find it difficult
to meet the needs of our community, despite the improvement of the
economy. We need a strong farm bill to make sure that we can put food
on the table for those that are still struggling. I ask that you pass a
farm bill that protects and strengthens programs like TEFAP, SNAP, and
CSFP. These programs are a lifeline to people struggling with hunger in
your district, and I urge you to make them a priority in the next farm
bill.
______
Comment of Wanda Armstrong
Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 08, 2012, 2:35 p.m.
City, State: Orlando, FL
Occupation: Supportive Housing Specialist
Comment: I help a great deal of homeless in the Orange County area.
I would hate to know that food is not available for most of them to
eat. Without TEFAF foods I know we could not stay open for them.
______
Comment of Gail Arnold
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 8:02 p.m.
City, State: Watertown, MA
Occupation: School Teacher
Comment: Dear Representative Markey, I had the pleasure of meeting
you at an event with Nancy Pelosi 2 weeks ago.
I won't take much of your time, but I do hope that you support the
farm bill, particularly the need to support small farmers and to
consider the nutritional needs of children and allow substantial
funding for programs that promote healthy food choices for children
(and adults).
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Gail Arnold.
______
Comment of Laura Arnold
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:29 p.m.
City, State: San Diego, CA
Occupation: Business Owner--Recruiting
Comment: Citizens need to have the right to know what they are
eating and have a choice to purchase `certified' Organic without
exposure to GMO contamination.
______
Comment of Matt Arns
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:17 p.m.
City, State: Evans, CO
Occupation: Analyst
Comment: The farm bill should be used to help local farmers produce
enough food to sport their communities, not to subsidize monopolistic
multibillion-dollar agribusiness giants that are more interested in
magnifying the petrochemical market than in actually producing food of
the quality and quantity needed to sustain the American people, while
also keeping our land fertile and sustainable for future generations.
______
Comment of Adam Aronson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:54 p.m.
City, State: New York, NY
Occupation: Education Professional
Comment: It is important to me that the value of organic farming be
recognized in the next version of the farm bill. It will not only help
promote small farmers for making a sustainable wage, but also ensure
healthier options for families.
______
Comment of Nancy Arpin
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 9:15 a.m.
City, State: Ludlow, MA
Occupation: Information Technology Analyst
Comment: The time has come to truly reform our farming industry in
the U.S. it is a sad state when I would feel more comfortable feeding
my children food from other countries because I know that they require
clear labeling identifying important information about the food, such
as containing GMO's.
Our government makes decisions that are in the favor of giant
lobbyist agriculture biotech companies when it should be acting on
behalf of its citizens. Anyone in their right mind can understand that
a chemical company should not be leading our farming industry. It
doesn't make sense.
It is also sad to know that in order to feed my family food that
will not keep me awake at night means that I have to put myself into
the poor house to purchase pricey organic foods. We should be
supporting organic farming methods, not methods that are laden with
pesticides, herbicides, and all the like, that are putting our health,
our children, and our environment at detrimental risk!
Please do the right thing.
______
Comment of Melissa Arra
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 9:24 a.m.
City, State: Brooklyn, NY
Occupation: Freelance Artist
Comment: I would like to see greater support for small and mid-
sized farms, especially those producing organic foods and practicing
sustainable farming methods.
I would like to see fewer subsidies going to large agri and factory
farms and more subsidies going to smaller farms--family owned and
cooperatives.
I'd also like increased support for our farmers using less
pesticides/herbicides and chemicals. I believe these farmers are
producing healthier more nutritious foods and ensuring a cleaner planet
that will sustain generations to come versus. contributing to the
overwhelming amount of chemicals that are currently used in many
farming practices.
______
Comment of Alice Artzt
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:49 a.m.
City, State: Princeton, NJ
Occupation: Classical Musician
Comment: Stop letting farmers use pesticides that are killing bees
and other pollinators. Stop the use of GMO crops--or at least label
them so we can avoid eating toxic stuff. Stop feeding GMO crops to farm
animals rendering them unfit to eat also. Stop helping and subsidizing
big factory farmers and start helping the little organic family farms.
______
Comment of LTC Mark Arvidson
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 1:24 a.m.
City, State: Eagle River, AK
Occupation: Retired Army, Building Home/Landscape
Comment: As a former emergency preparedness officer (WMD-CST) for
the U.S. Army, and an agricultural advocate, I firmly believe the U.S.
should ensure that food security is a priority. This is especially
important here in Alaska, where we support local agricultural
initiatives such as Alaska Grown, local farmers' markets, urban
agriculture and the recent initiatives in Fairbanks such as Resilient
Alaska and vertical farming. It is critical to maintain biodiversity
and to shorten the distance from farm to table.
Kind Regards,
Mark Arvidson, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired).
______
Comment of Elicia Arwen
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:05 p.m.
City, State: Boulder, CO
Occupation: Psychotherapist
Comment: I believe small organic farms should be encouraged and
supported by the United States government. Organic and sustainable
farming should be the future of farming in this country. Beginning
farmers practicing organic and sustainable farming should also be
supported.
______
Comment of Jasmin Arzate
Date Submitted: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 4:04 p.m.
City, State: Albuquerque, NM
Occupation: School Counselor
Comment: Our school's population is a very high-needs and poverty
is a huge issue; the roadrunner food boxes have been a huge benefit to
our students and it would be a tremendous loss to not receive them
anymore or even to cut the amount we receive--many students do not have
food in the house and rely on the meals at school for nourishment; the
food boxes allow them to have something to eat, while their parents (if
in the picture) can focus their funds on paying rent or utilities.
Please do not consider decreasing the funding to the Roadrunner Food
Bank--they serve a huge population that many benefit from!
______
Comment of John Asadourian
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:00 p.m.
City, State: Prescott, AZ
Occupation: Carpenter
Comment: In order to make no-till agriculture work, you have to get
the feedback from those in the industry who are applying the chemicals
and know from their own health concerns, there must be other options.
By enhancing soil bacteria with fulvic and humic acid, the no-till soil
approach can still work but with a sustainable spin. Whomever in the
House is looking at these comments, do you feed your family only
organic produce and meat products? Thanks for your time.
______
Comment of Muareen Ash
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:08 p.m.
City, State: River Falls, WI
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Field Crops
Size: 151-300 acres
Comment: I continually hear that organic agriculture is inefficient
and cannot feed the world. Conventional agriculture is not doing it,
either. Why is it so heavily subsidized through research institutions
such as our local college? We organic farmers had to teach each other.
That is just one way in which industrial ag gets a break.
______
Comment of Evelyn Asher
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 8:39 p.m.
City, State: Bloomfield, NY
Occupation: Health Care
Comment: Continuing to force-feed Americans herbicide and pesticide
laden produce, devoid of essential nutrients, and meats loaded with
antibiotics, hormones and other toxic ingredients, while harassing
farmers who produce healthy, clean and nutrition foods is a criminal
act beyond imagination. If enemies were sneaking these toxic
ingredients into our food supply, it would be considered a terrorist
act, so why should our own industrial farmers be allowed to make us all
sick? If you don't start protecting Americans from the travesty of
industrial farming, Americans will not have much of a future. We Need
Sustainable, Chemical-Free Agriculture. Protect Our Small Farms From
Monsanto And Other Big-Ag Bullies!
American Consumers Want Clean Nutritious, Organic Food And ``Yes''
It Is Possible To Produce This On A Large Scale. The World Health
Organization Agrees. Check It Out!
______
Comment of Margaret Ashley
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:30 p.m.
City, State: Cambridge, MA
Occupation: Nurse
Comment: Please support small family farms and organic farms.
Support programs that teach children and parents about good nutrition
and fresh whole foods.
______
Comment of Gerrard Ashton
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 4:11 p.m.
City, State: Everett, WA
Occupation: Unemployed
Comment: There is absolutely no doubt that America is in the worst
health crisis this world has ever seen--with preventable diseases. With
highly processed, high calorie, nutritionally bankrupt foods, you will
never solve this problem. Also, more drugs, more research and surgeries
will never solve the problem. People don't have medication
deficiencies, they do have nutritional deficiencies. The only way to
ever get ahead of it, is with locally grown, fresh, Affordable
unprocessed organic food. Every family I talk to tells me that produce
is too expensive, they end up feeding their family 6 days a week at
fast food restaurants. Yes, pretty much all of them are overweight and
suffering health problems. I ask them if produce and whole food were
more affordable if they would change their diet, and every one of them
says yes.
We need to get every American off the S.A.D. (standard American
diet) diet!
______
Comment of Janice Ashwood
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:58 p.m.
City, State: Vermont, IL
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Field Crops, Livestock
Size: 1,000+ acres
Comment: I am in total agreement with Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack. Agrinews (May 18, 2012) He is talking about the tremendous
opportunities agriculture presents ``there's no better calling to be
able to improve the environment of this country, to make sure we
continue to have the soil that allows us to have this rich diversity of
agricultural production, to be able to clean up the waters of our
country . . . .''
When writing this farm bill consider our environment, our soil and
most of all, our most precious commodity, our water.
______
Comment of Michael Askew
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:49 p.m.
City, State: Dallas, TX
Occupation: Marketing Professional and Organic Consumer
Comment: Please support the crucial area of organic farming and
produce. Do not cut research or other funding for this as it is crucial
to our generation and the next ones.
Thank you.
Michael Askew.
______
Submitted Statement by Association of Kansas Food Banks
Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this statement for the record on behalf of the
Kansas Food Bank, Harvesters--The Community Food Network and Second
Harvest Community Food Bank, which are the Feeding America food banks
serving Kansas.
On behalf of the nearly 200,000 Kansans we serve each year, we urge
you to protect and strengthen Federal nutrition programs in the
upcoming farm bill
Our three food banks collectively serve every county in the state.
We represent the state's network of emergency food providers, which
includes nearly 400 emergency food pantries, soup kitchens and
shelters. We serve nearly 200,000 people in need in Kansas annually and
work closely with Kansas' farmers, processors, retailers, schools,
churches, community organizations, and the public sector to meet the
needs of the hungry in our state.
The demand for food assistance has increased significantly during
the recession, and Kansas' network of food banks, church pantries, soup
kitchens and other local agencies are stretched thin trying to keep up
with requests for assistance. Our three food banks and our local
partner agencies have seen a significant increase (approximately 40%)
in the number of people turning to our network for assistance since
2008. Many of us are barely able to keep up with current demand, let
alone serve even more people seeking food for their families if they
lose Federal nutrition assistance.
Federal nutrition programs provide a lifeline for low-income
families struggling to make ends meet. Local charities could not
provide current levels of food assistance without support from The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). In addition to emergency feeding,
many of us also work to connect eligible clients with the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) when they are in need of more than
the short-term, emergency food assistance we provide. We suggest the
following in the 2012 Farm Bill:
Policy Recommendations:
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): TEFAP is a means-
tested Federal program that provides food commodities at no cost to
Americans in need of short-term hunger relief through organizations
like food banks, pantries, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters.
Nutritious food commodities provided through TEFAP are an essential
resource for Feeding America food banks. As the demand for food remains
high at food banks across the country, a continuous stream of TEFAP
commodities is necessary for the provision of a steady emergency food
supply.
TEFAP commodities account for approximately 25% of the food
moving through Feeding America food banks. Food banks combine
TEFAP with private donations to maximize TEFAP benefits far
beyond the budgeted amount for the program. In this way, food
banks exemplify an optimum model of public-private partnership.
TEFAP has a strong impact on the farm economy. According to
the USDA's Economic Research Service, producers of commodities
provided as bonus TEFAP (those purchased by the USDA to
intervene in weak agricultural markets) receive an estimated
85 cents per dollar of Federal expenditure. Producers of other
commodities provided through TEFAP receive about 27 cents per
dollar. By contrast, only about 16 cents of every retail food
dollar goes back to the farmer.
Declines in Section 32 funding and strong agriculture
markets resulted in a nearly 30% decline ($173 million) in
TEFAP purchases during FY 2011. This decline is expected to
continue in FY 2012 as food banks struggle to meet increased
need. The shortfall between supply and demand will only worsen
when the SNAP ARRA benefit boost expires, as many participants
turn to food banks to make up for the reduction in benefit
levels.
TEFAP Administrative funding supports the storage,
transportation and distribution of TEFAP commodities, providing
food banks and partner agencies with the resources to get
emergency food assistance to those in need. Fuel prices
increased by 26.4% in 2011, on top of an 18.4% increase in
2010, significantly increasing the costs of transporting and
distributing commodities and decreasing the purchasing power of
these funds.
As food banks serve a growing number of clients, TEFAP
Infrastructure Grants support the infrastructure needed to
ensure effective and efficient delivery of TEFAP foods. In FY
2010, USDA had at least four times as many applicants for these
grants as they had funding to award, demonstrating the need for
infrastructure support.
Farm Bill Priorities for TEFAP:
Increase funding for mandatory TEFAP to better reflect the
need for emergency food assistance.
Clarify the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to purchase
bonus commodities in times of high need for emergency food
relief in addition to times of low commodity prices so the
program is responsive both to excess supply and excess demand.
Reauthorize funding for TEFAP Administrative funding at $100
million per year and rename it TEFAP Storage and Distribution
Funds to accurately reflect the funding's purpose.
Reauthorize funding for TEFAP Infrastructure Grants at $15
million per year.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): SNAP is the
cornerstone of the nutrition safety net, providing more than 46 million
low-income participants with monthly benefits via a grocery debit card.
Eligibility is based on household income and assets and is subject to
work and citizenship requirements. SNAP is one of the most responsive
safety net programs, expanding quickly to meet the rising need during
the recession. The program is targeted at our most vulnerable; 76% of
SNAP households contain a child, senior, or disabled member, and 84% of
all benefits go to these households.
As the number of people unemployed grew 94% from 2007 to
2010, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over
the same period. As the economy slowly recovers and
unemployment begins to fall, SNAP participation and costs, too,
can be expected to decline.
The SNAP accuracy rate of 96.19% (FY10) is at an all-time
program high. SNAP error rates declined by 61% from FY 1999 to
FY 2010, from 9.86% to a record low of 3.81%.
SNAP benefits supplement a household's food budget but are
insufficient to last most participants through the month,
causing many participants to rely regularly on food banks.
Among Feeding America food pantry clients receiving SNAP
benefits, over \1/2\ (58%) reported having visited a food
pantry at least 6 months or more during the prior year.
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of
$731 and countable resources of $333, consists of 2.2 persons,
and participates in the program for 9 months. The average
household receives a monthly benefit of $287, or about $1.49
per person per meal.
Farm Bill Priorities for SNAP:
Protect SNAP by opposing proposals to cap or reduce funding,
restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, or otherwise impede
access or benefit adequacy. Recent proposals to block grant the
program would prevent it from responding effectively to
fluctuations in need, and efforts to limit broad-based
categorical eligibility would increase administrative costs and
access barriers.
Restore the cut to the SNAP ARRA benefit boost used to pay
for the 2010 child nutrition bill and phase out the boost in a
way that protects families from a cliff in benefit levels.
Encourage better nutrition by maintaining nutrition
education, incentivizing the purchase of healthy foods, and
ensuring that retailer standards balance adequate access to
stores with access to a range of healthy foods and moderate
prices.
Build on SNAP's strong record of integrity and payment
accuracy by issuing guidance to states on the eligibility of
lottery winners and college students and upgrading resources
and technology for trafficking prevention.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP): CSFP leverages
government buying power to provide nutritious food packages to
approximately 599,000 low-income people each month. Nearly 97% of
program participants are seniors with incomes of less than 130% of the
poverty line (approximately $14,000 for a senior living alone).
Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia participate in CSFP.
Another six states (CT, HI, ID, MD, MA, & RI) have USDA-approved plans,
but have not yet received appropriations to begin service.
CSFP is an efficient and effective program. While the cost
to the USDA to purchase commodities for this package of food is
about $20 per month, the average retail value of the foods in
the package is $50.
CSFP helps to combat the poor health conditions often found
in seniors who are experiencing food insecurity and are at risk
of hunger. CSFP food packages, specifically designed to
supplement nutrients typically lacking in participants' diets
like protein, iron, and zinc, can play an important role in
addressing the nutrition needs of low-income seniors.
Many seniors participating in CSFP are able to have their
food boxes delivered directly to their homes or to senior
centers nearby, an important benefit for those who are
homebound, have limited mobility or do not have convenient
access to a grocery store.
Farm Bill Priorities for CSFP:
Transition CSFP to a seniors-only program while
grandfathering in current participants to promote greater
efficiencies and recognize CSFP's evolution to serving a
primarily senior population.
For a growing numbers of Americans, food banks are the only
resource standing between them being able to put food on the family
dinner table or going to bed with an empty stomach. However, the
charitable food assistance network alone cannot meet the needs of these
families. It is only through our public-private partnership with the
Federal Government through programs like TEFAP and CSFP and sustained
support for SNAP and other programs in the nutrition safety net that we
can make real strides in the fight against hunger.
As Congress drafts the next farm bill, we ask you to remember the
families in Kansas who are facing hunger and the important role that
nutrition programs play in their health and well-being, especially for
vulnerable children and seniors. We are continuing to explore
opportunities to enhance support for Federal nutrition programs through
programmatic or policy innovations, and look forward to working with
you as you review the title IV nutrition programs and begin the work of
crafting the next farm bill. Congress must keep the nutritional safety
net strong--the health of our communities depends on it.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Walker,
President & CEO,
Kansas Food Bank;
Karen Haren,
President & CEO,
Harvesters--The Community Food Network;
David Davenport,
Executive Director,
Second Harvest Community Food Bank.
______
Comment of Mark Atherlay
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:44 p.m.
City, State: Los Angeles, CA
Occupation: Voiceover Actor
Comment: PLEASE allow farmers the dignity of doing what they do
best, Farming! (Without Agri-Business interfering and squeezing them
out of business.) We the People demand it!
______
Comment of Mary Atkinson
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:16 a.m.
City, State: Richmond, VA
Occupation: Working Artist--Painter
Comment: Enough of Big Ag . . . our food becomes more and more
frightening, toxic and lacking in cleanliness. Please support small
farms and organic farms,
Mary Atkinson.
______
Comment of Gurunam Atwal
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:52 p.m.
City, State: Eugene, OR
Occupation: Student
Comment: We all deserve to eat healthy, wholesome, organic food
that nourishes our bodies. Would you feed your children this food? It
is important to maintain a food system that listens to the natural
ecosystem that has been functioning on its own for centuries before we
came along. We must work hard to maintain a food system that grows food
as close to the natural ecosystems as possible.
______
Comment of Frances Aubrey
Date Submitted: Friday, May 04, 2012, 9:58 p.m.
City, State: Kensington, CA
Occupation: Artist and Writer
Comment: I eat only local, organic meat and produce. In order to
reduce our country's dependence on oil, we must support small farmers,
especially organic farmers. We should not subsidize huge agribusinesses
which ruin the soil with chemicals. We must move toward food
independence on a local level, and not rely on produce and meat flown
in from other countries.
______
Comment of Marisha Auerbach
Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 11:04 a.m.
City, State: Portland, OR
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Other
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: Diverse farms based on the principles of nature support
healthy community ecosystems. Please encourage closed system design
where the soil is built onsite using natural processes like composting
and strategies for attracting diverse pollinators into the field. The
strength and resilience of our national food system comes from tending
to our soils for long term stability.
______
Comment of Darcy Augello
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:11 p.m.
City, State: Doylestown, PA
Occupation: Bookkeeper
Comment: I have been a grower of Organic Vegetables for over 15
years and Organic Free Range Egg. Given the extensive amount of
information that is now readily available to the Average American it is
imperative that a farm bill is created with conservation and support
for organic and sustainable agriculture as it's number one priority.
The American People will stand for nothing less.
______
Comment of Richard Aulicino
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:36 p.m.
City, State: Lake George, NY
Occupation: Holistic Dentist
Comment: Farm policy must favor small farms, organic farms = health
of the population. GMO and Monsanto like progress is at the expense of
human life which is subservient to profit. The more I find out about
health and food the more greed seems to come up versus respect for
nature and each other and the animals. We are part of this Earth and it
will take care of us as we care for it. Small farms and organic farms
are key.
______
Comment of Rick Auman
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 4:37 p.m.
City, State: Las Vegas, NV
Occupation: Web Developer
Comment: Small farms help America in so many ways: most use
sustainable practices, keeping the soil from being devastated from
nutrients and holding pollutants/toxins down.
______
Comment of Carol Austin
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:32 p.m.
City, State: Bellingham, WA
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Livestock
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: Do you think you can hold off on helping giant
corporations make us sick and kill us with their bad practices, and
actually work for the people who elected you? Oh wait, I forget that
getting rich helping giant corporations is what most politicians do.
Then after you let them make us sick, you can hand us over to the
health care and insurance corporations so they can finish milking all
our money out of us before we die. Thus insuring that there is nothing
left to pass to our children. That's the American way all right--the
politicians and corporations get it all while the 99% end up with
nothing.
______
Comment of Lesley Austin
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:08 p.m.
City, State: Burlington, VA
Occupation: Homemaker, Entrepreneur
Comment: It is very simple, please start to care more about the
Earth and the farmers and the animals than corporate greed and power.
Please acknowledge the connections between the way the Earth is tended
and the health of our food, our people, our land. It is so clear to see
that far too many decisions in farm policy are made to placate the huge
companies and their desire to hold on to and grow their profits rather
than protect and support small farmers, who ought to be the at the
heart of our farm policy.
How I wish Thomas Jefferson was here to eloquently remind you of
the importance of holding our country's agricultural health higher than
the seeking of more monetary wealth for the pockets of a comparative
few.
Please do the right thing!
______
Comment of Richard Austin
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 7:13 p.m.
City, State: Rio Frio, TX
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: I am in support of an Organic Farm Bill that protects and
subsidizes small, organic family farms and removes support from large
agribusinesses. This change is vital for the health of all Americans.
______
Comment of Shelly Austin
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:08 p.m.
City, State: Newbury Park, CA
Occupation: Planner
Comment: Please help protect organic farms and the health of the
American. We need small, sustainable farms to be given government
assistance--not big agricultural companies who are taking the nutrition
out of our food and making us fat!
______
Comment of Annemarie Avanti
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 09, 2012, 6:01 p.m.
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Occupation: Retired Director of Social Services
Comment: As a former director of programs for Seniors, I've
witnessed firsthand retired elders choosing between paying for their
medicine, housing and food. I've witnessed some who've chosen to eat
canned pet food so they could afford to pay all their bills. At one
point in my career, I oversaw a daily evening meals program for the
hungry. A majority of those eating dinner, were elderly citizens whose
retirement income did not support regular healthy nutrition.
These situations are a travesty in our country. Poor nutrition for
seniors only increases our country's Medicare bills. Cutting the (SNAP)
food stamp program, (TEFAP)emergency food assistance program, and
(CSFP) food boxes for seniors, will leave millions of seniors hungry.
Please protect these programs and fund them to their fullest
capacity.
Thank you.
______
Comment of Roberta Avidor
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:59 a.m.
City, State: Minneapolis, MN
Occupation: Illustrator
Comment: We must support family farms that use environmentally
benign methods of cultivation. The health of our soils is of utmost
importance not only for the environment, but for human health as well.
Big Ag depends far too much on harmful pesticides, herbicides and huge
amounts of petroleum for arguably dubious products.
______
Comment of Frank Ayers
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 9:41 p.m.
City, State: Hollidaysburg, PA
Occupation: Automotive
Comment: I would like to see the shift toward organic farming as
much as possible. This is a much safer method of farming in regards to
the farmers and farm workers. It also produces a safer product for the
end consumer (the public), especially with regards to children.
I believe the Federal government should take an active role in
persuading pesticide manufacturers to make the gradual transition to
producing primarily organic pesticides. The manufacturers would still
maintain their sales and profits, and meanwhile it would make the
environment safer as well as creating safer, land sustainable farming.
Thanks.
Frank Ayers.
______
Comment of Harold Ayers
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 03, 2012, 1:37 p.m.
City, State: Gainesville, TX
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Livestock
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: With a all-time low approval rating, you sink to an all
new low. Shame on you. This is without a doubt, the most ridiculous
bill that I know of to even be up for debate. Why is this even tabled
still? This should be a no-brainer. No!
______
Comment of Carol Ayoob
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 9:05 a.m.
City, State: Presque Isle, ME
Occupation: Community Organizer, Artist, Musician
Comment: Please Do The Right Thing for our health, our children,
and the future of this planet! Support local organic farms--by funding
best practices--and not funding BiG interests! I am appalled to find
such lack of respect for the integrity of farmers who practice Real
farming! Index prices not to one standard, but relative to food! This
is all too complicated to write here and I resent your lack of long-
term planning for a sustainable future.
______
Comment of Benoit Azagoh-Kouadio
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:20 a.m.
City, State: South Dartmouth, MA
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Fruits, Livestock, Poultry/poultry products, Vegetables
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: Dear House Committee on Agriculture,
It has reached my attention the presently the farm bill is being
redrafted. As a recent member of a small scale agricultural production
team, I would like to express some of the reservations that I have
about the nature the upcoming bill and what I understand to be a
continuation of the entrenched sheltering of industrial agriculture
through large scale subsidies and insurance waivers. I believe that
there is enough evidence to show that the proliferation of the
industrial agriculture model has gone a long way toward negatively
impacting farmers and the wealth of actual local farm based economies.
Furthermore by flooding the grocery market with a base of cheaply
available highly processed monocultural ingredients (soy, corn, beef,
etc.) this model of business is contributing to the increasing public
health and chronic disease epidemic in this country. As a legislative
body is your job to be open to understanding the cause and effect
relationship of policymaking and to steer the direction and energy of
regulation towards the health of this people. We can no longer ignore
the ramifications of continuing this industrial cycle and need to find
a way to realize a shift significantly towards productions models that
encourage contribution to localized economy and direct support to
farmers using permacultural and organic methods. I strongly urge you to
do so by fully endorsing such provision as he Local Foods, Farms and
Jobs Act, the Conservation Stewardship Program, the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act, and the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Thank you.
______
Comment of Tatiana B.
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:50 a.m.
City, State: Los Angeles, CA
Occupation: Physical Therapist
Comment: I believe our strength, independence and health as a
nation greatly relies on how we manage our food supply and the quality
of food we produce. Please consider supporting small family-run and
organic farms instead of subsidizing large industry farms.
As the committee considers the 2012 Food and Farm Bill, I urge you
to:
Support our fight against hunger by maintaining and
strengthening critical nutrition programs in this time of
unprecedented need. We must not solve our budget problems on
the backs of those experiencing food insecurity, including our
most vulnerable--our children, the elderly, and the disabled;
Provide an even ``plowing'' field by fully funding programs
that support beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers, organic farming, regional farm and food economies,
and rural development. We need more farmers and ranchers, more
sustainable food production, and more economic opportunity in
our food system;
Support family farmers that really need help, not the
biggest farms that don't: End subsidies (aka direct payments
and countercyclical commodity programs), and replace them with
loophole-free agriculture risk coverage. Additionally,
implement a cap on crop insurance premium subsidies;
Ensure that limited conservation funding maximizes lasting
environmental benefits: Limit funds to Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for animal waste management
infrastructure by eliminating the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) Livestock Set-aside and protect the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) from disproportionate
cuts, and improve it by ranking applications solely on their
conservation benefits.
______
Comment of Yvonne Babb
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:07 p.m.
City, State: Bend, OR
Occupation: Teacher, Science, Agriculture, Naturalist
Comment: Dear Representative Walden;
Please do your best to balance the long term needs of sustainable
agriculture when voting on the attached bills.
Tell Congress that you support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
We must keep the research on organic farming and ranching
practices, which are essential to solving the problems which are caused
by large scale practices which do not mimic nature. The problems with
bees, pesticides and antibiotics in meat are not remedied by old
thinking. We need the environmentalists and farmers/ranchers to work
together to solve problems with the best interest of the human in mind.
Thank you,
Yvonne Babb.
______
Comment of Michelle Babin
Date Submitted: Sunday, March 25, 2012, 7:06 p.m.
City, State: Sutton, MA
Occupation: Dietetic Intern/Student
Comment: March 25, 2012
To whom it may concern,
As a concerned citizen who takes pride in our country's land,
commodities and overall health of our nation, I would like to voice my
gratitude and encouragement for the 2012 Farm Bill. As a future
registered dietitian, I have had the rewarding opportunity to witness
first-hand how the farm bill has truly made a difference in people's
lives as well as my own personal life. I was fortunate enough to work
at a local WIC office in rural North Carolina for a few weeks. To be
honest, I was never a strong proponent of food stamps and many other
government-funded programs, but my opinion has definitely been altered.
I was not very familiar with WIC and what the program actually
entailed. As I learned the ins and outs, I realized that this program
was properly developed to truly meet the needs of lower income families
who honestly need the help. The fact that this program requires
quarterly health checks for not only the infants and children but also
the mothers, gives this program a lot of credibility. Not everyone is
able to qualify for this program. It is a give and take process, in
which the client needs to put in some effort and if they follow
through, they will be rewarded.
I met a few families who outwardly seemed to be making ends meet,
but in reality were facing some very difficult times. Some families who
had it all only a few months ago, were now scrounging for a way to
provide for their children. Many of these people were hard working,
honest people who were hit hard by the depressed economy. Seeing their
faces light up when we explained that they were qualified and what that
truly meant was gratifying. This program does not have the funding to
provide a lot for these families, thusly why it is called a
supplemental program. Its purpose is to help lighten the burden
significantly, provide the necessities. After this experience, I am a
true proponent for this nutrition program and pray that it may continue
into the future.
On a lighter note, growing up I was fortunate enough to live in a
small New England town. I cannot see into my neighbor's house or can a
throw a baseball and hit it. We have land; beautiful lush land. My
father has kept a large garden in our backyard since I was a child,
something I have truly missed now that I am on my own. I have been very
blessed to grow up in an amazing part of the country. Much of the
industry in our town is agriculture based; therefore, I know just how
important it is for our farmers to have proper representation within
our government.
One of the major local agricultural spots is a dairy farm. I
personal know the family and have witnessed firsthand what a depressed
economy can do to their business. Not only is their family affected,
but also the whole community hurts with them. It is so crucial that our
farmers and agricultural workers have proper support so that even in
hard times, they will have someone to lean on if need be. These are
some of the hardest working people you will ever meet. You know they
will do anything they possibly can first before having to ask the
government for aid. These are the honest, true Americans who have
sustained this nation for hundreds of years; therefore, there should be
no hesitation when it comes to providing a strong backbone for them if
they ever need to rely on it.
It is evident that this farm bill lies true and dear to my heart
and always will. My future career relies heavily on this bill and
without this funding; I can honestly say that it will be a devastating
lost to millions of people. This is not just some small bill looking
for some fame in Washington; this bill has the potential to change
millions of peoples' lives. We all need and rely on food; therefore,
everyone in this country will be affected if this bill does not receive
adequate funding. I will continue to advocate in honor of this bill and
know I have hundreds of friends, family and co-workers who will do the
same. Thank you for this opportunity, stay strong and together we can
make this happen.
Thank you,
Michelle Babin,
Dietetic Intern.
______
Comment of Lia Babitch
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:22 p.m.
City, State: Copake, NY
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Vegetables
Size: 301-500 acres
Comment: It's time for real reform that does not favor huge farms
that have damaging environmental and social practices, but makes the
marketplace fair and reasonable for all farmers, and doesn't favor
size. Small farms, like other small businesses, where the jobs are, if
small farmers aren't discriminated against, and struggling to survive.
It's also time to stop subsidizing unhealthy foods, while people
growing the things we should be eating can hardly make ends meet, and
the cheapest food is the worst for us all, and making us fat and sick,
and costing us lots of money in healthcare.
______
Comment of Bonnie Bach-Mitchell
Date Submitted: Saturday, April 28, 2012, 8:17 a.m.
City, State: Cincinnati, OH
Occupation: Artist/Writer & Activist
Comment: Farming is a hard profession. They need all the help and
assistance they can get--stop messing around w/ the farming people--
they need your help--and after all--they vote too! Please don't mess
them up--protect `farming' what do we have left? They are the people of
the Earth! They feed the rest of us too!
Bonnie Bach-Mitchell.
______
Comment of Peggy Backup
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:25 p.m.
City, State: Redwood Valley, CA
Occupation: Plant Pathologist
Comment: I am a former farmer and current backyard and community
gardener. We no longer need commodity crops to be subsidized, and we
can't afford them. We need to grow more fruit, vegetables, nuts, and we
need to do it locally and sustainably. Put the farm bill money into
helping local communities regain their food security, helping farmers
take care of the environment, and creating a more healthy diet for all
of us.
______
Comment of Crystal Bacon
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:58 p.m.
City, State: Bryn Mawr, PA
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: Please do what's right to protect our land, air and water
by putting money into small, ecologically viable and responsible farms
producing organic, local food. We have the capacity to feed all of our
people and protect our land. No more agribusiness and factory farms!
______
Comment of David Bacon
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 2:11 p.m.
City, State: Santa Fe, NM
Occupation: Energy Consultant
Comment: Healthy, thriving family farms and ranches is not a left/
right issue, it is a human survival issue. Here's hoping our corporate
congress critters can pull out of the mega ag gravity field to do the
right thing for every single American, plus our precious soil and
water.
______
Comment of Pat Bacon
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:26 a.m.
City, State: Milan, NH
Occupation: Registered Nurse
Comment: It is a travesty that in America our farmed food sources
are horror's. The treatment of the farm animals is absolutely beyond
belief. How can these people do the things they do? Please make big
changes and make America a country to be proud of in it's treatment of
all animals and livestock.
______
Comment of Taylor Bacon
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:13 p.m.
City, State: Tempe, AZ
Occupation: Student in School of Design
Comment: It is required that the ingredients be labeled on prepared
foods. Truth is, those ingredients listed are worthless without knowing
the ingredients or the makeup of those ingredients. I have dealt with
many illnesses because of a lack of integrity in foods. I am not even
referring to fast food, prepared or packaged food. I am referring to
``whole food'' supposedly ``unadulterated'' foods in the produce
department. Not to say that all of my health issues are strictly a
result of modified products, however, it certainly initiated and
prolonged my extensive digestive and hormone issues. Please, help put
the fear I have for my children, family, and future generations at ease
by at least labeling the source and treatment methods of the foods
currently on the shelves. It is common knowledge we as consumers
deserve to know. If there is a concern that people will not but the
products if they are labeled with such information, then the argument
would be that they should not be sold for human consumption and
nourishment to begin with. Thank you! I do hope that you hear me, at
just 21 years of age, and my plea to simply be informed not only for my
own sake, but to save future generations and teach health and food's
purpose nourish.
______
Comment of Willard Bacon
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:31 p.m.
City, State: Newport News, VA
Occupation: Retired Federal Civil Service Employee
Comment: You people are suppose to be looking out for the health
and safety of the foods we Americans consume. You are negligent and
remiss in fulfilling your responsibilities. Big Money has bought and
paid for you and your decisions. It's high time all of you were fired.
Trained monkeys could do a better job.
As Americans paying your salaries, we have the right to know what
we are eating and whether or not it has been genetically modified or
genetically manipulated. It should be up to us whether or not we want
to buy and consume products so created.
______
Comment of Birke Baehr
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:21 p.m.
City, State: Knoxville, TN
Occupation: Student, Youth Advocate, Future Organic Farmer
Comment: I am writing to ask that more funding is given to small
farmers who are organic or in transition to organic. The future of
agriculture needs to go back to taking care of the soil and growing
organic nutrient dense food without genetically modified organisms
(seeds, etc.) Funding should go to help farmers with pasture based
livestock and even growing non-GMO and organic supplemental feed for
poultry and pork. I speak to groups all the time who tell me that this
is what they want from American agriculture. We need more small local
Biodiverse farms and less monocultures.
______
Comment of Patricia Baehr
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:26 p.m.
City, State: Knoxville, TN
Occupation: Stay-at-Home Mother
Comment: I urge the support of organic farming research to continue
and grow in addition to assist beginning farmers to get started to
continue to grow local food systems. We need more biodiverse farms
growing chemical free food locally for the future of this country and
the health of our children. I support less funding for chemical
agriculture including genetically modified and genetically engineered
livestock and seeds and more for organics.
______
Comment of Nancy Baer
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 11:47 a.m.
City, State: Pickens, SC
Occupation: Health Care Administrator
Comment: I know my tea party congressman Jeff Duncan will be all
about cutting spending in the wrong places. Stop subsidies to
agribusiness conglomerates and CAFOs and take steps to support small
farmers and local production by fully funding programs that support
beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, organic
farming, regional farm and food economies, and rural development. We
need more farmers and ranchers, more sustainable food production, and
more economic opportunity in our food system.
______
Comment of Ron Baginski
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:13 p.m.
City, State: Cleveland, OH
Occupation: Marketing
Comment: Stop all crop subsidies and let the market decide what is
best. All GMO crops and foods must be labeled clearly on all products
so consumers make the choice.
______
Comment of Hayley Bagwell
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 4:33 p.m.
City, State: Longmont, CO
Occupation: Health Care Industry
Comment: We deserve to have the information we need to make
educated decisions about our food! We also deserve to be able to
support farmers and agriculture that is honest, healthy and safe; not
corrupt and bullied. Label it and let us decide!
______
Comment of Freddah Bahl
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:11 p.m.
City, State: Marietta, GA
Occupation: Retail (Grocery Store)
Comment: I've been a ``health nut'' for many years. It's disgusting
to see all the CRAP that is allowed to go into our food. We've been
lied to about many, many things.
Stop the lies! Stop big farms from bullying and putting out of
business smaller organic and family run farms. Stop Monsanto! Stop
genetically modified food! (Why has Monsanto been banned in 38
countries, one of which is Not the United States? Oh yes, Money!)
Support Organic Farming and healthy food!
______
Comment of B. Bailey
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:49 a.m.
City, State: Cincinnati, OH
Occupation: Homemaker
Comment: I find it very disturbing that as a consumer I am being
denied the right to know how my food is being produced and what is
being fed to the animals to produce it. It should be everyone's right
to know what they are eating or what they are feeding their families.
Large agribusiness answers to no one, lobbyists are killing family
farms and small businesses across our nation because they can. You, our
representatives can change that. We ask you to support change for our
local farmers, especially those who choose to use organic methods of
farming. If we don't take control of our food supplies now and care for
our environment in a responsible way what are we telling future
generations? How are we going to live long enough to right this wrong?
______
Comment of Larissa Bailey
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 8:42 a.m.
City, State: Novelty, OH
Occupation: Homemaker
Comment: Please don't allow companies like Monsanto to control our
food supply. Make it illegal to use genetically modified seed to grow
the food we eat.
______
Comment of Marcia Bailey
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 2:24 p.m.
City, State: Dunedin, FL
Occupation: Retired Social Worker
Comment: I would like the farm bill to support the growing of
fruits and vegetables. We really need to change the way our population
is eating because of the high incidences of diabetes and obesity. These
diseases cost us millions in health care, and they are fueled by the
fact that the government subsidizes corn for cheap corn syrup, wheat
for cheap baked goods, soybeans for cheap oil for frying, etc. Let's
support the foods that will make our citizens healthier instead of
those which make us sicker.
______
Comment of Melissa Bailey
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:19 a.m.
City, State: Kinston, NC
Occupation: Migrant Education Program Recruiter
Comment: You should know that the level of oppression among
farmworkers is becoming unsustainable. Those of us who have spent years
on this side of agriculture have never seen them so oppressed and
agitated. Consider that when crafting your legislation. You are quickly
reaching the tipping point in North Carolina.
______
Comment of Tina Bailey
Date Submitted: Friday, March 16, 2012, 9:26 a.m.
City, State: Alva, FL
Occupation: Homemaker
Comment: Please don't let big ag take over. I love the KMF
campaign. I know what goes into the food I eat. I'm taking care of my
local community. Together we're taking care of and treating our land
with respect. I don't trust big ag to do the same.
______
Comments of Vicki Bailey
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:14 p.m.
City, State: El Dorado, KS
Occupation: Grandmother
Comment: Growing children regardless of their economic status HAVE
to have good food to grow in a healthy way. We ALL pay the price for
sick kids and families. Is Big Business more important than our
Children and their families? It would seem so. Food stamps are one
important way we currently have to provide them with food. What takes
its place if it is taken away? Will agribusiness step in? Really?
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 09, 2012, 3:02 p.m.
Comment: My 90 year old mother lives in her own home but does not
drive. Her daughters help her get her food but mom has friends who do
not have family and have to patch together ways to get the things they
need. My mother is still in good health because she can access good
food. Some of her friends have not been nearly so lucky. Please
consider carefully the food programs like SNAP, TEFAP & CSFP that help
them stay healthy. This is so much more cost effective than winding up
in a nursing home needing 24 hr. care!
______
Comment of Bobbi Bailin
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:09 p.m.
City, State: West Falmouth, MA
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: We need good healthy food for our children and healthy
soil. Support organic methods that replenish the soil and non-GMO
products that do not compromise health. Support needs to be given to
farmers committed to this direction--they are smaller and require more
hours and help, and this way of providing food and this lifestyle is
severely threatened by big business.
______
Comment of Alta Baird
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012m 4:10 p.m.
City, State: Fallon, NV
Occupation: Retired
Comment: I am very Concerned about what is happening to our farmers
as well as what is going on with our produce, I purchased some
strawberries, I left some of them uneaten on purpose to see what would
happen, they were left refrigerated for 3 weeks and they never did
spoil they just withered, now I am old enough to know that is Not
Normal. What is going on with our farmers and our produce is
frightening. I Prefer Matural Organic Produce Please. Thank you,
Alta Baird.
______
Comment of Martha Baird
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 1:51 p.m.
City, State: Dallas, TX
Occupation: Retired
Comment: Many years ago I heard the U.S. would soon be out of food.
It would be hard to realize this by looking at some of the people. The
illegal's have gained weight after coming here, yet they keep producing
children . . . at our countries expense; never once considering how the
farming communities can keep producing food products. The poor farmer
has had his hands tied by many of the farm bills. Help is needed from
the Agriculture Committee to start assisting the farmer rather than
holding him back!
______
Comment of Michael Baise
Date Submitted: Monday, March 26, 2012, 2:37 p.m.
City, State: Bloomington, IN
Occupation: Agricultural Advocate
Comment: Agriculture is critical to our national security. The next
farm bill should include safety net provisions for agricultural
producers who have numerous risks beyond their control, but in exchange
for that tax-payer funded protection, farmers should be required to
abide by conservation compliance for crop and/or revenue insurance.
______
Comment of Anita Baker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:29 a.m.
City, State: Indianapolis, IN
Occupation: Business Development
Comment:
Support sustainable farming methods
Ensure good food for children in the schools including
retaining breakfasts
Put in policies that support local farmers as well as
organic farming
End subsidies for large food corporations like Archer
Daniels especially the production of corn
Eliminate cruel animal practices like chickens being forced
to overcrowd as well as livestock
______
Comment of Catherine Baker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:34 p.m.
City, State: Lanesboro, MN
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Poultry/poultry products
Size: 151-300 acres
Comment: We need food access that is locally sustainable.
Government regulation can and must encourage small producers and
organic practices that do not answer to mass-production regulations--
but relies for food safety instead on education, local transparency and
personal responsibility to produce fresher, higher quality, less
processed foods than are readily available now. Community kitchens that
are supported by local buy-in and customer loyalty need funding and
encouragement. A pilot in Lanesboro, MN would be a good starting place,
as the community cohesiveness, mindset and work ethic are unparalleled.
______
Comment of Cynthia Baker
Date Submitted: Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 7:22 p.m.
City, State: Albuquerque, NM
Occupation: Nonprofit Supported Living
Comment: Please remember that due to a rough economy, we have more
needy, hungry people than ever! Please do not forget them.
______
Comment of Jennifer Baker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:32 p.m.
City, State: Las Vegas, NV
Occupation: Finance
Comment: I urge you to consider making `farm to table' options more
affordable and readily available to our schools and struggling
families. It is extremely important that our children get the best food
possible--hunger directly effects scholastic achievement. We live in
the richest nation in the world and there is no reason our children, or
any of our citizens, should go hungry!
______
Comment of Kathleen Baker
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 12:08 p.m.
City, State: Newcastle, OK
Occupation: Retired
Comment: I am deeply disturbed at policies being aimed at our
American family farms. Big Agra has declared war on the family farmer
and Washington is marching arm in arm with Big Agra to destroy those
farms through legislation. We've have the best farmers in the world,
please help them and not harm them. Thank you.
______
Comment of Keith Baker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:33 p.m.
City, State: Cincinnati, OH
Occupation: Carpenter
Comment: As the population of the U.S.A. becomes more obese and
less healthy, it is obvious that the other industrialized countries are
doing something right. We should learn from them and let the health of
the nation dictate the policies of the pending farm bill, not the
profits of agribusiness.
______
Comment of Melanie Baker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:08 p.m.
City, State: New York, NY
Occupation: Musician
Comment: Please write a bill that sustains the small farms, helps
people get access to food who need it, keeps pesticides out of the
food, and puts in place monitors on the big agribusiness farms, since
that is where it is most needed. Thank you.
______
Comment of Nancy Baker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:18 p.m.
City, State: Kalamazoo, MI
Occupation: Massage Therapist
Comment: I support our local farmers who operate in a safe manner.
Many who are not educated do not have the awareness of what is going in
their bodies. Everyone deserves to eat food that is not contaminated.
Food keeps getting larger. Hormone fed. Yuck.
No wonder we have obesity. We are fed to many hormones and
chemicals.
______
Comment of Patricia Baker
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 09, 2012, 3:25 p.m.
City, State: Laguna Hills, CA
Occupation: Pharmacist
Comment: I feel that the SNAP program is especially important to
children and seniors. Both these groups of citizens have large numbers
who are at risk for hunger. Snap aids the nutrition of children so that
they are better able to learn, and to aid seniors whose health is made
better by better nutrition.
______
Comments of Rosalyn Baker Ingham
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:03 p.m.
City, State: Grand Rapids, MI
Occupation: Marriage and Family Therapist
Comment: There is nothing more important than healthy food. Please
stop the poisoning of our children so we can decrease Autism--now one
in 85.
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:51 p.m.
Comment: Evidence is clear that the Autism rate of 1 in 85 has some
relationship to the toxic food we eat. Please protect us adults but
more importantly, you have a responsibility to protect our children.
______
Comment of Jennifer Baker-Trinity
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:06 p.m.
City, State: Beaver Springs, PA
Occupation: Writer, Musician, Stay-At-Home Parent
Comment: I encourage supporting organic farming and smaller,
regional farms. I buy from local farms when possible and want to see
these farms thrive so that our carbon-footprint is reduced. I support
legislation that supports rural development and encourages more
independent farms.
______
Comment of Jeri Bakhsh
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 3:54 p.m.
City, State: San Diego, CA
Occupation: Sales
Comment: Over the decades I've watched how corporate agribusiness
has done great damage to small farmers and ranchers. I support the
organic and local foods movements. You guys just can't keep up the
corporate welfare. You really are destroying our great country.
______
Comment of Susan Bakke
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 7:47 p.m.
City, State: Lacey, WA
Occupation: Educator
Comment: I want all my food to be organic, non GMO, grown as
locally as possible. This is what should be fostered in communities
across the country. We save money, resources, decrease pollution by
decreasing transportation, and our health is improved from fewer
chemicals.
______
Comment of Nora Balduff; On Behalf of Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, Executive
Director, Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 2:37 p.m.
Comment: May 20, 2012
House Committee on Agriculture
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the upcoming farm
bill reauthorization. Given the ever increasing need for food
assistance in our state and the declining supply of Federal commodity
support, I strongly urge you protect and strengthen nutrition programs
in the 2012 Farm Bill.
The Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks is Ohio's largest
charitable response to hunger. Our network represents 12 foodbanks,
providing food, funding, training, and technical assistance to more
than 3,300 food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and
supplemental food providers.
We see every day how important Federal nutrition programs are in
our community and how effectively they are working to ensure that
Ohioans can provide enough food for their families. ``In the last
quarter of 2011, hungry Ohioans made 2,305,463 visits to our member
food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters alone.''
Nationally, the Feeding America network of more than 200 foodbanks
has seen a 46 percent increase in foodbank clients from 2006 to 2010.
In Ohio, our member foodbanks and member agencies have experienced a
23.6 percent increase in demand since 2009, with a 35.6 percent
increase in demand from adults over the age of 60. Without strong farm
bill nutrition programs like The Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CFSP), foodbanks across the
country would be struggling even more to meet the increased need.
We recognize the challenge you face drafting a farm bill in a time
of deficit reduction, but we are also sensitive to the tremendous,
ongoing need in our state. As such, we have two key priorities for the
farm bill.
First, we urge you to strengthen TEFAP to help us keep up with
increased demand. TEFAP supplies about 25 percent of the food moving
through Feeding America's national network of foodbanks, and 27 percent
of food distributed throughout Ohio. But because of high commodity
prices, TEFAP food declined 30 percent last year, and our member
foodbanks are struggling to make up the difference. We urge you to make
TEFAP more responsive during times of high need by tying increases in
mandatory funding to a trigger based on unemployment levels. We also
propose to enhance the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to make
TEFAP bonus purchases at times when the need for emergency food
assistance is high--for example, during periods of high unemployment--
in addition to times of weak agriculture markets so that the program
can respond to both excess supply and excess demand.
Second, we also strongly urge you to protect SNAP from harmful
funding cuts or policy proposals that would restrict eligibility or
reduce benefits. SNAP has responded effectively to growing need during
the recession with benefits that are timely, targeted, and temporary.
The average SNAP household has an income of only 57 percent of the
Federal poverty level, and 84 percent of benefits go to households with
a child, senior, or disabled person. The program is working to support
vulnerable Ohio families, and our foodbanks and local agency partners
would not be able to meet the increased need for food assistance if
SNAP were cut.
These programs have a real impact on your constituents, many of
whom must rely on the foodbank and Federal nutrition programs to meet
their basic food needs. I would encourage you to visit the foodbanks
serving your district before the committee marks up a farm bill so you
can meet the constituents standing in our food lines and see firsthand
how Federal nutrition programs are working to protect vulnerable
Americans from hunger.
The Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks believes that
feeding our neighbors is a shared responsibility, and foodbanks like
ours rely on a variety of food streams to support our communities,
including generous support from partners in retail, manufacturing, and
agriculture. However, the Federal government is an equally critical
partner through programs like TEFAP, SNAP, and CSFP, and with
tremendous, ongoing need in our state, Federal support is more
important than ever.
As the House Agriculture Committee moves forward with farm bill
reauthorization, the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks urges
you to protect the nutrition safety net and offers the specific
recommendations below.
Sincerely,
Lisa Hamler-Fugitt,
Executive Director,
Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks.
Feeding America Farm Bill Priorities
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): TEFAP is a means-
tested Federal program that provides food commodities at no cost to
Americans in need of short-term hunger relief through organizations
like foodbanks, pantries, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters.
Nutritious food commodities provided through TEFAP are an essential
resource for Feeding America foodbanks. As the demand for food remains
high at foodbanks across the country, a continuous stream of TEFAP is
necessary for the provision of a steady emergency food supply.
TEFAP commodities account for approximately 25 percent of
the food moving through Feeding America foodbanks. Foodbanks
combine TEFAP with private donations to maximize TEFAP benefits
far beyond the budgeted amount for the program. In this way,
foodbanks exemplify an optimum model of public-private
partnership.
TEFAP has a strong impact on the farm economy. According to
USDA's Economic Research Service, producers of commodities
provided as bonus TEFAP (those purchased by USDA to intervene
in weak agricultural markets) receive an estimated 85 cents per
dollar of Federal expenditure. Producers of other commodities
provided through TEFAP receive about 27 cents per dollar. By
contrast, only about 16 cents of every retail food dollar goes
back to the farmer.
Declines in Section 32 funding and strong agriculture
markets resulted in a 30 percent decline in TEFAP purchases
during FY2011. This decline is expected to continue in FY2012
as foodbanks continue struggling to meet increased need. The
shortfall between supply and demand will only worsen when the
SNAP ARRA benefit boost expires, as many participants turn to
foodbanks to make up for the reduction in benefit levels.
Farm Bill Priorities for TEFAP:
Make mandatory funding for TEFAP food more responsive to
changes in need by providing a trigger that ties funding to
unemployment levels
Enhance Secretary of Agriculture's authority to purchase
bonus commodities in times of high need for emergency food
relief in addition to times of low commodity prices so the
program is responsive both to excess supply and excess demand
Reauthorize funding for TEFAP Storage and Distribution Funds
at $100 million per year
Reauthorize funding for TEFAP Infrastructure Grants at $15
million per year
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): SNAP is the
cornerstone of the nutrition safety net, providing over 46 million low-
income participants nationally and 1.8 million Ohioans in February
2012. with monthly benefits via a grocery debit card. Eligibility is
based on household income and is subject to work and citizenship
requirements. SNAP is one of the most responsive safety net programs,
expanding quickly to meet rising need during the recession. The program
is targeted at our most vulnerable: 76 percent of SNAP households
contain a child, senior, or disabled member, and 84 percent of all
benefits go to these households.
As the number of people unemployed grew 110 percent from
2007 to 2010, SNAP responded with a 53 percent increase in
participation over the same period. As the economy slowly
recovers and unemployment begins to fall, SNAP participation
and costs too can be expected to decline.
The SNAP accuracy rate of 96.19 percent (FY10) is an all-
time program high. SNAP error rates declined by 61 percent in
FY1999 to a record low of 3.81 percent in FY2010.
SNAP benefits supplement a household's food budget but are
insufficient to last most participants through the month,
causing many participants to rely regularly on foodbanks. Among
Feeding America food pantry clients receiving SNAP benefits,
over \1/2\ (58 percent) reported having visited a food pantry
in at least 6 months or more during the prior year.
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of
$731 and countable resources of $333, consists of 2.2 persons,
and participates in the program for 9 months. The average
Ohioan participating receives a monthly benefit of $138.00, or
about $1.50 per person per meal.
Farm Bill Priorities for SNAP:
Protect SNAP by opposing proposals to cap or reduce funding,
restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, or otherwise impede
access or benefit adequacy. Recent proposals to block grant the
program would prevent it from responding effectively to
fluctuations in need, and efforts to limit broad based
categorical eligibility would increase administrative costs and
access barriers.
Restore the cut to the SNAP ARRA benefit boost used to pay
for the 2010 child nutrition bill and phase out the boost in a
way that protects families from a cliff in benefit levels.
Encourage better nutrition by maintaining nutrition
education, incentivizing the purchase of healthy foods, and
ensuring that retailer standards balance adequate access to
stores with access to a range of healthy foods and moderate
prices.
Build on SNAP's strong record of integrity and payment
accuracy by issuing guidance to states on the eligibility of
lottery winners and college students and upgrading resources
and technology for trafficking prevention.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP): CSFP leverages
government buying power to provide nutritious food packages to
approximately 599,000 low income people each month, and 20,463 Ohioans.
Nearly 97 percent of program participants are seniors with incomes of
less than 130 percent of the poverty line (approximately $14,000 for a
senior living alone). Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia
participate in CSFP. Another six states (CT, HI, ID, MD, MA, & RI) have
USDA-approved plans, but have not yet received appropriations to begin
service.
CSFP is an efficient and effective program. While the cost
to USDA to purchase commodities for this package of food is
about $20 per month, the average retail value of the foods in
the package is $50.
CSFP helps to combat the poor health conditions often found
in seniors who are experiencing food insecurity and at risk of
hunger. CSFP food packages, specifically designed to supplement
nutrients typically lacking in participants' diets like
protein, iron, and zinc, can play an important role in
addressing the nutrition needs of low-income seniors.
Many seniors participating in CSFP are able to have their
food boxes delivered directly to their homes or to seniors'
centers nearby, an important benefit for those who are
homebound, have limited mobility, or do not have convenient
access to a grocery store.
Farm Bill Priorities for CSFP:
Transition CSFP to a seniors-only program by phasing out
eligibility of women, infants, and children while
grandfathering in current participants.
______
Comment of Mary Baldwin
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 3:29 p.m.
City, State: Bedford, OH
Occupation: Direct Marketing
Comment: I am so concerned about the subsidies paid factory farmers
to the detriment of our health, environment and economy and that
business holds sway over the average citizen. Please support
sustainable agricultural practices, healthy livestock production and
clean air and water.
______
Comment of Bessie Ballard
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:45 p.m.
City, State: Hoodsport, WA
Occupation: Retired
Comment: As an consumer who is very unhappy with the terrible
produce we are getting in our markets . . . we are seniors on a fixed
income with health issues and cannot afford to keep throwing spoiled
vegetable away that are rotting and shriveling up within a day of
purchase due to the horrible cancer and other deadly disease causing
chemicals sprayed on our produce by Monsanto and Cargill. Please vote
to give us chemical free food products in our markets. Please Vote
Against Any Attempt To Continue The Deadly Spraying Of Our Food. Thank
you very much.
______
Comment of Eusebius Ballentine
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:10 a.m.
City, State: Honesdale, PA
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Vegetables
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: The government ought to help the process that is already
happening, they ought to pay attention and see what it is that people
want and then aid them in attaining that goal. All the polls indicate
how people want to have safer food and know where it comes from with
less chemicals and is better for the environment. It's up to the
government to not be tempted by corruption and money and simply do the
bidding of the people. It's going to happen either way and we can
achieve a better food future now or later. If we choose the later we
also increase our chances of devastating events that could derail
humanity for a very long time. Do the right thing!
______
Comment of Anna Bandfield
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:25 p.m.
City, State: Port Orchard, WA
Occupation: Customer Service
Comment: Small farmers and organic farmers are supremely important,
and they need and deserve appropriate funding. The problem with non-
organic produce is not only the pesticides, it doesn't have any
nutrition! Americans are overfed but malnourished--and have vitamin
deficiencies because commercial produce lacks nutrition. Please don't
cut funding for organics and beginning farmers.
______
Comment of Betty Banham
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 10:21 p.m.
City, State: Willits, CA
Occupation: Housewife
Comment: America could grow enough food to feed all of us and many
third. world countries as well. Keep our farmers working. Get rid of
GMO's, we have the knowledge for sustainable agriculture.
______
Comment of Gene Banister
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:07 p.m.
City, State: Wenagtchee, WA
Occupation: Retired Engineer
Comment: As one who grew up on a farm, I an aware of how food is
produced. I fully support the desire of people to make their own choice
of what food to buy. There are risks with buying food directly from the
farmer but there are also risks with buying food grown following
government rules. I prefer to be able to buy directly from a person I
trust. I do Not trust bureaucrats to protect my food. Please allow
people to take responsibility for their choices.
______
Comment of Brian Banks
Date Submitted: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 5:15 p.m.
City, State: Bowie, MD
Occupation: Director, Public Policy & Community Outreach
Comment: My annual salary is over $70,000 a year. After I pay the
basic bills, gas, haircut, school bills for son, and other Needed items
I can barely buy groceries for myself and son. However I always find a
way, and no I am not eligible for any safety-net programs. However I
work to get eligible people signed up for the programs that will help
their families. My staff and I cannot work fast enough as the number of
people at risk of hunger seem to rise daily for these people the farm
bill is a vital importance to their lives. Food . . . we all need it to
live, it is our most basic need and the one thing every living being
has in common. People rely on these programs to live, these programs
help people get back on their feet and because of these programs people
are able to contribute to their community, children are able to learn,
and less illness will come about because of a healthy diet. My question
to you all is can you name the last five meals you ate, what did you
have? How much did it cost? Do you know the price of a pound of grapes,
or a gallon of milk? If not chances are you do not need the safety net
programs and are not hungry. People that are need the safety-net.
Please fund these programs at a high level, and review my suggestions
below. Thank you.
Farm Bill Priorities for TEFAP:
Make mandatory funding for TEFAP food more responsive to
changes in need by providing a trigger that ties funding to
unemployment levels
Enhance Secretary of Agriculture's authority to purchase
bonus commodities in times of high need for emergency food
relief in addition to times of low commodity prices so the
program is responsive both to excess supply and excess demand
Reauthorize funding for TEFAP Storage and Distribution Funds
at $100 million per year
Reauthorize funding for TEFAP Infrastructure Grants at $15
million per year
Farm Bill Priorities for SNAP:
Protect SNAP by opposing proposals to cap or reduce funding,
restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, or otherwise impede
access or benefit adequacy. Recent proposals to block grant the
program would prevent it from responding effectively to
fluctuations in need, and efforts to limit broad based
categorical eligibility would increase administrative costs and
access barriers.
Restore the cut to the SNAP ARRA benefit boost used to pay
for the 2010 child nutrition bill and phase out the boost in a
way that protects families from a cliff in benefit levels.
Encourage better nutrition by maintaining nutrition
education, incentivizing the purchase of healthy foods, and
ensuring that retailer standards balance adequate access to
stores with access to a range of healthy foods and moderate
prices.
Build on SNAP's strong record of integrity and payment
accuracy by issuing guidance to states on the eligibility of
lottery winners and college students and upgrading resources
and technology for trafficking prevention.
Farm Bill Priorities for CSFP:
Transition CSFP to a seniors-only program while
grandfathering in current participants to promote greater
efficiencies and recognize CSFP's evolution to serving a
primarily senior population.
______
Comment of Carter Bannerman
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:51 p.m.
City, State: Seattle, WA
Occupation: Retired Broadcast Engineer
Comment: I eat. So do you. We need strict standards for organic
growing, and there is almost no economy of scale for it past a pretty
small farm. Do not allow agribusiness to weaken the standards. Please,
stern and scientifically reasonable standards and universally safe
growing and food.
______
Comment of Lynnet Bannion
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:07 p.m.
City, State: Loveland, CO
Occupation: Manager of Food Cooperative
Comment: Please stop giving billions to large corporations to grow
GMO commodities, and start supporting small farmers, family farms,
organic and healthy foods.
______
Comment of Matthew Bansfield
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 7:39 a.m.
City, State: Worcester, MA
Occupation: Carpenter, Small Business Owner
Comment: I support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
While Congress is looking to get rid of direct payments to
commodity farmers, the subsidized insurance program it proposes to
replace it with will allow giant commodity farmers and insurance
companies to walk away with billions in taxpayer dollars while putting
the land, soil and environment at greater risk.
Most importantly, however, organics are the future.
Sincerely,
Matthew Bansfield.
______
Comment of Margaret G. Banta
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 6:22 p.m.
City, State: Topeka, KS
Occupation: Retired
Comment: I don't like Monsanto choosing the food my family can eat,
e.g., GMO's. I want more inspectors at factory farms. I want more
support for small family farms and organic farmers. It's a matter of
Homeland Security and public health. Thank you!
______
Comment of Daniel Barach
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:34 p.m.
City, State: Oswego, NY
Occupation: College Professor of Music
Comment: It is time to write a bill that is helpful to small local
farms that are producing high quality food of an organic nature that is
friendly to the environment and healthy for the individuals that eat
them. It is time to stop subsidizing big agribusinesses that pollute
our environment and soil and that devastates our health. We need to
invest in non chemical healthful farming practices that build health
and our soil.
______
Comment of Marsh Barbara
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:49 p.m.
City, State: Anchorage, AK
Occupation: Small Business Owner of Soap Company
Comment: Please look carefully at preserving the health of our food
supply by keeping it chemical free and non GMO. Support our farmers and
farm workers, not the big agribusiness and lobbyists that get the
corporation's the best deal on the backs of the consumers. Our health
depends on a good, clean, healthy food supply.
______
Comment of Kyle Barber
Date Submitted: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 5:53 p.m.
City, State: Hamilton, MT
Occupation: Conservation & Stewardship @ Bitter Root Land Trust
Comment: Over the past 2 years, the Bitter Root Land Trust has
partnered with 5 agricultural producers to protect over 1,000 acres of
working landscape in the Bitterroot Valley. These projects were
voluntarily initiated by the landowners and funded in part by the Farm
and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), a program of the farm bill.
The compensation provided to the landowners by the FRPP has supported
the local and regional economy in a number of ways, from circulating
through the agricultural services sector to allowing landowners to
expand their operations. The FRPP program helps perpetuate the scenic,
economic and cultural values of Western Montana's landscape. Please
support continued funding to this program in the upcoming farm bill re-
authorization. This program means a lot to your constituents.
______
Comment of Kiley Barbero
Date Submitted: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 4:05 p.m.
City, State: Port Angeles, WA
Occupation: Interpretive Park Ranger
Comment: Now is the time for action! Every 5 years Congress
reauthorizes the National farm bill, which gives massive taxpayer
subsidies to huge farms growing unhealthy food using toxic chemicals.
We have the opportunity to transform Federal farm and food policy--take
action Now! WE want farm policy that helps family farmers produce
healthy food, vibrant communities and sustains the environment. Please
vote for our citizens!
______
Comment of Jeannine Bardo
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:03 p.m.
City, State: Brooklyn, NY
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: Congressman Grimm,
Please consider the long term health of our food system and our
citizens. An ethical, sustainable farm community will help to ensure
the quality of our food remains high and our land will not be poisoned
and laid to waste. Access to nutritious food should be an American
right for everyone. A healthy citizenry is the best way to cut health
care costs substantially. Please use principled and creative foresight
when making budgetary decisions for your constituents.
I support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
______
Comment of Genevieve Barile
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 9:39 p.m.
City, State: Seattle, WA
Occupation: L.M.P.
Comment: Healthy food is essential to our well being. Our country
is showing the serious effects of ignoring this fact. Healthy food
should not be a luxury--it is a basic need for every person.
______
Comment of Cate Barker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:23 p.m.
City, State: Cedar Rapids, IA
Occupation: Advertising Writer
Comment: I have a couple of suggestions:
1. Reduce farm subsidies;
2. Convert crop insurance from an income guarantee for already
profitable agribusinesses to a hedge for family farmers against
catastrophic crop failure;
3. Use the savings to reduce Federal debt and fund programs that
improve human health (e.g., increased SNAP benefits) and the
environment (reduce soil erosion, protect drinking water by
reducing pesticide runoff).
______
Comment of Dwinna Barker
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:28 p.m.
City, State: Crowley, TX
Occupation: Disabled Legal Secretary
Comment: Just one rule of thumb to go by on the safety of our food
is that if it is produced by cruelty and inhumane treatment of animals
or if it is genetically altered to the point that we don't even know
what we are eating anymore, it is probably not good for humans to
consume!
______
Comment of Timothy R. Barksdale
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 9:43 p.m.
City, State: Choteau, MT
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Forestry
Size: Less than 50 acres
Comment: When my father lost his 7,500 acre farm in 1969, my
parents divorced. Since my background now includes financial,
agriculture, wildlife ecology and more my suggestion is to shift the
farm bill to support small family farms more. I ask you to support:
The full endorsement of all provisions of the Local Foods,
Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Fully funding conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and making sure that
enrollment in any new insurance subsidies are tied directly to
compliance with conservation programs.
The implementation of all provisions of the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act (H.R. 3236).
Maintaining the EQIP Organic Initiative.
Each of these adds to important revisions in our current direction.
Thank you,
Timothy R. Barksdale,
Choteau, MT.
______
Comment of Claire Barnett
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 8:49 p.m.
City, State: Hillsdale, NJ
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: It is time to stop supporting agribusiness and instead
support small-scale, family-owned farms. We need to encourage
sustainable agricultural practices for long-term viability.
______
Comment of Tracy Barnett
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 02, 2012, 6:35 p.m.
City, State: San Antonio, TX
Occupation: Journalist
Comment: Please support a strong farm bill--one that supports
organic and independent producers, and one that provides support to the
needy among us through programs such as TEFAP, SNAP and CSFP. Thank
you!
______
Comment of Tom Barney
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:13 p.m.
City, State: Jacksonville, FL
Occupation: Healthcare
Comment: Please help us to remove the fine that organic producers
have to pay to do the right thing and put a Heavy Fine on the factory
farm and commercial food production industry for all of their
pollution, poison and land damage. We need to get the subsidies
redirected from those damaging our lives and put them toward those
doing the right thing. Thank you.
______
Comment of Debbie Barr
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 6:42 p.m.
City, State: Concord, MA
Occupation: Senior Services Program Manager
Comment: It is essential for our health to broaden support for
organic farmers in the farm bill.
I ask for your full endorsement of all provisions of the Local
Foods, Farms and Jobs Act (H.R. 3286).
Equally important is to maintain the level of funding for SNAP. I
work with an Area Agency on Aging, and the Meals on Wheels program is
all that keeps some of our seniors from serious hunger . . . it is runs
at a deficit.
It is simply wrong to continue big ag subsidies and eliminate
programs for our most vulnerable elders.
I ask you to fully fund conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and continue to support new entry
farmer programs.
______
Comment of Roger Barr
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 11:15 p.m.
City, State: North Fork, CA
Occupation: Volunteer
Comment: Our farm bill is grossly counter to the needs of the
American people. By primarily subsidizing the production of corn and
soy we are only benefiting agribusiness to the detriment of everyone
else, and the detriment of our environment. We need to move away toward
more natural production methods.
______
Comment of Lisha Barre
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 12:17 a.m.
City, State: Boulder, CO
Occupation: Physician
Comment: As a physician I am sick of watching my patient's grow
sicker and fatter on the processed garbage promoted by Big Food.
Support for this bill is essential to preserving the health of our
nation.
______
Comment of Carlos Barrio
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:36 p.m.
City, State: Chicago, IL
Occupation: Software
Comment: The government should do everything it can to promote the
production of a wide variety of food, not just yellow corn. It should
begin infrastructure development for farming capability without fossil
fuels, food prices should not be influenced by OPEC. There should be a
big push to have food production, especially meat, scale back its use
of water. Development of sustainable U.S. based energy infrastructure
and water conservation should be the top priority. Do not leave for
tomorrow what can be done today.
______
Comment of Barbara Barry
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 3:51 p.m.
City, State: Woodinville, WA
Occupation: Organic Gardener
Comment: Please do not sell out to Monsanto and Con Agra!
Our country need small farmers who support local communities with
laws and protection from Big Chema and Big Agra. We are watching how
you vote and who you are serving, the citizens of the United States or
Citizens United! Do not pander to your lobbyists!
______
Comment of Kathryn Barry
Date Submitted: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 8:30 p.m.
City, State: Suffern, NY
Occupation: Retired Educator
Comment: As you know this bill is terribly important for both the
present and future health of our people and our land.
Please subsidize only non-food renewable energy sources e.g.,
switch grass, algae etc. Subsidizing food renewable energy sources,
e.g., corn, grossly distorts our food supply costs.
Please shift some of the commodity subsidies given to corporate
farms to small family farmers growing fruit and vegetable crops. This
will give us better and more stable, local food sources saving energy
and providing a healthier food supply.
Please do not cut any of the nutrition programs such as SNAP. There
are so many more hungry people these last 3 years. To cut these
necessary programs--which today do not fully meet their needs--to still
lower levels is unthinkable.
______
Comment of Kenneth Barta
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 1:21 a.m.
City, State: Spotswood, NJ
Occupation: Retired
Comment: End subsidies to big Agra. Subsidize instead Organic
Farming. Get rid of Monsanto GM junk. Stop subsidizing ethanol. Stop
polluting farm land and crops with toxic herbicides and pesticides.
Stop factory farming of animals and the pollution they cause in
waterways. Get better inspection of food and meat. Stop harassing raw
milk producers.
______
Comment of Bob Bartell
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:56 p.m.
City, State: Snohomish, WA
Occupation: Sales
Comment: We need support for real farmers. Big Ag with its
unlabeled GMO crops puts us at risk. Can't buy food in the store
without wondering if it is healthy or a Frankenfood. My family has
resorted to growing our own vegetables as much as possible because of
this.
______
Comment of Lee Bartell
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:24 a.m.
City, State: New York, NY
Occupation: Retired Teacher
Comment: Farm policy needs to focus on actual farmers, Not on the
multinational corporate farms. Organic farmers need to know that
there's no GMO seeds blowing onto their land, and that there's help
when catastrophe comes.
______
Comment of Richard Bartels
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:19 p.m.
City, State: Pineville, KY
Occupation: College Faculty Member
Comment: Dear Mr. Rogers,
I realize that budget cuts are having to be a reality that all of
us must live with. As changes are made in farm subsidies, please make
sure that conservation gains made through various cooperative
stimulators for farmers do not get washed away because the new
provisions don't make the conservation connections. Having good water
is essential to all of us (famers included) so please make sure that
the farmers have the necessary incentives to keep our water sources
clean and safe.
Thank you and thanks again for your years of faithful service to
the people of the Fifth Congressional district.
Richard Bartels.
______
Comment of Kathy Barton
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:00 p.m.
City, State: Northport, NY
Occupation: Business Owner
Comment: I want all food to be labeled with all ingredients and I
want GMO's to be eliminated. I also want the farmers to stop being
harassed because of the government being in bed with Monsanto. It is
ridiculous and it doesn't take into effect the people. I also want
organic foods to be more readily available.
______
Comment of Duncan Baruch
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 1:20 a.m.
City, State: Portland, OR
Occupation: Library Clerk
Comment: The writers of the next farm bill must heed the wishes of
the majority of American citizens, not the wishes of the few who run
Big Agriculture. Americans want healthful foods, foods without GMOs and
poisons. Organic foods grown by small farmers. Foods produced with next
to no impact on climate. No factory foods.
To make the above, positive changes will take a drastic and
courageous effort away from the current model. Now is the time.
______
Comment of Alma Baruth
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 2:27 p.m.
City, State: Mesa, AZ
Occupation: Housewife
Comment: They are taking away ``Job'' from American People--
citizens or Not . . . they are working to keep U.S. of A. going . . .
then take the ``price'' of ``shipping and handling from overseas'' . .
. then they (Jack) up the Prices on Us . . . . U.S.A. Citizens . . .
And The `Growers' . . . `Producers' Are The Ones Who Make The Big Money
. . . On Us . . . !
______
Comment of Andrea Basche
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:27 p.m.
City, State: Ames, IA
Occupation: Graduate Student in Crop Production
Comment: A great economic opportunity exists in localized markets
and smaller producer infrastructure. This cannot happen without more
resources from the farm bill directed toward beginning farmers, access
to credit and land, insurance for non row crop agriculture. Young
people in places like Iowa Want to manage the land differently but lack
the ability to enter into this capital intensive field. The FB policies
could be directed toward the right rural development and not more of
the same.
______
Comment of Stuart Basden
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:20 p.m.
City, State: Chicago, IL
Occupation: Web Developer
Comment: Agricultural subsidies need to be reversed, so that they
encourage the small- to mid-sized farms, encourage sustainable farming
practices, and encourage farmers to protect their land. We need to tax
those farms that damage the land, whether through factory farms, mega-
ranches, or monocropping.
Our farmland needs diversity to be robust and stable, and with the
growing unpredictability of the climate, we need to make our food more
secure. The way to do this is by banning monocropping, and encouraging
seed diversity and crop diversity.
______
Comment of Jane Basler
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 10:17 p.m.
City, State: Saint Louis, MO
Occupation: Director of Construction Management
Comment: Help the small farmers survive and allow for diversity and
choices besides corporate Agribusiness. Continue to provide 30 million
to small disadvantaged farmers. America was built by farming
communities!
Thank you for your attention to this matter and consideration!
Jane Basler.
______
Comment of Carol Bason
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:22 p.m.
City, State: Santa Barbara, CA
Occupation: Psychotherapist
Comment: The food system in the United States is deeply broken.
Subsidies are paid for products which become cheaply priced junk food
(corn and soy), producing monumental health problems and obesity, while
``real food'' (fruits and vegetables) become more and more expensive.
Small organic farms are pushed to the brink, while agribusiness holds
all the power and money. I have very little hope that Members of the
House of Representative will change this situation as you are addicted
to the money which comes to you from large corporations.
______
Comment of Virginia Bastone
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 1:45 p.m.
City, State: Hawthorne, NY
Occupation: Teacher & Nutritionist
Comment: Pesticides affect our youth's nervous system . . . Why do
we have to continue to poison our food system? Please consider safer
alternatives that are not toxic.
Choosing safer alternatives would also reduce health care costs
since there would be less toxins in our food cycle. Thank you for
considering alternatives. Studies have also shown more nutrients are
retained when food is grown organically. Our bees would continue to
pollinate fruits and vegetables. Thank you again for strengthening our
farm bill to create better health for our nation!
______
Comment of Annette Batchelor
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:46 p.m.
City, State: Newcastle, CA
Occupation: Teacher
Comment: Our country needs legislation to protect against chemicals
in our food and will benefit from a fair and healthy farm bill. Please
do the right thing and support the Organic Farm Bill and also fight big
companies such as Monsanto to label our foods GMO when used in our
food.
______
Comment of Diane Bates
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:05 p.m.
City, State: Booneville, MS
Occupation: Disabled
Comment: Set policy that encourages small family farms and limits
big corporate farming. Outlaw all genetically altered food, eliminate
use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. Outlaw hybrid seeds. Get
farming back to nature's way; organic, rotating crops, replenishing the
soil nutrients, seed bearing crops, etc.
______
Comment of Jackie Battreal
Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 8:43 a.m.
City, State: Irving, TX
Producer/Non-producer: Producer
Type: Fruits, Livestock, Nuts, Vegetables, Other
Size: 50-150 acres
Comment: I would like to have or know of incentives for second
generation farmers who inherit their parents' property. My dad was a
rancher until his death in 1997. My 91 year old mother has continued to
live there but has leased the property for income and tax benefits. I
will inherit the property and would like to have it producing a profit
as I lost my job last year and at my age of over 60 have not been able
to find other employment.
Are there programs for me as a woman and second generation farm
owner to help me develop the farm for income?
Thank you.
______
Comment of Berenice Bauer
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:16 p.m.
City, State: Glen Ellyn, IL
Comment: Although I am not a farmer nor do I deal in farm products
other than as a consumer. I feel that whatever is put into a farm bill
it should include the study of organic crops. I feel that the more we
use genetically altered foods the more dangerous our foods become to
humans. How to get the most from organic crops should be of primary
concern.
______
Comment of Chante Bauer
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 12:34 p.m.
City, State: Lincoln, NE
Occupation: Nonprofit
Comment: In the upcoming farm bill, please place emphasis on small-
scale farmers versus large industrial farming practices. We as a
country need to focus on environmentally sustainable agriculture
practices that do not utilize mono-culture crops; heavy use of
pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides; GMO seed; fossil-fuel burning
equipment; and 1,000+ mile transit of foods. Staple crops like corn and
soybeans should not be heavily subsidized. Additionally, Confined
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) needs to be replaced with grass-fed
cattle and pasture-raised pork and chickens. The current farming
infrastructure is depleting our natural capital, while giving
preferential treatment to large industrial farming corporations. I urge
you to transfer this infrastructure to empower the small-scale farmer
who acts as nurturer and steward of our food and our planet.
I thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter.
______
Comment of Katya Bauer
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:56 p.m.
City, State: New York, NY
Occupation: Artist
Comment: America at its core is about small farmers who have always
understood what sustainability means. Without respect for the land,
there is no food and no future. It's that simple.
______
Comment of Leslie Bauer
Date Submitted: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 10:21 p.m.
City, State: Austin, TX
Occupation: Nutritional Educator and Chef
Comment: Folks, we are running out of time. Now, more than any
other time in the history of this planet, we need to make serious
changes in how we produce food, how we share food and how much energy
we need to produce whole foods! We are Dying as a nation because we are
not grasping the problem at the core of the nutritional level. We need
organic, nutrient dense foods that truly nourish the human body. We
need to put animals back on pasture, where they belong, eating grass to
make the fats, protein and nutrients that we need; no more manmade crap
that is killing us! No pesticides, herbicides, hormones, GMO's,
artificial flavorings, rancid fats, toxic poisons in our food, our air,
our soil, our water! Wake Up Folks, we are dying with all of these
horrific poisons in our world and we can make the changes that we need
to be healthy. Big agribiz has strangled this nation and the people we
elect are in accordance with their lies. Wake Up and know that we have
a responsibility here, to ourselves and each other, to do the very best
we can with what our Earth has provided for us. We have poisoned
ourselves enough, and the evidence is everywhere; cancer, heart
disease, diabetes, obesity . . . you name it, we have created it with
our lack of care towards our planet and all her gifts of abundance.
We elect you officials to actually Care and educate yourselves
about the issues, not be paid off for what? You will still have to eat
these poisoned foods, breathe this toxic air, drink polluted water. DO
you not `get it' yet? Are you really all that stupid? Or are you all
just lying to yourselves and selling out to the rest of us? It is more
than tragic, and just plain disgusting what has happened over the past
60 years in this country. People are so hurting, so confused, so angry
at what is going on, and you people, those in power, have the ability
to Lead the people of this great nation! Start with the most
fundamental of all the issues, with our food. If you do not, then I
hope you have found another planet to go to. Mother Earth has had just
about enough of the poison and cannot take much more of it. There is no
question in my mind that we are rapidly destroying ourselves and we
need radical changes made to out farm bill if we are to survive. Wake
Up and do your jobs and make the necessary changes that will Help our
great nation!
______
Comment of Rachel Bauer
Date Submitted: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 7:45 a.m.
City, State: Memphis, TN
Occupation: University Professor
Comment: Please fight to maintain the EQIP Organic Initiative and
do all that you can to endorse local foods and farms. It is also
extremely important to me that beginning farmers/ranchers are
supported--I firmly believe that big agribusiness needs to be reined in
because they are rapidly causing the decline of food standards here in
the U.S. Big agribusiness has a stranglehold on American food--it needs
to be controlled.
______
Comment of Helen C. Baum
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 6:17 p.m.
City, State: Manteo, NC
Occupation: Speech and Language Pathologist
Comment: It is of utmost importance that we protect our farm lands
and produce organic foods. Every year we have more people in our
country dying of cancer and other neurological diseases. We cannot
afford to cause greater risk to our people, land and environment. How
many people in our district do you know who have cancer or neurological
diseases? That number grows daily. Please do your part to protect the
people in your district!
Thank you,
Helen C. Baum.
______
Comment of Gail Bauman
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 09, 2012, 4:25 p.m.
City, State: Incline Village, NV
Occupation: Worker
Comment: In order for human beings to live they need to have water
and food. Do you think it might be possible that the people that want
to cut food programs have Never Been Hungry? Maybe if they went just
one day without food they would realize the importance of food and how
important it is for mental functioning, physical functioning and most
important in order to Live! In my opinion the job of Government is to
assist the people so that their lives can be as happy and healthy as
possible?
Have a Beautiful Day!
Gail.
______
Comment of Joseph Baumann
Date Submitted: Friday, May 11, 2012, 1:35 p.m.
City, State: Cottonwood, AZ
Occupation: Retired
Comment: The farm bill should help and protect sustainable organic
farmers. That includes protection via seed program and pesticide over-
spraying from big agri producers such as Monsanto and there health
untested GMO and pesticiding plant DNA.
______
Comment of Susan Baumgartner
Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 3:46 p.m.
City, State: Waukesha, WI
Occupation: Mom
Comment: I want a farm bill that gives schools the means to feed
kids whole fruits, grains, vegetables, dairy and meats that are grown
by sustainable farms and not CFOs and monoculture-based corporations. I
want money spent to promote farms that practice biodiversity and crop
rotations. I want the government to support cutting-edge sustainable
food production that supports health in people and the environment.
______
Comment of Jenn Baumstein
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 9:57 a.m.
City, State: Putnam Valley, NY
Occupation: Nonprofit Food Community Member
Comment: Hello,
I am both a small personal farmer and a member of a nonprofit that
promotes local food production and education. We HAVE to work to make
our farm bill sustainable and fruitful. Our students/constituents/
clients are passionate about a world in where we can all have access to
good, clean food. It is Totally unacceptable for us to provide
subsidies to farmers who help feed our ever fattening and lazy nation.
We want to promote moving--eating--Living well. Supporting young farms,
small family farms, young farmers is essential. Please think about all
of us who are trying to get good food out there when making these
decisions. We want our government's support, not their frowned
eyebrows. Thank you.
______
Comment of Adrienne Moore Baxter
Date Submitted: Friday, May 18, 2012, 4:46 p.m.
City, State: Olathe, KS
Occupation: Registered Dietitian Licensed in Kansas and Missouri;
Telehealth Provider; Clinical Instructor of Health Profession Students
Comment: About the Food and Farm Bill . . .
Please fund programs that support beginning and socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, organic farming, regional
farm and food economies, and rural development.
We need more farmers and ranchers [most are as old as I am--
60 years]. Kansans want more sustainable food production. Food
service managers are seeking local producers prepared to sell
to institutions whose customers want fresh food.