[House Prints, 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress

 2d Session                 COMMITTEE PRINT
______________________________________________________________________
                                                                       

 
      COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO FARM BILL FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE

                               __________

                           PREPARED BY STAFF

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               __________

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMATED]
                               




                        SEPTEMBER 2010


                              __________



                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                              WASHINGTON: 2010              61-953 PDF
_________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. 
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). 
E-mail, [email protected].  














                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania,            FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking 
    Vice Chairman                    Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California                 TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California        SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia                STEVE KING, Iowa
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South     RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
Dakota                               K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                 JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JIM COSTA, California                JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana              ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois       BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER,              CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Pennsylvania                         THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho

                                 ______

                           Professional Staff

                    Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff

                     Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel

                Liz Friedlander, Communications Director

                 Nicole Scott, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Preface..........................................................     1
Questionnaire....................................................     2
Abbott King, Barbara, Aurora, NY.................................     3
Adair, Kristin, Washington, D.C..................................     7
Aderhold, Eric, Seattle, WA......................................     8
Adkins, Brian, Chilhowee, MO.....................................     9
Agate, Ryan, Somerville, MA......................................     9
Agudelo, Eva, Bellingham, WA.....................................     9
Akers, Lowell, Sycamore, IL......................................    10
Albertson, Donald, Spring Mills, PA..............................    10
Albertson, Jackie, Courtland & Republic, KS......................    10
Alderman-Tuttle, Zoey, Vienna, OH................................    11
Allen, Alice, Wells River, VT....................................    11
Allen, Amanda, Washington, D.C...................................    12
Andersen, Ronald, Washington, IA.................................    12
Anderson, Doug, Juniata, NE......................................    13
Anderson, Dwayne, Lynn Center, IL................................    13
Anderson, Glen, Lacey, WA........................................    13
Anderson, Linda, Okemos, MI......................................    13
Angelus, Nathan, Portland, OR....................................    14
Antrim-Cashin, Elizabeth, Dobbs Ferry, NY........................    14
Archibald, Tom, Ithaca, NY.......................................    14
Asbury, Allison, Pittsburgh, PA..................................    15
Askerooth, Scott, Fargo, ND......................................    15
Asmundson, Faye, Berthold, ND....................................    16
Atkins, Gene, Muleshoe, TX.......................................    16
Augenstein, Tracy, East Lansing, MI..............................    16
Aumann, Kent, Nokomis, IL........................................    17
Aust, Rich, Germantown, TN.......................................    17
Austin, Lenore, Idaho Falls, ID..................................    17
Avis, Sharon, Dos Palos, CA......................................    17
B., Sarah, Metter, GA............................................    17
Backer, Susan, Courtenay, ND.....................................    18
Baehler, Vernon, Moscow, KS......................................    18
Bair, Krystina, Seattle, WA......................................    18
Baker, David, Hermosa, SD........................................    19
Baker, Patricia, Boston, MA......................................    19
Baldisserotto, Valerie, Seattle, WA..............................    21
Baldwin, Todd, Aledo, IL.........................................    21
Balke, Gary L., Clayton, IL......................................    22
Ball, Kathy, Mililani, HI........................................    22
Ballantyne, Jerrad, Westhope, ND.................................    22
Band, Melissa, Park City, UT.....................................    22
Bandini, Vic, Plainfield, IN.....................................    23
Banducci, Gianna, Dixon, CA......................................    23
Banks, David, David, MO..........................................    23
Barber, Brian D., Phillips, NE...................................    23
Barmann, Lawrence, Red Oak, IA...................................    23
Barnett, Leslie, Sherborn, MA....................................    24
Bates, Emily, Fallston, MD.......................................    24
Batie, Dean, Kearney, NE.........................................    24
Bauman, Brandon, Stuttgart, AR...................................    24
Baur, Gene, College Park, MD.....................................    25
Bayless, Elaine, Glen Ridge, NJ..................................    26
Beadling, Bianca, Miami, FL......................................    26
Bear, Ida, New York, NY..........................................    26
Beck, Ronnie, St. Pete, FL.......................................    26
Becker, Beverly, Oakland, CA.....................................    26
Becker, Kelly, Pearl City, HI....................................    27
Beckwith, Jennifer, Lewis Center, OH.............................    27
Beier, Douglas, Independence, IA.................................    27
Belanger, Nik, Danville, VA......................................    27
Bender, Glenn, Fargo, ND.........................................    28
Bender, Hillary, Waltham, MA.....................................    28
Bendick, Robert, Arlington, VA...................................    28
Benjamin, Beth, Boulder Creek, CA................................    30
Bennett, Carol, Tempe, AZ........................................    31
Benson, Alan, Alan, MI...........................................    31
Berg, Joel, Brooklyn, NY.........................................    31
Berg, Madalyn, Tiburon, CA.......................................    33
Berger, Brett, Albion, IL........................................    33
Bergeson, John, Runnells, IA.....................................    34
Bernan, Sanford, Montoursville, PA...............................    34
Bertsch, Rodney, Champaign, IL...................................    34
Beswick, Eric, Kennewick, WA.....................................    34
Betcha, Hugh, Southampton, NJ....................................    34
Bhakti, Sara, Kirkland, WA.......................................    35
Bingnear, Barbara, Melbourne, FL.................................    35
Bitner, Van, Mason City, IL......................................    35
Black, John, West Branch, IA.....................................    35
Blair, Pam, Chicago, IL..........................................    35
Blakely, Brenda, Eupora, MS......................................    36
Blanchfield, Brett, Des Moines, IA...............................    36
Blean, Michael, Morrison, IL.....................................    36
Bliss, Arthur, Somis, CA.........................................    37
Bochonko, Kathy, Cumming, GA.....................................    37
Bodien, Alysha, Mt. Pleasant, MI.................................    37
Bogli, Kathereine, Granby, CT....................................    38
Bohman, John, Troy, ID...........................................    38
Bolin, Julia, Middlebourne, WV...................................    38
Bonvouloir, A., Sunnyvale, CA....................................    39
Borjesson, Joel, Corvallis, OR...................................    39
Boruta, Matthew, Dearborn, MI....................................    39
Bosco, Sam, Ithaca, NY...........................................    40
Bosold, Patrick, Fairfield, IA...................................    40
Bosserd, Thomas, Ypsilanti, MI...................................    41
Boustead, Marilyn, Woodbine, IA..................................    41
Bowman, Tyler, Hermiston, OR.....................................    42
Boyd, Bruce A., Idalou, TX.......................................    42
Bransgrove, William, Hereford, TX................................    43
Brant, Shelley, Sparks, NV.......................................    43
Bregitzer, Lisa, Atlanta, GA.....................................    44
Bremner, Elisa, Armonk, NY.......................................    44
Briggs, Chandler, Vashon, WA.....................................    44
Brink, Steven, Sacramento, CA....................................    44
Briscoe, Joshua, Charleston, WV..................................    45
Britten, Kevin, Red Oak, IA......................................    45
Brooks, Judd, Vaughn, MT.........................................    46
Brorsen, Andrew, Kankakee, IL....................................    46
Brzuchalski, Amy, Findlay, OH....................................    46
Buck, Renee D., Hayti, SD........................................    46
Buckner, Marian, Shepherdstown, WV...............................    47
Buell, Nancy, Tempe, AZ..........................................    47
Buitenwerf, Mike, Altoona, IA....................................    48
Buller, Gary, Sutton, NE.........................................    48
Bulluck, Vancy, Winton, CA.......................................    48
Bulman, Thomas, Decorah, IA......................................    48
Bultsma, James, Hot Springs, SD..................................    48
Bunning, Steve, Plymouth, MN.....................................    49
Burgess, Michelle, Oswego, NY....................................    49
Burke, Barbara K., Olympia, WA...................................    49
Burke, Derrick, Snohomish, WA....................................    49
Burley, David, Hammond, LA.......................................    50
Burnside, Michael, Bay City, TX..................................    50
Burton, Pete, Danville, IN.......................................    50
Busch, Ruth, Lafayette, AL.......................................    51
Bustin-Hatheway, Beverly, Hallowell, ME..........................    51
Butt, Fred, Crescent City, IL....................................    51
Butts, Alan, Bismarck, ND........................................    52
Byrd, Linda, Saint James, MO.....................................    52
Cable, Brian, Superior, IA.......................................    52
Callaghan, Matt, Rockton, IL.....................................    52
Callahan, Sharon, East Windsor, NJ...............................    53
Callaway, Ginette, Jonesboro, GA.................................    53
Canright, Mark, Asbury, NJ.......................................    53
Caouette, Jessica, Denver, CO....................................    54
Capelle, Janet, North Fairfield, OH..............................    54
Capozzelli, J., New York, NY.....................................    55
Carl Isle, Luna, Wailuku, HI.....................................    55
Carlisi, Cathy, Atlanta, GA......................................    55
Carnahan, Lisa, Fortuna, CA......................................    55
Carnel, Bob, Cannon Falls, MN....................................    56
Carnes, Erin, Portland, OR.......................................    56
Carpenter, George, South Berwick, ME.............................    56
Carroll, Katherine, Atlanta, GA..................................    57
Carroll, Susan, Lake Ariel, PA...................................    57
Carstens, Richard, Fresno, CA....................................    57
Carter, Boone, Las Cruces, NM....................................    58
Carvajal, Amanda, Merced, CA.....................................    58
Casler, Elizabeth, Fort Thomas, KY...............................    59
Castaneda, Jason, San Diego, CA..................................    59
Catanzaro, Donald, Lowell, AR....................................    59
Caylor, Cortney, Fort Worth, TX..................................    60
Ceva, Cindi, Montauk, AR.........................................    60
Chapman, Katherine, Seattle, WA..................................    61
Chek, Paul, Vista, CA............................................    61
Childress, Thomas, Rugby, ND.....................................    61
Christensen, Cindy, Sioux Falls, SD..............................    61
Christman, Kim, West Chester, PA.................................    62
Church, Cassandra, E. Montpelier, VT.............................    62
Churchill, Debbie, Fremont, NE...................................    62
Cielukowski, Cocoa Beach, FL.....................................    62
Clare, Peter, Tiburon, CA........................................    63
Clark, Rosemary, Madison, WI.....................................    63
Clark, Shawn, Portland, OR.......................................    63
Clausen, Steve, Chatham, IL......................................    64
Clements, Robert, Elmwood, NE....................................    64
Clow, Jeffrey, Harrisburg, SD....................................    64
Cochenour, Chris, St. Meinrad, IN................................    65
Codella, Deborah, Murrells Inlet, SC.............................    65
Coffman, Dick, Hinton, IA........................................    65
Collins, David, Cherokee, OK.....................................    66
Collins, Marybeth, Troy, VA......................................    66
Comer, Lindley, Elwood, IN.......................................    67
Comes, Daniel, Mapleton, IA......................................    67
Compton, Glenn, Nokomis, FL......................................    67
Cox, Cynthia, Fox, AR............................................    68
Coy, Oona, Northampton, MA.......................................    68
Cradduck, Kevin, Savannah, GA....................................    68
Crandall, Lorin, Saint Louis, MO.................................    68
Crawford, Dana, Flower Mound, TX.................................    70
Crockett, Nicholas, Partridge, KS................................    70
Crom, Paul, Holdrege, NE.........................................    70
Crowley, Joyce, Morton, PA.......................................    71
Cude, Bret, Nashville, IL........................................    71
Culbertson, Danny, Alachua, FL...................................    71
Czosnyka, Pete, Chicago, IL......................................    72
da Silva, Peggy, San Francisco, CA...............................    72
da Silva, Peggy, San Francisco, CA...............................    72
Da Silva, Veronica, Dover Plains, NY.............................    72
Daberkow, Rachel, Lakefield, MN..................................    73
Dahl, Darrell, Walnut, IL........................................    73
Darling, Joanne, Willis, MI......................................    73
Dau, Bev, West Chicago, IL.......................................    74
Davis, Amelia, Charlotte, VT.....................................    74
Davis, Matthew, Detroit Lakes, MN................................    74
Davis, Russell B., W. Harrison, NY...............................    75
Davis, Steve, Loveland, OH.......................................    75
Dawes, Chuck, Springville, PA....................................    76
Dawning, Desdra, Queen Creek, AZ.................................    76
Deaton, Kathleen, Fayetteville, AR...............................    76
DeCarlo, Lisa, Fort Myers, FL....................................    76
Dee, Gerald, Byron, MN...........................................    76
Delinck Manley, Marianna, Mishawaka, IN..........................    77
Delzio, Melissa, Portland, OR....................................    77
Den Hartog, Larry, Sheldon, IA...................................    77
Denenberg, Deborah, Omaha, NE....................................    77
Denis III, A.H., Vancourt, TX....................................    78
Denlinger, Marvin, Arcanum, OH...................................    78
DeRemer, Anthony, Laceyville, PA.................................    78
DerGarabedian, Denise, Clearwater, FL............................    79
Derstine, Mary, Kinnelon, NJ.....................................    79
Deryckx, Woody, Concrete, WA.....................................    80
Devorak, Thomas, Fargo, ND.......................................    80
Dick, Tiffiney, Courtenay, ND....................................    80
Dickhut, Randy, Omaha, NE........................................    80
Diehl, Ken, Wamego, KS...........................................    80
Dimock, Mary, Poughkeepsie, NY...................................    81
Dippel, Renee, Rolling Meadows, IL...............................    81
Dodson, Bruce, North Platte, NE..................................    81
Donahue, Susannah, Suffolk, VA...................................    82
Donovan, Stacey, Windham, NH.....................................    82
Dorsett, Cindy, Lubbock, TX......................................    82
Douglas, Mary, New York, NY......................................    82
Douglas, Michael, Stephen, MN....................................    83
Dowling, Maura, Hanover, MA......................................    83
Doxey, Chad, Ann Arbor, MI.......................................    83
Draper, Breland, Boise, ID; on behalf of Idaho Hunger Relief Task 
  Force and Idaho Interfaith Roundtable Against Hunger...........    84
Drayton, David, Berkeley, CA.....................................    85
Drown, Jim, Parkers Prairie, MN..................................    86
Dubert, Jane, Maquoketa, IA......................................    86
Ducre, Michelle, Carl Junction, MO...............................    86
DuGan, Dana, Hailey, ID..........................................    86
Dumbrill, Lucille, Newcastle, WY.................................    87
Dunbar, Daniel, Chicago, IL......................................    87
Dunbar, Gene, San Antonio, TX....................................    87
Dunham, Molly, New York, NY......................................    87
Dunlap, Jim, Sioux Falls, SD.....................................    88
Durensky, Roger, Barnesville, MN.................................    88
Dvorsak, Evan, Turtle Lake, WI...................................    88
Dybing, Thomas, Lanesboro, MN....................................    89
Eardley, Bradley, Boxford, MA....................................    89
Edmiston, Elizabeth, Durham, NC..................................    89
Edmundson, Stanley, Colby, KS....................................    90
Ehlers, Amy, Washington, D.C.....................................    90
Elliott, Phyllis, Santa Monica, CA...............................    92
Ellis, Michael, Sparta, IL.......................................    92
Ellis, Steve, Washington, D.C....................................    93
Elmore, Jonathan, Grove, OK......................................    93
Elting, Bradley, Hebron, NE......................................    93
Engstrom, Troy, Watertown, SD....................................    94
Erickson, Deanna, Seattle, WA....................................    94
Ernest, Pamela, Plainfield, CT...................................    94
Evans, Max, Urbandale, IA........................................    94
Evans, Rick, Springville, IA.....................................    95
Evans, Shavaun, Nashville, TN....................................    95
Falkenstein, Roxanne, Cave Junction, OR..........................    95
Fasching, Jim, Plainview, MN.....................................    96
F-Dillard, Patricia, Beaverton, OR...............................    96
Feeding America, Food Bank Network, D.C. Policy & Research Dept., 
  Chicago, IL....................................................    96
Feldman, Anna, East Lyme, CT.....................................    97
Fenley, Jodi, Chariton, IA.......................................    98
Fenster, Daniel, Bellerose, NY...................................    98
Ferro, Colleen, Plantation, FL...................................    98
Fickenwirth, Ann, Hingham, MA....................................    98
Fike, Dennis, Westmoreland, KS...................................    98
Fike, Jennifer, Ann Arbor, MI....................................    99
Fink, Andrea, Katonah, NY........................................    99
Fischer, Alfred, Aberdeen, MS....................................    99
Fitzgerald, Jerome, Shoshone, ID.................................   100
Fitzpatrick III, Wesley, Crystal Springs, MS.....................   100
Flaherty, Kevin, Storm Lake, IA..................................   100
Flemign, Gena, San Marcos, TX....................................   101
Flora, Arjan, Brooklyn, NY.......................................   101
Fogt, Joshua, Seattle, WA........................................   101
Follman, Randy, Inver Grove Heights, MN..........................   102
Forcelli, Dawn, Yonkers, NY......................................   102
Ford, Nancy, Olympia, WA.........................................   102
Fourez, Steven, Fairmount, IL....................................   103
Fox, Jean, New York, NY..........................................   103
Franco, Darlene, Waleska, GA.....................................   104
Franich, Tamara, Chattanooga, TN.................................   104
Frank, Bobbie K., Cheyenne, WY...................................   104
Fry, Christine, Oakland, CA......................................   105
Funk, Kent, Hillsboro, KS........................................   107
Gaines, Jeff, Pacific, MO........................................   107
Galati, Marc, Atlanta, GA........................................   108
Galbraith, Hadley, Topeka, KS....................................   108
Galbraith, Marc, Topeka, KS......................................   109
Gammino, V., Atlanta, GA.........................................   109
GaNun, David, Lebanon, NJ........................................   109
Garcia-Padilla, Diana, Harlingen, TX.............................   111
Gardner, Scott, Clinton, MO......................................   111
Garvey, Lydia, Clinton, OK.......................................   112
Gates, Brianne, Los Angeles, CA..................................   112
Gaudzels, Michael, Nashville, IL/Martinsville, IN................   113
Geddes, Suzanne, Cumming, GA.....................................   114
Gehrke, David, New Ulm, MN.......................................   114
George, Doug, Sutton, NE.........................................   114
Geri, Olivia, Vineland, NJ.......................................   115
Gerritsen, Jim, Bridgewater, ME..................................   115
Getz, Elliott, Lubbock, TX.......................................   116
Gillespie, Stephanie, Redford, MI................................   117
Gillison, William, Lake Village, AR..............................   117
Gilson, Luke, Los Angeles, CA....................................   117
Giombolini, Katy, Salem, OR......................................   117
Glenn, David, Hillsborough, NJ...................................   118
Goldsmith, Bruce, Galt, CA.......................................   118
Gonzalez, Maria, Tulare, CA......................................   118
Gonzalez, Michelle, Providence, RI...............................   118
Goode, Deany, Kansas City, MO....................................   119
Goodrich, Katherine, Doylestown, OH..............................   119
Goodson, Lynette, Longview, TX...................................   119
Goolsby, Larry, Washington, D.C..................................   119
Gorbett, Sabrina, Fairview Park, OH..............................   120
Gordon II, Rawson, Suwanee, GA...................................   121
Gotham, Bryan, Hermon, NY........................................   121
Grace, Natalie, New Hope, MN.....................................   122
Grahn, LoriJayne M., Pelican Rapids, MN..........................   123
Grandin, Philip, Grafton, MA.....................................   124
Graves, Bennie, Abilene, TX......................................   124
Graves, Tammy, Richfield Springs, NY.............................   125
Gray, Whisper, Manteca, CA.......................................   125
Greder, Fred, Mason City, IA.....................................   125
Green, Tabita, Brookfield, WI....................................   126
Greene, Maya, Austerlitz, NY.....................................   126
Griggs, Karen, Stockton, CA......................................   126
Grillo, Robert, Chicago, IL......................................   126
Grimes, Janice, Webster, IA......................................   126
Grimes, Marian, Dudley, MA.......................................   127
Groen, Dick, George, IA..........................................   127
Grotegut, Christopher, Hereford, TX..............................   127
Guenther, Debra, Durango, CO.....................................   128
Guith, David, Atwater, CA........................................   128
Gustafson, Randall, Phillips, NE.................................   128
Guttormson, Terry, Hendrum, MN...................................   129
Guttridge, Laura, Vero Beach, FL.................................   129
Guynup, Traci, Lancaster, PA.....................................   129
Hagan, Frank, Everett, WA........................................   130
Hagert, David, Emerado, ND.......................................   130
Hagman, Leah, Arlington, TX......................................   130
Haines, Barbara, Louisville, KY..................................   130
Hall, Judy, Livingston Manor, NY.................................   131
Hall, Richard, Scotland, SD......................................   131
Hamilton, Betty DuBose, Brownfield, TX...........................   131
Hamlin, Deborah M., Falls Church, VA.............................   132
Hammer, Janet, Cambridge, MA.....................................   133
Hansen, Gary J., Aledo, IL.......................................   133
Hansen, Lynn, Anita, IA..........................................   134
Hanus, Ann, Salem, OR............................................   135
Hargrove, Donna, St. Petersburg, FL..............................   136
Harms, Jennifer, Orlando, FL.....................................   136
Harpster, Tim, Wapakoneta, OH....................................   136
Harris, Boyd, Centralia, MO......................................   137
Harris, Patricia, Raleigh, NC....................................   137
Harrison, Beth, Woodburn, OR.....................................   138
Harter, Jay, Susquehanna, PA.....................................   138
Hartway, Nathanial, Albion, NY...................................   138
Haskell, Kristen, Lovell, ME.....................................   138
Haslett, Kurt, Modesto, CA.......................................   139
Hastings, Brenda, Burton, OH.....................................   139
Hasty, Caroline, Denver, IA......................................   139
Hauff, Debbie, Harvey, ND........................................   140
Hauserman, Chris, Clay Center, KS................................   140
Hays, Robert, Malvern, IA........................................   140
Healy, Douglas, Norris City, IL..................................   140
Hedberg, Dana, Atwater, MN.......................................   141
Hedlund, Melanie, Lexington, MA..................................   141
Heiden, R. Bruce, Buckeye, AZ....................................   141
Heikens, Lance, Lake Park, IA....................................   142
Heimes, Scott, Worthing, SD......................................   142
Heine, Michael, Chase, KS........................................   142
Helland, Paule, Mapleton, MN.....................................   143
Heller, Roger, Olivia, MN........................................   143
Heminger, Deloris, Dannebrog, NE.................................   143
Hendricks, Robert, Charleston, SC................................   144
Henry, Maggie, Bessemer, PA......................................   144
Hernberg, Elizabeth, Mechanicville, NY...........................   144
Hezel, Linda, Kearney, MO........................................   144
Hickman, Rich, Papillion, NE.....................................   145
Hignite, Sara, Dallas, TX........................................   145
Hill, Jaque, Atlanta, GA.........................................   145
Himes, Sarah, Lansing, MI........................................   146
Hitch, Dixon, Malta, MT..........................................   146
Hoag, Bill, Beallsville, OH......................................   146
Hodges, Louise, Hanford, CA......................................   147
Hodgetts, Robert, Carnegie, PA...................................   148
Hoekstra, Bill, Oakdale, CA......................................   148
Hoekstra, Bud, San Andreas, CA...................................   148
Hoesli, Steve, Delphos, KS.......................................   148
Hofer, Quint, Huron, SD..........................................   149
Hoff, Brian, Wykoff, MN..........................................   149
Holderly, Sid, Reynolds, IN......................................   149
Holloway, Tammy, Vale, OR........................................   150
Holsinger, Sheldon, Flora, IN....................................   150
Honas, Jeffrey, Aurora, NE.......................................   150
Hoots, Gary, Fargo, ND...........................................   151
Hopkins, Ruth, Le Grand, CA......................................   151
Horihan, Fred, Spring Grove, MN..................................   151
Houser, Brian, New Albany, OH....................................   151
Housing Assistance Council (HAC), Washington, D.C................   151
Howard, Jammie, Traer, IA........................................   152
Huang, Priscilla, Washington, D.C................................   152
Hubner, Gregg, Avon, SD..........................................   153
Hudson, Dale, Brewster, KS.......................................   153
Hudson, Julie, Waymart, PA.......................................   153
Humstone, Elizabeth, Charlotte, VT...............................   154
Hursen, Elaine, Charleston, SC...................................   154
Hursh, David, Lewisburg, PA......................................   155
Huston, Jenny, Oakland, CA.......................................   155
Huston, William, Dresden, OH.....................................   155
Hutchens, Clarice, Ballwin, MO...................................   156
Hutcheson, Sandra, Saint Augustine, FL...........................   156
Ibach, Steve, Berthold, ND.......................................   156
Ichwantoro, Kristina, Sandy Springs, GA..........................   157
Iddrissu, Suahd, New York, NY....................................   157
Ingvalson, David, Sauk Rapids, MN................................   157
Ingvalson, Mike, Blooming Prairie, MN............................   158
Inverarity, Taylor, Lawrence, KS.................................   158
Iovan, Deanne, Ferndale, MI......................................   159
Irwin, Alec, New York, NY........................................   159
Irwin, Alison, Desert Hot Springs, CA............................   159
Iversen, Burton, Austin, MN......................................   160
J., John, IN.....................................................   160
Jaffe, Jon, Seattle, WA..........................................   160
Jager, Matthew, Philomath, OR....................................   160
James, Sarah, Berkeley, CA.......................................   161
James, Stacy, Champaign, IL......................................   161
Janowski, Jon, Milwaukee, WI.....................................   161
Jenks, Michael, Watford City, ND.................................   163
Jensen, Nathan, Conroe, TX.......................................   163
Jermark, Brock, Logan, KS........................................   164
Joeres, Erhard, Sanibel, FL......................................   164
Johnson, Brad, Crosby, ND........................................   164
Johnson, Douglas, West Fargo, ND.................................   164
Johnson, Jayson L., Mound City, MO...............................   165
Johnson, Julia, Sunol, CA........................................   165
Johnson, Karla, La Crescenta, CA.................................   165
Johnson, Kelly, Cavalier, ND.....................................   166
Johnson, Louise, Modesto, CA.....................................   166
Johnson, Marti, Central Coast Region of California, CA...........   166
Johnson, Nadia, Forest Hills, NY.................................   167
Johnson, Rodney, Norfolk, NE.....................................   168
Johnston, Andrew, Decatur, GA....................................   168
Johnston, Carole, Avondale Estates, GA...........................   168
Johnston, Laura, Mishawaka, IN...................................   168
Jones, Jessica, Los Angeles, CA..................................   169
Jordan, A.J., Peru, IN...........................................   169
Kahre, Bret, Wolsey, SD..........................................   170
Kallenberg, Hayky, New York, NY..................................   170
Kamath, Anu, Brooklyn Park, MN...................................   170
Kamer, Krista, Merced, CA........................................   171
Kanable, James, Philip, SD.......................................   171
Kanak, Richard, Cherry Valley, IL................................   171
Kane, Tom, Honesdale, PA.........................................   171
Katz, Ruth, Pocantico Hills, NY..................................   171
Kaylor, Odile, Sahuarita, AZ.....................................   177
Keeter, Jerry, Olney, TX.........................................   177
Keifer, Jolee, Hamburg, PA.......................................   177
Keller, Wayne, Steeleville, IL...................................   178
Kelley, Sharron, Gleneden Beach, OR..............................   178
Kellogg, Lorelei, Santa Fe, NM...................................   178
Kelsey, Jeff, Alpena, SD.........................................   178
Kennedy, James, New York, NY.....................................   179
Kennett, Mark, Grinnell, IA......................................   179
Kent, Peggy, Dawsonville, GA.....................................   179
Kerns, C. Brent, Brownsburg, IN..................................   179
Kerr, William, Woodstock, NY.....................................   180
Keyes, Glenn, Charleston, SC.....................................   180
Kiley, Patrick, Okemos, MI.......................................   180
Kinman, Linda, Des Moines, IA....................................   181
Klaas, Erwin E., Ames, IA........................................   182
Klein, David, Normal, IL.........................................   183
Klein, Pamela, Sunset, TX........................................   183
Kluis, Farryl, Faribault, MN.....................................   184
Knapper, Anthea, Wildomar, CA....................................   184
Koenigshof, Dave, Cumming, IA....................................   185
Koenigshof, Justin, Sacramento, CA...............................   185
Kolevzon, Kenneth, Oakland, CA...................................   185
Kondracki, Kim, Cranbury, NJ.....................................   185
Kopp, Edward J., Lexington, KY...................................   186
Kotecki, Walter, Stockton, CA....................................   186
Kramer, David, Minden, IA........................................   186
Kraupie, Darrell, Bridgeport, NE.................................   186
Krech, Allan, Rolla, ND..........................................   187
Kreft, Timothy, Williston, ND....................................   187
Kreuder, Chris, Indianola, IA....................................   187
Krieger, Greg, Galesburg, ND.....................................   188
Kriegl, Josef, Redwood Falls, MN.................................   188
Kriese, Richard, Mitchell, SD....................................   188
Krull, Eldon, Marshall, MN.......................................   188
Krupnick, Wendy, Santa Rosa, CA..................................   189
Kugel, Mary Lou, Shawano, WI.....................................   189
Kuper, Keith, Ackley, IA.........................................   189
Kupstas, Matthew, Elkins, WV.....................................   190
Kvols, Jon, Sioux City, IA.......................................   190
Lambert, Gwen, Dayton, OH........................................   190
Lambert, Kaitlyn, Brookfield, MO.................................   191
Landis, Brian, Lebo, KS..........................................   191
Lang, Sam, Star, ID..............................................   192
Langevin-Doran, Lynne, Girdwood, AR..............................   192
Lantz, Sarah, Media, PA..........................................   192
Lappin, Max, San Diego, CA.......................................   192
Larabee, Lee, Burlington Jct., MO................................   192
Larson, Chris, Park River, ND....................................   193
Larson, John, Buffalo Center, IA.................................   193
Larson, Mike, Perham, MN.........................................   193
Lawrence, Bryan, Chatham, NJ.....................................   193
Lebacken, Bob, Reynolds, ND......................................   193
Lechtenberg, Barbara, Hutchinson, KS.............................   194
LeClercq, Ann, Oswego, IL........................................   194
Ledgerr, Gregory, Chicago, IL....................................   195
LeDuc, William, Mankato, MN......................................   195
Lee, Adolfo, Brooklyn, NY........................................   195
Leezer, John, Toulon, IL.........................................   196
Legner, Dan, Princeton, IL.......................................   196
Lerman, Steve, Plainview, NY.....................................   196
Levin, Emma, Wilsonville, OR.....................................   196
Leviton, Stuart, Baltimore, MD...................................   196
Lewin, Jake, Santa Cruz, CA......................................   197
Lewis, Debra, Beardstown, IL.....................................   197
Lewis, Jerry, West Point, NE.....................................   198
Lewis, Laura, Shelton, WA........................................   198
Limkeman, Darrell, Bloomfield, IA................................   198
Lincoln County Wyoming, Board of County Commissioners, Kemmerer, 
  WY.............................................................   199
Lineberry, T., Crestview, FL.....................................   199
Liss, Mary, Kearney, NE..........................................   199
Litwiller, Timothy, Hillsboro, KS................................   199
Livingood, Frank, Postville, IA..................................   200
Lloyd, Sarah, Wisconsin Dells, WI................................   200
Locker, David, Slidell, LA.......................................   200
Loe, Rob, Cooperstown, ND........................................   200
Logan, T., Austin, TX............................................   200
Logsdon, Theresa, Lakeport, CA...................................   201
Long, Michael, Camrillo, CA......................................   201
Loos, Gary, Clear Lake, IA.......................................   201
Loseke, Joel, Chamberlain, SD....................................   202
Lourenco, Michelle, Corona, CA...................................   202
Lovas, Sarah, Hillsboro, ND......................................   202
Lubiner, Cari, Highland Mills, NY................................   203
Lunt, Tobias, Brooklyn, NY.......................................   203
Luse, Jay, Lebanon, IN...........................................   203
Lutter, Joseph, Zell, SD.........................................   204
Lyon, Kristie, St. Louis, MO.....................................   204
Lyon, Shari, Mesa, AZ............................................   204
M., Jennifer, Pompano Beach, FL..................................   204
Ma, Lup, New York, NY............................................   204
Maciewski, David, Worcester, MA..................................   205
MacMillan, Catriona, Sydney, Australia...........................   205
Madeira, Jody, Bloomington, IN...................................   205
Magneson, Scott, Cressey, CA.....................................   206
Maine, Gretchen, Waterville, NY..................................   206
Mandzik, Steven, Arlington, VA...................................   206
Manion, Kevin, Sangerfield, NY...................................   207
Manning, Jr., J. Rives ``Judge'', Roanoke Rapids, NC.............   207
Marin, Gerardo, Oakland, CA......................................   208
Marks, Tara, Pittsburgh, PA......................................   210
Marshfield, Amanda, Marcellus, NY................................   211
Martin, Carol, Ashland, ME.......................................   211
Martin, Kent, Kahoka, MO.........................................   211
Martin, Nicole, Baton Rouge, LA..................................   212
Martin, Patrice, Homewood, IL....................................   212
Martin, Robert, Modesto, CA......................................   212
Martin, Ron, Steele, ND..........................................   212
Martinsen, Chad, Elgin, NE.......................................   213
Marvin, Judith C., Lewisburg, PA.................................   213
Marx, Paul, Corning, NY..........................................   213
Masley, Michael, Manville, NJ....................................   214
Mason, Jeff, Jefferson, IA.......................................   214
Masten, David, Greencastle, IN...................................   215
Matthes, Loy, Rapid City, SD.....................................   215
Mattson, Judith, Tucson, AZ......................................   215
May, Jenifer, Yonkers, NY........................................   216
Mayer, Gabriele, Okemos, MI......................................   216
McBride, Lynne, Lafayette, CA....................................   216
McCann, Sarah, Philadelphia, PA..................................   222
McClatchey, Walter, Alexandria, LA...............................   222
McCleary, Marlene, Upper Sandusky, OH............................   222
McClure, Dale, Omaha, NE.........................................   223
McCollester, Chad A., Silver City, IA............................   223
McCrea, Peter, Westport, CT......................................   223
McElhaney, David, Hookstown, PA..................................   224
McGarry, Allison, Flint, MI......................................   224
McGarry, Kyle, Ammon, ID.........................................   224
McGillis, Corey, Portland, ND....................................   225
McGinty, Sean, Lutz, FL..........................................   225
McGuire, Tim, Seattle, WA........................................   225
McHale, William J., Stockton, CA.................................   226
McKay, Virginia, Sprague, WA.....................................   226
McKendrick, Jennifer, Manti, UT..................................   226
McLean, Ph.D., Teresa A., Watkinsville, GA.......................   226
McLellan, Liz, Halfway, OR.......................................   227
McManigal, Monica J., Center, NE.................................   227
McNair, Mary Anna, Driscoll, TX..................................   228
McNamara, Susan, Southampton, MA.................................   228
Meekins, Thomas, Tom, SD.........................................   228
Meibergen, Joey, Enid, OK........................................   228
Meisner, Julie, Harpursville, NY.................................   229
Melbourne, Wolf, Rocky Mount, NC.................................   230
Melugin, Elizabeth, Raleigh, NC..................................   230
Mencher, Dr. Joan P., New York, NY...............................   231
Menozzi, Isabelle, Fairfield, CT.................................   235
Merrill, Greg, Stockton, CA......................................   235
Meyer, John, Brattleboro, VT.....................................   235
Meyer, Melody L., CA.............................................   236
Meyer, Naomi, Boston, MA.........................................   236
Middleton, Patricia, Queensbury, NY..............................   237
Millard, Brian, Arenzville, IL...................................   237
Miller, Barbara, Yuma, AZ........................................   238
Miller, Delvis, Norton, KS.......................................   238
Miller, Diane, Southampton, NJ...................................   238
Miller, Duane, Cobleskill, NY....................................   238
Mills, Beverly, San Francisco, CA................................   239
Mills, Cecile, Royal Oaks, CA....................................   239
Mitchell, Bradley, Charleston, SC................................   239
Moberg, Barb, Marietta, OH.......................................   239
Moltzen, Kelly, New York, NY.....................................   240
Montgomery, Jeff, Phoenix, AZ....................................   240
Monti, Michelle, Mansfield, MA...................................   240
Moore, Margaret, Calabasas, CA...................................   241
Morello, Phyl, White Pine, TN....................................   241
Morgenstern, Ava, Cambridge, MA..................................   241
Morlock, Jack A., Indianapolis, IN...............................   242
Morris, Jarrett & Ruth, Clayton, AL..............................   242
Morrison, Heather, Long Beach, CA................................   243
Moss, Emanuel, Austin, TX........................................   244
Moststad, Gregory, West Fargo, ND................................   244
Mowers, Laralyin, New York, NY...................................   244
Mroz, Annie, Media, SC...........................................   244
Mulcahy, Lee, Huntersville, NC...................................   244
Murbach, Randy, Ellicott City, MD................................   245
Murfin, Vicki, Satellite Beach, FL...............................   245
Murphy, Cortney, Langhorne, PA...................................   245
Murphy, Macy, Vincennes, IN......................................   245
Murphy, Thomas, Livingston, CA...................................   246
Naake, Larry E., Washington, D.C.................................   246
Nash, Kevin, Salt Lake City, UT..................................   247
Nash, Sean, Santa Cruz, CA.......................................   247
Nation, Gary, Pittsfield, IL.....................................   248
Neal, Nancy, New York, NY........................................   248
Nebel, David W., Nevada, IA......................................   248
Neil, Ruth, Austin, MN...........................................   248
Nelson, Kyle, Moorhead, MN.......................................   249
Nep, Shauna, New York, NY........................................   249
Nesburg, Robin, Fairfax, MN......................................   249
Newman, Robert, Burlington, OK...................................   249
Newton, Joseph C., Eufaula, AL...................................   249
Noethe, Patti, Britt, IA.........................................   250
Nofi, Erica, Brooklyn, NY........................................   251
Nolen, Timothy R., Carmi, IL.....................................   251
Norgaard, Michael, Tyler, MN.....................................   252
Nosal, Dan, Castle Rock, CO......................................   252
Nuttle, David, Tahlequah, OK.....................................   254
O'Brien, Colleen, Mont Vernon, NH................................   254
O'Bryan, Phil, Paris, IL.........................................   255
O'Donnell, MaryBeth, Manchester, VT..............................   255
O'Dowd, James, New Paltz, NY.....................................   256
Olson, Kent, Bismarck, ND........................................   256
Olson, Steve, Mayville, ND.......................................   257
Oppelt, John, Castroville, TX....................................   257
Ormiston, Jim, La Conner, WA.....................................   258
Osborne, Scott, Bandon, OR.......................................   258
Otto, Ray, Palmyra, MO...........................................   258
Overby, Paul, Wolford, ND........................................   258
Paap, Kevin, Blue Earth County, MN...............................   258
Pado, Christine, Third Lake, IL..................................   260
Palevsky, Stacey, San Francisco, CA..............................   261
Palmer, Michael, Stillwater, OK..................................   261
Parenti, Noel and Meghan, Winston-Salem, NC......................   261
Parham, Andrea, Sherborn, MA.....................................   261
Park, Alvin, Mililani, HI........................................   262
Park, James D., Presque Isle, ME.................................   262
Parker, Melissa, Westport, CT....................................   262
Parker, Riley, North Bend, WA....................................   262
Parr, Dr. Damian, Davis, CA......................................   263
Patrick, Clifford, Alexandria, MN................................   263
Patrone, Kerry, High Point, NC...................................   263
Patterson, Paul, Morris, IL......................................   263
Patzer, Darrell, Jamestown, ND...................................   264
Patzer, David, Jamestown, ND.....................................   264
Payne, Dexter, Boulder, CO.......................................   265
Peachey, Mark, Pratt, KS.........................................   265
Peirce, Nicole, Holland, PA......................................   265
Pence, Justin, Omaha, NE.........................................   266
Pennington, Amy, Seattle, WA.....................................   266
Perkins, David, Saint Augustine, FL..............................   266
Perry, Julie, Towanda, PA........................................   267
Pettus, Melissa, Lafayette, LA...................................   267
Pevarnik, Christine, Mobile, AL..................................   268
Pfeiffer, Adam, Oak Harbor, OH...................................   268
Phillips, Kathleen, Wellington, FL...............................   268
Pitchford, Richard, Waverly, IL..................................   268
Placke, Janet, Central City, NE..................................   269
Plank, Nora, Milford, MI.........................................   269
Pliml, George, Cook, MN..........................................   269
Ploetz, Douglas R., Little Genesee, NY...........................   269
Plunkett, Laura, Marblehead, MA..................................   270
Polkow, Steven, Owatonna, MN.....................................   270
Poppe, Brian, Falls City, NE.....................................   270
Porter, JoAnn, Port Townsend, WA.................................   271
Powell, Kathleen, Fresno, CA.....................................   271
Powell, Scott, Seattle, WA.......................................   272
Powers, Kristen, Chapel Hill, NC.................................   272
Prasad, Aravind, Arlington, MA...................................   272
Price, Terrell, Modesto, CA......................................   273
Probasco, Todd, Exeter, NE.......................................   273
Probst, Kimball, Logan, UT.......................................   273
Pugh, Becky, Bethesda, MD........................................   274
Qua, Fisher, Seattle, WA.........................................   274
Quarterman, Gretchen, Hahira, GA.................................   274
Quasius, Pete, Ft. Myers, FL.....................................   275
Radford, Richard, Clinton, KY....................................   275
Ragan, David, Effingham, IL......................................   275
Rakich, James, Visalia, CA.......................................   275
Ramsay, James, Loma, CO..........................................   275
Rathmann, Patricia, Moscow, ID...................................   276
Redding, Dave, Naples, FL........................................   276
Redig, Ann, Rochester, MN........................................   276
Redlin, Brad, St. Anthony, MN....................................   277
Reeder, Anne, Salem, OR..........................................   277
Refici, Jennifer, Macedon, NY....................................   278
Reilly, Kevin, Atlanta, GA.......................................   278
Renala, Angela, Dunwoody, GA.....................................   278
Renault, Gillian, Atlanta, GA....................................   281
Resej, Charlotte, Lewisburg, PA..................................   281
Rettele, Ben, Fairview, KS.......................................   281
Rex, Linda, Boynton Beach, FL....................................   281
Reynolds, Julie, Leasburg, NC....................................   282
Richards, Melanie, Gainesville, FL...............................   282
Richey, Mark, Eagle, ID..........................................   282
Richman, Nessa, Takoma Park, MD..................................   283
Rickard, Lynn E., Bakersfield, CA................................   284
Rickard, Pam, Pismo Beach, CA....................................   285
Rida, Karen, Worthington, MA.....................................   286
Ridgeway, Jessica, Aptos, CA.....................................   286
Riedell, Francis, Wall Lake, IA..................................   286
Riley, Derrick, Lee's Summit, MO.................................   286
Ringenberg, Chad, Grand Forks, ND................................   287
Ritchings, Anne, Placitas, NM....................................   287
Rizzuto, Robert, Brooklyn, NY....................................   287
Roach, Ed, Plainfield, IA........................................   288
Robinson, Patti, Thomaston, GA...................................   288
Rode, Harmony, LaMoure, ND.......................................   288
Rodriguez, Parthena, Sebastian, FL...............................   288
Rogers, Lori, Ossian, IN.........................................   288
Rogers, Sheilah, Redwood Valley, CA..............................   289
Roggenbuck, Amanda, Unionville, MI...............................   289
Rohrer, Daniel, Verdigre, NE.....................................   290
Roos, Leslie, Grand Forks, ND....................................   290
Rosengren, John, Sterling, IL....................................   290
Rose-Walter, Debbie, NY..........................................   290
Ross, Rose, Almo, KY.............................................   291
Rossiter, Jerry, Atwater, CA.....................................   291
Rossman, Jr., Russ, State College, PA............................   291
Roth, Todd, Holcomb, KS..........................................   292
Roy, Julie, Laingsburg, MI.......................................   292
Royer, Jarad, Industry, IL.......................................   292
Royer, Nana, St. Augustine, FL...................................   293
Ruddell, Greg, Meridian, ID......................................   293
Ruddock, Peter, Palo Alto, CA....................................   293
Ruderman, Russell, Keaau, HI.....................................   294
Rugaard, Kevin, Creston, IA......................................   294
Rutkowski, Joseph, Dallas, TX....................................   294
Ryals, Darren, Palmyra, MO.......................................   294
Ryals, Roger, Unionville, MO.....................................   295
Ryan, Darcy, Nipomo, CA..........................................   295
Ryan, Hope, Boise, ID............................................   295
Ryan, Wendy, Silver Spring, MD...................................   296
Rypkema, Ryon, Caputa, SD........................................   296
S., Ray, Modesto, CA.............................................   296
Saccato, JoAnn, Clearlake Oaks, CA...............................   296
Sadowsky, Jesse, Dickinson, ND...................................   297
Saeter, Timothy, Fosston, MN.....................................   297
Sahba, M.D., Glayol, Sacramento, CA..............................   297
Sahnow, Charlotte, Eugene, OR....................................   298
Salman, Rania, Plano, TX.........................................   298
Sander, Christine, Fairfield, CT.................................   298
Sangle, Kirien, New York, NY.....................................   298
Schaaf, Gene, Neligh, NE.........................................   299
Schaefer, Leah, Blue Ash, OH.....................................   299
Schickedanz, Jason, Perryton, TX.................................   299
Schmitz, Bob, Grandin, ND........................................   300
Schneider, Adam, Waverly, IA.....................................   300
Scholl, Dwight, Garden City, KS..................................   300
Schonbeck, Mark, Floyd, VA.......................................   300
Schoneberg, Bonnie, Pahala, HI...................................   303
Schroder, Gwen, Powell, MO.......................................   304
Schroeder, Eric, Austin, TX......................................   304
Schumacher, Gus, Washington, D.C.................................   304
Scott, Chad, West Point, MS......................................   305
Scott, David, Memphis, TN........................................   308
Scully, Sarah, Alexandria, VA....................................   309
Seamer, Rick, Goose Lake, IA.....................................   309
Secrest, Claudia, Robstown, TX...................................   309
Seliman, Ahmed, New York, NY.....................................   309
Seppanen, Loretta, Olympia, WA...................................   310
Serda, Daniel, Kansas City, KS...................................   310
Severson, Carol, Gem, KS.........................................   310
Sewell, Joshua, Washington, D.C..................................   310
Seydel, Gail Robin, Albuquerque, NM..............................   311
Shaffer, James, Hilmar, CA.......................................   311
Shamblin, Tim, Burley, ID........................................   311
Shaneyfelt, Garth, Greenfield, MA................................   311
Shannon, Dennis, Auburn, AL......................................   312
Sharp, Jerad, Indianola, IA......................................   312
Shaw, Randy, Big Springs, NE.....................................   312
Shea, Karen, Scituate, MA........................................   312
Shelly, Katherine, Thompson, PA..................................   313
Shepard, Ron, Mazeppa, MN........................................   313
Shepherd, Jill, Bloomington, MN..................................   313
Sheppard, Tracey, Fort Wayne, IN.................................   314
Sheridan, Morgan, Albuquerque, NM................................   314
Sherman, Katie, Minneapolis, MN..................................   314
Sherman, Mary, Cincinnati, OH....................................   314
Sherman, Valerie, Palatine, IL...................................   315
Sherrets, Scott, Independence, IA................................   315
Shinn, Ray J., Seneca, KS........................................   315
Shiraki, Jean, Washington, D.C...................................   316
Shoemaker, Wendy, Lawrence, KS...................................   317
Shoots-Reinhard, Brittany, Columbus, OH..........................   317
Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Auburn, CA............................   317
.................................................................
Sihm, Rochelle, Grant, NE........................................   318
Silver, Margaret, Atlantic Beach, FL.............................   318
Silver, Ronald, Atlantic Beach, FL...............................   318
Singleton, Greg, Springfield, VA.................................   319
Sitzman, Michael, Surprise, AZ...................................   319
Skaggs, Ruth Ann, Fredericktown, MO..............................   320
Slater, Bethany, East Syracuse, NY...............................   320
Slough, Rad, Rad, GA.............................................   321
Smiley, Helen, Houston, TX.......................................   321
Smith, Charles, Houston, TX......................................   321
Smith, Cheryl, Gorman, TX........................................   321
Smith, Christine, Boise, ID......................................   322
Smith, Grace, Adamsville, AL.....................................   323
Smith, Kim, Vancouver, WA........................................   324
Smith, Larry, La Porte, IN.......................................   324
Smith, Marietta, Mount Prospect, IL..............................   324
Smith, Mark, Marietta, GA........................................   325
Smith, Robert, Boise, ID.........................................   325
Smith, Timothy, Harper, OR.......................................   326
Smith-Dieng, Angela, Burlington, VT..............................   326
Solanki, Arvind, Laurel, MD......................................   326
Soltwedel, Norbert, Shumway, IL..................................   327
Sorensen, Denise, Kannapolis, NC.................................   327
Souza, Tony, Tulare, CA..........................................   328
Spindle, Audrey, Checotah, OK....................................   328
Staab, Nathan, Hays, KS..........................................   328
Stadler, Ellen, Dalton, PA.......................................   329
Stanbro, Deb, Tipton, IA.........................................   329
Stangl, Terri, Flint, MI.........................................   329
Stanley, Edh, Sacramento, CA.....................................   330
Stark, Natasha, College Park, GA.................................   330
Starr, Helen, Easton, MD.........................................   330
Stearman, Kim, Cookeville, TN....................................   331
Steedman, Lindsay, North Bethesda, MD............................   331
Stein, Jeffrey A., Hankinson, ND.................................   331
Stein, Leora, Port Townsend, WA..................................   332
Steinacher, Todd, Litchfield, IL.................................   332
Stenseth, Stu, Bismarck, ND......................................   332
Stepanek, Brian, Fresno, CA......................................   333
Stern, Jessica, Arlington, VA....................................   333
Stevenson, Stefanie, Cincinnati, OH..............................   333
Stewart, Travis A., Mankato, MN..................................   334
Stieg, Trevor, Hazel, SD.........................................   334
Stock, Mary, Phoenix, AZ.........................................   334
Stoller, Neil, Toulon, IL........................................   335
Stone, Rebecca, Cooperstown, NY..................................   336
Story, David, Woodward, OK.......................................   336
Stotesbery, Phil, Pelican Rapids, MN.............................   336
Strand, John, Minneapolis, MN....................................   336
Strand, Reno, Bottineau, ND......................................   337
Striepe, Rebecca, Atlanta, GA....................................   337
Suarez, Vickie, Sayre, PA........................................   337
Sunderman, Byron, Villisca, IA...................................   337
Svoboda, Alan J., Burwell, NE....................................   338
Swanson, Aaron, Lake Norden, SD..................................   339
Swartz, Greg, Starbuck, MN.......................................   339
Sweckard, Jennifer, Dallas, TX...................................   339
Sweet, Kristina, New York, NY....................................   340
Swires, Bobbie, Danville, IL.....................................   340
Tarvestad, Trent, Devils Lake, ND................................   340
Tatarsky, Kindra, Montauk, NY....................................   340
Tate, Robin, Antioch, TN.........................................   341
Taylor, Jr., James R., NC........................................   341
Tellez, Anna, Arcata, CA.........................................   341
Thoene, C.M. ``Cy'', Ansley, NE..................................   342
Thomas, Elizabeth, Trumansburg, NY...............................   342
Thomas, Rod, Gooding, ID.........................................   342
Thompson, Patina, Willcox, AZ....................................   343
Thornbrough, Monty, Altus, OK....................................   343
Thorpe, Jim, Aberdeen, SD........................................   343
Tibbitts, William, Salt Lake City, UT............................   344
Tibbles, James, Council Bluffs, IA...............................   344
Tinjum, Rodger, Detroit Lakes, MN................................   344
Todd, Russel, Cleghorn, IA.......................................   344
Toll, Matt, Lindsborg, KS........................................   345
Tomlinson, Wayne, Rushville, IL..................................   345
Toney, Holly, Fleetwood, PA......................................   345
Torgerson, Keith, Wahpeton, ND...................................   345
Tracy, Jennifer, San Diego, CA...................................   345
Travis, Jill, Atlanta, GA........................................   346
Treger, Stanislav, Vernon Hills, IL..............................   346
Trenado, Erain, Livingston, CA...................................   346
Tucker, Kenny, Lyons, KS.........................................   346
Tucker, Lori, Baldwyn, MS........................................   346
Twombly, Mike, Brooklyn, NY......................................   347
Tymkiw, Liz, Rosemont, PA........................................   347
Ueckert, Douglas, Dickinson, ND..................................   347
Valado, Martha, Bethesda, MD.....................................   347
Van Der Merwe, Jacobus, Berkeley, CA.............................   348
Van Hulzen, Kraig, Oskaloosa, IA.................................   348
Van Ness, Cheri, Newark, DE......................................   348
VanDerWerff, James, Plattsmouth, NE..............................   348
Vandevender, Sharon, Ormond Beach, MS............................   349
VanLaere, Marsha, Northwood, ND..................................   349
Vaughan, Peter, Reedley, CA......................................   349
Ver Steeg, Eugene, Inwood, IA....................................   350
Viker, Owen, Mankato, MN.........................................   351
Vikre, Ron, Harmony, MN..........................................   351
Vitello, Samuel, Roslyn Heights, NY..............................   351
Vogel, Hugh, Joplin, MO..........................................   351
von Tscharner Fleming, Severine, Cambridge, MA...................   352
Vorachek, Paul, Park River, ND...................................   352
Vrbka, Tom, Plattsmouth, NE......................................   352
Wagester, Raymond, Batavia, NY...................................   352
Walker, Malynda, Norfolk, VA.....................................   353
Wall, John, Minier, IL...........................................   353
Wallace, Edward, Atlanta, GA.....................................   354
Wallace, Ira, Mineral, VA........................................   354
Wallace, Lori, Gulf Breeze, FL...................................   355
Walrod, Rosemary, Olympia, WA....................................   355
Wanko, Ginger, Catonsville, MD...................................   355
Watts, Larry, Winterset, IA......................................   355
Weber, Kathryn, Huntington Beach, CA.............................   355
Weber, Matt, Bruning, NE.........................................   356
Webster, Martha, Lubbock, TX.....................................   356
Webster, Steven, Devils Lake, ND.................................   356
Weisenborn, Heather, Watkinsville, GA............................   357
Welber, Arnie, Sunrise, FL.......................................   357
Welch, John, Santa Cruz, CA......................................   357
Wert, Robert, Malvern, PA........................................   357
Wesely, Francis, Kansas City, MO.................................   357
West, Paul, Wichita, KS..........................................   358
West, Van, Murfreesboro, TN......................................   358
Westrum, Tim, Albert Lea, MN.....................................   358
Westwood, Julie, Centerville, OH.................................   358
Wheeler, Christopher, San Pedro, CA..............................   359
Wheelock, Donnette, Mankato, MN..................................   359
Wheelock, Greg, Mankato, MN......................................   359
White, Cody, Chickasha, OK.......................................   360
White, Cynthia, Duxbury, MA......................................   360
White, Derrel, Woodward, OK......................................   360
Whitman, Cody, Venice, CA........................................   361
Whitney, Mark, Social Circle, GA.................................   361
Wickersham, Lisa, Caledonia, OH..................................   362
Wiebe, Tim, McCook, NE...........................................   362
Wietbrock, Tom, Lowell, IN.......................................   362
Wilber, Cassidy, Fullerton, CA...................................   362
Wiley, Dinah, Washington, D.C....................................   363
Wilkins, William, Troy, OH.......................................   364
Wilkinson, Brad, Atlanta, GA.....................................   364
Williams, Earl P., Fresno, CA....................................   364
Williams, Everett, Madison, GA...................................   365
Williams, Kim, Paicines, CA......................................   368
Williams, Lindsey, Bowling Green, VA.............................   368
Williams, Nikki, Atlanta, GA.....................................   369
Williams, Ross, Raleigh, NC......................................   369
Williams, Ted and Louise, Lake Charles, LA.......................   370
Willlard, Susan, Peekskill, NY...................................   370
Wilson, Karen, Evans Mills, NY...................................   370
Wilson, Lorne E., Arapahoe, NE...................................   370
Windecker, Deb, Frankfort, NY....................................   371
Winfield, Tammy L., Corvallis, OR................................   371
Winslow, Robert, New York, NY....................................   372
Winter, Bette, Locust Grove, VA..................................   372
Wollschlager, Velma, Revillo, SD.................................   372
Woods, Jason, Sioux City, IA.....................................   373
Woolsey, Edward, Prole, IA.......................................   373
Wooton, Scott, Alden, NY.........................................   374
Worley, Don, Kettle Falls, WA....................................   374
Worrell, Allan, Jacksonville, IL.................................   374
Worrell, Luke, Springfield, IL...................................   374
Wright, Dana, Knoxville, TN......................................   375
Wright, Melissa, Redding, CT.....................................   375
Wright, Sr., Johnnie, Vance, SC..................................   375
Wyatt, Russell, Hot Springs, SD..................................   376
Yezbak, Dee, Strongsville, OH....................................   376
Yost, Joy, Hayes, SD.............................................   376
Yost, Randy, Hayes, SD...........................................   377
Young, Joshua, Carlinville, IL...................................   377
Young, Nathan, Los Angeles, CA...................................   377
Young, Thomas, Rapid City, SD....................................   377
Yount, Curtis, New Madison, OH...................................   378
Zanter, Keith, Beresford, SD.....................................   378
Zeeb, Paul, Sioux Falls, SD......................................   378
Zentner, Dave, Duluth, MN........................................   378
Ziegler, Connie, Oakley, KS......................................   379
Ziegner, Diane, Talkeetna, AK....................................   379
Zook, Caryl, Pembroke Pines, FL..................................   379
Zuchowski, Pamela, Wellsboro, PA.................................   379

 
      COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO FARM BILL FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE

                              ----------                              


                             SEPTEMBER 2010

                  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 hear testimony and 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 a venue in which any interested party could submit 
constructive comments on the direction they would like to see 
the new farm bill take. The Committee received over 1,000 
responses to the online questionnaire, reflecting issues from 
commodities and conservation to organics, energy, and crop 
insurance. 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 future discussions related to 
the next farm bill.


    Name: Barbara Abbott King.
    City, State: Aurora, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment:

Dear Members of the House Committee on Agriculture,

    I have been very interested in reading about Farmer Mac and 
his barnyard buddies, the pigs at AIG and Goldman Sachs . . . 
most of whom graduated from the same school of economics at 
Cornell, and probably slept at the same fraternity.
    I know not a better way of making money then betting on the 
demise of farmers like me. What chance did I have paying my 
mortgage by milking cows when my pay check was determined by 
the same people setting commodity prices by jockeying milk and 
lending money, and betting on my failure? The little guys are 
picked off but the next group, the mid-sized producers are in 
their sights. Dairylea has funded three expansions on my block. 
Unless these farmers are receiving more for their milk than the 
current pay-price. there is no way in hell, they can 
collateralize their loans. 150% per dollar of debt is demanded 
from FSA, and I am sure there is some kind of Federal guarantee 
involved in Farm Credit's liberal lending.
    A few years ago, I wrote a three paragraph letter to 
Congressman Maurice Hinchey. I gave to his aide, Dan Lamb at a 
fund-raiser to give to him. I asked for an audit of the 
Syracuse FSA office and Western NY Farm Credit.
    Farmer Mac, as I have read, sells securities to the same 
players who are now being investigated for selling short. Is 
there a better a way to gain market access, and valuable land 
then from a neighbor's timely demise? It's like sitting on the 
seat of your tractor honestly going about your work and getting 
picked off by sharpshooting bankers who have literally gotten 
away with financial murder.
    Dairylea, and all of its member program tentacles reach far 
into the business dealings of my neighborhood and put a 
stranglehold on credit as well. There is a strong Dairylea/HSBC 
connection, as Dairylea bought up the large bank's farm debt 
portfolio. These days, it seems only the chosen farms survive. 
Farm Credit is the only farm lender in town, so the Processor 
weeds out those that get in the way of processing efficiencies.
    Philip Angelides, chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry 
Commission, at a hearing held by his panel on Jan. 13, 
questioned how banks could underwrite poisonous securities and 
then bet against them. ``It sounds to me a little bit like 
selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance 
policy on the buyer of those cars,'' he said.
    Following that hunch, it seems in the case of a common, 
shared interest, Farm Credit and Dairylea designed, 
manufactured. and financed, as well. It is a win-win for the 
big producers financed by Farm Credit, and who hold contracts 
owned by Dairylea. Farmer Mac's CEO was a former Farm Credit of 
Western NY manager so it is no surprise to me that the 
observations in this testimony below are obvious to the 
professionals in another competitive business . . . banking!
    A comment about ``timely lending'' . . . I was put in 
default with FSA because that GSE lender would not subordinate 
my refinancing package in 2007 to my local Independent banker, 
although the paperwork was on the President's desk for two 
months ready to sign. I had good credit with both lenders, and 
$65,000 in a personal CD to back up my mortgage with FSA. The 
mortgage was written for 5% for 30 years. Terms easily 
affordable even with $13.00/100# milk. I was forced to 
surrender my cash savings to the ``government bank'' or I would 
have lost all that was secured by UCC's. Everything! Even a 
garbage truck that I owned that helped with the mainstay of 
alternate income. That UCC was filed without my permission. 
Guess they really wanted my land to sell at auction. My assets 
were valued at a million. The ``Bank of Last Resort'' wanted to 
make sure they were my Last Bank.
    Predatory Lenders . . . or just plain slow? but for the 
Lendee the clock ticks and default approaches . . . time is not 
relevant to the GSE banker. Just what the inside hedgers 
wanted? and FSA made damn sure I defaulted by holding up 
refinancing proceedings. As a bonus to the Syracuse FSA office 
for system efficiency ratings, they successfully GOT ME OFF 
THEIR BOOKS! My being one of only l00 accounts, not that many 
to service in a premier dairy region of Central NYS. I just 
wasn't one of the `premier dairies', as I was signed to Agri-
Mark, a competitor of DFA, and not Dairylea.
    I am curious how Dairylea orchestrates select farm 
expansions, and what ``sophisticated instruments'' are used in 
helping these farmers realize THEIR financial dreams. I wonder 
how long Farm Credit will let them live out their dreams before 
more valuable real estate assets are added to the Dairylea 
ledger. It a competitive business in the trenches, or should I 
say ``traunches''. Dairylea and Co. successfully put my 
business in the gutter, and subsequently shut me out of 
Democrat Party politics.
    Congessman Ed Townes sponsored legislation to allow the GAO 
to audit GSE's (Farmer Mac) books in the event of a lawsuit. 
Are you planning to do that in your Committee as a watch dog of 
farmers like me? Could you reveal that subprime is still alive 
and well in Cayuga Co., NY, and that the very top of the market 
(the CME) ultimately determines the lender's credit decisions 
at the bottom . . . Farm Credit, Farmer Mac and CoBank ever 
strengthen, and so do those individuals enabling the scheme. 
The large farmers get their Farm Credit dividends and are 
always secured for whatever expansions they wish to make, and 
there have been many here, even in a prolonged down market.
    What better way for Dairylea to make money when the milk 
price stays low to the processors, but the risky lendee fails 
due to the sustained low mailbox price. So the bet is on, by 
means of security sales to hedgers who already know that the 
farms will fail because of lack of cash. And Mr. Schumer, 
please don't exempt corrupt cooperatives from anti-trust. If 
FSA lent me money for my little processing plant I would have 
my own market . . . locally. Funny how they lend on cows and 
not a pasteurizer . . . isn't that farm equipment? I would not 
be forced to sign terrible contracts with terrible companies. I 
would be that family farm entrepreneur that my State wants me 
to be furnishing fresh milk, meat and grains to my hungry 
community.
    Over the years, the same players have moved from 
production, processing, banking, insurance, milk boards, 
government agencies like chess pieces. As the Public mourns the 
loss of farms, really, an elaborate inside banking-trading scam 
is resulting in a huge and efficient transfer of wealth from 
Farmer Brown and family to Farmer Mac and co-conspirators. Mike 
Gerber knows that big deals are made with a couple phone calls. 
Find out, to whom.
    Thank you, Barbara Abbott King, age 59, landowner since 
1974.
    I am adding this testimony to underscore others concerns in 
the banking industry years prior to the current bank failures:


                    testimony of the 108th congress


                               farmer mac


Independent Community Bankers of America
Written Statement
John Evans, Jr.,
D.L. Evans Bank,
Burley, Idaho.
Hearing to Review the Federal Agriculture Mortgage Corporation (Farmer 
        Mac)
June 2, 2004

House Agriculture Committee
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
    Thank you Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Stenholm 
for holding this hearing on Farmer Mac and for the opportunity 
to provide this statement for the record. I am John Evans, Jr., 
CEO of D.L. Evans Bank in Burley, Idaho and also the Chairman 
of ICBA's Agriculture-Rural America Committee.
    ICBA represents the largest constituency of community banks 
in the nation and is dedicated exclusively to protecting the 
interests of the community banking industry. Seventy-five 
percent of ICBA's members are located in communities with a 
population of 20,000 or less and our members are heavily 
involved in financing agriculture and rural development across 
the country. Commercial banks continue to provide approximately 
40 percent of the financing for farmers and ranchers, more than 
any other lender group.
    We appreciate the Committee holding this hearing. As you 
know, Farmer Mac is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) 
within the Farm Credit System (FCS) with a mission to provide a 
secondary market for agricultural mortgages. Although the 
purpose of this oversight hearing is to review the recent 
General Accounting Office (GAO) report on Farmer Mac, we would 
also like to offer our suggestions for additional oversight 
activities by the Committee pertaining to GSE's.
    As you know, the housing GSE's have been under considerable 
scrutiny by their Congressional Committees of jurisdiction and 
the Administration in recent months. We believe the larger 
agricultural GSE, the FCS, should not be exempt from close 
scrutiny. We are particularly concerned about the FCA's board 
structure and the FCA's predilection to facilitate the FCS's 
expansion agenda through regulatory changes. Therefore, we 
believe additional hearings would provide the opportunity to 
build upon the Committee's oversight function by focusing 
attention on the broader GSE, the FCS, in addition to just 
looking at Farmer Mac.
    Furthermore, as the numbers show, the use of the Farmer Mac 
I program by commercial banks has decreased significantly over 
time. In light of this, we believe there is a need for further 
program enhancements that would improve the usefulness of 
Farmer Mac for community banks. The use of the Farmer Mac II 
program by banks continues to be significant.
    We have several recommendations for improving the Farmer 
Mac I program that we believe would allow banks to more fully 
utilize this secondary market for agricultural real estate 
loans.
Greater GSE Oversight
    The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee 
has held 7 hearings on GSE's in the 108th Congress and the 
House Financial Services Committee has held 3 such hearings 
this Congress. Given that Farmer Mac is part of the FCS, a GSE, 
and the Administration's recent concerns over the housing GSE's 
and its efforts to enact new legislation establishing a 
stronger regulator, we believe it would be appropriate for the 
Committee to hold a hearing focusing on the role the FCA plays 
as the regulator of the FCS, of which Farmer Mac is an 
independent entity.
    Even though the FCS is regulated by the FCA, which is 
charged with regulating and examining all FCS institutions, it 
is important to point out that the FCA board has no mandated 
participation by members that are objectively and primarily 
concerned about protecting the general public's interests. It 
is possible, for example, for all three members of the FCA 
board to have previously been employed by the FCS and/or have 
direct ties to the FCS.
    Here are some recent examples of the FCS expansionist 
agenda, which are described in more detail below.
    Allowance of illegal activities by institutions if using 
``excess capacity in good faith''.
    Scope and Eligibility proposal that would allow unlimited 
lending to anyone for non-agricultural purposes even if the 
borrower has only a tangential involvement in agriculture.
    Development of broad new lending programs under the guise 
of ``investment'' authorities.
Illegal Activities
    The FCA allows FCS institutions to engage in ``illegal 
activities'' if it is proven that the institution is operating 
with so-called ``excess capacity and good faith''. This has the 
effect of encouraging more FCS institutions to seek the same 
exemptions for illegal activities and to build up excess 
capacity for this purpose. We believe such decisions have 
dubious legal underpinnings and should cause the Committee 
major concerns given the FCA's role as a regulator to prohibit 
any illegal activities by FCS institutions. The fact that a 
regulator would continuously allow illegal activities to take 
place under the guise of ``excess capacity and good faith'' 
certainly calls into question its objectivity and the level of 
independence the regulatory agency and its general counsel has 
regarding the industry it is mandated to regulate.
Scope and Eligibility
    This proposal would allow the FCS to go far beyond its 
traditional GSE mission of serving ``bona fide'' farmers as 
required by statute and allow the System to make an unlimited 
amount of loans virtually unrelated to agriculture to borrowers 
that have little or no real involvement in farming. This 
proposal is currently pending within the FCA.
Investments as Loans
    The FCA board recently directed staff to prepare a proposed 
rule allowing FCS institutions to offer retail lending for 
business and consumer loans for items completely unrelated to 
agriculture. This ``Farmers Notes'' proposal would allow the 
FCA to take a minor statutory authority to regulate FCS 
investments and turn it into broad retail and consumer-lending 
programs. We believe this is an abuse of FCA's authorities and 
was never envisioned by Congress.
    It is important to point out that such actions by the FCA 
have a direct bearing, not only on FCS institutions, but also 
on all lenders involved in the rural credit markets, including 
thousands of community banks across the country. According to 
the Federal Reserve, there were 2,600 agricultural banks as of 
June 30, 2002 and thousands of other banks lend in rural areas. 
Further expansion of what is supposed to be a limited purpose 
GSE to one that competes against the private sector by 
providing retail lending products and services to all rural 
residents will diminish the ability of community banks to serve 
agriculture and rural communities, resulting in fewer credit 
choices for rural residents.
    To begin addressing some of these issues, we offer the 
following recommendations:
    Increase the FCA board from 3 members to 5 members, adding 
board members who are objective and required to be principally 
concerned with protecting the public interest. This would help 
diminish criticism of the FCA as an advocate for the FCS and 
allow it to be considered an arms-length, objective, world-
class regulator, on par with the housing GSE regulator that the 
Senate Banking Committee and House Committee on Financial 
Services are working to establish.
    Prohibit the FCA from using the so-called ``excess capacity 
and good faith'' loophole and require the FCA to publish all 
instances of illegal activities by FCS institutions.
    Prohibit the FCS from using their so-called ``investment 
authority'' as a facade for expanded lending activities.
    Require the FCA to monitor and report on below-market, 
predatory pricing practices of FCS lenders.
    Reduce or eliminate FCA's exemptions under the Freedom of 
Information Act, as it appears the agency is creating a lack of 
transparency and accountability to the public, by using closed 
board meetings to consider important policy matters.
Banks' Use of Farmer Mac I
    Community banks were a strong advocate for the creation of 
a secondary market for agricultural real estate loans when 
Farmer Mac was chartered in 1987. However, the participation of 
banks in the Farmer Mac I program has decreased from 80 percent 
of program loans in 1996 to 22 percent in 2002, according to 
the 2003 GAO report on Farmer Mac. The FCS now accounts for 
about 55 percent of Farmer Mac I loans. For comparison, 
commercial banks held 34 percent of the nationwide agricultural 
real estate debt in 2003, while the FCS held 36 percent. As can 
be seen from these numbers, commercial banks have not been able 
to utilize the Farmer Mac I program on a level comparable with 
their agricultural real estate lending volume because the 
program has not been user friendly for community banks and 
small lenders.
    To give a personal perspective, my bank was the 6th largest 
originator of Farmer Mac I loans in 1999 and this year we 
haven't originated a single loan with Farmer Mac. We have 
dropped from originating $11-$12 million in loans four years 
ago to $0 this year in the Farmer Mac I program. This tells me 
there are some issues that need to be resolved so that 
community banks can resume the level of activity that once 
existed.
New Farmer Mac Products
    In 1999, Farmer Mac introduced a long-term standby purchase 
commitment (LTSPC) product, which is a commitment by Farmer Mac 
to purchase eligible loans from financial institutions at a 
future date if the loan deteriorates or the holder chooses to 
sell the loan. This program allows lenders to transfer the 
credit risk of loans to Farmer Mac, while maintaining the loan 
in their portfolio. In exchange for this agreement, the lender 
must pay Farmer Mac an annual commitment fee based on the 
outstanding balance of the loans covered by the LTSPC. 
Commercial banks have not participated in the LTSPC program to 
date; only FCS institutions have been participants in the 
LTSPC, which now represents approximately 40 percent of Farmer 
Mac's loan and guarantee portfolio. As of year-end 2003, there 
were $2.3 billion of LTSPC with Farmer Mac.
    We will be exploring the LTSPC program further with 
commercial bank lenders to ascertain whether Farmer Mac is 
marketing the program equally aggressively to banks as to FCS 
associations.
    In a positive move, Farmer Mac is planning to eliminate 
some of the pre-payment penalties on their products, which 
should be a help for lenders who have not used Farmer Mac 
because of the potential costs of such penalties if borrowers 
decide to pay off the loan earlier than anticipated.
Recommendations for Farmer Mac
    The GAO report on Farmer Mac in 2003, ``Some Progress Made, 
but Greater Attention to Risk Management, Mission, and 
Corporate Governance is Needed'' outlines a number of 
recommendations for Farmer Mac and its board to undertake as 
well as recommendations for the FCA and Congress. GAO urged the 
FCA to assess and report on the impact Farmer Mac activities 
have on the agricultural real estate lending market.
    But, Farmer Mac also needs to focus on further developing 
and enhancing its offerings to the thousands of community banks 
in rural America. There may be some external issues that have 
contributed to the reduced level of participation by community 
banks in Farmer Mac programs. However, we believe there are 
significant internal issues that need to be addressed that 
would allow banks to better utilize the Farmer Mac I program. 
We would recommend the following:
    Offer more competitive interest rate options so Farmer Mac 
loans are competitive with the FCS.
    Ensure consistency in the application of underwriting 
standards across loans.
    Provide for electronic submission of loan packages and 
ensure an efficient approval process (days, not weeks or months 
as has been the case).
    Ensure all users of Farmer Mac, both large and small, are 
treated equally.
    Greater outreach and communications by Farmer Mac to 
community banks and promote products without bias to the types 
and size of lenders.
    Require Farmer Mac to engage in four to six well-publicized 
listening sessions with agricultural lenders in different 
regions of the U.S. to gather input and ideas on how to 
streamline and enhance their products.
    Consider eventually altering the makeup of the Farmer Mac 
board by reducing the board size. This would include reducing 
the number of seats allotted to the FCS representatives, since 
this is supposed to be an independent entity within FCS, and 
placing a cap on the total number at eleven members instead of 
the fifteen members now on the board.
Farmer Mac II
    While commercial banks' use of the Farmer Mac I program has 
been on the decrease, the smaller Farmer Mac II program, which 
buys the guaranteed portion of USDA loans, continues to be used 
primarily by banks. In 2003, 650 lenders participated in the 
Farmer Mac II program, about 95 percent of which were 
commercial banks. The 2003 loan volume was approximately $270 
million with a total loan portfolio of $1.5 billion.
Conclusion
    In short, Farmer Mac was to provide a simple mechanism for 
lenders to securitize pools of long-term agricultural real 
estate loans at a low overhead cost, freeing up additional 
capital to lend to farmers. At this point, we believe Farmer 
Mac still has room for improvement if it is to reach the 
expectations that were envisioned when it was created. In 
particular, if Farmer Mac is to ever achieve the success once 
envisioned, it must offer a better array of competitively 
priced products tailored to the needs of community banks. It 
does not now offer products that allow community banks to 
compete with FCS lenders. This reality is inconsistent with 
lowering the cost of credit to farmers. Congress should ask 
``Why''? Why are the Farmer Mac interest rates uncompetitive 
with those of the FCS? And, why is its cost of funds in the 
AgVantage program uncompetitive with the other sources of 
funds?
    Again, we thank the Committee for holding this hearing and 
for the opportunity to provide this input. We urge the 
Committee to hold additional hearings in the future on the 
impact of both agriculturally oriented GSE's. If the housing 
GSE's and their regulatory structure are going to receive 
intense scrutiny by Congress, the Agriculture Committees would 
be remiss to avoid similar scrutiny over the GSE's under their 
oversight--particularly the Farm Credit System.
    ICBA would welcome the opportunity to assist in the 
implementation of any recommendations that will improve Farmer 
Mac programs in a way that is beneficial to community banks.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Kristin Adair, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Kristin Adair.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Legislative Counsel.
    Comment:
A Farm Bill That Promotes a Healthier America
    The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) 
supports passage of a Farm Bill with significant changes to 
agriculture and nutrition policy--changes that will improve the 
health of Americans by providing healthy meals (low-fat/low-
cholesterol/high-fiber) to school children, senior citizens and 
needy families; and making it easier to purchase healthful 
foods.
    Health Priorities for the Farm Bill:

   Minority groups disproportionately rely upon federal 
        food programs. Minorities have higher rates of 
        virtually every chronic disease related to over-
        consumption of fat and under-consumption of fiber. The 
        majority also cannot digest lactose. Improving the 
        quality of foods can serve to significantly reduce 
        demographic health disparities.

   Food programs must be based on the health needs of 
        their constituents. Therefore, they must emphasize 
        vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, whole grains, plant-
        based (vegetarian) meals, and nondairy beverages.

   The sole criterion for federal expenditure on 
        commodities for most food programs, including school 
        lunch and breakfast, is supporting producers. There is 
        no statutory health basis for these expenditures. USDA 
        spent eight times more on beef, cheese, and butter than 
        on all fresh fruits and vegetables combined.

   Any federal expenditure that effectively procures 
        commodities for federal food programs, especially child 
        nutrition programs like school lunch and breakfast, 
        must be based solely on science-based information on 
        the role of food in health and illness.

   Subsidies for corn and soy may undermine Americans' 
        health more than any other federal policy. Corn and 
        soy, which together with dairy and meat comprise about 
        73% of total agriculture subsidies, are primarily used 
        as feed. Corn and soy subsidies are a direct discount 
        to factory farms producing meat, dairy, and eggs. 
        Byproducts of feed production are sugars and oils also 
        made from corn and soy.

   Congress should significantly reduce or eliminate 
        any subsidies that support production of commodities 
        high in saturated fat and cholesterol--especially corn 
        and soy.

    Summary of Priorities for the Farm Bill:

   Significantly reduce or eliminate subsidies that 
        support production of commodities high in saturated fat 
        and cholesterol.

   Increase the availability of food that is low in fat 
        and high in fiber by augmenting Conservation and other 
        Programs to provide incentives for farmers engaged in 
        production of meat and feed crops to shift to the 
        production of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole 
        grains.

   Bring federal food assistance programs in line with 
        science-based information about the role of food in 
        health and illness.

   Expand the foods available to recipients of federal 
        nutrition programs to include healthy nondairy 
        beverages, and to emphasize fruits, vegetables, legumes 
        and whole grains.

   Make it easier for students in the School Lunch and 
        School Breakfast program to receive low-fat, low 
        cholesterol, high fiber meals, as well as nondairy 
        alternative beverages.

   Provide grants to every school in every state to 
        ensure adequate supply of fruits, vegetables, legumes, 
        and whole grains for school meals.

   Authorize a substantial increase in funding for any 
        discretionary food assistance programs to increase the 
        availability of fruits and vegetables.

   Increase funding for any programs that provide 
        incentives for or otherwise promote the consumption of 
        fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains.

    Founded in 1985, PCRM is a nonprofit health organization 
that promotes preventive medicine, especially good nutrition. 
PCRM also conducts clinical research studies, opposes unethical 
human experimentation, and promotes alternatives to animal 
research. PCRM has more than 100,000 members nationwide 
comprised of physicians and lay people.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Eric Aderhold, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 3:35 a.m.
    Name: Eric Aderhold.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Software engineer.
    Comment: I would like to ask Congress to please consider 
reducing or eliminating subsidies for commodity crops such as 
corn. By artificially lowering the market price of these crops, 
Congress is encouraging the use of unhealthy food ingredients 
that have been shown to contribute to the worsening health of 
this country.
    Commodity crop subsidies are a major reason why junk food 
is less expensive than fruits and vegetables. This needs to 
stop. The U.S. is the world's largest exporter of food. As 
such, the American people would be in no danger of starving if 
a few farmers exited the market after losing their subsidies. 
Furthermore, in times of trillion dollar deficits, it is 
imperative that we cut everything out of the budget that we can 
possibly do without.
    As a graduate of Iowa State University, I know full well 
the impact that the agriculture industry makes on rural 
economies. Even so, I think the rewards we would see in terms 
of public health and better fiscal solvency are well worth the 
risk.
    Thank you for your consideration,

Eric Aderhold.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Brian Adkins, Chilhowee, MO

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Brian Adkins.
    City, State: Chilhowee, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: The unavailability of non personal information 
(primarily tillable acres.) from FSA makes my job very 
difficult and affects the accuracy/integrity of my reports. By 
having to estimate the tillable acres . . . I cannot accurately 
appraise an agricultural property. Please consider revising 
this oversight from the previous bill.
            Thanks,

Brian Adkins,
Ritter Appraisals, Inc.
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Ryan Agate, Somerville, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Ryan Agate.
    City, State: Somerville, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Print Buyer.
    Comment: I am just writing to let you know that I think 
there needs to be some sort of change in the current system, 
getting farmers to produce sustainable foods over the 
overproduction they are doing now, and getting more fruits and 
vegetables. It makes sense to keep things local and I know that 
cannot work, but encouraging farmers to grow things that will 
keep their soil fertile and give them and future generations a 
chance to provide people with things they really need is 
important.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Eva Agudelo, Bellingham, WA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Eva Agudelo.
    City, State: Bellingham, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nonprofit small farmer advocate.
    Comment: Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic food is 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail 
market.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Lowell Akers, Sycamore, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Lowell Akers.
    City, State: Sycamore, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Rural Appraiser & Professional Farm Manager.
    Comment: Since the access to information at the FSA offices 
has not been available to me and the services, such as 
AgriData, Inc. I subscribe to my work has been more difficult 
and more time involved to complete appraisals. As a result, my 
fees have to be increased. This is true of all appraisers of 
rural properties. The cost to the farmers and farm owners is 
greater as a result.
    Since tax money is involved, it would appear this is and 
over protection to those receiving it.
    USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Donald Albertson, Spring Mills, PA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Donald Albertson.
    City, State: Spring Mills, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Software Developer.
    Comment: Dairy Farmers need a fair price for their milk. 
I'm not talking about thousand cow confined feeding operations, 
I mean family farmers with 100 cows or less. Continuing to 
concentrate production on fewer and fewer large farms exposes 
everyone to the risks of a catastrophic failure in a small 
area. (Like seafood from the Gulf, for example.)
                                ------                                


         Comment of Jackie Albertson, Courtland & Republic, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Jackie Albertson.
    City, State: Courtland & Republic, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retail Business.
    Comment: I feel that we CANNOT do accurate work if we are 
not allowed to have access to the mapping system. We print maps 
for ALL our FARMER CUSTOMERS so that we get to the right field 
and can soil sample and grid sample for them to put on the 
right PRODUCTS. If we aren't allowed to have this info our 
business will go down hill.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Zoey Alderman-Tuttle, Vienna, OH

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Zoey Alderman-Tuttle.
    City, State: Vienna, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: Monetary support for company-owned or corporate 
farming should cease or, at the very least, be severely 
curtailed. Instead, the Farm Bill could benefit the economy by 
subsidizing or providing assistance for small farmers. There is 
a tremendous interest in sustainability and agriculture among 
young people, and a supportive Farm Bill would ensure that 
farming becomes a real career choice for many, not just a hobby 
or a job that one does in addition to another. This is a job 
sector that many are interested in, but in which they cannot 
compete with the large agribusinesses.
    but gradually, in a way that gives farmers time to 
diversify. There is so much corn and soy that it forms part of 
almost every processed food, many hygiene products, and much 
packaging. Humans are omnivores--so much corn can be the 
attributed cause of many health problems, including obesity, 
due to an imbalance of nutrition. Furthermore, almost all our 
meat is corn fed. Cattle do not eat corn naturally, but grass. 
Again, we are losing trace nutrients that come only from the 
grass and soil cows consume naturally. Salmon are being 
engineered to eat corn. This is clearly neither natural or 
right, and the last thing Americans need is a diet with more 
corn. Repeated monocropping of corn and/or soy destroys the 
land and robs farmers of money.
    Instead, formulate a real (without the numerous loopholes 
and costs that render the USDA organic label unreliable for 
consumers and monetarily unattainable for small farmers) 
definition of permaculture (growing diverse crops in a 
sustainable ecosystem-like pattern), and subsidize farmers who 
employ permaculture. Permaculture protects the soil from 
degradation, reduces dependence on foreign oil (less equipment 
is needed), reduces pests and the needs for pesticides and 
herbicides, and promotes biodiversity. Permaculture also allows 
small farmers to grow enough variety to make local farmers' 
markets more appealing to the consumer and profitable to the 
farmer. Money in the markets means money in the local economy, 
which means local jobs, which leads to economic recovery of a 
more sustainable kind. Furthermore, local permaculture will 
help to ensure that America does not suffer the devastating 
food crises occurring in Africa and other parts of the world. 
It will allow for more specialized flexibility at a time when 
the climate is rapidly changing (partly caused by methane from 
feedlot cattle, carbon lost through monoculture, and from the 
chemicals and elements used in pesticides and tractors).
    Finally, GMO growth and use should not in any way be 
encouraged or subsidized. God has given us all the biodiversity 
that humankind can need. GMOs are appealing when the land is 
destroyed through monocropping, when monoculture has led to the 
appearance of disease, and when farms are so large that weeding 
becomes too difficult. With permaculture or even smaller farms, 
the need for GMOs will disappear, and the world will not starve 
more than it already is with them.
    In conclusion, the 2012 Farm Bill most pressingly needs to 
stop supporting agribusiness to the detriment of small farmers, 
and this will boost the economy. The Bill needs also to 
gradually cease the subsidization of corn and soybeans, instead 
subsidizing permaculture. This will make the U.S. more 
independent and stable in terms of food and national security. 
It will also improve the health of Americans and reduce 
obesity. Finally, GMOs are not any kind of answer. Please 
consider the future, small farmers, and all those who eat with 
health and love in mind.
    Thank you for your time and careful consideration.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Alice Allen, Wells River, VT

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Alice Allen.
    City, State: Wells River, VT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: For thirty-seven years I've been in business as a 
dairy farmer. The past four years as certified organic. It 
doesn't matter whether we are conventional or organic one of 
the major problems in all of agriculture is ``CONSOLIDATION of 
MARKETS''. At present there is government attention to 
antitrust violations--especially in dairy. BUT, we need action 
more sooner than later! For most of my years in the dairy 
business I've been actively involved in milk marketing coops, 
milk marketing study groups and was even sent to Washington, 
D.C. to meet with staff members of the House and Senate 
Judiciary Committees (Aug. 2001) to give a farmer perspective 
on the dangers of consolidation in dairy marketing. To what 
avail? If anyone is interested I am willing to share more of my 
thoughts for the new farm bill. THANK YOU.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Amanda Allen, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Amanda Allen.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Attorney.
    Comment: As an only national multi-issue Asian and Pacific 
Islander women's advocacy organization, the National Asian 
Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) would like to express 
our strong support to ensure that the reauthorization of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill of 2012) 
removes barriers to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance 
Program (SNAP) that prevent immigrant women and their family 
members from enrolling in this vital anti-hunger program. As a 
women's rights organization, we recommend that the following 
provisions be included into Farm Bill 2012 to eliminate some of 
these harmful barriers.

    1. Fairness for legal immigrants. Eliminate the five year 
        waiting period imposed on immigrant adults under 
        current law. Hunger does not wait five years, nor 
        should lawfully residing families have to wait before 
        gaining access to the Supplemental Nutritional 
        Assistance Program. Currently, women and girls 
        represent more than half of the immigrant population 
        gaining legal permanent resident status. Yet immigrant 
        Asian women face immigration restrictions, language 
        barriers, and social constraints that limit their 
        ability to achieve economic self-sufficiency and 
        independence. They are twice as likely as their male 
        counterparts to be widowed, divorced, or separated. 
        They are also more likely than U.S. born women to live 
        in poverty, be unemployed, and lack health insurance. 
        When they do join the work force, immigrant women are 
        relegated to low-wage work sectors despite having 
        similar educational attainment levels as U.S.-born 
        women. Removing barriers to SNAP would encourage 
        immigrant women to be self-sustainable and provide for 
        their families.

    2. Clarify eligibility for immigrant families with 
        children. Eliminate sponsor deeming rules for SNAP 
        households that include children. Exempting only 
        immigrant children from deeming does not go far enough 
        to remove barriers that prevent U.S. citizen and 
        lawfully residing immigrant children from obtaining 
        assistance or that reduce the amount of food available 
        to these families. Removing barriers in SNAP would help 
        immigrant women's ability to support their families. 
        According to the U.S. census data, approximately 85% of 
        immigrant families with children are mixed status 
        families. Confusion over eligibility under the 
        immigration and legal systems deters many immigrant 
        women from seeking necessary social care for themselves 
        and their children. Furthermore, majority of foreign-
        born women are of childbearing age. Approximately 42% 
        of immigrant women are between the ages of 25-44 years 
        old, while U.S. born women comprise approximately 26% 
        of that age segment. The proportion of childbearing-
        aged women increases among Asian and Pacific Islanders; 
        about half of API women are of reproductive age. 
        Immigrant women should not be afraid to access 
        necessary social services such as food stamps both for 
        themselves and their children.

    We urge Congress to reauthorize the Farm Bill and 
strengthen the SNAP program to meet the needs of hungry 
families and promote program participation.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Ronald Andersen, Washington, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Ronald Andersen.
    City, State: Washington, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As a certified real estate appraiser, my 
obligation to my clients is to provide the market value of 
agriculture property. Without the availability of accurate 
information on field sizes, CRP etc., on farms, I cannot 
readily do my job. The bill for the whole ag. program is paid 
from taxes, so the information on farms should not be any more 
private than the pay for teachers, police and other public 
employees. Please consider the need for open information for 
appraisers to be able to do the job we are obligated to do. 
Thanks.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Doug Anderson, Juniata, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Doug Anderson.
    City, State: Juniata, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Retailer.
    Comment: The CLU data is essential to provide accurate and 
precise custom applications.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Dwayne Anderson, Lynn Center, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Dwayne Anderson.
    City, State: Lynn Center, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: As a farm owner/operator and ag business owner and 
professional, I urge you to support the reinstatement of the 
CLU data into Section 1619. Your support will reinforce the 
huge benefits that CLU data provides for businesses who work 
closely with producers, particularly providing producers more 
timely, accurate and cost-effective services. If you are 
reluctant in any way to support this measure, I want to remind 
you that in Section 1619 there is no compliance, CRP, wetlands 
or other personal information in the CLU data. Thank you in 
advance for your support.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Glen Anderson, Lacey, WA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Glen Anderson.
    City, State: Lacey, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired government professional.
    Comment: Small farms made America great.
    Giant agribusiness is destroying small farms.
    The federal government has been subsidizing giant 
agribusiness and hurting small farms. REVERSE YOUR 
PRIORITIES!!!
    Support small farms and very small farms.
    Stop giant agribusiness with its chemical-intensive 
practices which destroy our environment and consume petroleum 
and natural gas.
    Support truly organic farming. Do NOT water down the 
meaning of the term ``organic.''
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Linda Anderson, Okemos, MI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Linda Anderson.
    City, State: Okemos, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please support sustainable agriculture, urban 
agriculture, and access for all income groups to healthy food 
in the next Farm Bill.
    Although I personally live in an affluent ZIP CODE and can 
afford to buy whatever food I want, I work (as a volunteer) in 
Lansing in a neighborhood where access to healthy food is a 
challenge. With colleagues, I have started a nonprofit 
corporation to support city farms on vacant property to grow 
vegetables to sell to local residents at reduced prices (i.e., 
prices that sustain the farm, but are affordable to low-income 
residents). Ventures like ours need help to get started, like 
any other small business, but can then stand on their own. If 
the Farm Bill included support, either through grants or low-
interest loans, it would go a long way toward making more 
healthy food available to people at all income levels.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Nathan Angelus, Portland, OR

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Nathan Angelus.
    City, State: Portland, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Accountant.
    Comment: I believe local community agriculture support is 
of great benefit. Support of our local farmers and food 
producers keeps money in the local community. In this time of 
economic uncertainty additional support provided through the 
farm bill would bolster local economies. Please consider these 
small producers when deciding on oversight and regulatory 
norms. We need oversight that works to keep us safe and healthy 
that suits large agribusiness however this same oversight could 
hurt the small producer. Please consider this.
    I am not in the food/farming/agriculture business. I am 
just a citizen who believes there are practical benefits to 
supporting smaller local farmers such as boosting the local 
economy and less dependence on foreign oil which assists in 
national security.
    Thank you for considering my opinions when deciding on the 
farm bill.
                                ------                                


          Comment of Elizabeth Antrim-Cashin, Dobbs Ferry, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:06 a.m.
    Name: Elizabeth Antrim-Cashin.
    City, State: Dobbs Ferry, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: I realize that this bill is trying to be brought 
together more quickly than originally anticipated, and I am 
writing in hopes that this does not mean that changes in 
policies and money allotments will be any less radical.
    We are in the beginning stages of what could be an absolute 
revolution in the way we farm. Organic, bio-dynamic, 
alternative: farming that involves a little more thought and a 
little less chemicals is beginning to gain rapid popularity. 
The sustainability of the sustainable movement, however, is 
utterly dependent on changes in policy.
    Now, more than ever, changes in our lives are calling for a 
change in agriculture. The passing of health care legislation 
indicates that the government is ready to do something 
reactionary in response to rising health costs and increased 
rates of diet-related illness. The 2012 Farm Bill has the 
chance to do something preventative, by changing diets before 
we end up in hospitals.
    In addition, the rate of unemployment is at 9.7%, and 
thousands of Americans are sitting, unemployed, on plots of 
land that could be utilized as the demand for local and organic 
sources of food increases.
    What I would love to see in this bill is an expansion of 
the list of subsidized crops and a reallotment of subsidies and 
incentive money that encourages polycultures and diversity. In 
addition, money should be allotted to a transition program that 
would aid in educating farmers about organic methods, and in 
recruiting new farmers.
    Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing segments 
in U.S. agriculture, and it is your responsibility to reflect 
these changes in your policy decisions.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Tom Archibald, Ithaca, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: Tom Archibald.
    City, State: Ithaca, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graduate Student and Evaluator.
    Comment: I applaud recent increases in support for organic 
and small-holding farmers in recent years yet I also strongly 
urge you to redouble such efforts. I believe that support for 
large, industrial farming is still disproportionate in the Farm 
Bill--hiding the hidden costs and externalities which allow the 
continuation of unwise and unsustainable practices with dire 
consequences for our country's health, nutrition, energy use, 
and community vitality.
    My first child will be born later this summer--your 
decision to increase support for organic and small-holding 
farmers will be a huge step in ensuring that she has access to 
healthy, sustainably produced food and can live in a strong, 
vibrant, diverse rural community. I thank you in advance.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Allison Asbury, Pittsburgh, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Allison Asbury.
    City, State: Pittsburgh, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chronically laid off.
    Comment: Do right by your benefactors (the taxpayers) and 
support local, sustainable production. Our government should be 
ENCOURAGING small scale farming, not hindering these efforts! 
Show us that we have a government by the people and for the 
people, not the corporations. Our government seems either inept 
or corrupt (or both). Going after raw milk and small farms? 
Worry about factory farms which produce dangerous and/or non-
nutritious food!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Scott Askerooth, Fargo, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Scott Askerooth.
    City, State: Fargo, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Adjuster/Agent.
    Comment: I have spent 29 years out of my 49 years, working 
crop insurance claims and running crop companies from North 
Dakota to Kansas and all states in between. I have personally 
worked (adjusted in the field), and been responsible for over 
5,000 claims, paying out countless millions of dollars to 
insured's. My expertise in the crop insurance industry is 
second to no one from claims, to production to compliance and 
reinsurance agreements.
    it but what our elected representatives are trying to do to 
this program is absolutely idiotic, disingenuous and completely 
without moral character.
    The Crop Insurance program administered by private 
insurance companies and independent insurance agents are 
without doubt, the brightest and most professional businessmen 
and women in the country.
    I am very much opposed to reducing the reimbursement and 
underwriting gains to the companies. This will negatively 
affect the servicing policies and ultimately, claims. This I 
know for a fact as I have been in this industry my entire life, 
and prior to that, my father and grand father were in the crop 
hail business since 1919.
    Companies and Insurance agents like myself, do not need the 
USDA to mandate the income of private Insurance Companies or 
private Insurance Agents. This administration is hell bent on 
making certain that everyone is at the same level and 
hamstringing all who want to make a better life for themselves.
    Reducing profits for Companies and reducing commission to 
agents is just unfair and on the heals of being a socialist 
theme.
    Crop Insurance is a unique field that is different than any 
other type of insurance and MUST be treated differently. 
Listening to Government bureaucrats and so called professional 
and industry experts carry on about the excess profits of 
companies is laughable. Does anyone remember the 1980's and the 
high loss ratios and excessive losses that companies had and 
which took years to make up those losses?
    It appears that some in Congress and other Government 
offices have it in for some companies and agents with the 
appearance of being personal in nature.
    Crop Insurance is business, pure and simple. Companies and 
agents perform a service to another business. It should not and 
cannot be the Governments role to regulate all aspects of a 
business that was asked to take over the Federal Crop program 
back in 1980. There is a reason why the Congressman and 
Senators wrote into law, the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act. 
Because they understood, they could not handle it in an 
efficient and professional manner.
    The Crop Insurance program is actuarial sound for the most 
part, and profits are on the rise for BOTH the USDA and private 
companies, I wonder if this is the reason why the USDA wants to 
hamstring companies and lower their profits? Once has to 
wonder.
    Lowering the reimbursement to companies will adversely 
affect all aspects of the crop insurance program from 
administration to claims and ultimately, will negatively affect 
the insured, the farmer. As I said, I doubt that there is 
anyone in this country that has had the amount of experience I 
have personally had dealing with all aspects of the crop 
insurance program and I can assure you, reducing the 
reimbursement will be the start of insured not taking out the 
necessary risk management protection that they need.
    If you ever want to talk and get the real answers from 
someone that won't blow smoke up any ones shorts, you know 
where to get a hold of me.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Faye Asmundson, Berthold, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Faye Asmundson.
    City, State: Berthold, ND
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Agent.
    Comment: Please do not make any changes to the current crop 
insurance program. My farmers like the program as it is, and 
none of them are in favor of ACRE or SURE. Please use the SURE 
and ACRE monies to keep the crop insurance program the good 
risk management tool that it is. It has worked over the past 
many years, and will continue to serve our farmers well if 
funding is there to keep it as is. The ACRE and SURE programs 
are not the answer to a disaster program, so the money to fund 
them would go to better use in crop insurance. It is imperative 
not to cut crop insurance subsidies; the program is working as 
is. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Gene Atkins, Muleshoe, TX

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Gene Atkins.
    City, State: Muleshoe, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1000+ acres.
    Comment:

    Honorable Committee,

    I have several hundred highly erodible acres in Lamb/Bailey 
Counties in Texas. It has provided wild life cover and water 
sources for several years. It is my understanding that the CRP 
program has not met the target acres first appropriated for. My 
land was not renewed after receiving a letter from Kansas City 
that it would be. I would like to have it back in the CRP 
program. Please do not do away with this program and allow us 
to resign up these sensitive acres.
            Sincerely,

Gene.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Tracy Augenstein, East Lansing, MI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Tracy Augenstein.
    City, State: East Lansing, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Registered Nurse.
    Comment: Please consider the plight of CAFO raised animals 
and enact legislation protecting them from cruel and inhumane 
living and slaughter conditions across the country. I would 
also like to see more funding and support for organic farming 
to help with greening the environment and ecosystem 
sustainability. Thank you for your time and consideration. 
Please watch Earthlings the documentary which highlights the 
issues plaguing factory farming and the environment.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kent Aumann, Nokomis, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Kent Aumann.
    City, State: Nokomis, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser, Auctioneer.
    Comment: I support the reinstatement of the CLU data into 
Section 1619. This data is important to assist in the valuation 
and sale of farm land. There is no personal or financial data 
in this information. Just acres and soil types. Please consider 
the Reinstatement of this important information.
            Thank you,

Kent Aumann.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Rich Aust, Germantown, TN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Rich Aust.
    City, State: Germantown, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professional Farm Manager.
    Comment: One of the problems we all know we will face is 
the continued extension of fixed payments under the DCP 
program. We are now in the third farm bill with this program. 
The problem is that these payments, by being tied to crop 
bases, subsidize the land tract and not the producer for the 
crop he is taking a risk on in any given year. We continue to 
set ourselves up for continued criticism by not changing the 
program. Pay a producer on the risk they take in that year; not 
on some historical bases that were built up in times past. If a 
producer grows all corn and beans in a given year then why 
would USDA pay them for cotton and rice base if the farm had 
any. They are not taking the risk of growing rice or cotton 
that year. Farmers make their decision on what to plant based 
on profitability. The farm program should pay fairly based on 
what is out there--not what someone might return to in three 
years.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Lenore Austin, Idaho Falls, ID

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Lenore Austin.
    City, State: Idaho Falls, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraisal Service Representative.
    Comment: As an Appraisal Service Representative I assist 
rural appraisers in gathering information for property 
appraisals. Every case we do needs an aerial map for correct 
assignment of land type. If we did not have use of the AgriData 
site, we'd have to contact respective FSA offices for this 
information which would be time consuming. All the information 
we use if for the benefit of our clients.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Sharon Avis, Dos Palos, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Sharon Avis.
    City, State: Dos Palos, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small Farm Owner.
    Comment: It is very important to provide responsible access 
to water for California farmers. If we don't, the U.S. will 
find itself reliant on foreign nations to provide food for our 
Country. We cannot allow this to happen. We are already sending 
industry and manufacturing to other countries and it is time to 
stop. It is time to support local growth and provide jobs for 
our citizens through industry, commerce, agriculture to keep 
the U.S. viable and strong.

Sharon Avis.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Sarah B., Metter, GA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 10:06 p.m.
    Name: Sarah B.
    City, State: Metter, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Struggling beginner farmer and struggling 
landlord.
    Comment: I am a female socially disadvantaged beginner 
farmer, and a landlord. I am finding it very difficult to 
assess information. When I call the USDA, FSA or any of the 
other agricultural office's they are always in a hurry to get 
off the phone and saying I do not qualify for any grant or low 
income program, most of the time before I can explain the 
program clearly that I am referring too, they tell me they are 
not familiar with the grant or program I am inquiring about. I 
spoke with a director in the rural housing department in the 
FSA Office in Lamar County, Barnesville, Ga. He claimed he did 
not know anything about the programs I was referring too. Ask 
me where did I get my information from, I told him, I got the 
information from the FSA and USDA website. He said I can not 
believe the information on the website. I ask him if he was 
familiar with the programs he was responsible for sharing and 
explaining to the people interested in applying for the 
programs. He ask me to tell him where I found the information 
and I walked him over all the programs I was referring to and 
all at once he said his computer could not click on NOFA page. 
I need help in getting my farm going and with renting my 
apartments that most of my tenants can not afford to pay 
because of lack of work and minimum income. I am trying to hold 
on but things are really bad. It would be wonderful if I could 
get a farm grant and a section 8 housing grant so my tenants 
will have some place to call home for a while. A renovation 
grant will also be great so they would a place they can be 
happy to live in. Lamar County has an extremely high 
unemployment rate, since most of the factories have closed. 
Tried getting a loan but my credit score is so low I do not 
qualify for a loan. NEED HELP !!!!!!! By the way, all the 
agents at the FSA, USDA, NIFA and others should be trained and 
required to have knowledge about their jobs or fired. Because I 
do not know any one they have helped. It appears as if they are 
saving the funds for the people they know. Please, please 
someone, please reads this.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Susan Backer, Courtenay, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 12, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Susan Backer.
    City, State: Courtenay, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dry Beans & Peas, Field Crops.
    Size: 1000+ acres.
    Comment: Crop Insurance is our BEST RISK MANAGEMENT TOOL 
and it's working. Our ag lenders like it also. We do not like 
whole farm units, it has too many variables. DO NOT LET 
Congress CUT any subsidy to the farmer for the purchase of crop 
insurance. Our next farm bill needs to relate to crop insurance 
and respond more quickly with our changing weather patterns and 
farming practices.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Vernon Baehler, Moscow, KS

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Vernon Baehler.
    City, State: Moscow, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agriculture Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am asking that you consider reinstating the CLU 
data in Section 1619 of the Farm Bill. I you this information 
for the appraisal's I do for producers. I my case so they can 
obtain financing for operating or land purchases.
            Thank you for your time,

Vernon Baehler,
Appraiser,
Farm Credit of Southwest Kansas.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Krystina Bair, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Krystina Bair.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Purchaser.
    Comment: Organic, sustainable agriculture is the future. 
There is no other way to maintain healthy life on this planet. 
Money and power need to be taken out of the hands of those that 
continue to pollute our world with chemical fertilizers and 
pesticides (i.e., MONSANTO). Please do whatever it takes to 
shift the paradigm from large agribusiness & factory farms to 
sustainable, organic family farms. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Baker, Hermosa, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: David Baker.
    City, State: Hermosa, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: Section 1619 and the lack of CLU data has 
increased the time required to complete an agricultural 
appraisal and has, therefore, increased the cost of an 
appraisal to the user. Section 1619 was not part of the 2008 
Farm Bill, but was inserted into the bill during the Conference 
Committee process without public input. CLU data only contains 
field boundary information and does not include compliance 
information, wetland, CRP or ownership information so allowing 
appraiser to access this information does not violate privacy 
concerns or reveal confidential information. The prohibition of 
allowing public access to CLU data creates unnecessary 
inefficiencies and negatively impacts the appraisers ability to 
provide timely service. Please remove the Section 1619 
restriction from the upcoming farm bill.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Patricia Baker, Boston, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Patricia Baker.
    City, State: Boston, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chair, Massachusetts Food SNAP Coalition.
    Comment:

    Dear Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments in 
anticipation of your deliberations on the 2012 Farm Bill. 
Please accept these comments on behalf of members of the 
Massachusetts Food SNAP Coalition. The Coalition formed in 2000 
to address the Commonwealth's woefully low participation in the 
federally-funded food stamp program. The Coalition is comprised 
of representatives from community based anti-hunger 
organizations, hospital and community health care clinics, 
social services and day care agencies, legal services 
advocates, faith-based organizations, private foundations, 
immigrant organizations, local city government representatives, 
the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA), 
the Executive Office of Elder Affairs, and the USDA Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS).
    For the past ten years, the Coalition has worked closely 
with DTA and FNS to identify and promote policies, pilots and 
waivers that expand participation and increase the value of 
monthly SNAP benefits in the Commonwealth. Many Coalition 
members also directly assist households in filing SNAP 
applications, securing documents for eligibility and otherwise 
assisting low income households to access these benefits. The 
primary goal of the Coalition is to increase the ability of 
low-income households in Massachusetts to buy food in a 
dignified and client-centered way, and to thereby address the 
root cause of hunger.
    Before giving your specific recommendations for the 2012 
Farm Bill, we would like to take the opportunity to highlight 
the accomplishments of Governor Deval Patrick and his 
Administration's efforts to increase access to critical 
nutrition benefits. The Patrick Administration has wisely 
recognized that SNAP benefits are the first line of defense 
against hunger for low income families, recently unemployed 
households, seniors and persons with disabilities. Toward that 
end, Massachusetts has vigorously pursued federal and state 
options to improve access to the program for needy residents. 
We are very proud of our state and wish to highlight this great 
work for members of the House Committee on Agriculture.
    As the House Committee begins its deliberations on the 2012 
Farm Bill, the Coalition wishes to emphasize the importance of 
the SNAP program as an important fork-ready stimulus for both 
families and our state and national economy. Congress wisely 
recognized in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
that SNAP serves a unique countercyclical function, which is 
why ARRA included a 13.6% benefits increase in household 
benefits. In addition to families' increased spending power, 
federal research has shown that every SNAP dollar spent creates 
$1.84 in local economic activity--or $9 for every $5 in SNAP 
benefits.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/outreach/business-case.htm.
Few other programs bring this level of federal dollars directly 
into the hands of needy households.
    The Coalition has a number of priorities which we encourage 
the Committee to consider in its deliberations for the 2012 
Farm Bill:
    First, we urge the Committee to take note of the increased 
food insecurity in all Congressional Districts in the United 
States, including Massachusetts. The recent Gallup food 
hardship data produced for the Food Research Action Center, 
http://frac.org/pdf/food_hardship_report_2010.pdf highlights 
the extent to which food insecurity is prevalent in every 
Congressional District in the United States. Members of the 
Food SNAP Coalition continually report significant demand for 
emergency food, including, sadly, seeing at their food pantry 
doors many of the households that previously donated food to 
the feeding programs. The 2012 Farm Bill needs to ensure 
continued and strong funding of SNAP and other child and adult 
nutrition programs as long as the national and state economies 
are struggling.
    Second, we strongly urge the Committee to embrace the 
principals and goals of the President's campaign to End Hunger 
in 2015. As detailed in FRAC's detailed report, http://
frac.org/pdf/endingchildhunger_2015paper.pdf, the 2012 Farm 
Bill should include a number of key initiatives to end hunger 
for all Americans such as restoring economic growth and create 
jobs with better wages for lower-income workers; strengthening 
the SNAP/Food Stamp Program and Child Nutrition programs; 
working with states, localities and nonprofits to expand and 
improve participation in federal nutrition programs and 
ensuring all families have convenient access to reasonably 
priced, healthy food.
    Third, we urge the Committee to consider specific important 
changes to the SNAP program that will improve access, level of 
benefits and address the needs of long underserved 
constituencies. Specifically, the Coalition urges Members of 
Congress to include in the 2012 Farm Bill the following:

   Change in the methodology for calculating the core 
        SNAP benefit amounts. It is increasingly difficult for 
        individuals and households to meet their basic food 
        needs on the meager Thrifty Food Plan, and especially 
        to purchase many of the foods recommended by USDA for a 
        healthy food diet. Access to affordable fruits and 
        vegetables, fresh meats and fish is exacerbated by the 
        lack of low cost markets in low income neighborhoods. 
        The Thrifty Food Plan, developed during the Great 
        Depression as ``a restricted diet for emergency use'' 
        and simply not sufficient to meet the nutritional needs 
        of most low income families. We are grateful that 
        Congress agreed to adjust the benefits in April of 2009 
        under ARRA. However, it is time for Congress to give 
        serious consideration to an updated methodology that 
        recognizes the costs of purchasing healthy fresh foods. 
        We urge the 2012 Farm Bill embrace the Low Cost Food 
        Budget, which budget would bring SNAP benefits more in 
        line with what families are spending on food for their 
        households.

   Eliminate the five year waiting period for adult 
        legal permanent residents, immigrants granted 
        humanitarian parole and battered immigrants so that 
        they too may qualify with their eligible immigrant or 
        U.S. citizen children. Clearly households with U.S. 
        citizen, LPR or battered immigrant children suffer when 
        their parents are denied SNAP benefits for a five year 
        waiting period. In line with the 2002 Farm Bill 
        changes, the 2012 Farm Bill presents an opportunity to 
        restore SNAP to all eligible qualified immigrants.

   Allow individuals who turn age 18 to qualify for 
        their own SNAP benefits if they purchase and prepare 
        food separate from their parents. Current law requires 
        such adult children to be part of the SNAP household 
        until they turn age 22. Many older children are simply 
        unable to afford to live on their own while they finish 
        a training program or start a job. However, under the 
        current SNAP program rules, they are required to be 
        included in the SNAP assistance unit of remaining 
        household members, even though they may not share food 
        or income. This mandatory household inclusion rule 
        harms younger siblings and parents who are denied SNAP 
        benefits if the older adult child does not provide 
        information on his or her income or meet other program 
        rules.

   Increase the reimbursement rate to states for the 
        administrative costs of processing SNAP applications 
        and recertifications. Between March of 2005 and March 
        of 2010, Massachusetts has had an increase in SNAP 
        participation of over 108%. However, DTA's front line 
        SNAP workers continue to be overwhelmed by the growing 
        demand for benefits. Since 2002, the Massachusetts SNAP 
        caseload has almost tripled, yet the front line SNAP 
        workforce has decreased by 30%--including key clerical 
        staff involved in data entry, document management and 
        phone/office reception. In February, 2009 the Boston 
        Globe reported more than 20,000 applicants now seeking 
        benefits each month, with DTA caseworkers overwhelmed 
        by the requests. http://www.boston.com/news/local/
        massachusetts/articles/2009/02/26/
        food_aid_sign_ups_flooding_mass.

    The Food SNAP Coalition is very concerned that DTA has 
        reached a breaking point in handling additional SNAP 
        applications, especially as many more households seek 
        benefits due to the faltering economy. We urge Members 
        of Congress to increase the federal reimbursement for 
        state administrative expenses in order to recognize the 
        expense of administering this program and ensuring 
        timely and accurate benefits.

   Allow states flexibility in verification of 
        disability for SNAP program purposes. Under the SNAP 
        program rules, elder and disabled households may 
        receive higher SNAP benefits if they can claim out of 
        pocket medical expenses or higher shelter costs. 
        However, to qualify as disabled, a household member 
        must receive or be certified to receive a federal or 
        state ``disability-based benefit''. The Social Security 
        Administration has increasing delays in processing SSI 
        benefits, and many states have eliminated or severely 
        narrowed state General Assistance program benefits. 
        These two factors are making it increasingly difficult 
        for persons with disabilities to qualify for a 
        disability-based benefit that confers disability status 
        for SNAP purposes. Congress should include language in 
        the 2012 Farm Bill to permit USDA to allow for other 
        routes to confer disability in order to allow persons 
        with disabilities to qualify for the maximum SNAP 
        benefits they would otherwise be entitled to receive.

    Thank you for considering our recommendations. We are 
grateful for the opportunity to provide these recommendations. 
We are grateful for all the work you and your staff are doing 
to respond to the needs of all residents of this great country 
during such difficult economic times.
            Sincerely,

Patricia Baker,
Chair, Food SNAP Improvement Coalition.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Valerie Baldisserotto, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Valerie Baldisserotto.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Registered Dietitian.
    Comment: Farm and food policy should be linked more 
strongly with national health and nutrition goals, 
environmental quality, and reduction of green house gases. 
Federal Government programs should meet increased demand for 
fresh, locally grown, reasonably priced fruit and vegetables by 
expanding access, facilitating purchases, expanding local 
production facilities, and supporting farmers markets. Organic 
standards should be protected from threats by bioengineered 
crops. Food safety should be bolstered by strict monitoring of 
feed lots and meat and poultry processing.
    It is critical that increased production of and access to 
local, healthy food is paired with helping small and mid size 
farmers remain profitable.
    A strategic base of our agricultural land is absolutely 
essential to our ability to produce and supply fresh healthy 
sources of food and fiber and to maintain national security. 
Sustainable farming should be supported to reduce inputs and to 
close the loop on waste and environmental degradation.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Todd Baldwin, Aledo, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Todd Baldwin.
    City, State: Aledo, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: Please reinstate CLU data into section 1619. As 
you know, there is no compliance, CRP, wetlands, or other 
personal information in the CLU data. The CLU data is very 
valuable to me in my occupation . . . it allows me to be better 
at my job and helps me add value for my farmer-clients and 
ensure that their crops are insured properly.
            Thank you,

Todd Baldwin.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Gary L. Balke, Clayton, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:36 p.m.
    Name: Gary L. Balke.
    City, State: Clayton, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: Please reinstate the CLU data in section 1619 of 
the new farm bill. This information is very helpful to 
producers and those that serve producers.
            Thank you,

Gary L. Balke.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kathy Ball, Mililani, HI

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Kathy Ball.
    City, State: Mililani, HI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Teacher, Artist.
    Comment: As a former teacher we need good food for our 
schools. please support this bill.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jerrad Ballantyne, Westhope, ND

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Jerrad Ballantyne.
    City, State: Westhope, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I support the reinstatement of the CLU data into 
Section 1619.
            Thank you,

J. Ballantyne.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Melissa Band, Park City, UT

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Melissa Band.
    City, State: Park City, UT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate and Property Management.
    Comment: I really think it is time for the U.S. Government 
to stop subsidizing these huge corn and soy factories. Or, at 
least match the funds for small farmers. Make it worthwhile for 
small community minded farms to feed the local population. The 
U.S. consumer wants healthy food from a place we can trust. We 
want to see farmers in our community. We want to buy food that 
is produced locally, sustainably and responsibly. Thanks to 
shows like ``Food Inc.'' and Michael Pollan's book, and groups 
like Slow Food, the tide is turning. Don't be on the wrong side 
of this issue! Local Food, Slow Food, Responsible Food, 
Sustainable Food and Healthy Food for all. Fast/processed food 
should not cost less than fruits and veggies forcing low income 
people into expensive health problems.
    Thank you for your time and consideration,

Melissa Band.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Vic Bandini, Plainfield, IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Vic Bandini.
    City, State: Plainfield, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Applicator--Midwest corn and soybeans.
    Comment: Accurate and timely field data is essential to the 
farm and air ag business. Field data is required for new 
technology airborne/aerial application. Current field boundary 
and descriptions are required to deliver accurate aerial 
application.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Gianna Banducci, Dixon, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Gianna Banducci.
    City, State: Dixon, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: The Farm Bill should be viewed as a Food Bill. The 
policies established through this bill have the power to affect 
the food available for the entire world, considering its 
influence on market prices for products such as grain and corn. 
Due to this, it is vital that the Farm Bill support the small 
landowners/farmers worldwide instead of furthering the 
interests of the corporate food industry. In order to ensure 
food security in the world, we must provide a market for small 
farmers through fair prices. The detrimental cycle in existence 
of high input costs and low product prices destroys the 
livelihoods of farmers, thus inflicting a loss of biodiversity 
and sustainability. Stop placing the profits of the agriculture 
industry above the environment and human lives!
                                ------                                


                   Comment of David Banks, David, MO

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: David Banks.
    City, State: David, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I think the CLU Data ought to be reinstated into 
Section 1619.This is a very handy tool for all of Agriculture.
            Thanks,

Dave Banks.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Brian D. Barber, Phillips, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
    Name: Brian D. Barber.
    City, State: Phillips, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: I am a farmer and also a real estate appraiser. 
Not having the current FSA info. really costs me and the FSA 
office considerable time and money. As a producer I have no 
problem with appraisers, and others to have access to this 
info.

Brian D. Barber.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lawrence Barmann, Red Oak, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Lawrence Barmann.
    City, State: Red Oak, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Information Management Services.
    Comment: I support the reinstatement of the CLU data into 
Section 1619. Businesses that have access to CLU data are able 
to provide producers with more timely, accurate and cost-
effective services.
    I also want to send the reminder that there is no 
compliance, CRP, wetlands or other personal information in the 
CLU data.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Leslie Barnett, Sherborn, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Leslie Barnett.
    City, State: Sherborn, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nutrition Consultant.
    Comment: Please support producers of local, organic fruits 
and vegetables!!!!!
    It helps the environment, the local economy and the health 
of our citizens.

Leslie Barnett.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Emily Bates, Fallston, MD

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 10:06 a.m.
    Name: Emily Bates.
    City, State: Fallston, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: University Student.
    Comment: Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban 
farms across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear 
benefits: cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our 
water and endangers our health, while increasing economic 
development opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:

   Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good 
        they do rather than for the amount of crops they 
        produce.

   Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more 
        kinds of crops), adding carbon in their soil, and 
        putting perennial crops (such as hay and pasture) in 
        their fields.

   Protect income for farmers who raise organic food 
        crops that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA 
        food pyramid, so that we get better food and fewer 
        junk-food ingredients.

     Label GE/GM content in all products sold to 
            the public.

     Ban the production and sales of Genetically 
            Engineered/Genetically Modified crops--we don't 
            want to be eating them, and they damage the planet 
            and the health of our generation and future 
            generations.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Dean Batie, Kearney, NE

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Dean Batie.
    City, State: Kearney, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager/Appraiser.
    Comment: Restrictions on acreage information for fields, 
both current and historical has been a major hindrance in 
carrying out our work. FSA offices even refuse to provide 
planted acre maps to land owners on their own farms unless they 
have a share rent lease. Heirs to a property also are not able 
to gain historical acreage information if they didn't have an 
interest during those years. Financial and personal information 
should be protected, but the burden to the agricultural 
industry has been significant in withholding acreage unit data.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Brandon Bauman, Stuttgart, AR

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 02, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Brandon Bauman.
    City, State: Stuttgart, AR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee,

    I am 37 and farm 2,200 acres of rice, soybeans and wheat in 
Eastern Arkansas. Most of which is operated on a share-crop 
basis with several landowners. Nearly half of my production is 
in rice. My wife and I are partners in this business. As 
farmers retire, and we have opportunities to expand, I am 
concerned with the uncertainty of the structure of current farm 
policy and how we will be required to adapt to these 
complicated and ambiguous programs. Payment limits on 
participation of these programs will continue to ``limit'' our 
ability to operate under our partnership as we continue to make 
our living in this high input, labor intense occupation. With 
the prices of combines and tractors at nearly $400,000 and the 
soaring cost of fertilizers we need a safety net in this next 
farm bill that will continue to allow us to help feed the 
world. Oh, and not to mention the recent volatility in the 
futures market! We export roughly half of the rice produced in 
the U.S. and this industry is a vital part of our local as well 
as state economies. This is the first year that I have 
purchased a crop revenue insurance policy. If these policies 
can be tailored and somewhat affordable to all types of farms, 
then this could be a vital risk management tool for all 
producers.
    One other issue that concerns me is the conservation 
programs. I have recently enrolled a few acres in CRP with the 
intent to restore hardwoods on some rather ``marginal'' land. I 
have been very pleased with the program, especially the 
knowledge and support that I have received from my county FSA 
and NRCS office. As an avid outdoorsman, I hope to see a 
continued support for such programs. I believe that the best 
use of these ``marginal'' lands are in protecting our 
environment by reducing harmful gasses and enhancing wildlife 
habitat.
            Thanks,

Brandon Bauman,
Stuttgart, AR.
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                Comments of Gene Baur, College Park, MD

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 1:35 a.m.
    Name: Gene Baur.
    City, State: College Park, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: President of nonprofit.
    Comment: I'm writing to encourage you to promote more 
local, plant based agriculture systems and to discourage 
industrialized animal farming systems. Those who grow and 
market fruits and vegetables and other ``specialty crops'' 
should be supported, and their produce made more widely 
available, especially in communities with poor access to 
healthy foods. We have subsidized industrial commodity 
production for too long, and we're now seeing the negative 
impacts (human health problems, environmental degradation, 
animal cruelty). It is time for change.

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Gene Baur.
    City, State: College Park, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: President of nonprofit.
    Comment: I'm writing on behalf of Farm Sanctuary and our 
more than 230,000 members and supporters to urge Committee 
Members to produce a Farm Bill that does not support 
industrialized animal farming, commonly referred to as 
``factory farming,'' and instead to promote the production and 
consumption of plant foods. Farmers should be encouraged to 
produce and market fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes to 
consumers, and these foods should be made more readily 
available through federal food programs.
    The Farm Bill is a critically important piece of 
legislation that has profound impacts on both rural and urban 
citizens in the U.S. Unfortunately, Farm Bill policies over the 
years have favored commodity production systems that have 
contributed to serious health problems, which are now painfully 
evident. Farm Bill policies have supported industrial animal 
farming operations that subject animals to extreme cruelty, 
pollute the environment, and threaten the well being of 
residents in rural communities.
    There is a growing awareness and recognition of the impacts 
of agricultural policy, and the Farm Bill should reflect the 
interests of all parties affected, not just those of production 
agriculture.
    Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Elaine Bayless, Glen Ridge, NJ

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Elaine Bayless.
    City, State: Glen Ridge, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: The health of our citizens, particularly our 
children, is in rapid decline. By supporting local, organic, 
and small-scale farmers, the House Agriculture Committee can 
help reverse this trend. The next Farm Bill will have a huge 
impact on the lives of millions of children. Please think 
beyond what will please the lobbyists to what will benefit the 
most people.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Bianca Beadling, Miami, FL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:06 p.m.
    Name: Bianca Beadling.
    City, State: Miami, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Architect.
    Comment: I appreciate this opportunity to voice my thoughts 
on the upcoming Farm Bill. Granted, I am a layperson with 
regards to agriculture, but I do feel strongly that some things 
should change for the better. I think that the government 
should subsidize less grains/corn and more wholesome choices 
such as fruits and vegetables. I think that we would be a 
healthier nation if fruits and vegetables were as affordable to 
us as processed foods containing corn manufactured some 30 
ways. I think many people would benefit from a comeback of 
small, family farmers versus these industrial, factory farms. 
Our environment would be better for it, our local communities 
would be better for it and the many farmers who are currently 
indebted to producers like Perdue or Tyson would be better for 
it. I don't know the answers (you guys are the experts), but 
can we do something to encourage smaller scale production over 
favoring the big businesses that are currently controlling our 
food supply? Lets work towards a healthier, more sustainable 
future by empowering the small-time farmers and communities all 
over our country. Lets help make fruits and vegetables the more 
affordable option so that families on a budget don't have to 
cut out such an important part of their diets. Lets work for 
the people and not for the corporations that we're currently 
enslaved to.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Ida Bear, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Ida Bear.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: More money for TEFAP and SNAP needed.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ronnie Beck, St. Pete, FL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Ronnie Beck.
    City, State: St. Pete, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Steel Detailer.
    Comment: We need more inspectors . . . there are too many 
cases of food poisoning each year in the news . . . a safe food 
system is essential and our food supply needs to be protected 
from unscrupulous producers . . .why should anyone get 
Salmonella from spinach . . . doesn't make sense unless you 
look at how the factory farm system works . . . we need more 
ORGANICS to protect our food and environment
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Beverly Becker, Oakland, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Beverly Becker.
    City, State: Oakland, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: A simple request: keep sustainable alternatives in 
mind for research and incentives. Big Ag corporations don't 
have long-term answers, and our food & environment are 
increasingly contaminated with dangerous chemicals. Thanks.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kelly Becker, Pearl City, HI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 1:05 a.m.
    Name: Kelly Becker.
    City, State: Pearl City, HI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chef.
    Comment: I probably can't say it best, but I just want to 
put out there what I'm for and what I'm against. I think we 
should stop subsidizing corn and soybean crops. It makes no 
sense, people should pay what it costs to make food. It also 
makes non-nutritious food cheap and plentiful, and I don't need 
to tell you that there are too many fat people in this country. 
I want GMOs to be labeled on all packages, and I want the 
producers of GMOs to be financially responsible for 
contaminating non-GMO crops. I want battery cages for chickens 
banned, and a hefty fine or jail time for those that use them. 
I want organic certification to be cheaper for those who wish 
to obtain it.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Jennifer Beckwith, Lewis Center, OH

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:37 a.m.
    Name: Jennifer Beckwith.
    City, State: Lewis Center, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: COO.
    Comment: I request a Farm Bill that curbs factory farms and 
large food corporations. I demand a Farm Bill that provides 
fresh, wholesome food in our cities' schools. I insist on a 
Farm Bill that allows farms to make a transition to organic, 
sustainable growing methods for the sake of a cleaner 
environment for our children and grandchildren. I demand the 
cruel and inhumane practices towards animals on factory farms 
in all farming industries to be stopped and more humane 
practices implemented.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Douglas Beier, Independence, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Douglas Beier.
    City, State: Independence, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Realtor & Insurance Agent.
    Comment: Crop unit data is very important to a large number 
of people including appraisers, realtors, bankers, as well as 
operators and producers. This information should be available 
as public information.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Nik Belanger, Danville, VA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Nik Belanger.
    City, State: Danville, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nonprofit.
    Comment: Please support subsidy/tax incentives that will 
encourage crop diversification, a return to local food 
economies and remove incentives to produce the least healthy 
crops. I've heard too many statistics and seen too many 
unhealthy children and adults in my own community not to speak 
out against disastrous subsidies that not only hurt our economy 
but also hurt our children's future. No more subsidies for 
single-crop corporate mega-farms. Let's focus instead on 
growing a variety of local crops, encouraging nutritious 
GROWING and EATING and set ourselves up for a better future. 
Thank you.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Glenn Bender, Fargo, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Glenn Bender.
    City, State: Fargo, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Property Manager.
    Comment: As a North Dakota land owner and manager I would 
ask that you please reinstate CLU Data Section 1619. I need the 
updated information to do my job. It takes way to much time and 
paper work to get some of the information I need from FSA/USDA.
    Also the 2008 Farm Bill limits outside income and thus 
requires those who have that problem to take land out of the 
CRP program. I believe this to be a problem. I will be involved 
in putting 5000 acres back in production. Some of this land 
(CRP 23) should not be put back in production. This program is 
forcing people who can afford to leave the land in CRP to take 
it out or receive 0 income.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Hillary Bender, Waltham, MA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 1:36 a.m.
    Name: Hillary Bender.
    City, State: Waltham, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: Please get rid of farm bill subsidies.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Robert Bendick, Arlington, VA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Robert Bendick.
    City, State: Arlington, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer
    Comment:

July 27, 2010

    Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Lucas and members of the 
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide 
recommendations from The Nature Conservancy to you as you begin 
the process of shaping the 2012 Farm Bill. At this time, the 
Conservancy is making broad recommendations. The Conservancy 
priorities are to: (1) maintain habitat friendly agriculture 
and forestry; (2) increase funding for easements on working 
agricultural and private non-industrial forest lands; (3) 
remove incentives to break native prairie; (4) focus 
conservation programs to achieve local and landscape scale 
environmental benefits via partnership agreements; (5) improve 
water quality and flow regimes in watersheds affected by 
agriculture and forest management; (6) promote energy markets 
for biomass supporting conservation practices on agricultural 
and private forest lands while meeting other objectives 
including replacing oil imports and reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions; (7) create incentives for farmers to adapt to 
climate change; and (8) measure outcomes and direct 
conservation programs using science based assessment methods. 
We will be making more specific programmatic recommendations as 
you progress through your deliberations.
    The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit 
conservation organization working around the world to protect 
ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. 
Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural 
communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by 
protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. We are 
best known for our science-based, collaborative approach to 
developing creative solutions to conservation challenges. Our 
on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 states 
and more than 30 foreign countries and is supported by 
approximately one million individual members. We have helped 
conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States 
and Canada and more than 102 million acres with local partner 
organizations globally.
    The Farm Bill is an extremely important piece of 
legislation for the future of America's lands and waters, 
providing a critical opportunity to conserve private lands. The 
2008 Farm Bill provided nearly $55 billion over 10 years in 
funding for conservation programs in Title II as well as $45 
million for forestry in Title VIII. The Conservancy recommends 
maintaining these funding levels in the 2012 Farm Bill and if 
possible increasing them. We recognize the current federal 
budget deficit will make this difficult especially so since 
neither the Wetlands Reserve or the Grasslands Reserve program 
have baseline funding once they reach their acreage caps under 
the 2008 Farm Bill. We recommend Wetland Reserve Program 
acreage be increased to a minimum of a 4 million acre limit and 
Grassland Reserve Program acreage be increased by at least 
another 3 million acres.
    In addition, further progress could be made in using Farm 
Bill programs to support forest conservation, as well as 
building a stronger relationship between conservation programs 
and payments for ecosystem services. The 2008 Farm bill 
provided innovative provisions that allowed for the acquisition 
of industrial timber lands on large scale. These should be 
continued. The 2008 Farm Bill also started the process of 
focusing USDA to begin to foster an ecosystem service market. 
The 2012 Farm Bill should build on these efforts.
    Moreover, the Conservancy supports a workable and 
enforceable Sod Saver provision to remove incentives that 
continue the breaking of our Nation's remaining native prairie. 
Data from the USDA National Resources Inventory indicate more 
than seven million acres of rangeland have been converted to 
other uses, primarily cropland, from 1997-2007 (USDA-NRI 2007). 
In the Dakotas and Montana, USDA data indicate that more than 
500,000 acres of native prairie were converted to cropland from 
2002-2007. Conversion of native prairie creates marginal 
cropland at best and contributes to the continued steep decline 
in grassland birds, which are one of the most significantly 
declining groups of species in North America.
    The Conservancy supports the Natural Resource Conservation 
Service focus on special initiatives such as the Sage Grouse, 
Migratory Bird Habitat, Mississippi River Basin and Chesapeake 
Bay Initiatives. We believe a concerted effort should be made 
to focus Farm Bill conservation programs and resources to 
conservation at the landscape and watershed scale, thus 
maximizing conservation results. In order to achieve water 
quality and ecosystem improvements, we recommend that USDA 
continue to focus its relevant conservation programs to produce 
watershed scale impacts. Moreover, the Conservancy supports 
implementing these initiatives via the Cooperative Conservation 
Partnership Program. This program leverages federal funds with 
partner funding. A partnership approach recognizes the need for 
many actors to achieve landscape scale change.
    USDA has started the process of focusing on watershed scale 
impacts with Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi River Basin 
Initiatives and in the northern Everglades. Many USDA 
conservation programs and practices are focused by necessity 
and design at the individual field scale levels; the programs 
and practices while needing to be implemented at the field 
level must also fit within larger coordinated efforts to attain 
needed watershed improvements. Priority should be given to 
practices, bundles of practices and focused efforts that 
produce watershed scale improvements. In addition, individual 
farm planning should incorporate programs and practices with 
the goal of improving overall watershed health. Technical 
assistance must be expanded and improved to move from a field 
based approach to the watershed scale.
    Energy markets for biomass material may provide significant 
new income for the farm and forestry sectors of our economy. 
Income from energy markets for biomass can support conservation 
practices (i.e.,, restoration of wildlife habitat) on 
agriculture and private forest lands while meeting other 
objectives including replacing oil imports and reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. Full utilization of biomass to meet 
these objectives will require new investment in supply chain 
infrastructure. Biomass can be used to produce transportation 
fuels, electricity and energy to heat and cool buildings; 
current policies often fall short of putting biomass to its 
highest and best use. Policies that encourage community-scale 
utilization of biomass in systems such as combined heat and 
power that maximize thermal efficiency can promote rural 
development while also meeting energy independence and climate 
change objectives. Because energy markets for biomass may 
change agricultural and forestry practices, farm, forest and 
energy policy must assure accountability by both biomass 
producers and consumers to maintain environmental values 
including the protection of threatened species, wildlife 
habitat and water quality. Incentives and mandates for biomass 
production must not result in the loss of native forests or 
grassland or undermine the environmental achievements of farm 
programs including CRP.
    Despite the diversity of regions and microclimates in which 
U.S. crops and livestock are grown, the cultural and business 
foundation of U.S. agriculture assumes dynamic weather but a 
stable climate. Yet, the rapidity of observable climate changes 
is impacting the nation's agricultural traditions and the 
water, land, biodiversity resources on which it depends. 
Climate changes from higher average temperatures and 
temperature extremes to the timing and intensity of 
precipitation will directly or indirectly impact the resilience 
and viability of plants, pasture, range, and stock. The 2012 
Farm Bill presents an opportunity to include climate 
considerations and prepare U.S. growers to better manage 
climate change. From administrative provisions requiring the 
consideration of anticipated impacts to identifying and 
modifying key elements of programs like the Environmental 
Benefits Index of the Conservation Reserve Program to calling 
for periodic assessment of likely impacts with a report to the 
Committee detailing those impacts and the sector's capacity to 
and strategies for responding to change, the 2012 Farm Bill can 
be instrumental in helping farmers adapt to an uncertain 
climate future.
    Finally, greater attention to quantifying the environmental 
benefits and measuring the effectiveness of conservation 
programs would be valuable. A well developed Farm Bill can play 
a critical role in the conservation of America's working and 
forested lands, providing lasting benefits to our society. USDA 
is at the beginning stages of using scientific assessments with 
geospatial data such as the Conservation Effects Assessment 
Program and other reputable scientific information to focus and 
adjust conservation programs to greater impacts for long term 
success. We believe this scientific approach should be used in 
all of USDA's conservation programs. Flexibility in using the 
science should be both at the national and state level for 
program implementation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. The 
Conservancy looks forward to working with the Committee as it 
begins its deliberations for the 2012 Farm Bill.
            Sincerely,

Robert Bendick,
Director,
U.S. Government Relations,
The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, VA.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Beth Benjamin, Boulder Creek, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Beth Benjamin.
    City, State: Boulder Creek, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear House Agriculture Committee,

    I am an organic farmer/gardener in northern California and 
President of Camp Joy Gardens (CA 501(c)(3)) organization and a 
demonstration garden and teaching center for small scale 
sustainable ecologically sound agriculture that has been 
teaching new farmers and gardeners and our community at large 
since 1971. I am writing to urge your Committee to designate 
development of the organic industry as a top priority for not 
only the 2012 Farm Bill but also for all future agricultural 
policy.
    The organic industry is responding to the heightened demand 
from consumers for pure and local food grown sustainably in a 
way that's good for our land over the long term. As a result 
over the last 10-15 years organic sales are booming. Yet ag 
programs aimed at developing organic farming--research and 
extension activities, conservation programs, tailored crop 
insurance and help for farmers transitioning to organic 
production lag far behind from where we should be due to 
inadequate funding over past decades.
    While we are heartened that many good traditional organic 
practices such as soil building, crop rotation and cover 
cropping are receiving attention by NRCS and others, and are 
being incorporated into best management practices of 
conventional farms, there is a critical need for increased 
research to sustain and support necessary organic development.
    In crop agriculture, we are facing a looming crisis over 
the steady decline of public seed breeding programs in the 
United States. Advances in public seed breeding have been the 
leader in our country's agricultural progress and we must 
reinvest in seed research now to maintain future agricultural 
progress. Tomato production illustrates this point. The focus 
of tomato seed breeding is currently aimed at large scale 
California production. Yet tomatoes are one of the most 
important high value crops to many thousands of organic family 
farmers across all 50 states. The conditions these organic 
farmers face are dramatically different from those in 
California. For example, last summer a devastating widespread 
Tomato Late Blight situation was encountered by northeastern 
states. As a result there is now renewed interest in developing 
great tasting Late Blight resistant tomatoes for the East. 
Public seed development is a long term good for both society 
and agriculture and deserves strong multi-year funding support 
from Congress.
    OSGATA urges the House Agriculture Committee to effectively 
invest in the future of American agriculture by increasing 
funding for the development of organic production.
            Sincerely,

Beth Benjamin, President,
Camp Joy Garden, Inc.
Boulder Creek, CA
www.campjoygardens.org
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Carol Bennett, Tempe, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Carol Bennett.
    City, State: Tempe, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chef/Registered Dietitian.
    Comment: I would like to see the farm bill support small, 
independent farmers. Please provide subsidies for farmers 
employing organic methods of fertilizing and pest control. Make 
it less expensive for organic certification.
    Provide incentives for school districts to use local 
produce in school lunches.
    Create scholarships for students studying sustainable 
agriculture in our land grant colleges.
    Encourage county extension agencies to HIRE agents trained 
in sustainable agricultural practice.
    Create grants for creating a distribution system friendly 
to growers and consumers.
    Create incentives for large food corporations to locally 
source foods supplied in their chain stores.
    Provide funds for public health education on the 
nutritional benefits of eating locally grown, seasonal foods.
    Please do not continue to pay farmers NOT to grow food, and 
to dump low quality agricultural surplus foods on seniors, 
children and the poor.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Alan Benson, Alan, MI

    Date Submitted: Thursday, September 02, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Alan Benson.
    City, State: Alan, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: When the 2008 Farm Bill was passed their was 
intentions to better service the small farmer so he could 
participate in the taxpayer funded farm programs. However with 
the 2008 Farm Bill now in place my crop insurance premium has 
gone up at least 10 fold forcing me to cancel crop insurance 
due to the premiums are close to 50% of my farm income their 
for disqualifying me from 90% of the farm programs. What 
happened to the farm bill that was to reduce crop insurance 
premiums, make crop insurance more viable. What happened to the 
newly created (office of advocacy and out reach) that was to 
assist small farmers from being priced out of these tax payer 
funded programs.
            Thank you,

Alan Benson.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Joel Berg, Brooklyn, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Joel Berg.
    City, State: Brooklyn, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Director, New York City Coalition 
Against Hunger.
    Comment: As recently as 2008 (before the worst of the 
economic downturn), 49.1 million Americans, including 16.6 
million children, lived in households that suffered from food 
insecurity or hunger--unable to fully afford the food their 
families needed. This number exceeded the combined populations 
of the states of Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Arkansas, 
Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Combating hunger and food insecurity 
is an important goal in itself. But it is also a sound 
investment. Voluminous data proves that hungry children learn 
less effectively, hungry workers work less productively, and 
food insecurity costs the nation tens of billions of dollars 
annually in health care costs. A 2007 study by the Harvard 
School of Public Health found that domestic hunger and food 
insecurity cost the American economy $90 billion annually. 
Given the massive increase in food insecurity since then, I 
calculate that the cost of domestic hunger to our economy now 
likely exceeds $124 billion. The price we pay for food 
insecurity in children alone is at least $28 billion.
    The assertion that hunger is no longer a problem in America 
simply because we have obesity is flat-out wrong. Hunger and 
obesity are flip sides of the same malnutrition coin.
    A top priority for any Farm Bill should be to enact a plan 
to end hunger in America by expanding, simplifying, and better 
coordinating federal nutrition assistance programs. The Farm 
Bill should increase and expand benefits combine the existing 
SNAP Program with most of the existing other federal nutrition 
assistance programs. My colleague Tom Freedman has suggested 
that such a new program could be called the ``American Family 
Food, Opportunity, and Responsibility'' (AFFORd) program. More 
low-income Americans would be eligible for this program than 
the existing, separate, programs--and eligibility determination 
and application processes would be dramatically simplified. 
Under current federal law, families must usually earn below 130 
percent of the poverty line to get SNAP benefits and free 
school meals, but they must live below 185 percent of the 
poverty line to obtain WIC benefits and reduced-price school 
meals. These conflicting guidelines result in both increased 
government bureaucracy at the federal, state, and local levels 
and decreased access to food. Eligibility for all these 
programs under the new AFFORd program should be set at 185 
percent of the poverty line. There should be no asset limit. 
There should be one short, universal federal application for 
AFFORd benefits, which Americans could complete easily online 
or during an office visit. Not only would this reduce 
government paperwork and bureaucracy, it would dramatically 
increase the amount of nutrition provided to low-income 
families, particularly working families. Benefits should be 
large enough for families to afford the USDA Liberal Food Plan 
and should be available to all legal immigrants otherwise 
eligible by income.
    In addition, we fervently oppose any attempt to restrict 
what SNAP recipients can obtain with their benefits. Such 
policy change would be a big mistake--both patronizing and a 
waste of time and money. With billions of dollars at stake, the 
battle to define junk food would be epic, with nutrition 
experts pitted against food-industry lobbyists, slugging it out 
one food item at a time. Are Raisinets junk food or fruit? Junk 
food, you say? Then how about a caramel apple? What about a Fig 
Newton? Banana chocolate chip muffins? There would be 
protracted battles every year as new products are introduced 
and as the ingredients of existing products changed, requiring 
a massive government bureaucracy to continuously make such 
determinations.
    If such a concept is just applied just to sugary drinks, it 
would still face similar problems. Would it only apply to 
``added sugars'' or include any juices or milks with natural 
sugars? Would it include chocolate milks or other flavored 
milks? How about sports drinks? At what level of sugar would 
the tax kick-in?
    Given that the wealthiest Americans spend three times as 
much money on food as the lowest income Americans, the reality 
is that such restrictions will only negatively impact low and 
middle income families. There is no evidence at all that SNAP 
recipients obtain food that is less nutritious than equally 
low-income people who don't receive SNAP
    Moreover, micromanaging the lives of poor people--or 
anybody, for that matter--is patronizing and usually backfires. 
After all, when the nation banned alcohol, that only increased 
alcohol consumption. Besides, unlike artificial trans fats or 
cigarettes (which are bad for you no matter the amount), 
occasional sugary drinks, as part of overall balanced diet, can 
be just fine for you. While I rarely drink non-diet soda 
anymore, I still have an occasional Coke with Chinese food, 
which I think is a particularly delicious combination. Even the 
health food writer Michael Pollan admits eating an occasional 
meal with his children at McDonald's, including a sugared soda, 
as a rare guilty pleasure. Do we really want to send the 
message that non-poor people can enjoy such guilty pleasures 
whenever we want, that but low-income Americans can't?
    Such attempts are based on a faulty understanding of 
nutrition science and human behavior. It assumes that if we 
just eliminate a few ``bad foods'' from our diets, we will all 
be healthier. That's bunk. Good nutrition and healthy weight 
are all about balance, and adopting improved eating habits for 
a lifetime. Decades ago, weight loss programs such as Weight 
Watchers outright banned certain foods, and gave participants 
strict guidelines for how much of certain healthy (but usually 
horribly tasting) food they had to eat. People on such programs 
would often lose weight rapidly, but then gain it all back 
rapidly. In contrast, the most effective weight control 
programs today use points systems in which no food is 
``banned,'' but in which, if participants have a high calorie 
food one time, they simply have to make up for it by eating 
fewer points in the rest of the week. Such an approach is far 
more in line with actual human nature and thus allows people to 
change their entire lifestyles for life, still enjoying 
occasional guilty pleasures while improving eating habits for 
life. But most importantly, people can only eat healthier food 
if it is affordable and available.
    For a community to have good nutrition, three things need 
to happen: food must be affordable; food must be physically 
available; and individuals and families must have enough 
education to know how to eat better and regularly choose to 
perform the extra work necessary to do so. If you don't have 
all three legs of this table, the table will collapse. Yet all 
too often projects only focus on one of the three. Many provide 
nutrition education, lecturing people that they should eat 
better, but neither make food more available nor more 
affordable and are therefore destined to fail. Sometimes, food 
is brought into low-income neighborhoods, but at prices too 
high for most people to afford. That won't work either. The 
only way to succeed is to focus on all three aspects of this 
problem at once, as well as to promote strong regional food 
systems and bolster community food security.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Madalyn Berg, Tiburon, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Madalyn Berg.
    City, State: Tiburon, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: I think it is incredibly important that our farm 
bill reflect the needs of our citizens. Rather than subsidize 
commodity crops, please subsidize row and orchard crops 
instead. The health of the community would really benefit from 
the reduction in cost of fruits and vegetables. people in 
search of cheap calories should be able to live off really, 
local , seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables, rather than 
finding it more cost effective to live on a diet of sodas and 
hamburgers, a diet reliant on the cheap corn of today. If we 
want our country to be healthy tomorrow, its citizens, economy 
and environment must also be prosperous. By subsidizing small 
local farmers instead of agribusiness, and particularly crops 
that are nutritious and organic, and by supporting small humane 
grass fed meat producers, we could have stronger people, a 
smaller carbon footprint, and healthier local and national 
economies.
            Thank you,

Madalyn Berg.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Brett Berger, Albion, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Brett Berger.
    City, State: Albion, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate Appraiser & Consultant.
    Comment: Please, support the reinstatement of the CLU data 
into Section 1619. I work closely with farmers and this 
information is vital to providing timely and cost effective 
services. CLU data only contains field boundary information and 
does not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information. This data is 
used by farmers, appraisers, crop insurers, financial service 
providers, farm managers, irrigation, tilling installers, and 
aerial, chemical, and fertilizer and manure applicators.
    BOTTOM LINE: Without this information I must charge higher 
fees and it takes much longer for me to provide information to 
Illinois farmers and landowners.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of John Bergeson, Runnells, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: John Bergeson.
    City, State: Runnells, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: The survey maps are very helpful in knowing acres 
and keeping spray records.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Sanford Bernan, Montoursville, PA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Sanford Bernan.
    City, State: Montoursville, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Marketing.
    Comment: Sell all farm exports to oil producing countries 1 
pound of grain for 1 barrel of oil; stop giving away food 
produced here except for catastrophes. We use gasoline and 
diesel in our equipment to produce farm products. How about a 
food for oil program?
                                ------                                


                Comment of Rodney Bertsch, Champaign, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Rodney Bertsch.
    City, State: Champaign, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear Sirs,

    The CLU Data that I get from a company like AgriData is 
absolutely a great feature for my business as I am a Farmer and 
an Insurance a Real estate Broker. This data would still be 
available but at a greater cost and less effective manner. I 
think that this is a service that make Agriculture in the U.S. 
more cost effective. They are not giving out data that can not 
be found, but at grater cost. Get a life and don't be foolish 
and cancel this access.

Rod Bertsch.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Eric Beswick, Kennewick, WA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Eric Beswick.
    City, State: Kennewick, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: I would like to request that the FSA field maps be 
made public again. These maps assist professional appraisers in 
completing accurate and current appraisals for loan purposes on 
a variety of agricultural properties.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Hugh Betcha, Southampton, NJ

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Hugh Betcha.
    City, State: Southampton, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: End subsidies completely please, build a farm bill 
that supports small/local/sustainable farmers.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Sara Bhakti, Kirkland, WA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:07 p.m.
    Name: Sara Bhakti.
    City, State: Kirkland, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired psychologist and organic produce 
consumer.
    Comment: Organic agriculture is one of the best options for 
healthy food grown in an environmentally-sustainable way: 
improving soil quality and conserving water.
    Organic agriculture is the fastest growing segments of U.S. 
agricultural production and organic food is one of the fastest 
growing sectors of the U.S. food retail market.
    Your support for the programs listed below will be 
especially helpful to organic farmers:

   Research and Extension Programs that expand the 
        breadth of knowledge about organic farming systems and 
        provide that knowledge to organic farmers;

   Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers 
        for the conservation benefits of organic farming 
        systems and provide technical support for organic 
        farmers who want to improve on-farm conservation;

   Transition Programs that provide technical support 
        to farmers who want to transition to organic farming 
        practices but don't know how.

    Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Barbara Bingnear, Melbourne, FL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Barbara Bingnear.
    City, State: Melbourne, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Membership Director.
    Comment: If you care at all about the world as we know it, 
vote to stop supporting factory farms. Support should be given 
to local, organic, plant-based farming systems. Anything else 
is hypocritical and we who vote will remember.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Van Bitner, Mason City, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Van Bitner.
    City, State: Mason City, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Make FSA data available to appraisers.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of John Black, West Branch, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 7:36 p.m.
    Name: John Black.
    City, State: West Branch, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: FSA CLU data should continue to be public record. 
There is nothing that can not be seen from a plane that these 
images don't show. When we apply foliar fungicide we need these 
maps. They are also a big help with soil types and crop 
planning. I find it hard to believe someone is considering 
blocking these useful maps access. Please help us on your vote.
            Thank you,

John Black.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Pam Blair, Chicago, IL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Pam Blair.
    City, State: Chicago, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professional Dog Walker/Pet Sitter.
    Comment: Hi. I am writing to request that Congress please 
stop supporting factory farms in the Farm Bill, and instead 
support local, organic, plant-based farming systems. For the 
animals, the planet, and the people.
            Thank you.

Pam Blair,
Chicago, Illinois.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Brenda Blakely, Eupora, MS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Brenda Blakely.
    City, State: Eupora, MS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Grant Writer-Project Development.
    Comment: I work with numerous Main Street Communities that 
are addressing the issues of historic preservation and heritage 
tourism economic and community development. This is an 
important development for rural America. It develops a renewed 
sense of place for those who live in the communities that are 
being affected. It also brings important economic development 
to communities that have become discouraged. Many don't want to 
give up their small town rural community values but want a 
chance for a better life for their children. Historic 
preservation brings together the best of all worlds. It is the 
greenest product there is and opens potential to economic and 
community development in the best sense of the words. Thank you 
for your help in building a vital rural America with dollars 
for historic preservation and help in developing the potential 
of heritage tourism to pass on values and provide educational 
opportunities combined with the economic development that comes 
with the building of heritage tourism in rural areas.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Brett Blanchfield, Des Moines, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Brett Blanchfield.
    City, State: Des Moines, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: In my occupations as both a farm and farm 
appraiser I have utilized farm information that was previously 
available at the Farm Service Agencies across Iowa. 
Specifically, I used the public CLU data. I hope that this CLU 
data can be reinstated into Section 1619.
    According to AgriData.com, the website that I primarily use 
for calculating farm acres and quality of farmland, this CLU 
data ``there is no compliance, CRP, wetlands or other personal 
information in the CLU data.''
    Having public the information that is required to measure 
the market is vitally important for markets to remain fair and 
open. If this information is allowed to be skewed, either by 
mistake or otherwise, by the closed door policy of the local 
government offices, both the public and the land market are at 
risk.
    We are all painfully aware of the damage that hidden and 
confusing information can have on markets especially when 
compounded with lack of confidence in the markets and 
valuation. Aiding transparency by giving back the CLU data is 
an important step.
    Please call or e-mail me with any other questions you have 
that you feel I could shed some light upon.

Brett Blanchfield,
Blanchfield Appraisal,
Certified General Real Property Appraiser,
Active grain and cattle farmer,
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Michael Blean, Morrison, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Michael Blean.
    City, State: Morrison, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am writing to support reinstatement of the 
Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway. As an 
appraiser of farm properties in 2 states, it is essential to 
have information available in order to develop accurate sales 
data. My profession is state licensed and federally regulated, 
and I take my work seriously. The inability to readily obtain 
this information makes my work much more difficult and less 
accurate.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Arthur Bliss, Somis, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Arthur Bliss.
    City, State: Somis, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: The current Farm Bill provided funds to support 
specialty crops under the Specialty Crop Block Grant program 
which has been administered by each state. Having sat on the 
subcommittee that recommends the awarding of these grants I can 
assure you that in California, this has been a huge success. It 
has aided producers, researchers, marketers and teachers in 
various phases of the industry. It has allowed us to tell our 
story, increase our production and educate the public regarding 
healthy choices.
    In the past California producers have received relatively 
little from previous farm bills, while contributing their 
treasure to national farm policy. I urge that the upcoming Farm 
Bill include and expand funding for specialty crops, especially 
with a new national emphasis on health and nutrition throughout 
this nation.
    Thank you for considering this request.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kathy Bochonko, Cumming, GA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Kathy Bochonko.
    City, State: Cumming, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Stay at Home Mom.
    Comment: I am very concerned about how current farm 
subsidies are promoting the production of cheap processed food 
over healthy fruits and vegetables. The subsidizing of corn and 
soy may have made sense decades ago but today they are killing 
our children. This is most apparent in the poorest communities 
where these subsidies make Sodas and dollar menu hamburgers the 
food of choice over more expensive fruits and vegetables. We 
are paying twice. We are paying to make people overweight and 
then we are paying the doctor bills that come from being 
overweight. America can not continue to subsidize these 
monocrop farms. Instead we should be encouraging biodiversity 
and sustainable farming. Please ``tear down this wall'' that 
separates health as something only the well to do can afford. 
It should not be cheaper to buy a cheese burger than a serving 
of vegetables. Cheap corn has to stop. I can not stand the fact 
that my child is expected to live a shorter less healthy life 
largely due to the abundance of High Fructose Corn Syrup and 
cheap highly saturated meat due to cheap feed crops. I am just 
a mom, not a farmer, not a politician, but I know that my kids 
school lunches are subsidized in a way that makes no sense. 
Meat is so cheap they get so much saturated fat yet no fresh 
fruit or vegetables. Please consider subsidizing sustainable 
farming operations instead of monocrop factory farms.
            Sincerely,

Kathy Bochonko.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Alysha Bodien, Mt. Pleasant, MI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Alysha Bodien.
    City, State: Mt. Pleasant, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student, Babysitter and Promotion Director.
    Comment: Now a days I see more and more fat kids, not a 
little over weight but a lot over weight. Kids need to eat for 
veggies, salads and fruits. This can only be done if we look at 
what products we give tax breaks to. rice, corn and wheat. Lets 
Do something about it and keep our gardens colorful!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kathereine Bogli, Granby, CT

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 5:36 p.m.
    Name: Kathereine Bogli.
    City, State: Granby, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock, Poultry/poultry products, 
Vegetables.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Please protect our family farms by stopping corn 
and soy subsidies. Create legislation that will help family 
farms so that citizens of our great country can buy food from 
their neighbor farmers.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of John Bohman, Troy, ID

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: John Bohman.
    City, State: Troy, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dry Beans & Peas, Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Agricultural producers need regulation included in 
the next Farm Bill to protect us, just like consumers, against 
predatory practices. Provisions need to be included to mandate 
physical commodity inspections of storage warehouses and export 
facilities.
    I have heard of many area warehouses being ``short'' many 
hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat without signed 
contracts from their producers. Without written consent from 
their customers, they are stealing the commodity and putting 
``free'' wheat on the market. This ``free'' wheat changes the 
supply/demand dynamic of the free market system.
    The next Farm Bill must provide for salaried inspectors 
whose job is to conduct random inspection of the crop stored in 
commercial elevators and compare that to what the warehouses 
says they have. Stiff financial penalties as well as suspension 
of the Federal Warehouse license must be used as a deterrent. 
This will keep the warehouses ``honest'' and keep them from 
selling crop they do not own. The more the grain companies 
complain, the more you need to include these provisions in the 
next Farm Bill.
    Your Committee needs to include this provision in the next 
Farm Bill to parallel the new legislation that will be enacted 
to regulated the financial system.
            Sincerely,

John Bohman,
Ridgeview Farms,
Troy, ID.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Julia Bolin, Middlebourne, WV

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Julia Bolin.
    City, State: Middlebourne, WV.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Poultry/poultry products, Specialty Crops, 
Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: As a small farmer, I feel the farm bill needs to 
encourage more organic practices and/or assist with the 
transition from conventional to organic. Farm bill also needs 
to protect the small producers that sell via farmers markets 
and CSA's.
    I also believe that the food stamp program should be more 
like the WIC program. It needs to be ``spelled out'' which 
foods they should be able use their foods stamp monies. Sodas, 
snack foods should be disallowed. Fresh vegetables, whole grain 
foods, lean protein and whole fruits should be the only foods 
allowed. (I don't mean specific ``brands'' like WIC though--
just using common sense to have people eat healthier so that 
less money is spent fighting their chronic illnesses brought on 
by their un-healthy eating habits.)
                                ------                                


                Comment of A. Bonvouloir, Sunnyvale, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: A. Bonvouloir.
    City, State: Sunnyvale, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Self-employed.
    Comment:

   We must make sure that small organic farmers and 
        ranchers have a full suite of conservation programs 
        with adequate funding so that they can be the best 
        stewards of our nation's natural resources. Federal 
        farm policy should also support homegrown renewable 
        energy like wind, solar, and properly treated and 
        labeled biomass.

   A strategic base of our agricultural land is 
        absolutely essential to our long-term ability to 
        produce and supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber 
        and energy with the fewest inputs. Federal farm policy 
        must enhance farm and ranch land protection to 
        adequately address the threat to our strategic 
        agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
        and fragmentation.

   It's critical to increase the production of, and 
        access to local and healthy organic food while helping 
        farmers remain profitable. Farm and food policy should 
        be linked more strongly with national health and 
        nutrition goals. Federal government programs should 
        promote healthier diets and meet increased demand for 
        specialty crops and fresh, locally grown food by 
        expanding access, facilitating institutional purchases 
        and supporting farmers markets.

   We need to build upon the success of the 2008 Farm 
        Bill in creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Joel Borjesson, Corvallis, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 25, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Joel Borjesson.
    City, State: Corvallis, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Assistant w/IT Focus.
    Comment: Organic farming systems have the potential to 
conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil quality 
while providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here 
and abroad.
    Pesticide use in conventional farming hurt the environment 
and threaten animals. Many species have already disappeared due 
to water pollution. Pesticides are found in higher levels in 
people who eat produce farmed conventional versus people who 
consume organic produce.
    Please fund organic farming!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Matthew Boruta, Dearborn, MI

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: Matthew Boruta.
    City, State: Dearborn, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Unemployed.
    Comment:

   We must make sure that farmers and ranchers have a 
        full suite of conservation programs with adequate 
        funding so that they can be the best stewards of our 
        nation's natural resources. Federal farm policy should 
        also support homegrown renewable energy like wind, 
        solar, and biomass.

   A strategic base of our agricultural land is 
        absolutely essential to our long-term ability to 
        produce and supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber 
        and energy with the fewest inputs. Federal farm policy 
        must enhance farm and ranch land protection to 
        adequately address the threat to our strategic 
        agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
        and fragmentation.

   It's critical to increase the production of, and 
        access to local and healthy food while helping farmers 
        remain profitable. Farm and food policy should be 
        linked more strongly with national health and nutrition 
        goals. Federal government programs should promote 
        healthier diets and meet increased demand for specialty 
        crops and fresh, locally grown food by expanding 
        access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
        supporting farmers markets.

   We need to build upon the success of the 2008 Farm 
        Bill in creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Sam Bosco, Ithaca, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Sam Bosco.
    City, State: Ithaca, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graduate Research Assistant.
    Comment: The United States needs to move forward with its 
agricultural priorities and show more strong support for 
sustainable and regenerative food systems that value the 
environment, healthy food, strong communities and worker's 
rights.
    Giving more financial support to organic production systems 
in the 2012 Farm Bill would be a needed and welcomed 
improvement over the current subsidies
                                ------                                


               Comments of Patrick Bosold, Fairfield, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Patrick Bosold.
    City, State: Fairfield, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Eater, Consumer of Food.
    Comment: To use Michael Pollen's words, this is not a Farm 
bill, it's a Food Bill. This issue is so huge that it's hard to 
know where to begin. I'll try to keep this simple: write and 
enact a Farm Bill that's about feeding people and caring for 
the soil and the future of our planet. For more guidance on how 
to do this, please attend the follow meeting:

        ``On June 8, 2010, NSAC (National Sustainable 
        Agriculture Coalition) Farm Aid, Organic Valley, and 
        Heifer International U.S. Country Program will host a 
        Congressional briefing on Agriculture of the Middle: 
        New Strategies to Support America's Mid-sized Family 
        Farmers.

        ``In recent decades, many mid-sized farmers and 
        ranchers who rely on farming as a main source of income 
        have been severely challenged in the marketplace. Too 
        small to compete individually in international 
        agricultural commodity markets, they are also not often 
        well-positioned to market directly to local consumers. 
        While the number of very small and very large farms and 
        ranches has increased, mid-sized family farms continue 
        to disappear. Arguably the backbone of America's rural 
        communities and economies, this loss of mid-sized 
        family farms has a detrimental impact that extends well 
        beyond the farm.

        ``The briefing will be free and open to the public and 
        will feature four producer-entrepreneurs discussing 
        innovative business models and marketing approaches 
        that are succeeding in creating new opportunities for 
        mid-sized farmers in many parts of the country. They 
        will also discuss ways in which existing federal 
        programs can support these efforts by providing the 
        research, credit, and infrastructure investments 
        necessary to scale up and expand their models.''

    After you attend the above meeting, please return to your 
offices and write a Farm Bill that supports sustainable 
agriculture and production of food for people, not a Farm Bill 
that is designed to continue subsidies and programs that 
benefit the profits of a small number of large corporations at 
the expense of the rest of us.

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Patrick Bosold.
    City, State: Fairfield, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small scale gardener for food and soil 
building.
    Comment:

    (1) Buy Fresh, Buy Local. It's critical to increase the 
        production of, and access to local and healthy food 
        while helping farmers remain profitable. Farm and food 
        policy should be linked more strongly with national 
        health and nutrition goals. Federal government programs 
        should promote healthier diets and meet increased 
        demand for specialty crops and fresh, locally grown 
        food by expanding access, facilitating institutional 
        purchases and supporting farmers markets.

    (2) Safety net, not subsidies, for farmers. We need to 
        build upon the success of the 2008 Farm Bill in 
        creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Thomas Bosserd, Ypsilanti, MI

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Thomas Bosserd.
    City, State: Ypsilanti, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser and Farm Manager.
    Comment: Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill has been 
unnecessarily restricting USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data 
that was readily available to appraisers, farm managers, and 
other agricultural service providers. The information being 
restricted pertains only to the land itself and does not 
contain any information that is confidential information 
related to the landowners or farm operators. This restriction 
creates additional steps and builds inefficiencies for those 
service providers who are crucial to those landowners and farm 
operators and their land and business. This inefficiency and 
series of extra steps consequently creates a cost and a burden 
to U.S. agriculture as a whole.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted into the final bill during the Conference 
Committee process. This ``back door'' change in the bill took 
place without any opportunity for public hearings or debate 
that could have provided better guidance to those voting on the 
final bill. I believe that if there was a better understanding 
of the facts, Section 1619 would not have been included as 
written.
    Please bear in mind the consequences of section 1619 of the 
current farm bill and consider including language in the new 
farm bill that will once again allow access to CLU data for 
agricultural professionals and vital service businesses.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Marilyn Boustead, Woodbine, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Marilyn Boustead.
    City, State: Woodbine, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified General Appraiser.
    Comment: The access to FSA aerial and soil maps is an 
extremely efficient manner of obtaining and reviewing maps 
relative to appraisal assignments, and verifying the accuracy 
of field data with the clients at the time of the site visit. 
The fact that I can access these maps prior to the assignment 
gives me information regarding physical features, location, 
terrain, and configuration of the properties. A secondary point 
of efficiency is that I am not at the local Farm Service 
Agencies contacting the staff to obtain these maps for me. I am 
able to import these maps into my reports for documentation 
which supports the reliability of the data, and thus the 
accuracy of the findings.
    I request that the farm bill provide those of us who 
perform these type services continued access to vital 
information that does not compromise individuals' personal data 
or confidential information.
    As a real estate broker, the access to the data with 
respect to farms and possible sales listings, is also vital to 
the integrity of the information that is presented to sellers, 
buyers, lenders, and other real estate professionals.
    I urge you to support the information that is necessary to 
maintain the access, and reliability of the maps with field 
borders and acreage information to allow ag-related 
professionals a reliable information source.
            Respectfully,
Marilyn Boustead,
Iowa Certified General Appraiser (1991-present),
Iowa Licensed Real Estate Broker (1992-present).
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Tyler Bowman, Hermiston, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Tyler Bowman.
    City, State: Hermiston, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a General Certified Appraiser that 
specializes in agricultural properties. Please change Section 
1619 to reinstate the CLU data in the next farm bill. The 
accuracy of my appraisal products is significantly diminished 
without access to this information, which can have detrimental 
effects on the banks, estates, government agencies, etc., that 
I complete work for.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Bruce A. Boyd, Idalou, TX

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 3:05 a.m.
    Name: Bruce A. Boyd.
    City, State: Idalou, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Landman but still help raise cattle.
    Comment: I think we need to give this professor at Texas 
Tech a chance. So many earmarks are for Woodstock memorials in 
NY. I believe sending some money to these scientists will 
benefit mankind.

Thomas L. Thompson, Ph.D.,
Professor and Department Chair,
Dept. of Plant and Soil Science,
Texas Tech University,
[Redacted],
Lubbock, TX.
Phone [Redacted].
E-mail: [Redacted].
Website: http://www.pssc.ttu.edu.

    I had written him and asked if they were doing anything to 
replace cotton. Whole world seems to grow it and cheaper then 
we do.
    His answer:

        One of our faculty members, a plant breeder, is working 
        to improve several oilseed crops that may be promising 
        for the High Plains. Some of these may be grown in 
        winter, would require less water than cotton, and could 
        provide new markets that we're not tapping into now. 
        These new markets could include biodiesel, if this 
        market develops sufficiently. This is all in the 
        experimental stage and we aren't ready to release 
        anything yet.

    Can you believe what the Plant and Soil Science could do 
for us if they are successful. Small amounts of water. Crops 
grown in winter.
    After this oil spill in Louisiana where our President seems 
to be more concerned about assigning blame and stopping all 
drilling instead of marshalling all think tanks, scientists, 
navy, any one with expertise should be flown out to the spill. 
But no. The President wants to stop all drilling and place 
blame. I am sure Bush will end up being the reason. Why is our 
President not acting efficiently. Is he working on kicking out 
the blue dogs for not voting for that monstrosity of a health 
care bill.
    Do your best to send some funds TX Tech's way. It will be 
worth it.
            Your supporter,

Bruce A Boyd.
                                ------                                


              Comment of William Bransgrove, Hereford, TX

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: William Bransgrove.
    City, State: Hereford, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Son of producer.
    Comment: My name is William Bransgrove. Recently, I made a 
trip with my mother, Eleanor L. Bransgrove, to check on the 
present CRP sign-up in Beaver County, Oklahoma.
    I was very impressed with the personnel of the Beaver Co. 
Farm Service Agency and the Beaver Co. Natural Resources 
Conservation Service.
    I was disappointed to learn that the potential cost of 
enrolling acreage into the CRP program is so poorly defined. No 
one in the local offices could tell us what would be considered 
to be an acceptable stand of grass until after we have already 
committed our acreage to the program. No one could tell us what 
the recommended remedies for an unacceptable stand of grass 
would be. No one could tell us what kind of cost sharing 
arrangement we could expect for establishing a stand of 
acceptable grass. However, FSA & NRCS are expecting us to pay 
25% of the first year's payment as a penalty if the grass stand 
on the acreage that we enrolled was not acceptable to them and 
we thought it to be cost prohibitive to try to make the changes 
to the stand of grass that they required.
    I feel like the penalty provisions of the present CRP sign-
up are too costly to producers who are trying to re-enroll 
existing CRP into the new program. Why should the producer be 
penalized 25% of the first year's payment when he makes a cost-
benefit analysis of the requirements and wants to back out of 
committing acreage to the present CRP sign-up because the NRCS 
requirements are too expensive to meet?
            Respectfully,

William Bransgrove,
[Redacted],
Hereford, Texas,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Shelley Brant, Sparks, NV

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 28, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Shelley Brant.
    City, State: Sparks, NV.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Librarian; Local Food Advocate.
    Comment: Farm Bill 2012 should reduce, or better yet, 
eliminate subsidies to farm owners with incomes of more than $1 
million per year.
    The bill should encourage heath regulations that recognize 
the difference between small farmers and industrial 
agriculture, and then craft and enforce laws that make sense 
for two very different business models with very different 
priorities. Small farmers need laws that allow them to grow 
healthy, real food while making a living wage. Citizens need 
laws that make industrial agriculture responsible for the 
effects of their product, in an arena where profit is the 
driving motivator.
    Farmers who receive subsidies for commodity crops should be 
allowed to grow organic specialty crops on their property 
without losing the commodity subsidy.
    Farmers producing on less than 400 acres and planting 
diverse and multiple crops should receive first priority.
    Funding should go first to American farmers who produce for 
the domestic market.
    The Farm Bill should include funding to rebuild the local 
food processing infrastructure, including a USDA inspector in 
each state.
    The Farm Bill should include funding to help schools and 
farmers develop programs that bring fresh, locally grown food 
to school breakfast and lunch programs.
    Include provisions for educating children about where food 
comes from and how it is grown. Hands-on experience would be 
ideal.
    Farm Bill 2012 should include provisions that make it 
easier for people who want to buy abandoned or existing farm 
land to get a loan, without encouraging converting open space 
to farm land.
    Develop programs that help local communities expand urban 
and suburban agricultural programs.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Lisa Bregitzer, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Lisa Bregitzer.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Office Manager.
    Comment: Please change the World War II era subsidy funding 
which is currently given to large commodity crops such as corn, 
wheat and soy and instead put that funding into smaller scale, 
organic and local agricultural endeavors! Increased federal 
support for local, organic diversified agricultural would go a 
long way to ensuring that the local school districts have the 
ability to purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and 
vegetables and meats in school nutrition programs. Our children 
need this!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Elisa Bremner, Armonk, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:05 a.m.
    Name: Elisa Bremner.
    City, State: Armonk, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Registered Dietitian/Nutrition Educator.
    Comment: It is important that the new farm bill support 
local and organic producers, both for the health of our 
children and the health of the planet. Good health (as 
supported by a plant-based whole foods diet) should be 
accessible to all. In fact, I would argue that we could reduce/
eliminate many health care costs (Medicaid and Medicare) by 
finding financial incentives for people to buy fresh fruits and 
vegetables, thus averting the financial disaster. Subsidies for 
large agribusiness, mainly corn, should be transferred to the 
local farmer. The long term cost savings (preventing obesity) 
should justify further investment up front. I realize this is 
just one piece of the puzzle, but I think it is important to 
work on many fronts to promote wellness.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Chandler Briggs, Vashon, WA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Chandler Briggs.
    City, State: Vashon, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dry Beans & Peas, Field Crops, Fruits, Livestock, 
Nuts, Poultry/poultry products, Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please end agricultural subsidies that support 
large, industrial monoculture farms. They pollute the 
environment and produce commodities instead of real food. 
Please support organic agriculture & regional production on 
family farms.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Steven Brink, Sacramento, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Steven Brink.
    City, State: Sacramento, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: NGO.
    Comment:

    (1) Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP)--the importance 
        of a stable, predictable, BCAP program cannot be 
        overstated. Moving currently uneconomic wood waste to a 
        bioenergy facility provides substantial direct benefits 
        (offsetting fossil fuel fired power plants) and co-
        benefits (utilizing wood waste in a controlled 
        combustion boiler reduces emissions compared to open 
        field burning by 98%). We need the final Rule sooner 
        rather than later so the Program can be restarted and 
        we need BCAP in the next Farm Bill.

    (2) Rebuilding the Economy of the Country is a necessity. 
        Per $1 million invested, the forestry sector can 
        produce nearly 40 good-paying jobs. That's practically 
        twice as many jobs as the next closest sector in the 
        economy (agriculture crops). Investing in our National 
        Forests to return them to a healthy condition will: 
        reduce insects and disease; and reduce the size, number 
        and intensity of wildfires while providing a much-
        needed boost in employment to rural America.

    Legislative relief, similar to the Tom Daschle language of 
2003 for the Black Hills National Forest, is needed to treat 
the condition of our National Forests as an ``emergency'' and 
put ``emergency measures'' in-place so the Forest Service can 
rapidly respond to ramping-up fuels reduction accomplishments. 
Legislative relief will allow the Forest Service to at least 
double their productivity with no increase in appropriations.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Joshua Briscoe, Charleston, WV

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Joshua Briscoe.
    City, State: Charleston, WV.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Medical Student.
    Comment: Healthier food needs to be more readily available 
and cheaper. As it is now, there are so many subsidies that 
allow for unhealthy food to be obtained easily, it's no wonder 
obesity is rampant in America. We need more sustainable, 
healthier options, and along with that, we need to treat the 
land, crops, and animals better, so that the end product is 
higher quality.
    I don't have any specific suggestions, but I think it's 
important to create an environment that is naturally adverse to 
obesity, heart disease, and pollution by changing agriculture 
legislation.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kevin Britten, Red Oak, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Kevin Britten.
    City, State: Red Oak, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Software development for agricultural aviation.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access of the Common Land 
Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway.
    In 2007 I started a software company focused on developing 
solutions the make the agricultural aviation industry more 
efficient. One key component of that is the use of CLU data for 
accurate field mapping for aerial applicators. Since the 
removal of CLU data from the public domain in the 2008 Farm 
Bill, aerial applicators have had to resort to other means for 
accurate filed identification which has made them less 
efficient in delivering vital crop protection product to their 
customer base while leading to increased opportunity for 
errors. Removal of the CLU data has also hindered what my 
product can do for applicators and has hindered the growth of 
my company which is poised to make a significant contribution 
to the economy of southwest Iowa.
    The following circumstances make this critical information 
needed for my use as well as for others in the public:

   USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.

            Kind regards,

Kevin Britten,
AgriSmart Information Systems,
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Judd Brooks, Vaughn, MT

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Judd Brooks.
    City, State: Vaughn, MT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: It would be extremely helpful in my line of work 
to have the CLU (FSA measured fields) data available to the 
public again. I do not see how having this information 
available creates any real threats to the privacy of producers 
or the FSA. Between Google Earth and other on-line sources a 
person can see just about any acre on the planet anyway. By 
have the CLU data public it would allow us professionals to do 
our job more efficiently and more accurately.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Andrew Brorsen, Kankakee, IL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Andrew Brorsen.
    City, State: Kankakee, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Please reinstate the CLU data into Section 1619. 
It is vital to provided accurate FSA data into our analysis and 
reports. The data we use is not confidential and is needed to 
provide reliable value opinions. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Amy Brzuchalski, Findlay, OH

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Amy Brzuchalski.
    City, State: Findlay, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Our future must turn toward more environmentally 
friendly and sustainable practices. At our current pace we can 
feed the masses, plus many more. These practices however, are 
what will end our ability to thrive and live a healthy life. 
Downsizing our practices CAN actually create more field to 
table, ready to eat, doesn't need manipulated and over-
processed food. Please consider the consumer and the future in 
this matter. Thank you!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Renee D. Buck, Hayti, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:06 a.m.
    Name: Renee D. Buck.
    City, State: Hayti, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Hamlin County Director of Equalization.
    Comment: County Assessors in South Dakota have the 
specialized task of assigning an assessed value to each 
agricultural parcel for property taxation. We gather as many 
pieces of information as possible, at the lowest cost to the 
county, to estimate the most accurate productivity value 
possible.
    One of the pieces of information that would assist us in 
this process is a Geographic Information System (GIS) crop 
field shape layer that was created by each local FSA office, 
and was reviewed for accuracy by each landowner. Unfortunately, 
the 2008 Farm Bill declared the bulk of this GIS layer 
confidential and will not release it to other government 
entities, including county assessor offices. We are unsure as 
to why it was declared confidential as it contains no personal 
information, no ownership information or actual crop production 
information. The FSA office will release a GIS layer with the 
shape, but all details regarding crop or non-crop designations 
have been purged from the file, rendering it virtually useless. 
This information could be recreated from aerial photos and 
inspections, but the cost to taxpayers would be substantial.
    The South Dakota Association of Assessing Officers 
respectfully requests that the next farm bill require that the 
unmodified GIS layer be available to county government 
officials, thereby saving substantial tax dollars and receiving 
a more accurate layer than can be reconstructed locally.
    We realize that this is a relatively insignificant request 
when considering the magnitude of the entire farm bill, but 
making this information available to local government would 
produce more accurate assessments with no added cost to the 
local taxpayer.
    We thank you for allowing our concerns to be heard and 
would welcome any questions Committee Members may have 
regarding this issue.
            Sincerely,

Renee D. Buck, C.A.A.,
President,
South Dakota Association of Assessing Officers.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Marian Buckner, Shepherdstown, WV

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Marian Buckner.
    City, State: Shepherdstown, WV.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Homemaker.
    Comment: I strongly urge you to consider that organic 
farming must be a top priority in the 2012 Farm Bill and all 
future agriculture policy.
    It is important that we raise our awareness that organic 
farming has a significant role to play not only in the global 
food crisis, but in a top U.S. and international issue--global 
climate change.
    Rodale Institute has presented convincing evidence that 
organic farming is destined to be an important part of the 
solution to combating global climate change. There are many 
reasons, but one is the unique ability of organic soils with 
organic matter to sequester carbon even better than 
conventional soils.
    Certainly, we must acknowledge that organic farming is one 
of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agricultural production 
and organic food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the 
U.S. food retail market.
    Rodale Institute has also presented convincing evidence 
that organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:

   Research and Extension Programs that expand the 
        breadth of knowledge about organic farming systems and 
        provide that knowledge to organic farmers.

   Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers 
        for the conservation benefits of organic farming 
        systems and provide technical support for organic 
        farmers who want to improve on-farm conservation.

   Transition Programs that provide technical support 
        to farmers who want to transition to organic farming 
        practices but don't know how.

   Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic 
        farmers and reimburse them for any losses based on the 
        organic market value of the crop, not average 
        conventional prices.

    Thank you for your attention to the important role of 
organic farming and action to ensure that it receives the 
support needed for the major contributions it can make to our 
major food and climate concerns.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Nancy Buell, Tempe, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Nancy Buell.
    City, State: Tempe, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired RN.
    Comment: Please consider the effects of fertilizers and 
pesticides on the human body. Maybe factory farms are not a 
good idea, everything is contaminated. We should encourage 
people to supplement their diets with home grown or shared 
produce. Maybe more and bigger of something is not always 
better.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Mike Buitenwerf, Altoona, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Mike Buitenwerf.
    City, State: Altoona, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Agent.
    Comment: I am an insurance agent working for a bank 
insurance agency. We have worked hard to build a customer base 
that relies on crop insurance as a safety net for production 
costs. Our bank is a significant ag lending bank and they use 
crop insurance to help guarantee a farmer can stay in business 
rather than sell off assets in case of a weather catastrophe. 
The independent insurance agency system has built a strong 
base. Why mess with something that works so well?
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Gary Buller, Sutton, NE

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Gary Buller.
    City, State: Sutton, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: CLU data needs to be released again. A wide 
variety of people, including producers, use this information 
each day to help farmers. There are NO privacy concerns is 
having this data available. I use it as an overlay on geo-
referenced satellite images to determine field acres and 
boundaries.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Vancy Bulluck, Winton, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 06, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Vancy Bulluck.
    City, State: Winton, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Nuts.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I am one of the few Black farmers left in 
California. With only 44 acres, I have found it very difficult 
to stay in the business. My primary problem has been a lack of 
funds to purchase more land. At 76 years old, I do not see 
myself staying in farming very long. Farming is the biggest 
business in California. The new farm bill must include 
provisions to bring more African Americans into the Business.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Thomas Bulman, Decorah, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Thomas Bulman.
    City, State: Decorah, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Sales Representative.
    Comment: Surety maps are very important to my customers and 
myself. Quality maps for cropping decisions are very valuable 
for everyone involved in agriculture. Thanks
                                ------                                


               Comment of James Bultsma, Hot Springs, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: James Bultsma.
    City, State: Hot Springs, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: I am requesting that the CLU data be made 
available to appraisers working on valuing farm properties. 
Having this data available to the appraiser results in a higher 
quality work product that provides a more accurate value 
according to comparable properties. This data is currently 
unavailable without the permission of the landowner. Since we 
are helping to establish [Editor's Note: the comment was 
incomplete as submitted.]
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Steve Bunning, Plymouth, MN

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Steve Bunning.
    City, State: Plymouth, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Owner/Farm Manager.
    Comment: PLEASE reinstate access to CLU data (FSA Field 
information) to the public. I acquire and manage agricultural 
real estate, and the recent lack of availability of this 
information (as required by the 2008 Farm Bill) makes it 
extremely hard to accurately analyze and evaluate the value of 
agricultural real estate.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Michelle Burgess, Oswego, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 25, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Michelle Burgess.
    City, State: Oswego, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Finance.
    Comment: I am not sure what this bill suggests but I would 
like to see a more conscientious approach to agriculture. We 
NEED to consider the environmental impact of our farming 
habits. We NEED to acknowledge the research that shows how 
devastating some of our practices are and stop them 
immediately! By the time everyone is on board the eco-wagon, it 
will be too late . . . so please don't wait for our lands to be 
completely ruined by outdated, unsafe methods of farming.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Barbara K. Burke, Olympia, WA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Barbara K. Burke.
    City, State: Olympia, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired R.N.
    Comment: It is critical that we began to support healthy 
outcomes instead of soaring obesity and diabetes in our country 
with our farm subsidies. Our current system of paying farmers 
for overproduction of corn and other commodities has resulted 
in the poorest among us being unable to purchase fresh fruits 
and vegetables and over-dependence on fast food. I want my tax 
dollars to support local farmers getting varied food products 
to my table quickly. I do not want to eat animal products from 
massive feed lots. I want the farm bill to ultimately result in 
better eating and better health for our population.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Derrick Burke, Snohomish, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 18, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Derrick Burke.
    City, State: Snohomish, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Internet Marketing.
    Comment:

    Dear House Committee on Agriculture,

    Here is my feedback on current U.S. farm subsidy policy:
    We have horribly skewed the farm 'relief' funds into 
subsidizing overproduction of corn and other commodities which 
has resulted in extremely unhealthy eating for our U.S. 
population. Our obesity and diabetic rates are escalating and 
the poorest in our communities cannot afford healthy food--it 
is far cheaper for them to eat fast foods than it is for them 
to purchase fresh produce and proteins at the grocery store.
    Indeed, I saw a very upsetting TV documentary a few months 
ago where elementary school children were shown a large variety 
of fresh produce (celery, beets, tomatoes)--and they did not 
know what these things were!
    Current farm subsidies have also hampered international 
trade relations. A major stumbling block at the last DOHA Round 
of Trade Talks were these same policies.
    I would ask the Committee to update its thinking as 
concerns how to protect U.S. farms without risking our health, 
our environment, and our international relations.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Burley, Hammond, LA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: David Burley.
    City, State: Hammond, LA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professor.
    Comment: Please dedicate significant funds to organic 
farming. Organic farming is very important to out country, land 
and communities. It empowers communities both economically and 
culturally.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Michael Burnside, Bay City, TX

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 07, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Michael Burnside.
    City, State: Bay City, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment:

    Gentlemen:

    I have been a rice producer since 1971. We had allotment 
then until 1974, when we were given producer base. Everything 
was tied to the producer. I believe it was 1976 or 1977 we went 
to farm rice base. Most, at least 85-90% of us are tenants. At 
this time every thing got worse. Land rents went up, etc. After 
the 1996 freedom to farm bill was enacted, landowners kicked 
off many, many tenants and took DCP payments. These are 
absentee landowners, retired farmers, doctors, lawyers, 
dentists, 3rd and 4th generation landowners, etc. The 
decoupling of direct pmts. Are at fault. Millions of dollars 
are wasted each year in Texas. This is insane. Are direct 
payments an entitlement for current land owners?? I am well 
aware what is going on. I have been on the FSA-COC off and on 
for 12 years out of the last 20 years. We have 748 farms in 
Matagorda Co., TX. Out of 748 farms there may be rice planted 
on maybe 40 farms. I had a lawyer friend, who has been buying 
land, tell me the landowner is entitled to all payments, and he 
charges cash rent on land above his $40,000 pay limit. Folks, 
this is crazy. What us producers need is a fraud proof revenue 
based yield loss crop ins. Based on current yields, not yields 
set in 1983. If we have a loss, it be paid in the fall of that 
year, not like the sure program 2 years later.
            Thank you,

Mike Burnside,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Pete Burton, Danville, IN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Pete Burton.
    City, State: Danville, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Environmental Field Technician.
    Comment: Organic food production is less evasive and better 
for the environment than chemical agro-business. Organic food 
is safer to eat, it has better nutritional value. Organic food 
production should be a bigger part of our over all diet. Large 
agro-seed, chemical companies, and large corp. farming 
institutes are not in need tax payer subsidies. These companies 
are out for the bottom line and do business in that manner. 
Small farms are a better resource for quality food. They keep 
money in the areas where citizens will buy food and provide 
jobs for local people. Small farms also provide a safer food 
source, by giving the food a face and a voice. Please provide a 
vehicle for more organic food to be available to the masses. 
Thanks for your time.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ruth Busch, Lafayette, AL

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 7:06 p.m.
    Name: Ruth Busch.
    City, State: Lafayette, AL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: We need better protection of genuinely organic 
farming and gardening. I do not grow commercially, but produce 
much of my own food organically. What I buy I have to buy on an 
often violated faith.
                                ------                                


           Comment of Beverly Bustin-Hatheway, Hallowell, ME

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Beverly Bustin-Hatheway.
    City, State: Hallowell, ME.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Register of Deeds, Kennebec County.
    Comment: Please support:

   An enhanced commitment to USDA Rural Development 
        programs in the next farm bill, especially key 
        infrastructure and business development programs that 
        support the agricultural sector and the retention and 
        attraction of new businesses. USDA Rural Development's 
        programs for water/wastewater infrastructure, community 
        facilities, broadband and business development are key 
        ingredients for county economic development efforts.

     The Administration's proposed Rural Innovation 
            Initiative or similar rural development strategies 
            which focus on making USDA's investments more 
            efficient and effective by rewarding strategic 
            regional approaches to rural development that allow 
            counties and their regional partners to focus on 
            their local economic assets, priorities and goals.

     The enhanced funding for Renewable Energy 
            development, especially programs that assist local 
            governments in their efforts to develop renewable 
            energy and increase energy efficiency.

     Ensure that all farm programs recognize that 
            youth play a vital role in sustaining American 
            agriculture and rural communities. New programs and 
            updates to old programs are needed so that it is 
            possible for young and beginning farmers to survive 
            and thrive in the modern agricultural economy.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Fred Butt, Crescent City, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Fred Butt.
    City, State: Crescent City, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Input Supplier.
    Comment:

    Dear Congressman Johnson,

    In my employment at Donovan Farmers Coop we are always 
using the FSA maps. That we download from AgriData to make sure 
our ground applicators and the contract pilots are better able 
to find and properly apply fertilizers and ag chemical in the 
right field of our growers. We also use the soil type layer to 
soil test by the soil type and write the different 
recommendations for sandy versus silt loams in the same field. 
I feel these are good stewardship uses to improve our growers 
yields and protect the environment with better management of 
the Ag Inputs we supply.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Alan Butts, Bismarck, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Alan Butts.
    City, State: Bismarck, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Land Owner & Real Estate Sales.
    Comment: As a life long farmer and land owner and now 
involved in farm and ranch real estate sales, I know how 
important it is to have accurate information for making 
production decisions and for buy or selling land!
    I urge you to allow the CLU data to be used again!

Alan Butts.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Linda Byrd, Saint James, MO

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Linda Byrd.
    City, State: Saint James, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Administrator.
    Comment: Current funding of large commodity crops such as 
corn, wheat and soy should be scaled back, with increased 
funding of smaller scale, organic and local agricultural 
endeavors which can be utilized by local school districts to 
improve the quality of child nutrition. The health of our 
children is declining, and subsidies of corn syrup producers 
and industrial meat and dairy production is fueling this health 
travesty. Increased federal support for local, organic 
diversified agricultural would go a long way to ensuring that 
the local school districts have the ability to purchase and use 
healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats in 
school nutrition programs. And it would enable people to buy 
locally, ensuring they receive food products when they are at 
their highest nutritional value.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Brian Cable, Superior, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Brian Cable.
    City, State: Superior, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy Sales.
    Comment: Please consider making FSA data public again 
because it really makes my job much more efficient and working 
with farmers easier.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Matt Callaghan, Rockton, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Matt Callaghan.
    City, State: Rockton, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Finance.
    Comment: This country needs to find a way to support local, 
organic agriculture and stop subsidizing big ag and thereby 
fast food. There IS a health crisis in this country and there 
IS demand for fresh fruits and vegetables grown locally. We 
need to recognize where our current policy has led us and put 
ourselves and our environment back on track to have a fighting 
chance for the future. The PEOPLE support and NEED this. I'm 
not sure about corporations and lobbyists, but it's clear cut 
to most people I talk with that big change needs to happen.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Sharon Callahan, East Windsor, NJ

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Sharon Callahan.
    City, State: East Windsor, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Proposal Manager.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee Members:

    Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban farms 
across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear benefits: 
cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our water and 
endangers our health while increasing economic development 
opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:

   Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good 
        they do rather than for the amount of crops they 
        produce.

   Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more 
        kinds of crops), adding carbon in their soil, and 
        putting perennial crops (such as hay and pasture) in 
        their fields.

   Protect income for farmers who raise organic food 
        crops that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA 
        food pyramid so that we get better food and fewer junk-
        food ingredients.

    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Ginette Callaway, Jonesboro, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 19, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Ginette Callaway.
    City, State: Jonesboro, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Self Employed Artist.
    Comment: For this new century we must commit to transform 
farming away from animal production to human consumed grain 
productions. Right now Approximately 80% of grain produced is 
fed to animals raised for slaughter. About 7,000 pounds of 
grain is fed a stir from calves to slaughter. Animals farming 
is a major contributor to pollution and world wide food and 
water shortages. Stop subsidizing meat and dairy and start to 
support organic growers, support farms that grow a variety of 
grains, not only corn, soy and alfalfa.
    Farming must be transformed for the sake of the planet, 
humans and the animals alike!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Mark Canright, Asbury, NJ

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Mark Canright.
    City, State: Asbury, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops, Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee Members:

    My wife and I own and operate a 44 acre organic farm in New 
Jersey. We greatly appreciate the additional support in the 
last Farm Bill for organic agriculture and encourage you to 
substantially increase that funding in the next Farm Bill.
    We have a daughter, and believe that organic agriculture 
provides a healthier alternative to conventional farming. This 
is because organic agriculture has standards and certain 
materials are not allowed in order to become certified, or to 
really be organic. Organic practices help to renew and enrich 
soil, keep harmful pesticides, herbicides and fungicides out of 
our water and air supply, as well as out of our food supply. As 
important is the fact that organic products do not contain 
harmful pesticides, etc.
    Another very important aspect of organic farming is its 
ability to help sequester carbon and decrease climate change. 
We urge you to read a very important report by the Rodale 
Institute at http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/
Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf entitled ``Regenerative 
Organic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming.'' More organic 
farming must be encouraged and fully funded to support efforts 
to reduce climate change.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document referred to is retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Organic agriculture is the fastest growing food sector in 
the market right now and it has been for decades. In order to 
support more organic food supplies, more mandatory funding must 
be committed, so that additional research and organic practices 
are fully supported.
    We are organic farmers, and we want to see more farmers 
transitioning to organic agriculture for reasons already 
mentioned above: healthier people, healthier food, healthier 
environment and a healthier future.
    Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Mark Canright and Amy Hansen.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jessica Caouette, Denver, CO

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Jessica Caouette.
    City, State: Denver, CO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Bartender.
    Comment: I am a simple city-dweller, trying to feed my 
family healthy, inexpensive food. How am I to do this when the 
subsidies for corn, soy, wheat and rice outweigh the subsidies 
for vegetables and fruit?
    Big business farms have taken over our country. How can we 
support our local farmers when our government keeps feeding 
those pigs?
    Please try to write in encouragement for local growers and 
diversified crops. If we aren't careful, this country's topsoil 
will become desert-land. Just look at Northeastern Brazil.
    I am willing to pay the costs in my grocery bill for high-
quality food from local, diversified sources. Are you willing 
to help?
                                ------                                


             Comment of Janet Capelle, North Fairfield, OH

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: Janet Capelle.
    City, State: North Fairfield, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate 
and was inserted during the Conference Committee process 
without public hearings or debate.
    I am a certified appraiser of agricultural properties as 
well as a farm owner, albeit small acreage. For all 
agricultural appraisers, it is CRUCIAL in the process of 
valuing land to comparing properties and to know the amount of 
tillable acres on sales as well as the subject property. 
Section 1619 stopped public access to USDA Farm Service Agency 
common land unit (CLU) data.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
    As a comparison, courthouse records contain much more 
private information and are subject to public access. I do not 
see the need for the secrecy. Please reconsider Section 1619 
and reinstate public access to the common land use data.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of J. Capozzelli, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: J. Capozzelli.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Office Worker.
    Comment: I am deeply concerned that so much of America's 
food is imported. We must make sure that farmers and ranchers 
have a full suite of conservation programs with adequate 
funding so that they can be the best stewards of our nation's 
natural resources. Federal farm policy should also support 
homegrown renewable energy like wind, solar, and biomass. 
Federal farm policy must enhance farm and ranch land protection 
to adequately address the threat to our strategic agricultural 
land resources from non-farm development and fragmentation. 
Farm and food policy should be linked more strongly with 
national health and nutrition goals. Federal government 
programs should promote healthier diets and meet increased 
demand for specialty crops and fresh, locally grown food by 
expanding access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
supporting farmers markets.
                                ------                                


                Comments of Luna Carl Isle, Wailuku, HI

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 3:35 a.m.
    Name: Luna Carl Isle.
    City, State: Wailuku, HI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: GMO and Monsanto must be stopped!!

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 6:05 a.m.
    Name: Luna Carl Isle.
    City, State: Wailuku, HI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Do not allow the poison profiteers to force us to 
use pesticides and sterilizing equipment and all of that. Move 
towards natural, organic foods! ``Hey, Mr. farmer, I don't mind 
spots on my apples, just leave me the birds and the bees, 
pleee-ease . . . don't it always seem to go, that you don't 
know what you've got until it's gone? they paved paradise, and 
put up a parking lot''
    The Food Modernization and Safety Act is anything but safe! 
Do not pass it!!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Cathy Carlisi, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Cathy Carlisi.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Marketing.
    Comment: I second my nutritionist's statement below.

        I (and many of my clients who will be writing, too) am 
        a supporter of quality, organic food and sustainable 
        farming practices. A strong food bill which supports 
        local farmers, no use of pesticides, subsidies for 
        fruits and vegetables instead of grains, and a firm 
        stance against GMO's and all companies attempting to 
        infiltrate our precious food supply with this 
        dangerous, short-sighted technology is necessary for 
        the health of the people, our nation, and the world as 
        a whole.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Lisa Carnahan, Fortuna, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Lisa Carnahan.
    City, State: Fortuna, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Represent Producer's in an Organic Dairy 
Cooperative.
    Comment: Organic farming is an imperative inclusion for the 
2012 Farm Bill. Despite the continued efforts by Agribusiness 
and their high paid lobbyists to marginalize organic farmers, 
research is continuing to prove that organic farming is 
sustainable, environmentally sound and a real-world solution to 
an existence without fossil fuels (e.g., Cuba). California 
organic livestock farmers are becoming paralyzed by the 
environmental regulations in California that are designed to 
stem the environmental threat of CAFO operations but instead 
require farming practices that are counter to organic 
practices.
    Your district includes some of the best organic livestock 
operations in the state. In addition, Humboldt and Del Norte 
Counties are economically dying . . . and would greatly benefit 
from more organic agriculture operations.
    Please make sure that organic farming is an important part 
of the 2012 Farm Bill. Make sure that there is financial 
recognition for this industry, these farmers, and your 
district.
            Thank you,

Lisa Carnahan,
Organic Valley,
California Regional Manager,
Fortuna, CA,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                Comment of Bob Carnel, Cannon Falls, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Bob Carnel.
    City, State: Cannon Falls, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser and Real Estate Broker.
    Comment: I do not understand why appraisers and real estate 
people can not get the information such as tillable acres, 
aerial views etc. It is very help full in our appraisal of farm 
land for local lenders, and also Estate planning.

Bob Carnel.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Erin Carnes, Portland, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Erin Carnes.
    City, State: Portland, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Supply Chain Analyst.
    Comment: Please do right by the American people. I want my 
children to grow up knowing right from wrong, especially when 
it comes to food. We can make our food system better by 
encouraging healthy choices not just with education but with 
the appropriate subsidies to make fresh, healthy produce 
reasonably priced for everyone. It REALLY irritates me that 
people can eat at a fast food chain cheaper than that they can 
eat a balanced meal of local produce and meat/poultry. ONLY YOU 
CAN MAKE THIS RIGHT, and I urge you to do so.
                                ------                                


             Comment of George Carpenter, South Berwick, ME

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: George Carpenter.
    City, State: South Berwick, ME.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops, Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: As a small producer of non-certified organic 
products in the northeast, the only benefits received from the 
last farm bill were in EQIP cost-shares, and the hope--but not 
actualized--assistance from the AMA program for high tunnel/
hoop house funding for season extension and crop management. 
(approximately \1/60\ of applicants were funded).
    As a e-Cornell graduate of the GAPs food safety program,
    I am completely against provisions contained in S. 510 and 
H.R. 2749, as I believe that the root-causes of our nations 
ills are not in-field contamination, but rather issues with the 
established packing house and slaughter practices of combining 
materials from various sources.
    Deer walking through my fields, or ducks visiting my pond--
are not the cause of widespread outbreaks. Nor is the composted 
and careful use of manure. Confinement feed lot operations, 
manure lagoons, both ``Big Ag'' practices, are the problem.
    Further the contamination comes from greed, low wages and 
low standards for employee training, and this horrid practice 
of combining tainted product with clean product and making a 
small issue into a nationwide epidemic. Requiring a chlorine 
bath for all of my produce ignores the fact that my produce was 
cleanly raised to begin with. Regulation of small farms, with 
hands-on operations where the crops and animals are known, 
carefully monitored, and well cared-for due to the obscene 
practices of Big Ag? Is comparable to requiring all men over 
the age of 15 to be castrated, as it's been well-established 
that men perpetuate rape upon women. Neuter the men, remove the 
nationwide epidemic of rapists.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Katherine Carroll, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Katherine Carroll.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Baking and Pastry Cook.
    Comment:

    Dear Sirs,

    I would like to respectfully request that you drastically 
decrease subsidies on factory farmed foods. Big corporate 
America is destroying our food systems, our health and our 
countries environment. It is wrong that unhealthy, unnatural 
and over processed foods are the most affordable foods 
available. By ending your subsidies on meat, poultry, dairy, 
GMO and other morally corrupt farming practices healthy foods 
can once again compete in the market place as God intended them 
to be.
    Healthy food should not be only for the rich people in this 
country. I demand that you make healthy food available to 
everyone by ceasing your support of unnatural, non-sustainable, 
unethical farming practices.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Susan Carroll, Lake Ariel, PA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Susan Carroll.
    City, State: Lake Ariel, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Greenhouse/nursery.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please enact all the Farm Bill propositions.
    Scientists are reporting that we are at a critical stage 
for preventing environmental catastrophe. Nine billion 
inhabitants will place unsustainable pressure on the planet and 
there will be a collapse of the natural world including water 
animal and people.
    Local and sustainable are the only solutions to a healthy 
economy and environment.
    In my area dairy farms are closing because milk is 
processed and SUBSIDIZED in New Jersey. Solution: Local 
Creameries.
    The list of errors continues and I will not go into the 
POLITICS of poor pol-
icy . . . except to mention Lawyers and Lobbyists. We the 
people know what is happening, but policy makers are 
perpetuating it.
            Please help,

Susan Carroll.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Richard Carstens, Fresno, CA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Richard Carstens.
    City, State: Fresno, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Nuts.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: In the ``DCP'' program stop paying for ``Base 
Acres''. In Fresno County growers that have not grown cotton 
for 15 years still receive payments. Let them keep the Base 
just stop the payments. Saving in Fresno county $3m. We have 
dry land grain farmers in Fresno that make crop every 5 years. 
If they get a payment one year they are out of the program for 
the next 4 years. Make it grower and property so that it can't 
be traded back and forth. Saving to RMA and FSA about $4m.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Boone Carter, Las Cruces, NM

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Boone Carter.
    City, State: Las Cruces, NM.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I'd like to see ethanol support taken away, it is 
not environmentally sustainable and links all industries to oil 
prices which increases volatility in all related industries to 
the point that only big companies with lot of cash can survive.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Amanda Carvajal, Merced, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Amanda Carvajal.
    City, State: Merced, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Director of Merced County Farm 
Bureau.
    Comment:

May 20, 2010

Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

    Chairman Peterson:

    The Merced County Farm Bureau represents one of the most 
productive agricultural counties in California and the United 
States. We have over 1,600 members in dairy and ranching 
industry as well as growers of almonds, tomatoes, and sweet 
potatoes crops. We are encouraged by the efforts of Chairman 
Collin Peterson (D-MN) to bring the full Committee to the 
Central Valley to discuss the 2012 Farm Bill.
    California agricultural producers have typically not been 
deeply involved in Farm Bill issues, but in recent years the 
Farm Bill's focus has expanded to include new programs and 
provisions that benefit many of our members. The 2008 bill's 
historic inclusion of the first-ever specialty crop title has 
proved especially important to our growers of fruits, 
vegetables and nuts. Many producers also take advantage of 
conservation programs, including the popular EQIP, a program 
that recently was threatened for budget cuts. Research, 
nutrition, and other areas of agricultural policy also receive 
greater attention in the 2008 bill.
    Looking to 2012, the Merced County Farm Bureau would like 
to work with the Congress to ensure that the Farm Bill 
continues to acknowledge the importance of promoting 
conservation programs like EQIP, preserving the specialty crops 
title, and strengthening other programs that ensure a safe and 
abundant domestic food supply. We are eager to share our 
thoughts, comments, and expertise in the crafting of a bill 
that works for our producers. Thank you for taking the 
opportunity to visit us in order to learn more about the 
challenges we face to farm and ranch in California.
            Sincerely,

Board of Directors,
Merced County Farm Bureau,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
Merced, CA,
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


              Comment of Elizabeth Casler, Fort Thomas, KY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Elizabeth Casler.
    City, State: Fort Thomas, KY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Freelance Writer.
    Comment: I'm very concerned over the state of our food 
industry. It seems that government policies help to make 
unhealthy food cheap and healthy food prohibitively expensive 
for many. Why are we subsidizing commodity crops at the expense 
of the nation's health and that of small farmers? Why is corn 
in everything? How can Mansantos be allowed to intimidate and 
put small farmers out of business when their patented gene 
contaminates the field of farmers who never wanted it in the 
first place? Why aren't we making it easier for everyone to buy 
locally-grown, healthier food? Please use the 2012 Farm Bill to 
move us toward sustainability and away from becoming a nation 
of diabetics.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jason Castaneda, San Diego, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Jason Castaneda.
    City, State: San Diego, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Provider of scientific informatics software.
    Comment: Please reduce or end subsidies of corn and soy 
products by the federal government. Processed foods from these 
products are likely to be causing the obesity epidemic we are 
currently experiencing. Our bodies have not able to adjust to 
the flood of inexpensive calories we now have access to. For 
the first time in history obesity is a problem that affects the 
poor. No one would have ever imagined this in their wildest 
dreams. Previously, only the wealthy could afford to consume 
enough calories to be overweight. Now, it is the poor who find 
themselves with few alternatives to processed simple 
carbohydrate laden foods. This unthinkable scenario is only 
possible when the government artificially lowers the market 
price of grain and soy, which are used to create the vast 
majority of processed and fast foods.
    Please do your part to lower the farming industry's 
reliance on government subsidies. Our future generations 
require it.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Donald Catanzaro, Lowell, AR

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Donald Catanzaro.
    City, State: Lowell, AR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Consultant.
    Comment:

    Good Day,

    I recently tried to obtain statistics from the Farm 
Services Agency (FSA) regarding compliance rates of farmers 
enrolled in various FSA conservation programs (i.e., CRP, WRP, 
GRP, CREP etc.).
    I was literally astounded to learn that the FSA does not 
have any reports nor statistics available (see FOIA request 
below). I find this incredibly because some of the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) dates to the 1980s and some of the 
conservation programs date to the 1950s (Soil Bank Program, the 
precursor to CRP).
    I believe it is imperative to collect this information, 
without an understanding of compliance rates, how can we 
determine if these programs are effective?

Don Catanzaro.


                               attachment


FOIA Response
FSA FOIA/PA 80-001-2010-000172
    Mr. Donald Catanzaro:

    This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
request (copy attached) dated May 5, 2010, control number 80-
001-2010-000172.
    In your request, you stated the following:

        ``I have been unsuccessful in finding any reports 
        regarding compliance rates of farmers enrolled in 
        various FSA conservation programs (i.e., CRP, WRP, GRP, 
        CREP etc.).

        Do you have any reports and/or statistics that would 
        show how often farmers are violating their conservation 
        contracts? A U.S. based report that would show by 
        State/County data such as ### acres of corn were 
        planted in the CRP contracted area . . . or #.#% of 
        farmers have been found to violate contracts of WRP . . 
        . or $#,### fines have been assessed to CREP 
        recipients.

        I attempted to get the information from the FSA Online 
        Knowledge Base (see http://askfsa.custhelp.com/app/
        account/questions/detail/i_id/20450 http://
        askfsa.custhelp.com/app/account/questions/detail/i_id/
        20450.)

        I would also like to have a raw dataset which shows 
        farmers that have been sent violation notices (name, 
        address etc.), the status of the violation notice 
        (resolved, renegotiated, incorrect, fine received etc), 
        the action taken by FSA and any other data related to 
        violations of FSA conservation contracts.''

    We have completed our search for responsive records in the 
Conservation & Environmental Programs Division (CEPD). FSA has 
no records responsive to your FOIA request because, as the CEPD 
office advised, they (1) do not have existing reports or 
readily generatable statistics regarding how often farmers are 
violating their conservation contracts, etc., and (2) the 
information you asked to have included in a raw dataset is not 
captured in our electronic computer systems. (In order to 
locate it, we would need to search in every individual file of 
every producer participating in an FSA conservation program in 
every County office in the United States and Puerto Rico.) 
Under the FOIA, FSA is not required to review all of its 
existing conservation program records to compile the 
information you requested and create records in response to 
your FOIA request
    However, if you believe that there are, in fact, records 
responsive to your request in files maintained by the FSA, in 
the format in which you request them, you may appeal this 
determination within forty-five (45) days of the date of this 
letter. In so doing, please provide us with the location of the 
responsive records, if it is known to you, or the reason why 
you believe that there are records responsive to your request 
in FSA files. Please include a copy of your initial request 
letter in your appeal package, and clearly mark both your 
letter and its envelope with the words ``Freedom of Information 
Act Appeal.'' Mail your appeal package to the following 
address:

Administrator,
United States Department of Agriculture,
Farm Service Agency, Stop Code 0570,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20250-0570.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Cortney Caylor, Fort Worth, TX

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Cortney Caylor.
    City, State: Fort Worth, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban 
farms across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear 
benefits: cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our 
water and endangers our health, while increasing economic 
development opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:

   Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good 
        they do rather than for the amount of crops they 
        produce.

   Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more 
        kinds of crops), adding carbon in their soil, and 
        putting perennial crops (such as hay and pasture) in 
        their fields.

   Protect income for farmers who raise organic food 
        crops that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA 
        food pyramid, so that we get better food and fewer 
        junk-food ingredients.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Cindi Ceva, Montauk, AR

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Cindi Ceva.
    City, State: Montauk, AR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Hotelier.
    Comment: Our kids need healthier school lunches.
                                ------                                


                      Comment of Katherine Chapman

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Katherine Chapman.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Accountant.
    Comment: Invest in organic farming! I shop almost 
exclusively at my local farmers market so I can know more about 
the food coming to my plate and to support farmers directly. I 
would appreciate this being an option for people across the 
economic spectrum. One way would be to subsidize small farmers 
rather than large ag. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Paul Chek, Vista, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Paul Chek.
    City, State: Vista, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Holistic Health and Fitness Educator & Author.
    Comment: I (and many of my clients who will be writing, 
too) am a supporter of quality, organic food and sustainable 
farming practices. A strong food bill which supports local 
farmers, no use of pesticides, subsidies for fruits and 
vegetables instead of grains, and a firm stance against GMO's 
and all companies attempting to infiltrate our precious food 
supply with this dangerous, short-sighted technology is 
necessary for the health of the people, our nation, and the 
world as a whole.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Thomas Childress, Rugby, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 9:36 a.m.
    Name: Thomas Childress.
    City, State: Rugby, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: The Farm Bill need some work. First thing would be 
to simplify all the programs. It seems that the Ag programs are 
made too complex, in order to frustrate farmers from 
participating! Crop Insurance has gotten to be the same way!
    If cuts are going to be made in any Ag Program, then it 
should be accompanied by a definite simplification of the 
programs.
    As far as Crop Insurance, there seems to be a move away 
from the optional unit, to enterprise units or whole farm 
units. This is a big mistake, as the optional unit has been the 
backbone of crop insurance for a few decades now. If this is 
the future, then farmers will simply drop out of crop 
insurance, then participation rates will come into question! 
Also, the value of agricultural land will drop!
    Not a little either, but could easily drop in half!
    This would stimulate land loan foreclosures similar to the 
1980's, and we would be back to where we started!!
                                ------                                


             Comment of Cindy Christensen, Sioux Falls, SD

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Cindy Christensen.
    City, State: Sioux Falls, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Division Manager Sioux Falls Chamber of 
Commerce.
    Comment: I would encourage you to include in the farm bill, 
mechanisms to help young farmers become established in farming. 
They are the future to agriculture. Farming is a huge risk and 
many young farmers do not have the ability to survive those 
risks. Also, I feel ethanol is a big key to the future of 
agriculture. Please remember provisions for ethanol in your 
considerations. Thank you for the forum in Sioux Falls this 
morning. All points were well taken.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Kim Christman, West Chester, PA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Kim Christman.
    City, State: West Chester, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: Please consider changing farm policy to support 
small farmers and the production of diverse organic produce. I 
feel strongly that the industrialization of food based of the 
overproduction of corn and soy crops has lead to the epidemics 
of obesity and degenerative diseases in this country. Please do 
not subsidize these crops, especially when grown with 
conventional methods, using pesticides which pollute the food 
supply, in addition to our air and water supply.
    Please provide incentives for farmers to grow a variety of 
crops organically, as this will lead to better nutrition 
sources for our entire nation. Find ways to reward sustainable 
farming methods that benefit the land, the farmer and the 
citizen consumer.
    Please consider allowing those on food stamps to use their 
rations at Farmer's Markets and disallow them to buy foods that 
are unhealthy, like soda and foods with his concentrations of 
high-fructose corn syrup. If the government is providing funds 
to support low income families by helping them by food, 
shouldn't the government take responsibility for making sure 
they are eating life-sustaining, healthy foods?
    Please find ways to help the small farmers who work hard to 
produce diverse, healthy crops that sustain the land they own 
and contribute to the health of their nation.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Cassandra Church, E. Montpelier, VT

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Cassandra Church.
    City, State: E. Montpelier, VT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Artist.
    Comment: I am writing today to ask that you improve the 
horrible plight of factory farmed animals. these animals are 
suffering because corporations are greedy. The treatment of 
these sentient creatures must be addressed, we must treat them 
with more respect, and end the barbaric conditions in factory 
farming, we must do better. We must not support factory 
farming. Organic farming, small farms, and plant based farms 
must be given a priority. If the government doesn't buy 
murdered animal from factory farms for school lunches, and 
gives the American child a a plant based alternative we can 
change the status quo. Let's fix this barbarism, put some 
strong protection rules in place for the animals.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Debbie Churchill, Fremont, NE

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Debbie Churchill.
    City, State: Fremont, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: County Assessor.
    Comment: Our office uses AgriData as an invaluable tool for 
assessment purposes. The fact that one government agency cannot 
share information with another government agency is NOT the 
best use of government resources, but politics at its worst. 
Please approve the sharing of farming information with other 
agencies needing the data. Thank you!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Cielukowski, Cocoa Beach, FL

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Cielukowski.
    City, State: Cocoa Beach, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Please stop supporting factory farms. Instead, 
support local, organic, plant-based farming systems.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Peter Clare, Tiburon, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Peter Clare.
    City, State: Tiburon, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired/Urban Homesteader.
    Comment: These are my wishes and concerns for the future of 
our farms, our agriculture industry, and all the families that 
depend on you:
    Please keep our food safe and healthy!
    Please protect our rights as consumers!
    Please stop Monsanto!!!
    Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the standard 
for Organic Food . . .
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Please promote Natural Healthy Foods and Products . . .
    Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive . . .
    Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our future 
. . .
    Please take care of the Land, the Soil, the Water, and our 
Bodies!
    Thank you for your efforts . . .
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Rosemary Clark, Madison, WI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 05, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Rosemary Clark.
    City, State: Madison, WI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please roll back or redirect grain subsidies in 
the next Farm Bill. While agricultural subsidies are often 
justified in the name of food security, the current subsidy 
policy in the U.S. is an outmoded and unhealthy system for 
everyone but American grain producers. Not only does it harm 
international trade and betray producers in third world 
countries (leading to the lie of ``food aid'' whereby 
artificially cheap U.S. grains drive developing world farmers 
out of business), but it leads to distorted crop production in 
the U.S. Why do we need to have oceans of corn and soy in the 
Midwest? Vegetable production in this country is currently 
insufficient to fulfill our nation's dietary needs. Perhaps if 
our healthy fruit and vegetable producers experienced the 
production support that currently props up our bloated grain-
fed meats and processed foods, we'd see the impact move from 
the supermarkets to our waistlines.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Shawn Clark, Portland, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 25, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Shawn Clark.
    City, State: Portland, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dry Beans & Peas, Vegetables, Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: As a chef and small scale farmer, I believe 
organic farming principles to be at the forefront of 21st 
century agricultural needs. Please include funding for organic 
farming, including small scale, permaculture and conservation 
farming. Our seeds and foods are our legacy, and with more and 
more varieties of produce falling by the wayside, organic 
farming becomes a necessity to maintain biodiversity and a 
healthy food chain. Thanks for your time!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Steve Clausen, Chatham, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Steve Clausen.
    City, State: Chatham, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified General Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a certified general appraiser in the State of 
Illinois. I specialize in appraisals of agricultural use 
properties, primarily land used for feed grain and oil seed 
production. The current policy of the USDA Farm Service Agency 
does not allow access to information that is critical to 
preparing credible reports. The most critical of that 
information that is not allowed is CLU data. The result is 
increased time spent by myself in attempts to prepare credible 
reports, which causes higher fees to the users of the reports 
for those appraisals. The users of those reports are primarily 
the farm operators.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Robert Clements, Elmwood, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Robert Clements.
    City, State: Elmwood, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Banker.
    Comment: Federal Crop Insurance is vital to my ability to 
provide line of credit loans to farmers.
    We have no irrigation, so we rely on rainfall to make a 
crop. About 3 out of 10 years there is a rain shortfall. With 
crop input expenses so high, most farmers rely on a large line 
of credit to plant and harvest crops. The bank relies heavily 
on the crop insurance guarantee when setting the farmers' 
credit limits.
    Any restriction of Multiple Peril Crop Insurance will 
directly limit our farmers' operating funds and ability to 
produce income.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jeffrey Clow, Harrisburg, SD

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Jeffrey Clow.
    City, State: Harrisburg, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Service Tech.
    Comment: I want to thank the U.S. House Committee on 
Agriculture for providing this opportunity to submit comments 
on agricultural policy for the 2012 Farm Bill.
    Farmers understand that conservation is key to agricultural 
production, rural economies, and future well-being. To meet the 
needs of the future, the 2012 Farm Bill must recognize, 
protect, and enhance the status of conservation policy in 
federal farm policy.
    Research from USDA consistently shows that conservation 
practices and programs that support rural America's natural 
amenities also bolster the number of rural jobs and even farms. 
Furthermore, protection of our finite soil and water resources 
is essential if farms and ranches are to meet the challenge of 
feeding a growing population. Conversely, an extraction ethic 
in agriculture can at best serve only short term rewards at the 
expense of our future.
    Success in the 2012 Farm Bill can be achieved without 
inflated spending, but conservation must be at the center of 
policy considerations. As you begin the process of re-
authorizing our national farm policy, please include the 
following recommendations in your work:

    1. Enact a robust and well-funded Conservation Title to 
        support all conservation programs. Congress and the 
        administration must enact a 2012 Farm Bill that 
        provides the assistance and incentives necessary to 
        ensure stewardship of agricultural lands.

    2. Enact a federal Farm Bill that promotes payments for 
        farming systems and practices that produce 
        environmental benefits rather than emphasizing payments 
        for historical crop production.

    3. Re-prioritize the existing conservation compliance 
        regimen. Conservation compliance is a means for 
        ensuring that where public money is invested, the 
        public's interests are protected by requiring basic 
        levels of protections for soil, water and wetlands. 
        Prioritizing conservation compliance will require no 
        additional Farm Bill investment and, in fact, can 
        result in saving federal dollars by withholding 
        subsidies. Specific actions that should be taken 
        include:

    Require all crop land to have a conservation plan in order 
to be eligible for any USDA benefits. This would strongly 
encourage producers to create and follow that plan.
    To remove the incentive to convert remaining grasslands to 
crops, make native sod and all land without a cropping history 
ineligible for federal crop insurance.
    Require all existing or new crop and revenue insurance or 
other risk management programs to be subject to conservation 
compliance provisions. This is absolutely critical, 
particularly with respect to recent calls for making insurance 
a major component of the federal farm support system.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these 
comments.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Chris Cochenour, St. Meinrad, IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Chris Cochenour.
    City, State: St. Meinrad, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: As a producer and a commercial user sites that use 
CLU data, including Surety Maps help us decipher acres to apply 
on, and also allows us to double check the amount of acres. 
Without this our efficiencies would go down because of having 
excess chemical to spray out, or running short and having to 
wait on more to arrive.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Deborah Codella, Murrells Inlet, SC

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Deborah Codella.
    City, State: Murrells Inlet, SC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic food is 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail 
market. Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    We want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow and 
thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the knowledge 
about organic farming systems and provide that knowledge to 
organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
    Prohibit GMO's in all agricultural systems. Mandatory 
Labeling on all conventional food products which contain GMO's, 
including the ingredients which could possibly have GMO 
components.
    Allow no patents on food crops!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Dick Coffman, Hinton, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Dick Coffman.
    City, State: Hinton, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: I encourage continued support of the crop revenue 
insurance programs. If it is supported to the level that 70-80% 
coverage is affordable I would be in favor of eliminating all 
other payments. You could have a minimum price below which the 
spring price would not fall to ensure an adequate safety net. 
That could be in place of loan deficiency and countercyclical 
payments.
    I recommend that direct payments be eliminated. They are 
simply transfer payment and not needed if adequate crop revenue 
insurance protection is available.
    I am not opposed to SURE, but if subsidized revenue 
insurance were available it would probably not be needed.
    I believe that means testing is very unfair. Just because 
one may be successful in another business should not keep them 
from farming. If you cannot receive program benefits you are at 
a disadvantage to other producers and without some kind of 
safety net cannot take the risk of farming. I have a small farm 
management company with three employees. I have also acquired 
some land over time and farm part time. If the $250,000 non-
farm income limit is approved I will not be eligible for farm 
program payments. Why should I not be eligible for benefits 
just because I have been successful in my other business? Under 
the present program if prices were to drop sharply and there 
were large countercyclical or loan deficiency payments I could 
not afford to farm my own land. Should I have to rent it out 
just because I have other income?
    We manage farms for individuals and companies that have 
considerable non-farm income. Many of these farm owners have 
crop share arrangements with the tenants and share in the risk 
and rewards of farming. Means testing drives these farm owners 
to cash rent when they cannot have the benefits of income price 
support programs. This places greater risk in the tenant. I do 
not believe we should have programs that select who can and who 
cannot farm.
    I am not completely opposed to payment limits if they are 
structured properly. I believe any limit should be on the 
individual and that entities with multiple ownership should 
qualify through the individuals. If we had only subsidized crop 
revenue insurance there could be a maximum amount of subsidy 
that a producer could receive. If you allowed up to $40,000 per 
producer for revenue insurance subsidy it would be much more 
beneficial than the direct payments. Very large producers 
should still be allowed to purchase revenue insurance, but the 
subsidy would not cover as much of their premium.
    Please consider having subsidized revenue insurance be the 
centerpiece of the new farm bill and eliminate the means 
testing.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of David Collins, Cherokee, OK

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:06 a.m.
    Name: David Collins.
    City, State: Cherokee, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment: I am hoping that Congress removes requirements 
shielding FSA acreage data from the public. It is taxpayer 
money providing the dollars for payments and the public should 
have access to this information. It has also added to the costs 
of appraisals completed on farm ground for servicing loans and 
new loans. Completely unnecessary to shield this information. 
AgriData has been a source of information for farm operations 
that utilized this information that is used in farming 
operations on a daily basis across the country.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Marybeth Collins, Troy, VA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Marybeth Collins.
    City, State: Troy, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: Please require GMO foods be labeled for consumers! 
Law requires mere salt content to be labeled, yet we are 
currently buying unlabeled bioengineered foods in our 
supermarkets without our knowledge or consent. Unfathomable. I 
am especially concerned about the short- and long-term effects 
GM foods on the growing and developing bodies of our children. 
I am especially concerned that organic foods are threatened by 
the cross pollination that will surely occur if GM crops 
continue to get approved for planting in our fields.
    Biotechnology is tampering with the DNA code that generates 
all life. In agriculture, there is great scientific 
uncertainty, health risks and environmental dangers associated 
with GM crops. There is a ``no going back'' factor to 
genetically engineered farming that warrants our most serious 
consideration. Intuition tells us: Dogs don't mate with cats. 
Horses don't mate with petunias. Let us apply intelligent 
caution with these new technologies! Such caution will benefit 
our farmers as well as our consumers.
    Let's take a lesson from recent history: the BP disaster. 
Big corporations of all types should not have so much power. 
Clearly, big corporations like Monsanto are concerned about 
profits over people, farmers and consumers alike. They have 
huge power. We citizens need our government to protect us and 
ensure our safety. It is too big for individual citizens or 
even grass root organizations to manage alone! Please act on 
our behalf.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Lindley Comer, Elwood, IN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 7:36 p.m.
    Name: Lindley Comer.
    City, State: Elwood, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: I use the FSA maps almost daily in my appraisal 
business. This is one of the best tools I have ever had. They 
save me hours of work on my reports.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Daniel Comes, Mapleton, IA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Daniel Comes.
    City, State: Mapleton, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser/Farmer.
    Comment: It is essential in my field of work as an 
appraiser that that CLU data be reinstated into Section 1619 of 
the farm bill.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Glenn Compton, Nokomis, FL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 6:05 a.m.
    Name: Glenn Compton.
    City, State: Nokomis, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: The 2012 Farm Bill needs to support conservation 
orientated land management policies and not be dominated by 
special interest groups that view land stewardship only in 
terms of economic gain.
    The Conservation Resource Program, the reorganization of 
sections of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
and the Clean Water Act will provide for the center of 
attention for much of the Farm Bill debate.
    The United States Department of Agriculture is intended to 
work with landowners and the various governmental agencies 
concerned with soil and water conservation. Yet, the USDA has 
repeatedly been criticized for not working in concert to 
achieve the goals of maintaining the economic and environmental 
integrity of agricultural lands.
    Wetland destruction and inadequate runoff from farms have 
created ``dead zones'' in estuaries throughout the country. 
Florida has at least four estuaries that are highly polluted by 
farm runoff. 58 percent of Tampa Bay's nitrogen loading is a 
result of agriculture, and 41 percent for Charlotte Harbor.
    The destruction of wetlands which act as a filter for 
nitrogen has allowed for an increase in fertilizers entering 
into the waterways.
    Adequate use of Agricultural Best Management Practices 
(BMP) is an important aspect in protecting water resources and 
the environment, yet there is little information or oversight 
to verify that these practices are having water quality and 
environmental benefits or water quality and environmental 
impacts.
    Many agricultural Best Management Practices are written by 
the United States Department of Agriculture or the Florida 
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and are 
intended as management guidelines on a national or state level. 
The agricultural BMP's that many farmers have relied on are not 
specific enough to address the water quality and environmental 
concerns found locally. Best Management Practices are practices 
used to maximize the agricultural productivity of the land, not 
protect the environment.
    Proper land management is an obligation to maintain the 
environmental integrity of the land for the protection of the 
natural resources. Priority should be given to the protection 
of native habitat, as native habitats are the lands that are in 
the most danger of being lost for the future.
    The education of policy makers and landowners involved in 
setting priorities associated with the agricultural industry 
will be a critical factor in the protection of our natural 
resources. What truly is needed is policy, both on the national 
and local levels that will protect the environmental integrity 
of the land and encourage the rebuilding of that which has 
previously been destroyed.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Cynthia Cox, Fox, AR

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 a.m.
    Name: Cynthia Cox.
    City, State: Fox, AR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: It is vital on many fronts to have a farm bill 
that is inclusive of rights for small farmers: (1) local 
economy, (2) health benefits of eating regional foods, (3) 
national security. We must have regulations that make since for 
a small farm . . . please don't try to fit a small operation 
into the big box model. Small farm standards are usually higher 
than those regulated and we don't want to be forced to be 
mediocre like corporate farms.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Oona Coy, Northampton, MA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Oona Coy.
    City, State: Northampton, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I believe the Farm Bill should be very much 
focused on supporting the next generation of farmers. It should 
also be focused on climate change.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kevin Cradduck, Savannah, GA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:05 a.m.
    Name: Kevin Cradduck.
    City, State: Savannah, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Credit Representative.
    Comment: I strongly urge the next Farm Bill to take a 
closer look at sugar subsidies once again.
    The protection program maintains sugar employment at about 
20-35% above the natural level, meaning that it costs U.S. 
taxpayers somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 per year to 
protect each sugar job. Not surprisingly, Fanjul Corp benefits 
significantly (their net profits average an additional $50 
million to $100 million per year due solely to the quota and 
break-even program), and could afford to make about $2 million 
in campaign contributions in the 2000 and 2004 election cycles.
    It makes no sense to add weight to the pockets of 
corporations such as Fanjul Corp, while significantly 
increasing sugar costs for consumers. The purpose of the 
subsidy has shifted from a protection in a volatile industry to 
a revenue stream for them. With $2.5 billion dollars in 
revenue, FLO-SUN can absorb risk losses as other industries due 
by utilizing hedging tools.
    While I may not understand this issue as you do, it doesn't 
make a lick of sense that U.S. sugar prices have been as high 
or higher than world prices for half a century! The price 
protection portion of the subsidy, if not repealed, should be 
drastically reduced to a price more in line with world prices.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Lorin Crandall, Saint Louis, MO

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Lorin Crandall.
    City, State: Saint Louis, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Missouri Coalition for the Environment--Clean 
Water Coordinator.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee Members,

    I am writing on behalf of the Missouri Coalition for the 
Environment, a nonprofit organization that has worked to 
protect the open lands, waters, and air in Missouri for 
Missourians for over 40 years. In recent years we have begun to 
work more and more extensively on the agriculture issues that 
are most important to Independent Missouri Farmers and 
Missourians concerned about the water quality impacts of modern 
industrial agriculture. The issues that are of the most concern 
to our constituents are conservation compliance, voluntary 
program reform, agency transparency, and ``whole farm'' revenue 
insurance.
Conservation Compliance
    Our first priority is for conservation compliance to be 
revived through the following policy changes:
    Reopen all legacy HEL soil conservation plans (plans 
approved, applied, and maintained before 3 July 1996) and 
revise them to at least meet current planning standards on 
highly erodible cropland.
    All land in production, HEL and non-HEL, should be required 
to have a conservation plan to be eligible for USDA benefits.
    Require treatment and/or prevention of ephemeral gully 
erosion on all agricultural land participating in covered 
programs (highly erodible and non-highly erodible cropland).
    Require a setback of row crop planting of 20 feet from 
waterways--producers who want to plant a buffer that meets 
technical standards can enroll in CRP or CREP and receive 
payment for those additional acres.
    Non-cropland and native sod on which an agricultural 
commodity is planted for which a policy or plan of insurance is 
available shall be ineligible for those benefits.
    All existing or new crop and revenue insurance or other 
risk management programs must be subject to conservation 
compliance provisions.
    Funding for the technical assistance needed to complete 
plans and conduct status reviews should be provided from funds 
otherwise made available for covered programs.
Voluntary Program Reform
    In regard to voluntary programs, we would like to see 
policy changes designed to enhance performance, including:

   Dramatically increase the scope of the Cooperative 
        Conservation Partnership Initiative:

   Include CRP in programs affected by CCPI.

   60 percent of EQIP funds running through CCPI by 
        2017.

   Allow CCPI funding to support planning, outreach, 
        and monitoring costs of the partner organization.

   Selected surgical reforms to EQIP, CSP, and CRP to 
        enhance targeting.

   Reduce funding for waste treatment lagoons and 
        increase funding for conversion to sustainable 
        livestock production methods like rotational grazing.

   Balance CRP and EQIP funds to increase the acres of 
        riparian buffer zone land in long-term conservation 
        practices.

   Establish a Riparian Land Trust that absorbs the 
        funds from unfulfilled EQIP contracts and uses them to 
        purchase sensitive riparian buffer areas from farmers 
        an place them under a permanent conservation easement.
Transparency
    Often times citizens trying to find out what is going on in 
their communities with regard to farming practices and 
environmental quality protections for their homes, farms and 
communities are unable to gain access to meaningful documents 
such as Nutrient Management Plans. It is our belief that since 
this information is relevant to these communities and paid for 
with their tax dollars--they should have full access to all 
conservation practices documents.
    Strike provisions that restrict access to geospatial 
information regarding voluntary conservation program funding 
and livestock production operations.
    Increase access to growers' conservation compliance plan 
details.
    Mandate at least 1 percent of funding for voluntary 
programs be set aside for monitoring and evaluation of the 
effectiveness of those programs.
    Require that all Nutrient Management Plans be public record 
and available in common PDF, GIS and database formats for 
public review.
``Whole Farm'' Revenue Insurance
    The design of a ``Whole Farm'' revenue insurance program or 
suite of programs should not result in loophole incentives to 
undertake activities that pollute water or otherwise threaten 
natural resources and the environment. Insurance must not 
support increased production on marginal land or provide 
coverage to non-cropland converted to agricultural commodity 
production. Furthermore, all existing and new risk management 
programs must be subject to conservation compliance provisions.
    Thank you for considering our comments, we look forward to 
reviewing the decisions that the Committee makes.

Lorin Crandall,
Clean Water Coordinator,
Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Dana Crawford, Flower Mound, TX

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Dana Crawford.
    City, State: Flower Mound, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: IT.
    Comment: I would like to see High Fructose Corn Syrup and 
Killer Fats outlawed in the U.S., like in other countries. Have 
you noticed how Corn Syrup is in nearly every food? Enough! We 
want healthy food.
    I would also like to see an end to farmers, ranchers, and 
the American public getting bullied by huge corporations 
forcing genetically modified seeds to be used and not telling 
the public what their getting, gag orders on free speech and 
video documentation against unethical food and meat production, 
and other tactics. Let the truth be known. Let the people 
choose with their hard-earned dollars. The American people 
should not be treated like mushrooms.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Nicholas Crockett, Partridge, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Nicholas Crockett.
    City, State: Partridge, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Retailer.
    Comment: I support the re-instatement of the CLU data into 
Section 1619. It is crucial to have this data the people of 
Agriculture today.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Paul Crom, Holdrege, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Paul Crom.
    City, State: Holdrege, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraisal & Sales.
    Comment:

    Dear Members,

    I wish to respectfully ask you to consider reinstating the 
CLU data into Section 1619. Availability of this information is 
important to insure a timely and accurate evaluation of 
agricultural properties that we deal with on a daily basis. It 
simply gives us access to the most accurate evaluation services 
available, and does not in anyway disclose any proprietary 
financial information. We often find significant variations in 
the local government taxing information, which is often out of 
date. Please allow us to more efficiently operate our offices, 
so we may more accurately serve your constituents,
            Sincerely,

Paul Crom.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Joyce Crowley, Morton, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Joyce Crowley.
    City, State: Morton, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Secretary.
    Comment: Please limit all GMO crops, pesticides, and 
herbicides. Also help the organic farmers.
    Outlaw Monsanto GMO seeds & pesticides as well as Bayer 
pesticides & herbicides.
                                ------                                


                  Comments of Bret Cude, Nashville, IL

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Bret Cude.
    City, State: Nashville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager.
    Comment: I have a concern related to Section 1619 of the 
current farm bill:

    1. Section 1619 needs to be adjusted. Currently, Appraisers 
        cannot gain access to the FSA maps base and yield 
        information and CRP information on comparable 
        properties. This make an appraisal less accurate, as 
        they cannot do the comparisons and analysis necessary, 
        and this increases the time required to do the 
        appraisal. Therefore, the Appraisals will take longer 
        to complete, be more expensive (time is money) and be 
        less accurate. None of these are good for agriculture. 
        I would suggest making this information available to 
        State Certified and/or Accredited Appraisers.

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Bret Cude.
    City, State: Nashville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager.
    Comment: Limiting Payment eligibility based on income of 
the recipient is pushing more and more farm land to CASH RENT, 
which the farm operators are bidding up, due to the government 
payments associated with the farm. MANY landlords may be 
willing to continue to share the risk of the farming operation, 
by using a Share type arrangement, but if they are not eligible 
for government program payments i.e.,: DCP or ACRE payments, 
SURE payments, and LDP payments, they will continue to use cash 
rent leases. These leases place 100% of the RISK on the farm 
operator, so in addition to the higher costs of production for 
seed, fertilizer, herbicide and fuel, equipment, labor and crop 
insurance they now have these progressively higher CASH RENTS, 
many of which are due before planting.
    I represent clients that fall into this situation, and if 
the income levels for eligibility continue to go down, you are 
going to see 2 things: More farm operators will not qualify . . 
. and more absentee landowners will switch to cash rent, and 
this will add to the indebtedness of the farm producer. 
Agriculture has withstood this recent economic crisis fairly 
well, but a poor crop, or substantially lower prices, can 
change this picture quickly.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Danny Culbertson, Alachua, FL

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 28, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Danny Culbertson.
    City, State: Alachua, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Engineer.
    Comment: Subsidize fruits and vegetables and stop 
subsidizing corn and soy. Encourage local food production by 
stopping subsidies on oil drilling/refining or by taxing rail, 
truck and air food transportation. Encourage organic vegetable 
and meat production and stop subsidizing GMO foods and 
Monsanto. Act like representatives of the people instead of 
representatives of big corporations and the meat and dairy 
lobby.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Pete Czosnyka, Chicago, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Pete Czosnyka.
    City, State: Chicago, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Engineer.
    Comment: Industrial agriculture and industrial animal 
husbandry are spreading pesticides, herbicides and other 
poisons; destroying the fertility of the soil; spreading oil 
based fertilizers and other products; creating more run-off; 
altering negatively the pre-settlement hydrologic conditions of 
the land; causing harm to the ``waters of the U.S.'' while 
claiming, without proof, that they are responsible stewards of 
the land that should not be bound by the pollution laws that 
other industries are bound by.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Peggy da Silva, San Francisco, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Peggy da Silva.
    City, State: San Francisco, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Organic Produce Wholesale Distribution.
    Comment: Two major comments for the upcoming 2012 Farm 
Bill:

    (1) we must have strong focus on environmental quality and 
        support for foods which support good nutrition in the 
        U.S.

    (2) we should separate the actual nutrition support 
        programs out of the Farm Bill and into their own bill.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Peggy da Silva, San Francisco, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Peggy da Silva.
    City, State: San Francisco, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Health Educator.
    Comment: It is critically important that the Farm Bill 
change its direction from supporting unhealthy and ecologically 
unsound agricultural products and practices. We need a shift to 
funding and regulations that support Organic Farming. We need 
to recognize that the health of our children and the health of 
our ecosystem are much more important than agricultural 
industry profits--and within a NEW system they need not be 
mutually exclusive.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Veronica Da Silva, Dover Plains, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Veronica Da Silva.
    City, State: Dover Plains, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: As a mother of two young children and former 
elementary school teacher I feel that nutrition is one of the 
struggles that is hampering this country. In this country the 
government subsidizes corn and soy, so many large scale farms 
only grow these two ``cash crops.'' Many children eat corn or 
soy products for breakfast, lunch and dinner. There is high 
fructose corn syrup, which is made out of the corn, in almost 
all processed food. This is leading to an epidemic of diabetes 
and obesity. These epidemics have been caused by the government 
subsidies. Food safety is not being addressed if these 
subsidies continue.
    Next if we look at the majority of cases of Salmonella and 
E. coli, they have originated at LARGE factory farms because of 
the lack of oversight these factory farms and slaughter houses 
have had in the past few years. When there are animals stuffed 
into pens and piled on top of each other there is a greater 
chance of spreading disease.
    Small farms treat there animals with respect and care. 
These farmers will be negatively impacted by the food safety 
and farm bill. The government should protect small farmers and 
not attempt to dismantle them for the sake of large 
corporations.
    Organic farmers are an integral part of creating a 
sustainable food system. These farmers deserve to be on an even 
playing field with farmers that use non organic means. Give 
some subsidies to organic farmers so that all people can afford 
to feed their families a healthy and nutritious diet.
    Finally, encouraging and supporting individuals and 
families to plant and harvest their own gardens should be 
priority of the farm bill. We can eat healthy and use less 
fossil fuels if we learn to be our own farmers.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Rachel Daberkow, Lakefield, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:36 p.m.
    Name: Rachel Daberkow.
    City, State: Lakefield, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee Members:

    I understand that Section 1619 of the 2008 ``Farm'' Bill 
was not part of the bills passed by either the House or the 
Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee process 
without public hearings or debate. I recognize the Committee's 
purpose but I feel an open ear to the people who are most 
effected would have been beneficial.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information. CLU data is 
similar to information found in a plat book (which every rural 
person gets a free copy of their county) but CLU data is much 
more accurate. Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies 
and negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
    As a crop producer myself and a rural real estate 
appraiser, I would have an extremely difficult time doing my 
day to day work without CLU data. I hope that you all take a 
closer look at how you decide these items for the next ``Farm'' 
Bill. Please consider listening to the users of information 
before you decide to take away their access to it and make 
their lives and jobs exceedingly difficult.
    If you would like to discuss this matter further, please 
feel free to contact me at [Redacted.] Thanks for your 
consideration to this important matter.

Rachel Daberkow.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Darrell Dahl, Walnut, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Darrell Dahl.
    City, State: Walnut, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: The lack of access to field information negatively 
impacts the accuracy of appraisal work as well as limits vital 
information needed for marketing land for farm owners and 
investors.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Joanne Darling, Willis, MI

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Joanne Darling.
    City, State: Willis, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Please try to streamline all the FARM SERVICE 
AGENCY paper work that the farmers have to fill out. All these 
programs just cause More and More paper work for everyone. It 
takes so much time to fill out and to get Landlord to fill out 
papers all the time. It would be easier to just pay so much per 
acre no matter what instead of all the paper work.
            Thank you,

Joanne Darling a Monroe County farmer . . .
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Bev Dau, West Chicago, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Bev Dau.
    City, State: West Chicago, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Administrative Assistant.
    Comment: I can't believe there is even a question about 
organic farming or not. It is so important to get the chemicals 
and medicines out of our food. They are killing us. We need to 
get to organic farming in order to stay healthy and thus cut 
back on our hospital stays, and prescribed medicines. Please 
give us our ``food'' back!!!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Amelia Davis, Charlotte, VT

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Amelia Davis.
    City, State: Charlotte, VT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Greenhouse/nursery, Poultry/poultry products, 
Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please please please, big people of power, 
consider the local organic food movement and org. farming in 
your next bill. As a worker, lover, and believer in this; 
change must occur to create a solid agricultural standing in 
America. When food came from our local farmers, naturally, and 
on a small-scale, money was spread equally and came back in a 
cycle to our community. Now, huge-scale dairy farms are hurting 
because they are producing on such a large scale that they 
cannot afford, therefore harming our animals and not making 
money. With SMALLER local farms spread throughout the country, 
this problem would not arise, and food would be fresher. Not 
only would it make Americans happier, but it would fill in the 
ruts of our economy. Our money cannot keep funneling into the 
hands of huge, lying, and wasteful corporations. WAKE UP! I do 
not understand why America's ag. industry has not been put 
higher on the totem pole. Please explain to us at least . . .

Amelia Davis,
[Redacted],
Charlotte, VT.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Matthew Davis, Detroit Lakes, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Matthew Davis.
    City, State: Detroit Lakes, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Natural Resources Manager.
    Comment: Here are my comments regarding proposed changes 
for the 2012 Farm Bill . . .
    Conservation must be at the center of policy considerations 
for the next Farm Bill. There is still too much environmental 
damage caused by farming practices . . . I see this as I drive 
around Rep. Peterson's District in NW Minnesota. As you begin 
the process of re-authorizing our national farm policy, please 
include the following recommendations in your work:

    1. Enact a robust and well-funded Conservation Title to 
        support all conservation programs. Congress and the 
        administration must enact a 2012 Farm Bill that 
        provides the assistance and incentives necessary to 
        ensure stewardship of agricultural lands.

    2. Enact a federal Farm Bill that promotes payments for 
        farming systems and practices that produce 
        environmental benefits rather than emphasizing payments 
        for historical crop production. The era of outrageous 
        commodity subsidies should be over and should be 
        replaced by payments for doing the right thing by the 
        environment.

    3. Re-prioritize the existing conservation compliance 
        regimen. Conservation compliance is a means for 
        ensuring that where public money is invested, the 
        public's interests are protected by requiring basic 
        levels of protections for soil, water and wetlands. 
        Prioritizing conservation compliance will require no 
        additional Farm Bill investment and, in fact, can 
        result in saving federal dollars by withholding 
        subsidies. Specific actions that should be taken 
        include:

     Require all crop land to have a conservation plan 
            in order to be eligible for any USDA benefits.

     To remove the incentive to convert remaining 
            grasslands to crops, make native sod and all land 
            without a cropping history ineligible for federal 
            crop insurance.

     Require all existing or new crop and revenue 
            insurance or other risk management programs to be 
            subject to conservation compliance provisions. This 
            is absolutely critical, particularly with respect 
            to recent calls for making insurance a major 
            component of the federal farm support system.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit my comments.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Russell B. Davis, W. Harrison, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Russell B. Davis.
    City, State: W. Harrison, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Musician and Educator.
    Comment: These are my wishes and concerns for the future of 
our farms, our agriculture industry, and all the families that 
depend on you:
    Please keep our food safe and healthy!
    Please protect our rights as consumers!
    Please stop Monsanto!!!
    Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the standard 
for Organic Food.
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Please promote Natural Healthy Foods and Products . . .
    Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive . . .
    Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our future 
. . .
    Please take care of the Land, the Soil, the Water, and our 
Bodies!
    Thank you for your efforts . . .
            Sincerely,

Russell B. Davis.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Steve Davis, Loveland, OH

    Date Submitted: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Steve Davis.
    City, State: Loveland, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Economics Teacher.
    Comment: Farm bill no longer represents protective measures 
for the small farmer or the consumer. For one thing, the 
concept of the small farmer no longer exists. If a farm exceeds 
5,000 acres then (in my opinion) they should not be able to 
participate in the countercyclical and subsidized price 
programs. In addition, our food industry subsidies are not 
necessary for corn, wheat, rice, soy, cotton and ESPECIALLY 
sugar (which is granted trade protection quotas as well). 
Cotton is another crop that should not have those special trade 
deals that favor growers and retailers that buy American cotton 
from foreign mills. One last thing about this outdated bill. 
Strip away the welfare funding of food stamps and such which 
links subsidized purchases with subsidized farming. Our food 
industry is in crisis with cheap processed foods being 
artificially cheap creating an epidemic of type II diabetes. No 
need to tax soda. Stop subsidizing it and let the market forces 
adjust.
    If the House and Senate wish to fly the free market flag, 
then start here!!!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Chuck Dawes, Springville, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Chuck Dawes.
    City, State: Springville, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Sales person.
    Comment: The price restriction should be lifted from the 
farmers and let them produce milk and food before we put them 
out of business and have to depend on foreign countries. Which, 
we know we can not depend on or trust for good quality produces 
. . . I would not mind paying a buck or more for a gallon of 
milk and let them sell there goods to other countries so they 
can grow and stay in business . . . We need more farmers, not 
less . . .
            Thanks,

Chuck Dawes.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Desdra Dawning, Queen Creek, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Desdra Dawning.
    City, State: Queen Creek, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: We have only to look at the many drug ads on TV 
these days to know that the health of our citizenry is greatly 
challenged. And the food that we eat contributes to our many 
health problems. Please recognize the value of organic farmers 
and the healthy food they produce and back them in any way that 
you can. We need your help!
                                ------                                


              Comment of Kathleen Deaton, Fayetteville, AR

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Kathleen Deaton.
    City, State: Fayetteville, AR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Greenhouse/nursery, Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please make ORGANIC a top priority in the next 
farm bill. Organic agriculture systems have the potential to 
protect natural resources, produce abundant, healthy foods, and 
even remediate polluted areas. Farmers need support 
transitioning to organic systems, and organic farmers need 
protection from outside pollution sources.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lisa DeCarlo, Fort Myers, FL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: Lisa DeCarlo.
    City, State: Fort Myers, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: H.R. Manager.
    Comment: The next farm bill should include a provision 
requiring the labeling of all food products that contain 
genetically modified ingredients. Consumers must be able to 
make informed food choices and without labeling of GMO's, 
consumers are unable to do so.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Gerald Dee, Byron, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Gerald Dee.
    City, State: Byron, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I would like to recommend including the common 
land unit data available at Farm Service Agency offices to real 
estate appraisers. The information on the number of crop acres 
is vital to appraising farms accurately and to analyze farms 
that have sold. In this period of tighter cash flows and 
changing land values, it is more important than ever to 
complete accurate appraisals with up to date field information 
from the maps.
                                ------                                


           Comment of Marianna Delinck Manley, Mishawaka, IN

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Marianna Delinck Manley.
    City, State: Mishawaka, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graphic Designer.
    Comment: Please support changing the farm subsidies 
programs to benefit high-quality, organic, fruit and vegetable 
farming instead of the current highly subsidized corn, wheat, 
and soy. We need to make real food accessible and affordable to 
all instead of making the raw materials for corporate 
powerhouses cheap.
    The current programs benefit very few while locking farmers 
into an unending cycle of dependency on chemical and seed 
companies as well as the government. All the while, the 
corporate end products are making our entire nation and 
environment sick.
    Please support good, clean, fair, nutritious, and 
accessible food by changing farm subsidies to benefit small 
organic and family farms growing real food.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Melissa Delzio, Portland, OR

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 7:06 p.m.
    Name: Melissa Delzio.
    City, State: Portland, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Designer.
    Comment: For our own health and health of the natural 
environment, I urge you to demand that government farm 
subsidies are given only to ORGANIC farmers, producing a wider 
variety of crops. We must stop supporting the unhealthy cycle 
of processed food run by big corn and soy.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Larry Den Hartog, Sheldon, IA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Larry Den Hartog.
    City, State: Sheldon, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Advisor.
    Comment: I use this service everyday to check out soil maps 
and use boundaries for soil sampling. This service helps me 
make proper fertilizer and tillage recommendations for the 
local farmers. Much needed service that does not effect any 
ones private business. Also used to make chemical and 
fertilizer application maps so the applicator does not get in 
the wrong field.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Deborah Denenberg, Omaha, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Deborah Denenberg.
    City, State: Omaha, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Marketing Consultant.
    Comment: The diabetes epidemic is out of control, and we 
need help at the highest levels to reverse it or the next 
generation will also be lost. I have been working on wellness 
at my school level for four years, with few, slow results. 
Please help. If Congress were to change even a small amount of 
the World War II era subsidy funding which is currently given 
to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and 
instead put that funding into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition 
would be enormous. While these subsidies of so called 
``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they were 
first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


                Comment of A.H. Denis III, Vancourt, TX

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 02, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: A.H. Denis III.
    City, State: Vancourt, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Greenhouse/nursery, Livestock.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: U.S. agriculture producers are expected to compete 
in the world market in spite of the fact that U.S. 
environmental laws, labor laws and government regulations 
increase our cost of production. Lack of protection from cheap 
imports and adverse WTO decisions put the American farmer/
producer at a distinct disadvantage compared to importers.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Marvin Denlinger, Arcanum, OH

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Marvin Denlinger.
    City, State: Arcanum, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Lender.
    Comment: I am asking that the CLU data on the NRCS be 
available for me to provide excellent service to agricultural 
producers in the state of Ohio.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Anthony DeRemer, Laceyville, PA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Anthony DeRemer.
    City, State: Laceyville, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Economy: I often see articles talking about how 
important the farm community is to the economy and I look at 
the Bill and there is a lot of money being spent, but has 
anyone actually looked at how this money will filter down to 
the local farmer and if it actually does? Currently with the 
prices being paid to local farmers, (I am familiar with dairy) 
the farmer does not have enough money to pay the cost of basic 
expenses, they certainly do not have anything left to spend on 
maintaining buildings, buying new equipment and even meeting 
basic expenses. It seems to me that someone should take the 
time to sit down with local farmers explain specifically how 
``you'' think the farm bill will help them and allow them to 
see if it actually works.
    Food Safety: I recently read an article in the Lancaster 
Farming newspaper and if I remember correctly it said around 1% 
of the imported food is inspected by USDA and in some cases 50% 
of what is imported from certain countries is unsafe! I don't 
know what the percent of U.S. food is inspected by the USDA but 
I am betting it is much higher than 1%, why shouldn't the same 
percentage of imported food be inspected and if there are 
continued issues with certain countries or certain foods why 
are we still importing it?
    Alternative Energy is a great idea but it is not a 
necessity for farmers and if they don't have money to pay basic 
expenses they certainly do not have money for something they 
can do without.
    The Bill talks about spending millions to purchase food 
overseas to feed local people, if we have such a surplus why 
don't we send some of our surplus to those countries? I am not 
sure I believe there is a surplus.
    One of the goals of the bill is to provide inexpensive 
food, but at what cost? Once our local farmers are gone and we 
are dependent on other countries as is the case with energy do 
you really think we are going to have a cheap food supply?
    I noticed it was mentioned that some parts of the bill 
provide public access to private lands for hunting and fishing 
if I understand correctly this is linked to a farmers 
participation in certain government programs. This certainly 
discourages farmers from participating and creates other 
issues, what about liability if someone is injured while 
hunting on a farmers land, how about safety, and individual who 
is given permission by the farmer is often local, knows the 
farm and where buildings and livestock is located. I highly 
doubt that Congressman or senators would be too big on the idea 
that I could use your backyard because you are paid with public 
funds!
    Bottom line: Talk to the people who know, local farmers, 
lobbyists and others claim to have farmers interests at heart 
but we all know that money talks and the organizations, 
companies etc supporting that lobbyist is what he is going to 
be pushing.
    Immigration Reform: Because of my job I have seen how the 
lack of an immigration policy has affected local farmers and 
their ability to get help and therefore plant and harvest 
crops.
    One last comment: The policy of attaching amendments to 
Bills that are unrelated is ridiculous! Imagine my surprise 
when I found out there were changes in student and parent plus 
loans for college that were attached to the Health bill. I am 
still trying to get payments that were applied to the wrong 
loans straightened out all because the company they were 
transferred to did not have their system set up to receive 
payments when they accepted the first payments. I am left with 
phone calls and letters for past due loans that were paid on 
time just credited to the wrong loan. I also am a little 
confused as to how changes can be made to a loan agreement that 
was signed, imagine my surprise when my payments increased and 
upon contacting the company them not knowing why just telling 
me the loan was recalculated. I later learned the term of the 
loan was shortened.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Denise DerGarabedian, Clearwater, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Denise DerGarabedian.
    City, State: Clearwater, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: Stop subsidizing corn!
    Please keep our food safe and healthy!
    Please protect our rights as consumers! . . . See More
    Please stop Monsanto!!!
    Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the standard 
for Organic Food . . .
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Please promote Natural Healthy Foods and Products . . .
    Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive . . .
    Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our future 
. . .
    Please take care of the Land, the Soil, the Water, and our 
Bodies!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Mary Derstine, Kinnelon, NJ

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Mary Derstine.
    City, State: Kinnelon, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Administrative Assistant.
    Comment: We must not just support ``staple'' crops through 
the Farm Bill subsidy program because it actually contributes 
to declining child health due to its support for agribusiness 
such as the corn syrup (just read the labels of most products--
they contain the killer high fructose corn syrup) industrial 
meat and dairy production. We need increased federal support 
for local, organic diversified agricultural to ensure that the 
local school districts have the ability to purchase and use 
healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats in 
school nutrition programs. As a family we try to buy organic 
and local food because we have read or watched the DVD: Fast 
Food Nation, Omnivores Delimina, King Corn, Politics Of Food, 
Etc. We also believe in what Alice Waters is trying to do to 
have school children grown, cook and eat wholesome food. Jamie 
Oliver from England cares about school children's food. Please 
support healthy food and not killer foods for our families.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Woody Deryckx, Concrete, WA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Woody Deryckx.
    City, State: Concrete, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I want to suggest that the next farm bill should 
be a transformational shift away from commodity crop support 
and toward supporting conservation, sustainability, and 
environmental sustainability. Organic farming is good for the 
land, good for the carbon economy of the planet, good for the 
consumer and good for business--let the next farm bill make 
history by supporting and encouraging organic farming and 
sustainable conservation policies.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Thomas Devorak, Fargo, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Thomas Devorak.
    City, State: Fargo, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Banking.
    Comment: I utilize AgriData maps for analyzing farm fields 
for production yields, topography, drainage, etc., when dealing 
with our farm producers. This service is very valuable to our 
borrowers and the bank.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Tiffiney Dick, Courtenay, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Tiffiney Dick.
    City, State: Courtenay, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I am requesting that CLU data (FSA fields) 
information be made public information again.
            Thanks.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Randy Dickhut, Omaha, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Randy Dickhut.
    City, State: Omaha, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Management.
    Comment: The next farm bill should allow public access to 
Common Land Unit shapefiles and FSA maps.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Ken Diehl, Wamego, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Ken Diehl.
    City, State: Wamego, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agriculture retailer.
    Comment: I am not a producer but I work with producers 
everyday to lay out plans for each years cropping system. 
Access to field information is vital to what I do each day, 
from laying out what crops will be planted were, to soil 
sampling and tissue sampling information as well as making sure 
products are applied to the right fields using field maps. With 
out this information it makes my job more difficult to do a 
thorough job with my producers. Please make sure this 
information remains available not only to the producer but to 
someone like my self for improved accuracy with in agriculture.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Mary Dimock, Poughkeepsie, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Mary Dimock.
    City, State: Poughkeepsie, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Administrator.
    Comment: Please protect our farm and ranch land and aid our 
farmers and ranchers so that we might guarantee the American 
people a safe and abundant food supply, and protect the 
environment. This land (and water) is our most precious 
resource. America used to provide 60 percent of the world's 
food, now we import our food. This is not the right direction 
to secure America a strong, healthy and vibrant future. Much is 
at stake. Please help provide conservation measures that 
protect our farmers and ranchers.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Renee Dippel, Rolling Meadows, IL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Renee Dippel.
    City, State: Rolling Meadows, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Radiation Therapist.
    Comment: Please stop supporting factory farms and support 
local, organic, family farming systems!!
                                ------                                


               Comment of Bruce Dodson, North Platte, NE

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Bruce Dodson.
    City, State: North Platte, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access of the Common Land 
Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway.
    USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers like myself and our wide 
range of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and timely 
records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in our professions 
on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Susannah Donahue, Suffolk, VA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Susannah Donahue.
    City, State: Suffolk, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Work From Home Mother.
    Comment: I am deeply concerned by the industrialization of 
our nation's food supply and by government regulations and 
Supreme Court decisions that support, promote and reward the 
monoculture farming and the widespread use of synthetic 
fertilizers and pesticides as well as the factory-farming of 
livestock. As Americans we should all be free to make our own 
choices with regard to nourishment, and we look to you, our 
elected leaders, to protect our basic human right of feeding 
ourselves of obtaining wholesome food. The giants of food 
industry, such as Monsanto and Smithfield, are taking away that 
right and making it more and more difficult for the average 
American to feed themselves in a way that is truly promoting of 
health. I passionately urge you to draft a farm bill that 
promotes a farming business model that is small, local, 
diversified, humane, sustainable and unreliant on synthetic 
fertilizers and pesticides. Instead of subsidizing the crops 
and practices that are making our nation unhealthy and obese--
soy and corn and their highly processed end-products, please 
consider instead farm policies and incentives that encourage 
small, local farmers and make the food that is truly nutritious 
(and will truly have an impact on the obesity problem--and 
therefore healthcare costs) more affordable for everyone and 
more readily available in every corner of the nation. Thank you 
for considering my comments.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Stacey Donovan, Windham, NH

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Stacey Donovan.
    City, State: Windham, NH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: My common sense thoughts are: Ban all GMO produce 
& pour all of our $$'s in organic farming. It's better for 
farmers, the planet & most importantly human consumption. GMO's 
are NOT good common sense & going to kill us all, one way or 
another. Focus on putting Monsanto out of business before it's 
too late. I DEMAND THIS ACTION as an AMERICAN. There are NO 
alternatives. Stop your political BS & do something right for a 
change! Have a nice day
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Cindy Dorsett, Lubbock, TX

    Date Submitted: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Cindy Dorsett.
    City, State: Lubbock, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: System Analyst.
    Comment: Keep in mind that as hearings are conducted across 
this great country to discuss the terms of farm policy, we need 
you to protect our rights to plant and grow food at home in our 
own back yards. Vote against Senate Bill S. 510 when it comes 
time to vote. As you are discussing agricultural food safety, 
remember to protect our right to grow, sell, purchase, and 
consume organic, non-genetically engineered fruits, vegetables, 
and grains.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Mary Douglas, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Mary Douglas.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Freelance artist--organic food eater.
    Comment: Only give farm payments to SMALL farms with NO 
affiliation to GMO, Monsanto or agribusiness. Incentivize green 
farming, sustainability, natural resource conservation, 
organics and local ``farm to consumer''. Huge industrial ag 
operations do not need all the payments--you are creating 
inequality and monopolies that way--anyone could figure that 
out! I say they need NO payments--I don't want my tax dollars 
putting small family farmers out of business. We need MAJOR 
change. Ag payments to Monsanto must be first to go.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Michael Douglas, Stephen, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Michael Douglas.
    City, State: Stephen, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: I would like to recommend that the ACRE program 
dollars as well as the SURE dollars be used to improve the 
current Crop Insurance program. Those programs are very slow at 
getting money into the hands of the farmer whereas Crop 
Insurance claim payments are made very quickly after the claim 
is processed. Waiting 12 to 15 months for ACRE or SURE payments 
is too long for most farmers.
    The current Crop Insurance program is working well for the 
vast majority of farmers. It is truly a ``risk management 
program'' that works well for both farmers & lenders. It would 
be a good idea to expand crop insurance to cover more crops. 
The money used now for ACRE & SURE could be used to do that.
    It is extremely important that Congress NOT cut any subsidy 
to the farmer for the purchase of crop insurance. Today's 
expenses on farms are great enough the way it is and it is 
important to keep crop insurance affordable for farmers.
    Other savings that have currently been announced with the 
renewed SRA agreement could be used to subsidize the higher 
levels of coverage (75%, 80% & 85%). This would reduce the need 
for disaster payments.
    Whole farm units do not generally work for me and my 
neighbors. There are too many variables with different crops, 
practices, non-farm income and farm sizes to make it viable. It 
would also be more difficult to arrange financing with whole 
farm units.
    It is important that the next farm bill be able to respond 
quickly to changing weather patterns and different farming 
practices as related to crop insurance. Volatile weather has 
made crop insurance a very important part of my total farming 
plan.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Maura Dowling, Hanover, MA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 11:06 p.m.
    Name: Maura Dowling.
    City, State: Hanover, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Registered Nurse.
    Comment: As you consider the new Farm Bill, please think 
about changing the decades old subsidies which now choke out 
small local and organic farmers while helping giant 
agribusiness. While I am sure the lobbies for these giants are 
strong, I hope you will be stronger for ``the little guy'' 
without leaving loopholes for the 3 or 4 conglomerates who 
control most of the food we eat in this country. By supporting 
small and local farms, which tend to grow more diverse 
offerings, and use less pesticides; we can improve the local 
economy, the environment, and our overall health.
    Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,

Maura Dowling.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Chad Doxey, Ann Arbor, MI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Chad Doxey.
    City, State: Ann Arbor, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Stay at home dad and part time retail.
    Comment: I feel that we need to look at the subsidies for 
Corn. I have met people that talk about how to take advantage 
of this. I find this to be unacceptable. We should spread the 
subsidies between a variety of crops. Both conventional and 
organic. Please do not let me down. Food is a need not a want 
and as such we need to take care of the crops we can grow. 
Thanks for your time.
                                ------                                


Comment of Breland Draper, Boise, ID; on Behalf of Idaho Hunger Relief 
       Task Force and Idaho Interfaith Roundtable Against Hunger

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Breland Draper.
    City, State: Boise, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: AmeriCorps VISTA.
    Comment:

June 14, 2010 Statement re: 2012 Farm Bill

    In order to address hunger in Idaho and the U.S., it is 
imperative that there be a strong representation of nutrition 
programs in the 2012 Farm Bill. In a state as abundant as 
Idaho, and a nation as affluent as the United States, there 
should be no one who is food insecure. Idaho hosted one of the 
first field hearings for the 2012 Farm Bill on May 1 in Nampa, 
Idaho. Nutrition programs were not discussed and we want to 
make sure that their continued importance is not 
underestimated.
    The 2012 Farm Bill is an important asset to achieving 
President Obama's goal to eliminate childhood hunger by 2015. 
In order to achieve the President's goal, the Farm Bill must 
concentrate on:

   strengthening nutrition programs, such as the 
        Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, known 
        as the Food Stamp Program in Idaho),

   strengthening child nutrition programs, and

   guaranteeing convenient access to nutritional 
        programs and affordable food for all Americans.

    Hunger and food insecurity are serious issues in Idaho. In 
2009 Idaho was ranked as the 29th most food insecure state in 
the nation. Idaho's first Congressional district, represented 
by Congressman Walt Minnick, had a food insecurity rate of 
15.3% between 2008 and 2009. Idaho's second Congressional 
district, represented by Congressman Mike Simpson, had a food 
insecurity rate of 18% in the same time period. These numbers 
show that a noticeable population of Idaho residents is not 
able to purchase the food that they or their families needed.
    Much of the hunger and food insecurity in Idaho can be 
attributed to a shaky economy. According to the Idaho 
Department of Labor, the state had a 9% unemployment rate in 
May 2010. And according to the United States Department of 
Labor, total unemployed, marginally attached workers, and total 
people employed part time for economic reasons is represented 
by 16.9% of Idaho's workforce.
    Nutrition programs such as SNAP, The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program (TEFAP), and the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program (CSFP) are the keystone programs needed to ensure 
support for the thousands of people struggling with food 
insecurity. There are more than 200,000 Idaho residents 
accepting food stamp (SNAP) benefits in Idaho. But the latest 
numbers we have for food stamp participation show that only 50% 
of those eligible are applying. This means there are another 
200,000 who need assistance from Food Stamps/SNAP but are not 
accessing it.
    SNAP is also an important sector of Idaho's economy. For 
each dollar of SNAP benefits spent in Idaho, $1.84 is generated 
in economic activity. The 2008 Farm Bill helped boost SNAP 
benefits for clients, helping to bolster economic improvement 
in Idaho. Future action is needed to ensure that food inflation 
does not hinder these extra benefits to SNAP clients and the 
local and national economy.
    SNAP works well for those who use it, but there are gaps in 
access. Also, administrative regulations make it burdensome to 
apply and to verify eligibility. Recommendations for changes 
include:

   improve benefit adequacy by replacing the Thrifty 
        Food Plan with the Low Cost Food plan as the basis for 
        SNAP benefits;

   increase the minimum benefit (especially to help 
        elderly, many of whom now only receive $16 a month);

   restore eligibility to legal immigrants;

   permanently suspend time limits on able-bodied 
        adults (18-50) without dependents; and

   provide greater supports for states, including for 
        SNAP administration and outreach.

    SNAP is an important part of an anti-hunger and health 
agenda. SNAP allotments need to be raised to allow families to 
afford a nutritious diet on a regular basis. SNAP Nutrition 
Education as well as access to supermarkets and farmers' 
markets EBT contribute to good health outcomes.
            Sincerely,

The Idaho Hunger Relief Task Force;
Idaho Interfaith Roundtable Against Hunger.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of David Drayton, Berkeley, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: David Drayton.
    City, State: Berkeley, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Policy Researcher at ISEC.
    Comment: The biggest thing concerning me in the farm bill 
is the large subsidies it gives to crops like corn, which are 
having enormous health, environmental, budget, and social 
implications. I apologize for the length of this list, but I 
hope this helps impress upon you the sheer number of good 
reasons we need to get rid of these subsidies. Here are SOME of 
them:

    1. Budget

      a. Costing the government more over time, since the 
            increased yield each year lowers the real price of 
            the food on the market (gov. pays the difference 
            between floor price and market price).

      b. The health care bill of America would be decreased 
            DRAMATICALLY if ingredients like high fructose corn 
            syrup weren't artificially cheap and finding their 
            way into everything we eat instead of real 
            ingredients.

    2. The price floors result in the maximization of crop 
        yields each year regardless of market signals

      a. Environmental consequences

                i. Subsidies are resulting in over-use of 
                pesticides and fertilizers, which is poisoning 
                our waterways (agric. is now the biggest 
                polluter of waterways in the world, creating 
                vast dead zones which hurt both wild life and 
                our fisheries).

                ii. The pesticides and fertilizers are 
                petroleum products, and cutting their use back 
                to efficient levels would improve air quality 
                along with helping to stave off climate change.

                iii. Subsidies on specific crops result in vast 
                monoculture, decreasing biodiversity, 
                increasing vulnerability to disasters, pests, 
                and other shocks.

      b. Cost to farmers

                i. As the program gets more expensive, it puts 
                pressures on law makers to levy more taxes and 
                cut funding to other areas.

                ii. Their land quality is degrading with such 
                intensive use, further increasing need for 
                petroleum products like fertilizers to off-set 
                the reduced fertility.

                iii. Most of the subsidy money goes to large 
                industrial farms, giving them even more of an 
                edge over small farmers, who are losing their 
                jobs in droves.

                iv. The increasing input costs (fertilizers, 
                insecticides, GMO seeds, etc.) which farmers 
                are using more and more as land quality 
                degrades dramatically cuts down profitability 
                of farms.

    3. International considerations

      a. The over-production is filling international markets 
            with artificially cheap crops

                i. Incredibly detrimental to developing 
                countries, whose producers are getting pounded 
                by our cheap exports. Remember, their economies 
                are generally overwhelmingly agricultural. 
                Result: huge increase in poverty and bigger 
                pressures for international aid.

                ii. Increases animosity toward U.S.

      b. Fertilizer and insecticide are petroleum products, and 
            thus their ever-increasing use is resulting is an 
            enormous increase in our dependence on foreign oil.

    Yes, these subsidies are keeping prices in the grocery 
store low, but the real costs are showing up in things like our 
health bills and taxes. Not to mention the social and 
environmental cost associated with these practices.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jim Drown, Parkers Prairie, MN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Jim Drown.
    City, State: Parkers Prairie, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: We live on a farm that our family has owned for 64 
years. We have rented our land out for the last 30 years and 
have lost our wonderful drinking water because of the 
pesticides and herbicides used. The soil has been depleted of 
it's natural ability to produce and it is way past time when 
someone needs to care and take action on stopping harmful 
practices. There surely must be someone that can come up with 
productive, non-harmful product and procedures that can be used 
in farming.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jane Dubert, Maquoketa, IA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Jane Dubert.
    City, State: Maquoketa, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: I would like to see some of the financial 
eligibility looked at in the next farm bill. I am a small 
female farmer who has to work full time off the farm in order 
to make ends meet. I would like to receive energy grants to 
assist with making my farm more energy efficient but because I 
earn more off the farm than gross income from the farm I am not 
eligible. I would like to think that this rule was put into 
place so people who are making a good deal off the farm can't 
get the grants but it catches me as well who only make $30,000 
as a social worker but still make slightly less than that in 
gross farm income. I would like to think that there is some way 
the eligibility could be rewritten so there was consideration 
for me and all the other small farmers who are in similar 
situations.

Jane Dubert.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Michelle Ducre, Carl Junction, MO

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 05, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Michelle Ducre.
    City, State: Carl Junction, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/
factoryfarming/dairy/
    Please watch this video investigation and help these cows.
    I think you should be sensitive to banning the cruelty of 
dairy production. Baby calf starved to death, and cows forced 
to produce milk for consumption and PROFIT. Despite unsanitary 
and abusive conditions, and their shortened life spans because 
of our greed, why do we continue to ignore this situation? 
Please protect these precious cows?
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Dana DuGan, Hailey, ID

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Dana DuGan.
    City, State: Hailey, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Writer.
    Comment: Family farming is one of the most important 
businesses/activities that U.S. residents can partake in. 
Farming helps the air, water, the planet, and our health and 
the health, sustainability and preservation of communities.
     But this doesn't apply to the big-agriculture industry. 
Support organic, safe, sustainable farming. Stop subsidizing 
that which contributes the ruination of all of the above.
     Please make our priorities the healthful choice not the 
big money choice.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Lucille Dumbrill, Newcastle, WY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 03, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Lucille Dumbrill.
    City, State: Newcastle, WY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chair of Weston County Historic Preservation 
Bd.
    Comment: I live in a rural area and the legislation 
proposed which will encourage and help finance rural historic 
preservation is extremely important to our community. My board 
strongly supports this type of preservation legislation.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Daniel Dunbar, Chicago, IL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Daniel Dunbar.
    City, State: Chicago, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Craftsman.
    Comment: At times like these, when we are shown just how 
fragile our ecosystems can be, and when we learn how 
devastating the effects of pollution are on wildlife and our 
people, and considering that objective science and research has 
indicated that factory farming is one of the major contributors 
of greenhouse gases and a top contributor to polluting our 
nations' rivers, It is greatly important to provide incentives 
for locally supported agriculture, organic production, and 
small-scale family farming, and to stop providing factory farms 
with the support they have been receiving.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Gene Dunbar, San Antonio, TX

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Gene Dunbar.
    City, State: San Antonio, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I am a farm manager with one of the larger firms 
in the country and have over forty years of experience in this 
field. One of the biggest misconceptions about the new bill is 
setting the limits for receiving payment at $250,000 of gross 
income. The investment and higher input prices required for a 
reasonable income from farming has progressed to a point that a 
$250,000 gross income is a pittance and even the smaller 
farmers quickly reach that level of gross income each year. I 
strongly recommend leaving the gross income level at $500,000 
in order to be able to receive government assistance. In the 
real world today almost any family farm will reach or exceed 
$500,000 gross income.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Molly Dunham, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, September 10, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Molly Dunham.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Lawyer.
    Comment: I'm writing to express my support for the rules 
proposed by GIPSA reforming trade practices in the meat 
producing industry. I also support the proposed ban on use of 
antibiotics in meat animals except as needed to treat disease. 
I am in no way connected with the food industry, except that I 
eat what it produces, but I'm watching these issues carefully 
to understand how small producers and consumers will be 
protected by the 2012 Farm Bill.
            Thank you,

Molly Dunham.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jim Dunlap, Sioux Falls, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Jim Dunlap.
    City, State: Sioux Falls, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser & Farm Manager.
    Comment: It is imperative that the CLU (Common Land Unit) 
be reinstated to the NRCS Data Gateway. It was available from 
2004 to 2008 and provides much needed information for 
appraisers and land managers as well as other businesses 
needing field sizes and farming practices without having to 
have private data such as ownership or compliance with farm 
programs.
    The data was available until the 2008 Farm Bill, but 
Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill restricts the availability 
of this data, and yet was not a part of bill passed by either 
the Senate or the House. Although the owner of a property can 
give NRCS permission to share this information, in an 
appraisal, this information will not be available on the 
properties being compared to the subject being appraised. It 
does not make sense to continue to restrict information that 
merely makes for more efficient and accurate appraisals. 
Continued restriction will continue to cost the taxpayer 
needing appraisal and other agricultural services that use this 
information, since they will be charged more for the extra 
research required as a result of Sec. 1619. THIS DOES NOT MAKE 
ANY SENSE, and can be easily changed which will protect the 
consumer from unneeded charges.
    Please repeal the Section 1619 portion of the 2008 Farm 
Bill dealing with the Common Land Unit and it availability to 
the NRCS Data Gateway.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Roger Durensky, Barnesville, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Roger Durensky.
    City, State: Barnesville, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am writing in regards to Section 1619 of the 
Farm Bill. I am an agricultural real estate appraiser that 
works with farm properties on a daily basis. As an appraiser 
with a Certified General Real Estate Appraisal License, in the 
past I have had the ability to access FSA records in the areas 
of aerial photography, crop bases, and CRP contract 
information. With the changes in the last Farm Bill, my access 
to these records has effectively been eliminated. I fully 
understand the privacy concerns when it comes to FSA payments, 
but I have a hard time understanding why having open access to 
FSA aerial photography with field lines is a problem. While I 
have access to older photography, this information like any 
other will become outdated. The additional time that needs to 
be spent on gathering and analyzing information for accurate 
appraisal work will be charged to the client, either a farmer, 
lender, or other individual that has requested an appraisal. I 
fail to see where there is a confidentiality issue with 
allowing appraisers access to current FSA aerial photography. I 
would appreciate seeing an effort towards making current aerial 
photography and field line information be available to 
appraisers so that we can provide accurate, cost effective 
service to American agriculture.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Evan Dvorsak, Turtle Lake, WI

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Evan Dvorsak.
    City, State: Turtle Lake, WI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Poultry/poultry products, Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I am a smaller scale (approximately 1 acre) garlic 
producer, who markets through farmers markets and wholesale 
markets. Next year I will be certified organic. I am also a 
beginning farmer, only in my second year of production. I am 
aware of the FSA New Farmer Loan program, but would like to see 
an extension of funding to new farmers. I hope to purchase land 
in the near future, but am frustrated by the lack of 
cooperation I can find from local lenders, despite the 
profitability of my business, and the strength of the organic/
direct market as a whole. I believe the implementation of a 
matched savings (Individual Development Account) for new 
farmers could drastically improve the landscape for new 
producers. Even a few thousand dollars can make a huge 
difference for small-scale farmers, so grants that encourage 
savings and investment in capital improvements could really 
help out.
    Thank you!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Thomas Dybing, Lanesboro, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Thomas Dybing.
    City, State: Lanesboro, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment:

    Tim Walz & Collin Peterson:

    I'm the Agricultural Chairman for the Minnesota Association 
of Assessing Officers. I understand that today is the last day 
for feedback on public access of the CLU data. New Minnesota 
Statutes regarding Green Acres and the Rural Preserve lands has 
made it imperative for Minnesota Assessors to have access to 
the field boundaries to fairly determine the difference between 
productive and non-productive acres. With that data already in 
place, its use would create a more equitable property tax for 
the rural property owners. The data was previously available 
with no issues. Please reinstate access for multiple users in 
the next farm bill.
            Thanks.

Thomas Dybing, 
Houston County Assessor,
Chairman of the MAAO Ag Committee.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Bradley Eardley, Boxford, MA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Bradley Eardley.
    City, State: Boxford, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Therapist.
    Comment: Eight concepts:
    (1) Enact a robust and well funded Conservation Title to 
support working lands. (2) Refocus federal farm program 
payments upon farming systems and practices that produce 
environmental benefits and promote long-term food security. (3) 
Encourage and support the next generation of farmers and 
ranchers. (4) Increase resources for research that fosters 
sustainable agriculture systems. (5) Reinvigorate regional 
agricultural economies and local food systems. (6) Ensure fair 
and competitive agricultural markets. (7) Fully recognize the 
inherent value of sustainable and organic farming systems in 
addressing climate change. (8) Reform commodity payment 
programs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Elizabeth Edmiston, Durham, NC

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Elizabeth Edmiston.
    City, State: Durham, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Internet consultant.
    Comment:

   Please keep our food safe and healthy!

   Please protect our rights as consumers!

   Please promote Natural Healthy Foods and Products . 
        . .

   Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive 
        . . .

   Please stop Monsanto!!!

   Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the 
        standard for Organic Food . . .

   Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
        banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised 
        with Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal 
        Cruelty!

   Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our 
        future . . .

   Please take care of the Land, the Soil, the Water, 
        and our Bodies!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Stanley Edmundson, Colby, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Stanley Edmundson.
    City, State: Colby, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Agent.
    Comment: One major item that needs to be addressed is the 
way acres are being required to be reported. We are being 
required to report the acres down to the CLU including tract 
number and field number. This is the exact way it is reported 
to the Local FSA offices. Why are you requiring the agent to go 
to all the extra work doing the FSA's job? In the current SRA 
that they are negotiating now, they are trying to cut the A&O 
to the companies, this will result in a cut in commissions to 
the agent. They are requiring us to do the FSA reporting work, 
are they cutting the FSA payroll also? In a perfect world the 
producer could report to the FSA and then bring a copy of the 
paperwork to their agent and we could report the exact same 
things to the company but most reporting dates do not line up 
with crop insurance reporting dates. The wheat is required to 
be reported many months to the insurance company before they 
will let the producer certify at the FSA office. It seems we 
are working harder doing duplicate work for crop insurance. Why 
in a disaster year does the FSA has access to all the crop 
insurance information for disaster payments etc. Yet in a 
normal year the two agencies do not communicate? I think that 
the reporting of units down to the tract number and field 
number is getting carried away with the bureaucrats in the RMA.
    Our office can be contacted through the above e-mail to 
discuss this or we can be reached by phone at [Redacted].
            Thanks.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Amy Ehlers, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Amy Ehlers.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Policy Manager.
    Comment:

Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on 
Agriculture
Hearing to review U.S. agriculture policy in advance of the 
2012 Farm Bill

April 21, 2010

    The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is pleased to 
provide this written testimony on the energy title of the 2012 
Farm Bill. BIO thanks this Committee for its continuing 
leadership in stimulating biorefinery development with a strong 
energy title in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 
and for convening this hearing to discuss how we can further 
incentivize innovative biotechnologies which will lead the way 
to bolstering agricultural economies, lowering our dependence 
on foreign oil imports, lowering our greenhouse gas emissions 
and also create thousands of green jobs ensuring that the 
United States is a leader in the technologies of the future. We 
were pleased to see Secretary Vilsack, during the April 21 
hearing, identify renewable energy and biofuels as one of the 
five key areas of focus for the next Farm Bill.
    BIO's membership includes more than 1,200 biotechnology 
companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers, 
and related organizations in all 50 states. BIO members are 
involved in cutting edge research and development of health 
care, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology 
products that are revolutionizing advanced biofuels and green 
products such as bioplastics and renewable specialty chemicals, 
all replacing petroleum based counterparts.
Background
    Industrial biotechnology is the key enabling technology for 
producing biofuels and biobased products like bioplastics and 
renewable specialty chemicals from biomass feedstocks to aid in 
reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil, thereby 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Industrial biotechnology is 
the application of life sciences to improve traditional 
manufacturing and chemical synthesis manufacturing processes by 
using micro-organisms like bacteria and fungi as well as 
enzymes to improve manufacturing processes and make new 
biobased products and materials, including biofuels, from 
renewable feedstocks. Our member companies are using this 
technology to improve the yield, efficiency and energy inputs 
in first generation biofuels production, develop new feedstocks 
such as purpose-grown energy crops, broaden the use of algae 
technologies, make advancements in end molecule diversification 
for fuels and commercialize advanced biofuels, renewable 
specialty chemicals and bioproducts.
    During a press conference on February 3rd, 2010 with the 
White House Interagency Biofuels Working Group, Secretary 
Vilsack stated that USDA's Rural Development Department would 
take the lead in developing commercial scale biorefinery 
projects. USDA has authority over a variety of programs with 
the potential to greatly assist with commercialization of 
advanced biofuels and biobased products, but to date their 
impact has been limited by various factors. BIO would like to 
offer its assistance to help this Committee and USDA achieve 
its mission of accelerating the commercialization of these 
vital technologies, fulfilling the production goals of the 
federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and driving widespread 
adoption of biobased products.
The Biorefinery Assistance Program--Sec. 9003
    BIO appreciates the work the Committee has done to support 
the loan guarantee program for biorefineries, and we are 
preparing written comments to the proposed rule for the 
program. The Biorefinery Assistance Program provides loan 
guarantees for the development, construction, and retrofitting 
of commercial-scale biorefineries and provides grants to help 
pay for the development and construction costs of 
demonstration-scale biorefineries. USDA has stated that it is 
the lead agency in commercializing advanced biofuels and 
biorefineries. Therefore, the Biorefinery Assistance Program 
needs continued mandatory funding, and the program needs to be 
administered in an effective manner in order to provide 
financing support to build biorefineries in the near term. 
Finalizing the regulatory rule for the program and 
administering the loans should also be expedited to the maximum 
extent possible. We would like to stress that loan guarantee 
applications for emerging technologies, such as advanced 
biofuels, should not be evaluated against more mature 
technologies. Loan guarantees should be evaluated based on the 
ability to introduce new crop and feedstock market 
opportunities for the ag industry, while also introducing a 
range of new bio-based products and co-products. As mentioned, 
BIO will submit detailed comments to USDA on the recently 
published proposed rule, and will seek strong dedicated funding 
for this program--both through the appropriations process and 
future farm and energy bills.
    We also ask that USDA ensure support for the full range of 
biobased products under this program. While BIO understands 
that authorizing language for this program requires that 
advanced biofuel be a component at the biorefinery, a 
diversified product portfolio is vital to the future success of 
biorefineries, and we ask that USDA recognize this in making 
awards under this program.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP)
    Feedstock production and delivery will prove to be a 
critical part of the advanced biofuels success story. We 
commend Congress for inclusion of this important program in the 
2008 Farm Bill. The purpose of BCAP is to focus on the 
development of dedicated energy crops and other biomass 
feedstocks and the infrastructure needed to supply these 
feedstocks to the biofuels and biobased products industries. 
BIO members look forward to USDA's timely review and approval 
of BCAP projects, which are a key driver in developing purpose 
grown energy crops and adoption of biomass energy, fuels and 
chemicals. BIO has established a new cross-cutting task force 
on purpose grown energy crops and will be submitting 
substantial comments to the proposed rule of this program from 
both its Food and Agriculture and Industrial and Environmental 
Section member companies. We have submitted comments to the 
proposed rule for this program and we look forward to 
continuing to sharing our thoughts on the administration of 
this program.
BioPreferred Program
    The BioPreferred Program at USDA is paramount in providing 
market pull for the biobased materials industry. We'd like to 
see timely implementation and eligibility of renewable chemical 
intermediates in USDA BioPreferred voluntary labeling and 
procurement programs. The USDA BioPreferred voluntary labeling 
and procurement programs have the potential to be major market 
drivers for biobased products. To drive innovation in this 
space, the programs must be extended to renewable chemical 
intermediates, as required by authorizing statute, and the 
programs must be implemented without further delay.
Strong Energy Title in Next Farm Bill Needed
    Finally, as this Committee moves to draft language and 
schedule additional hearings related to authorization of a new 
energy title of the Farm Bill, BIO would like to offer itself 
as a resource to the Committee by providing witnesses and 
background information as needed. The programs authorized in 
the energy title in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008 have been extremely valuable to the advanced biofuels and 
biobased products industries and as you consider expanding and/
or extending those programs as well as creating new programs 
for biorefinery and feedstock development, BIO would like to be 
a resource for you.
Conclusion
    In conclusion, BIO urges this Committee to continue to 
recognize that innovations such as these are some of the most 
promising sources of green jobs and economic growth for U.S. 
agriculture for the future. Ensuring that companies producing 
new technologies can access and secure government incentives 
and the investment capital necessary for success should be a 
high priority for the nation.
    On behalf of its more than 1,200 members across the nation, 
BIO thanks you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and 
present our perspective on how the upcoming energy title of the 
Farm Bill legislation will influence the renewable energy 
industry and green job creation potential for industrial 
biotechnologies and products. We are ready to work with this 
Committee and be a resource to you.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Phyllis Elliott, Santa Monica, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Phyllis Elliott.
    City, State: Santa Monica, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Business Administration.
    Comment: We can no longer ignore the importance of 
preservation. The most important action Congress can take in 
the development of farm policy is to plan for the next 100 
years. This means focusing resources on environmental 
protection, sustainability, and independent/regional farming 
operations. That may not be the source of your major campaign 
funding but is the source of the food on America's tables.
    Please make choices that ensure a healthy food supply for 
your constituents. Your Plan should enact a Conservation title 
to protect farmlands, provide resources for small farmers, 
reforms commodity payments, and protects and encourages 
sustainable agriculture. Not one dollar of taxpayers' money 
should benefit industrialized farming or insurance companies 
masquerading as a farmers' organization.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please do the 
right thing. Reform of our food production is a component of 
health care reform, and it's in your hands.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Michael Ellis, Sparta, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:36 p.m.
    Name: Michael Ellis.
    City, State: Sparta, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified Crop Specialist.
    Comment: We use this mapping program daily for our custom 
application services and we need the updated acres to make sure 
we apply the right amount of product and don't over apply or 
under apply. This is a great service to us and need accurate up 
to date info. I hope they overturn the policy and get the up 
dated info.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Steve Ellis, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Steve Ellis.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Budget Watchdog for All American Taxpayers.
    Comment:

    Dear Agriculture Committee,

    Just over two years ago, Congress had an opportunity to 
draft and enact a farm bill that protects taxpayers and ends 
century old subsidies that do little for farmers. Taxpayers for 
Common Sense worked in a broad coalition to reform the nation's 
farm programs to be better for taxpayers and the vast majority 
of farmers. Unfortunately, Congress settled for the politics of 
the past and business as usual. The new law could just as well 
have been written by the farm commodity program lobby.

   Commodity loan rates and/or target prices were 
        increased, thereby increasing payments for some 
        subsidized crops, such as wheat, barley and oats.

   Previously unsubsidized crops were added to the 
        subsidy list.

   Farm families earning up to $2.5 million in net 
        income would remain eligible for farm commodity 
        subsidies.

   A new so-called `permanent disaster aid' program, 
        costing nearly $4 billion, will provide a slush fund 
        with routine handouts to farmers from a handful of 
        states who already receive traditional commodity 
        subsidies not to mention federally subsidized crop 
        insurance designed to cover crop losses. And we have 
        seen that the disaster title has not ended claims for 
        ad hoc assistance.

   The optional Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) 
        program, which was touted as reform and a new direction 
        for farm commodity programs, is not being pursued by 
        large number of farmers because of complexity and other 
        competing programs provide larger subsidies.

   `Direct payment' subsidies, which are given to 
        farmers even when their incomes are skyrocketing and 
        could have been eliminated altogether in these times of 
        record farm incomes, was cut by a miniscule two percent 
        over five years.

   Continuation of trade distorting cotton subsidies 
        that were ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization 
        led USDA to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to not 
        place punitive tariffs on U.S. goods.

    As the Committee looks to drafting a new farm bill, we 
again urge you to fundamentally re-orient the program. The 
commitment to revise the cotton program obtained by Brazil 
should lead the Committee to rewrite the commodity title to be 
more balanced and truly only a safety net that puts the nation 
on a glide path to reduce agriculture subsidies.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jonathan Elmore, Grove, OK

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Jonathan Elmore.
    City, State: Grove, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Shop Owner.
    Comment: I read about conglomerate farmers (Monsanto & 
ConAgra to name only two) getting subsidized for growing food 
that isn't necessarily good for us, but it fills us (and our 
livestock) up with minimal nutritional value creating more 
health problems than it's worth. It would be great to see grass 
fed beef producers being rewarded for doing what's right for 
the cattle and the consumer. Stop paying farmers to NOT grow 
crops that are in high surplus, but pay them TO grow things 
that we all would love to see in our supermarkets for less than 
it costs to buy a package of Snacky Cakes.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Bradley Elting, Hebron, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Bradley Elting.
    City, State: Hebron, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: I would like to see FSA field boundaries and acres 
made available to producers and professional appraisers and 
farm managers in the future.
    This data being made available to professionals in the 
field would not cause harm to land owners and producers.
    Thank you for your time.

Brad Elting.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Troy Engstrom, Watertown, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Troy Engstrom.
    City, State: Watertown, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified General Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access to the CLU data. It 
is critically important in our business as ag real estate 
appraisers to have the correct and most current data to most 
accurately appraise the land.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Deanna Erickson, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Deanna Erickson.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Poultry/poultry products.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I want to see legislation that increases food 
security through decentralization and support for small, 
organic farms and regional food distribution systems. 
Decentralization and supporting small farms will increase 
organic seed diversity, which will in turn shore up or food 
security system. At present our industrial, centralized system 
is not nourishing us and it is not sustainable. A moratorium on 
GMO products and pesticide use is needed. I am passionately 
campaigning against companies and political actors that do not 
stand up against the use of GMO products and pesticides. 
Individual liberty and freedom must be respected so as to 
protect organic seed diversity and integrity. Lastly, I hope to 
see meaningful incentives for farmers to invest in sustainable 
energies to support their farming activities and to regionally 
distribute their farm products to local markets and processors.

Deanna Erickson.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Pamela Ernest, Plainfield, CT

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:36 a.m.
    Name: Pamela Ernest.
    City, State: Plainfield, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Gaming Industry Worker.
    Comment: I'd like a Farm Bill that curbs the power of 
factory farms and the influence of lobbyists for large food 
corporations. I care about the health and nutrition of 
children, please provide a Farm Bill that puts more fresh 
wholesome food in our cities' schools. I want my children and 
grandchildren to enjoy the benefits of a clean environment, 
please provide a Farm Bill that increases protection of our 
natural resources by helping farmers transition to organic and 
more sustainable growing methods.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Max Evans, Urbandale, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Max Evans.
    City, State: Urbandale, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Property Appraiser.
    Comment: I have been a professional farm appraiser for the 
past 27 years and rely upon Farm Service Agency maps to 
determine field layouts and acreages as I analyze a farm and 
compare one farm to another farm.
    It would be very difficult to produce a reliable and 
accurate valuation of a property without this information. My 
clients are individuals, financial institutions and government 
agencies. I encourage you to make this information available so 
that we can produce a viable and accurate report for our 
clients.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Rick Evans, Springville, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Rick Evans.
    City, State: Springville, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: Reinstate the CLU data into Section 1619 and the 
NRCS Data Gateway.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Shavaun Evans, Nashville, TN

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:36 a.m.
    Name: Shavaun Evans.
    City, State: Nashville, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Program Coordinator for Community Food 
Advocates.
    Comment: I am writing to ask that organic farming be a top 
priority for the next Farm Bill.
    Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of 
U.S. agricultural production and organic food is one of the 
fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail market.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
                                ------                                


           Comment of Roxanne Falkenstein, Cave Junction, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Roxanne Falkenstein.
    City, State: Cave Junction, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

    Greetings,

    I urge all of you to ensure safe guards are put in place 
protecting rights and freedoms (from all sides, in all these 
food bills) to;

   Small community gardens, Organic heritage vegetable 
        seed protections, Freedom to seed bank for the general 
        public, protections from GMO pollen drift, and clearly 
        labeled GMO products.

     We need more small Organic farmers not less. 
            We need more people providing work for themselves. 
            We need to curb food shipping, what better way than 
            small farms in as many places as possible?

       As far as food safety goes . . . I want 
            protections against over processed foods, made by 
            huge company's. Small farmers need programs 
            designed for there size. Bigger farms pay more, & 
            tiny farms very little if anything. Labs need to be 
            funded and made centralized. New equipment 
            requirements should be given at least 5 years to 
            comply, w/ government zero interest loans.

   GMO technology has the ability to destroy seed 
        strains, and yet there developers are permitted to 
        pollute with there dangerous pollens.

    MORE SAFETY TESTING!

   Monsanto and other company's put the blame on the 
        FDA for allowing them to plant these crops. They are in 
        the business of selling, you are in the business of 
        protecting our rights, freedoms & health.

    Stop allowing Monsanto to write bills.
            Sincerely,

R.S. Falkenstein.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jim Fasching, Plainview, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Jim Fasching.
    City, State: Plainview, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Field Representative.
    Comment: Please support the reinstatement of CLU (Common 
land unit) data into section 1619. This would ensure accurate 
and essential field boundary data for agricultural producers.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Patricia F-Dillard, Beaverton, OR

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 5:35 a.m.
    Name: Patricia F-Dillard.
    City, State: Beaverton, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: The impacts of BP on the economic communities is a 
tragedy, and economic chaos. For that reason, I believe you 
should consider, through your farm bill, creating an organic 
agricultural industry in all impacted states. This will stop 
also the high consumption of organics produced in places as far 
as South America, and the consumption of gas used in the 
transportation of these products.
                                ------                                


 Comment of Feeding America, Food Bank Network, D.C. Policy & Research 
                           Dept., Chicago, IL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Feeding America, Food Bank Network, D.C. Policy & 
Research Dept.
    City, State: Chicago, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Comments for House Agriculture website on issues 
for the next farm bill.
    Even as the economy slowly recovers, economists predict 
unacceptably high long term unemployment for the next several 
years. Thankfully, the Nutrition title of the farm bill passed 
by the last Congress was able to mitigate some of the worst 
effects of the economic recession on low-income populations. It 
would be a mistake, however, to conclude that more is not 
needed to help the millions of those who continue to struggle 
to feed their families. Hunger remains high, and very likely 
will grow along with long term joblessness. Greater food 
assistance will be needed. Seniors who have exhausted their 
savings and investment and retirement funds will find it hard 
to replace this lost income. Those without jobs for 2 years or 
more will find it difficult to reenter the job market, and 
hundreds of thousands of families will struggle to pay their 
housing and utility bills. It is therefore imperative that the 
next farm bill continue to strengthen nutrition programs so 
that everyone in this nation is able to benefit from this 
nation's rich agricultural abundance.
    The following identifies the broad themes and objectives 
that are essential to the achievement of a successful Nutrition 
title in the next Farm Bill and to an overall farm bill that 
serves the well-being of all Americans, and finally puts an end 
to hunger in this nation.

    (1) TEFAP commodity supports. Provide critically needed 
        food to emergency feeding agencies serving low income 
        families, individuals, and households by: (1) raising 
        the amount of mandatory funding for TEFAP commodity 
        purchases and (2) placing a floor on annual indexing.

    (2) TEFAP storage, transport and distribution grants. To 
        help with rising state and local agency costs of 
        handling commodities provide mandatory funding for 
        transport, storage and distribution of commodities that 
        is tied to the volume of commodities offered to TEFAP 
        agencies

    (3) Support Food Bank Infrastructure. Provide mandatory 
        funding and permanent authority for Food Bank 
        Infrastructure grants to help food banks build capacity 
        for refrigeration and fresh storage, transportation, 
        plant and other facilities needed to deliver healthy 
        and safe foods to low-income populations.

    (4) CSFP. Reauthorize the Commodity Supplemental Food 
        Program (CSFP) and expand eligibility and capacity for 
        service to un-served and underserved populations of 
        low-income seniors in need of nutrition assistance. 
        Among other things, allow states and/or local areas to 
        establish the same income eligibility standard for the 
        elderly as for women and children; fund pilot projects 
        to conduct senior outreach and statewide CSFP programs.

    (5) Section 32. Eliminate the cap on Section 32 funding so 
        that the Secretary can purchase surplus food 
        commodities for distribution to nutrition programs when 
        this is needed to support farm prices and to maintain 
        commodity donation levels for agencies serving low-
        income populations.

    (6) Commodity donations, bonus, etc. Establish a safeguard 
        for sudden and dramatic declines in bonus commodity 
        donations to TEFAP by setting a trigger mechanism for 
        allowing USDA purchases when bonus donations fall below 
        a specified 3 year average.

    (6) Special Milk Program. Utilize the Special Milk Program 
        to allow federal reimbursement of half-pints of shelf 
        stable (UHT) milk used in weekend food packages 
        provided to low-income school children to take home on 
        weekends and holidays when school is not in session.

    (7) SNAP--increase participation rates and benefits, among 
        other things by:

     Adequate benefit levels including higher minimum 
            benefits and improved standard deductions;

     Expanded and simplified eligibility criteria, 
            application forms and processes;

     Equal treatment for all income eligible 
            populations, including ABAWDS and legal immigrants;

     Improved Nutrition education;

     Simplified process for partnerships between state 
            and local public agencies and private nonprofit 
            agencies supporting outreach and application 
            assistance, including simplified waiver processes 
            to facilitate outreach;

     Monitored and standardized state and local program 
            administration and procedures for application, 
            eligibility and benefits and elimination of finger 
            imaging and other participation barriers such as 
            lack of IT support for submitting, processing and 
            approving qualified applicants.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Anna Feldman, East Lyme, CT

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 3:05 a.m.
    Name: Anna Feldman.
    City, State: East Lyme, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student at the moment, but used to be a 
vegetable producer.
    Comment: The future of farm policy needs to favor small 
producers whose methods respect the environment and who grow 
fresh fruits and vegetables for local consumption. It also 
needs to help out the young farmers who have less easy access 
to land but who are absolutely necessary for the continuation 
of America's rural agricultural future.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jodi Fenley, Chariton, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Jodi Fenley.
    City, State: Chariton, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Administrative Assistant.
    Comment: If this bill goes through my job will be at stake 
as I rely heavily on the CLU data to gather information. Not 
having this information will make my job obsolete.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Daniel Fenster, Bellerose, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Daniel Fenster.
    City, State: Bellerose, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: As a parent concerned with their nutritional value 
of the food choices presented in the schools, I would like to 
see legislation for increased financial support local organic 
farms to supply New York City schools.
            Thank you,

Daniel Fenster.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Colleen Ferro, Plantation, FL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Colleen Ferro.
    City, State: Plantation, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Realtor.
    Comment: Please do not support Factory Farming. We need to 
move towards sustainable farming, organic and plant based, for 
our own health and the health of the planet.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Ann Fickenwirth, Hingham, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Ann Fickenwirth.
    City, State: Hingham, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Stay at Home Mom.
    Comment: We no longer need the subsidies to the large scale 
corn providers. PLEASE send this money to small scale organic 
farms. I am doing all I can to feed my children and family with 
healthy food, it is a daily struggle and it should not be in 
this country. We need to change direction and make this a 
priority!!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Dennis Fike, Westmoreland, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Dennis Fike.
    City, State: Westmoreland, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural financing and related services.
    Comment: Lynn, I'm writing as an employee of a business 
that directly supports agriculture through financing, 
appraisal, insurance services, record keeping and tax planning 
services. I also own a small parcel of farmland in Pottawatomie 
County and grew up on a farm in central Kansas.
    My concern is with section 1619 of the current farm bill 
that restricts information available to our appraisal staff. 
This restriction makes it much more onerous for our appraisers, 
all of whom are state certified-general appraisers, to obtain 
accurate information to document area real estate sales. The 
accuracy of sales documentation is critical to evaluating land 
values and performing their duties for our customers. Below are 
some specific points to help explain their issues with the 
current law. I'm hopeful this can be changed with the new farm 
bill to allow state-certified appraisers appropriate access to 
the data they need to perform their job in a professional 
manner. Thank you.
    Appraisal Concerns:

   It is not realistic for appraisers to go to recent 
        buyers or sellers and expect to get access to their 
        farm information via a consent for release request.

   Farmland appraisals for real estate transactions 
        will suffer in accuracy. Farm specific geospatial 
        information is widely used by professional appraisers. 
        Boundaries, yield, soils, topographic information is 
        commonly used to establish farmland value. 
        Additionally, most appraisals require the appraiser to 
        provide ``recent comparable sales that establish the 
        accuracy of the real estate transaction. In order to 
        provide accurate'' farm specific data is needed for all 
        recent transactions.

   If appraisers are not able to get access to farm 
        level information on the sales within an area, then the 
        analysis may be faulty. Faulty analysis can lead to 
        unreliable appraised values and over or undervalued 
        real estate transactions. Lenders throughout the 
        country as well as buyers, sellers, and others rely on 
        appraisers to provide accurate appraisal reports that 
        they can rely on for their own safety and soundness.

    Appraisal Data Needed:
    Information that is needed includes:

   CLU field boundaries.

   Acres.

   Maps (Aerial, Soils and Topographic) tied to FSA 
        boundaries.

   FSA Yield information.

   Whether the property is enrolled in CRP, WRP or 
        another easement or rental agreement or federal program 
        and the specifics of the program on the property.

    We are aware of the confidential nature of the information 
contained in the CLU data. We respect this and only need access 
to the limited information listed above. We would be using this 
information to carry out our professions. We note that the 
operator's name is not in our list of necessary information.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jennifer Fike, Ann Arbor, MI

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Jennifer Fike.
    City, State: Ann Arbor, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Economic Development Nonprofit 
Executive.
    Comment: There should be funding of Farm to School programs 
in all 50 states by at least $50mm in the 2012 Farm Bill. There 
should be more funds allocated to the Specialty Crop Block 
Grants to encourage agricultural diversity. Commodity subsidies 
for farms earning more than $250k should be ceased. More 
funding should be allocated to increase the numbers of new/
beginning farmers through the USDA Beginning Farmer & Rancher 
program.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Andrea Fink, Katonah, NY

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
    Name: Andrea Fink.
    City, State: Katonah, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Social Worker.
    Comment: Pesticide free and genetically non altered crops 
should be priority.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Alfred Fischer, Aberdeen, MS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Alfred Fischer.
    City, State: Aberdeen, MS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Please support the reinstatement of public access 
of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway.
            Thank you,

Alfred Fischer,
Fischer Farm Services.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jerome Fitzgerald, Shoshone, ID

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 10, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Jerome Fitzgerald.
    City, State: Shoshone, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: The real problem in the dairy industry is the 
illegal powder imports. Our local factories are dumping third 
world powder in our cheese vats. Non grade a powder from China 
India Mexico and other sources. a non functioning USDA 
enforcement and a Chicago Syndicated cheese exchange allowing 
Davisco to raise the cheese price on their govt. contract and 
lowering the price when they were buying milk to fill it. There 
is no grade a in the third world so how can this ingredient be 
allowed in our factories. The Atlanta center for disease 
control has specific regulations for imports. When these 
products are smuggled or ``NAFTA ed'' across the border into 
California no one is watching. This is the reason for cheese 
that tastes like cardboard and is very dense this is dead 
cheese made from foreign old powder. India had a color problem 
recently. Close the Sen. Craig Mexican loophole, enforce the 
law.
            Yours truly,

Jerome Fitzgerald.
                                ------                                


         Comment of Wesley Fitzpatrick III, Crystal Springs, MS

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Wesley Fitzpatrick III.
    City, State: Crystal Springs, MS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Forestry, Fruits, Livestock, Vegetables, Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: First of all, thank you for the assistance for 
high tunnel construction that has been provided through NRCS 
and other funding sources.
    This assistance made it possible for me to become the owner 
of a high tunnel and provide valuable input for future farmers 
as well as future funding projects.
    Projects that provide assistance for all types of farming 
and agricultural research are the very beginning of all other 
commerce in the world.
    Please guarantee that similar valuable funding is available 
in the future.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Kevin Flaherty, Storm Lake, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Kevin Flaherty.
    City, State: Storm Lake, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am writing to get attention drawn to the fact 
that CLU Data (Common Land Unit) and certain CRP information is 
not made available to real estate professionals from local FSA 
offices without written permission from the actual land owner. 
The past Farm Bill eliminated the ability for real estate 
professionals to access this information for sales analysis, 
appraisal, and consulting purposes. This information is 
critical to produce consistent and reliable appraisal reports 
to my clients. There are too often times that we are dealing 
with absentee landowners through their current tenants and even 
with the tenants permission we are not allowed access to 
current FSA data. This is a considerable hindrance to efficient 
business practice resulting in delays and higher costs of doing 
business for not only myself, but also our customers.
    I strongly urge such data to be made available to certain 
real estate professionals as it was prior to the 2008 Farm Bill 
being implemented. The information which was previously made 
available is subject to confidentiality rules already in place 
with USPAP regulations and does not put this type of 
information in the hands of the general public and is critical 
for Real Estate Professionals to provide efficient and credible 
services to clients.
    I strongly urge that the next Farm Bill exclude Section 
1619 wording which has impacted all real estate professionals, 
producers, landowners, and others negatively who utilized this 
data on a regular basis.
    Thank you!
            Sincerely,

Kevin Flaherty,
Real Estate Appraiser--Farm Credit Services of America.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Gena Flemign, San Marcos, TX

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Gena Flemign.
    City, State: San Marcos, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Healthcare provider.
    Comment: I would like to urge the House Agriculture 
Committee to give special consideration to the value of small, 
regional organic farms. These farms are not only the best 
option for providing healthy produce, their proliferation would 
offer our best guarantee for resilience in the face of 
adversity.
    Small organic farms that use heirloom seeds are able to 
save seeds for replanting from season to season. The diversity 
of crops grown means their farms are naturally more resistant 
to invasion by pests. Because they are small and regional, any 
problems with contamination are quickly identified and limited 
in scope. From a food security perspective, a profuse and 
diversified network of family organic farms would mean people 
would not starve as a consequence of an oil and gas crisis.
    It is time for us to introduce local produce to the 
schools. We can not continue fight so many wars: on obesity, on 
diabetes, on drugs, etc. We are in need of a healthier vision 
that empowers and inspires people to manifest health within 
their own communities.
    Thanks and best wishes.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Arjan Flora, Brooklyn, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Arjan Flora.
    City, State: Brooklyn, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Medical Student.
    Comment: I do not support the fact that the subsidies in 
the Farm Bill will not only positively affect producers out in 
middle America, but will negatively effect the patients of 
hospitals in New York City. If artificially cheapened high 
fructose corn syrup were to even get out of largely consumed 
and seemingly harmless foods such as Gatorade (it's not just 
colored sugar water with some electrolytes), the children of 
Brooklyn won't be as obese as they are now. In fact, Diabetes 
is so rampant in Brooklyn, there is a subset of the disease 
known as `Flatbush Diabetes'. This is not to mention the 
countless other detrimental aspects of the bill not only 
economically, but socially and environmentally. Corn should not 
be easily cheapened only to fatten up our citizens and destroy 
the fertile fields of America's Heartland.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Joshua Fogt, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Joshua Fogt.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Northwest Harvest, Public Policy Manager.
    Comment: Northwest Harvest is a statewide hunger relief 
agency in the State of Washington. We secure and distribute 
food to over 300 partner programs around the state including 
food pantries, hot meal programs, and elementary schools. We 
are on the front-lines of hunger relief, and our comments on 
the 2012 Farm Bill will focus on strengthening and modernizing 
SNAP and creating strong farm to food bank connections.
    We know that many people who rely on food pantries and hot 
meal programs also rely on SNAP benefits to help meet their 
most basic need: food. SNAP is an excellent program for 
numerous reasons. In terms of policy, SNAP is the most 
effecting hunger relief tool we have in our arsenal at the 
moment. SNAP allows families to make choices that best serve 
their dietary needs and cultural preferences. SNAP is also a 
boon to local economies, with the most widely reported 
statistic showing that for every $1 spent on benefits, $1.80 is 
generated in local economies. This is because beneficiaries are 
free to spend their limited resources on other needs like 
shelter, clothing and health care, while SNAP dollars help the 
bottom line at local grocery stores where SNAP is accepted.
    Northwest Harvest strongly recommends that Congress 
strengthen SNAP by increasing access and eligibility, 
particularly in the summer months when families with children 
no longer receive the benefit of free and low-cost meals 
provided through the National School Lunch and Breakfast 
Programs. We suggest increasing benefits to low-income families 
with school-age children over the summer months to help meet 
the gap in feeding children over the summer. We would also like 
to see the enrollment and administration of SNAP modernized and 
streamlined through improved use of technology, direct 
certification and categorical eligibility. States who have 
utilized these options have seen a greater effectiveness in 
fighting hunger by helping more people become eligible and 
participate in SNAP.
    Northwest Harvest would also like to see Congress find new 
incentives for formers, particularly local and small farmers, 
to donate to their local food banks, pantries and kitchens. We 
hope Congress can find ways to encourage more local farmers to 
connect to their local hunger relief agencies, especially in 
rural, agricultural areas where food may be abundant but often 
leaves the local area for commercial distribution.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
upcoming Farm Bill. If you have any additional questions please 
do not hesitate to contact the Northwest Harvest Public Policy 
Manager, Josh Fogt, at [Redacted] or [Redacted].
                                ------                                


           Comment of Randy Follman, Inver Grove Heights, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Randy Follman.
    City, State: Inver Grove Heights, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agriculture Account Manager.
    Comment: I support the reinstatement of the CLU data into 
Section 1619.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Dawn Forcelli, Yonkers, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Dawn Forcelli.
    City, State: Yonkers, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Assistant.
    Comment: Please keep our food safe and healthy!
    Please protect our rights as consumers! . . . See More
    Please stop Monsanto!!!
    Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the standard 
for Organic Food . . .
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Please promote Natural Healthy Foods and Products . . .
    Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive . . .
    Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our future 
. . .
    Please take care of the Land, the Soil, the Water, and our 
Bodies!
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Nancy Ford, Olympia, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 18, 2010, 1:05 a.m.
    Name: Nancy Ford.
    City, State: Olympia, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: I am fortunate to be able to afford to read labels 
and avoid products with corn syrup and corn by products as well 
a highly processed soy products, artificial sweeteners, 
preservatives and food dyes that I believe are detrimental to 
everyone's health. I started avoiding these food when I was 
diagnosed with an immune system illness. It was not a cure but 
I enjoyed feeling better soon after the change. I believe these 
things lead to immune diseases including diabetes, lupus, 
arthritis, and others. Healthy food should be affordable and 
the norm.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Steven Fourez, Fairmount, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 14, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Steven Fourez.
    City, State: Fairmount, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: Recent discussion of shifting funding from 
commodity titles to rural development could best be 
characterized as the Mega Farm Enhancement Act. The best way to 
accelerate the disappearance of the single family unit farming 
operation is to further dismantle the already inadequate safety 
net. Razor thin margins, and onerous regulations make the 
viability of the traditional family farm even more precarious.
    The current ACRE program option is a step in the right 
direction but it needs considerable fine tuning to make it more 
attractive to farm operators. It needs to reflect the structure 
of federal crop insurance, based on county or regional multi-
county districts rather than on state averages. The variability 
of agricultural production based on differing soil types and 
the vagaries of localized weather is not accounted for under 
the current system.
    Another drawback is the inflexibility of the program. Once 
land is enrolled in the program it can not be rescinded, 
regardless of the land changing ownership or tenants. It would 
be better to bind landowners or operators to the program rather 
than the individual parcels themselves. This would allow for 
land to change hands without the encumbrance of being tied to a 
particular program.
    Reducing support for federal crop insurance programs is a 
backhanded way of forcing operators into the less desirable 
ACRE program. A better way to reduce expenditures in this area 
would be to make the insurance programs more actuarially sound. 
This would more accurately reflect the risk of growing a given 
crop in a given area.
    More than anything I would prefer to be rewarded for my 
efforts by the marketplace and not the taxpayer. We need to be 
subsidizing consumption rather than production. Since the FDR 
Administration governmental support for agriculture has been 
tied to production which has resulted in over-production in 
order to maximize benefits. This approach is kind of like 
trying to push a rope.
    Continued support for biofuels, exports and developing new 
uses for farm commodities is crucial. To use the rope analogy 
it is much easier to pull production through the system than it 
is to push it through. If we can encourage consumption and 
increase demand for the production I raise the marketplace will 
see to my economic needs, not the taxpayer.
    Rural development is inextricably tied to agriculture. 
William Jennings Bryan once said something to the effect that 
we could destroy our cities but leave the farms untouched and 
the cities would spring back up as if by magic, but if we 
destroy agriculture grass would grow down the middle of every 
Main Street within a generation.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Jean Fox, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Jean Fox.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Need to end farm subsidies, but in the meantime we 
need . . .

    (1) subsidies for fruits and vegetables and fewer subsidies 
        for commodity crops.

    (2) support for sustainable farming practices.

    (3) more money for TEFAP.

    (4) $4 billion more per year for Child Nutrition programs.

    (5) support for FAMILY FARMS, not corporate farms.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Darlene Franco, Waleska, GA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Darlene Franco.
    City, State: Waleska, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother/Teacher.
    Comment: I am writing to support parts of the Farm Bill. I 
do not support increasing aid to foreign countries when our own 
national debt is so high.
    However, I do support mandatory country of origin labeling, 
increased assistance for small farmers and producers, and 
protections against industrialized meat and poultry production.
    Please do all you can to support Georgia's small farms, 
organic farms, and farm to consumer markets. We deserve to have 
the support of our Congressmen when it comes to having the 
freshest local food we can. It is good for our families, our 
communities, and ultimately our entire health care system.
            Thank you,

Darlene Franco.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Tamara Franich, Chattanooga, TN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Tamara Franich.
    City, State: Chattanooga, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Office Manager.
    Comment: As a mother and consumer I am all for a newer, 
healthier way to feed our children and ourselves. Paying 
subsidies to farms to NOT GROW FOOD is as stupid as it sounds. 
Let's really try to make changes that are good for our 
environment, our economy and our health. There is no reason why 
we can't come up with policies that make sense.
    Thank you for your consideration.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Bobbie K. Frank, Cheyenne, WY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Bobbie Frank.
    City, State: Cheyenne, WY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Conservation Districts of Wyoming; Executive 
Director, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts.
    Comment:

Comments submitted for the U.S. House Agriculture Committee 
record on Farm Bill

June 14, 2010

   Support a greater emphasis on working lands 
        conservation programs.

   Support maintaining a strong locally led 
        implementation process for all Farm Bill conservation 
        programs. Working lands conservation programs must be 
        accessible for all private working lands. WACD believes 
        in the overarching goals of improved air, water and 
        soil quality, and improved habitat, but techniques for 
        reaching those goals are specific to localized 
        conditions. Efforts to expand the goals of conservation 
        programs, such as providing increased endangered 
        species habitat, should also be left to the decision of 
        local work groups. We do not support bonus funding for 
        states that undertake specific national standards that 
        are program specific. The emphasis of the programs to 
        stabilize and enhance agriculture production in harmony 
        with the environment must be maintained.

   The delivery of technical assistance is the most 
        critical element to the adoption of conservation 
        practices and participation in Farm Bill conservation 
        programs. The implementation of the conservation 
        programs should be fully reimbursed with program 
        dollars. This will allow non-Farm bill technical 
        assistance to be available to producers and 
        communities.

   Support streamlining conservation programs and 
        ensure that landowners have a full range of program 
        options to meet their conservation and resource needs. 
        If the alteration of a conservation program results in 
        a cost savings, that funding must remain within the 
        overall conservation title allocation.

   The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 
        remains a priority program to Wyoming. It is important 
        that all private landowners and operators be able to 
        access funding to address environmental resource 
        concerns. Localized priorities and practices should be 
        identified by the local work groups and addressed by 
        the state technical committees supporting the locally 
        led process that is the foundation of conservation 
        districts across the country. The role of the local 
        workgroups has been diminished greatly. Consideration 
        should be given to enhanced input and responsibilities 
        of the workgroups.

   WACD does not support the retention of program 
        dollars at the federal level to be awarded as ``bonus'' 
        allocations to states. This puts an undue burden on the 
        field technical staff to allocate funds and develop 
        conservation plans in a short period of time.

   Support the continued flexibility of the use of 
        Technical Service Providers (TSP) or third party 
        vendors in the delivery of conservation technical 
        assistance and Farm Bill conservation programs.
Conservation Program Consolidation Recommendations
   Create an Enhanced Environmental Qualities 
        Incentives Program that combines the working lands 
        programs including Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 
        Forest Land Enhancement Program, Agricultural 
        Management Assistance and Grasslands Reserve Program.

   Maintain an independent Conservation Reserve 
        Program.

   Maintain an independent Wetlands Reserve Program.

   Restructure the easement programs into one program 
        including Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and 
        the Healthy Forest Reserve Program.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Christine Fry, Oakland, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: Christine Fry.
    City, State: Oakland, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Health Policy Analyst.
    Comment:

    Dear Chairman Peterson,

    Public Health Law & Policy (PHLP) is pleased to provide 
input to the House Committee on Agriculture as you and your 
colleagues begin to develop the next Farm Bill. As a nonprofit 
organization dedicated to creating healthy communities through 
policy and environmental change, we want to ensure that federal 
agriculture and nutrition policy supports community-level 
efforts to improve the food system.
    We strongly recommend that Agriculture Committee continue 
to take health into consideration as you contemplate the 2012 
Farm Bill. At the most basic level, the Farm Bill is about the 
American economy and the health of our population. Agriculture 
and food production are an important part of the U.S. economy. 
And health is strongly affected by nutrition, which is 
ultimately driven by the foods that are affordable and 
accessible in neighborhoods around the country. The 2012 Farm 
Bill reauthorization presents the Committee with an opportunity 
to align federal agriculture policy with public health and 
economic development goals. This shift in agriculture policy 
began with the 2008 Farm Bill, which included money for 
community food projects, farmers' market promotion and 
nutrition programs, and increased benefits for many 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants.
    Child and adult obesity rates in the United States are at 
record levels, particularly among people of color and low-
income people. Obesity brings with it the potential for 
numerous chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart 
disease. The private and public sectors spend billions of 
dollars every year treating these preventable obesity-related 
diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) have invested 
millions of dollars to change the food and physical activity 
environments in communities around the country, with the goal 
of reducing obesity rates and improving health. These efforts 
would be amplified by a Farm Bill that supports the production, 
distribution, and sale of healthy foods across the country.
    The health and well-being of our nation's children require 
us to shift from a centralized food system to regional food 
systems. The ultimate goal of a regional food system model is 
to provide people in every part of the country with the 
opportunity to purchase a substantial portion of their grocery 
basket from local and regional food producers. Regional food 
systems, which supply fresher, less processed, local food, 
offer many benefits. First, it will stimulate rural and urban 
economies, as more capacity for food production, processing, 
and distribution will be needed to meet demand. Second, it will 
improve health as more people will gain access to fresher, less 
processed foods. Third, it will lower the risk of foodborne 
illnesses by creating more transparency and accountability 
(``know your farmer, know your food'') and reducing the amount 
of time food spends in transit or storage. And finally, it will 
reduce the environmental impact of food production by reducing 
the number of miles that food must travel from farm to fork. In 
order to reap these benefits, the federal government should 
continue to support regional food system development by 
providing seed money for infrastructure, marketing support for 
farmers who contribute to regional food systems, and incentives 
for healthy food purchases for federal food assistance program 
participants.
    In this difficult economy, pundits often frame federal 
policy decisions as ``either-or'' choices: either we protect 
public health or we protect the economy. At PHLP, we believe 
that you can do both by increasing production of healthy foods 
and supporting regional food systems. To develop a Farm Bill 
that promotes public health and the economy, we recommend that 
the Agriculture Committee consider the following actions:

    1. Hold at least one Committee hearing that focuses on the 
        health aspects of the Farm Bill. Invite public health 
        leaders from government agencies (local, state, and 
        federal), as well as academia, nonprofits, and the 
        private sector, to provide diverse perspectives on the 
        bill's public health impact.

    2. Expand the definition of nutrition education that is 
        allowed by the SNAP-Ed program. Traditional nutrition 
        education can only go so far to improve the diets of 
        low-income people if they don't have access to healthy 
        foods in their neighborhoods. SNAP-Ed funding could be 
        used to support environmental change efforts, such as 
        healthy corner store conversions and farmers' market 
        start-up costs, that expand healthy food access in 
        underserved neighborhoods.

    3. Look at the innovations and lessons learned from 
        community- and state-level efforts to support regional 
        food systems.

    The federal government and philanthropies have provided 
        seed money to communities and states for innovative 
        nutrition policy change and programmatic work. These 
        efforts offer numerous ideas for pilot programs and 
        other ways that the federal government can support 
        healthier food systems. For example:

      a. New York City, a CDC Communities Putting Prevention to 
            Work grantee, recently implemented a ``green 
            carts'' program that makes it easier for fresh 
            produce mobile vendors to start up in neighborhoods 
            with limited bricks-and-mortar food retail.

      b. The MoBucks program in Detroit doubles SNAP 
            participants' purchasing power when they spend 
            money at farmers' markets. Similar so-called 
            ``double SNAP'' programs are typically funded by 
            private foundations and exist around the country, 
            including in San Diego, Boston, and New York City. 
            The Wholesome Wave Foundation, one of the primary 
            sponsors of these programs, currently works with 60 
            farmers markets in 12 states. These programs 
            increase food security, improve diet quality, boost 
            purchasing power, and foster local economic 
            development.

      c. Loyola University in New Orleans received a USDA 
            Community Food Project grant to develop a digital 
            portal to connect local farmers with local schools 
            that want to serve fresh, healthy food. This 
            project improves the health of school children and 
            the economy of New Orleans.

    4. Develop policies that boost supply and demand for fruits 
        and vegetables.

    Americans do not currently consume the USDA's recommended 
        levels of fruits and vegetables. According to the USDA 
        Economic Research Service, the U.S. would need to put 
        13 million acres of land into production of fruits and 
        vegetables in order to produce enough crops to satisfy 
        the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

      a. Incorporate policies into the next Farm Bill that 
            provide greater risk management and marketing 
            support to fruit and vegetable growers. These 
            policies will make it easier for existing farmers 
            to become fruit and vegetable growers and for new 
            farmers to enter the market.

      b. Direct more funding towards research into fruit and 
            vegetable production, processing, and marketing 
            techniques.

      c. Develop and continue to support policies and programs 
            that increase access to and demand for fruits and 
            vegetables, including policies that support 
            innovative farmers' market incentive programs for 
            low-income consumers and technical assistance to 
            farmers and institutions that want to participate 
            in farm-to-cafeteria programs.

    Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to 
future opportunities to inform the Agriculture Committee about 
public health and food systems.
            Sincerely,

Marice Ashe, J.D., M.P.H.,
Executive Director,
Public Health Law & Policy;

Christine Fry, M.P.P.,
Policy Associate,
Public Health Law & Policy.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kent Funk, Hillsboro, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Kent Funk.
    City, State: Hillsboro, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Service Center.
    Comment: It is critical that we reinstate public access of 
the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway, 
especially due to the following circumstances:

    1. The USDA, Farm Service Agency, CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the summer of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

    2. CLU data only contains field boundary information and 
        does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

    3. CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
        support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation, tilling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

    4. Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.

    5. The rapid adoption of precision agriculture methods 
        (GPS/GIS) has rapidly progressed throughout the U.S. 
        over the past decade. Reliable and accurate CLU data is 
        essential for us to reap the most significant benefits 
        of this important technology.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jeff Gaines, Pacific, MO

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Jeff Gaines.
    City, State: Pacific, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I am relatively new to farming and I am at a real 
disadvantage, compared to my older farm neighbors, because the 
USDA/FSA has not updated ``base acres'' in 10 years.
    The Base acre records are outdated. I report my crops 
planted every year to the FSA so they have the information 
required to update base acres.
    Please insure the new 2012 Farm Bill requires that base 
acre records get updated/or eliminate the DCP/ACRE payments all 
together.
    I need a level playing field if I am going to survive as a 
farmer.
            Thank you,

Jeff Gaines,
Pacific, MO.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Marc Galati, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 28, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Marc Galati.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graduate Student.
    Comment:

    Hello,

    I have been very encouraged about the rising interest in 
sustainably farmed and local organic food that is happening in 
our nation. However, I would like to voice my concerns 
regarding conventional agricultural methods as well as factory 
farming.
    It is obvious to many consumers, the House Committee on 
Agriculture, and various other government related branches that 
factory farming and conventional farming has many dangers. The 
cruel conditions in factory farms need to be changed. 
Overcrowded conditions, antibiotics, and hormones that 
contaminate our meat and dairy products as well as our 
environment need to be stopped immediately. The use of 
pesticides and GMO technology that is destroying our health and 
environment need to be stopped immediately.
    Not only does this need to happen to fix the rising health 
problems in our country, but it needs to happen in order to 
save the remaining resources needed for our survival. In 
addition to that, the cruel slaughtering methods and factory 
farm conditions need to be changed for animals as well as 
employees. Massive illegal immigration promoted and directed by 
large agricultural companies and factory farms are not only 
hurting our economy and creating crime, but are putting illegal 
immigrants in harmful situations that are worse than the 
environment that they originally came from.
    The House Committee on Agriculture needs to take a stand 
against the powerful conventional agricultural companies, 
factory farms, pharmaceutical companies, pesticide companies, 
etc., that other government officials are ignoring. Lobbying 
needs to stop. Revolving doors involving agricultural corporate 
big shots and political leaders need to stop. It is up to you, 
the House Committee on Agriculture, to take a big stance in the 
next farm bill to eliminate factory farms, pesticides, GMOs, 
hormones, and cruel conditions that are ultimately responsible 
for the destruction of our health, environment, economy, and 
safety. I have already personally supported this stance by 
primarily purchasing only sustainably farmed, organic, and 
local foods. I hope that you, the House Committee on 
Agriculture, will join my efforts as well as millions of other 
concerned consumers efforts to start heading in the right 
direction regarding farms and agriculture in this nation.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Hadley Galbraith, Topeka, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Hadley Galbraith.
    City, State: Topeka, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment:

    To the Members of the House Committee on Agriculture,

    I am writing as a citizen concerned about the Farm Bill. I 
hope that you will take action to change our food system so 
that it produces better food, provides a more viable career to 
small farmers, and puts less strain on foreign markets.
    The subsidies that currently support the incredible 
production of corn have lead to a system which is backwards in 
so many ways. It necessitates the use of harmful pesticides and 
herbicides which would be much less ubiquitous if we simply 
allowed crops to grow in the number and density that they 
should.
    We are also now a part of a food system which stocks 
grocery shelves with foods that are processed and have low 
nutritional value but can be bought at a much lower cost than 
fresh, local produce. People with less money buy cheaper 
products, which can effect health. This is not acceptable. 
Efforts would be better spent trying to provide healthy food at 
a lower cost than subsidizing one crop which becomes products 
that are probably connected to the increasing rates of diabetes 
and obesity in the U.S.
    I could go on about corn subsidies, but I do not have time. 
What I truly hope for is a Farm Bill that supports food systems 
that function locally, and preferably with controls on 
pesticide and herbicide usage. This is connected to so many 
other issues in our own areas as well as globally. I am aware, 
as are many other people, of the downfalls of our current 
system. I hope you will consider the health of your citizens 
and the land we live on and make true reform to the Farm Bill.
            Thank you,

Hadley Galbraith.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Marc Galbraith, Topeka, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Marc Galbraith.
    City, State: Topeka, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Librarian.
    Comment: I hope the Committee will give consideration to 
encouraging more locally grown and sold agricultural products. 
I hope the Committee will give positive consideration to 
encouraging greater diversification of crops and livestock on 
farms. I hope the Committee will give positive consideration to 
encouraging family farms and will use less of the Farm Bill 
appropriation to support large corporate farms. I am not 
opposed to large corporate farms, but I believe individuals are 
more likely to know the source of what they eat if they can 
purchase it from local farmers. I believe it is time for 
federal agriculture subsidies to be used to support local 
farmers. I also hope the Committee will give consideration to 
limiting the use of genetically modified crops. I support 
agricultural research and advances in plant science, but I am 
concerned that we do not know the full extent of the 
ramifications of genetically modified crops. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of V. Gammino, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 3:35 a.m.
    Name: V. Gammino.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Scientist.
    Comment: I am a supporter of quality, organic food and 
sustainable farming practices. A strong food bill should 
support local farmers and support subsidies for fruits and 
vegetables instead of grains such as corn and wheat. The bill 
should restrict the commercial use of pesticides, and establish 
a firm, science-based stance against GMOs, the long-term 
effects of which, both upon other agricultural products and 
humans, remains to be seen. This short-sighted technology has 
the capacity to infiltrate our ecosystems and as such, 
potentially the larger food supply and ultimately the 
livelihoods of all our farmers. Economically sound and 
evidenced-based policies and laws are necessary to support food 
equity and better nutritional access for citizens at every 
income level. Poor dietary habits as a result of food inequity 
is the single largest primary contributor to health care costs 
in this nation. A healthier and more accessible food supply 
will lower health care costs and ensure the health of all 
Americans.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David GaNun, Lebanon, NJ

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: David GaNun.
    City, State: Lebanon, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment:

    Dear Chairman Peterson and Committee Members:

    On behalf of the membership of the American Society of Farm 
Managers and Rural Appraisers and other rural appraisers 
throughout the country, I am writing to express concerns with 
Section 1619 of the current Farm Bill in the hopes that if we 
cannot work-out a solution to our concerns sooner, we can reach 
a resolution in the upcoming Farm Bill.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill contains language that 
restricts access to geospatial data known as Common Land Units 
(CLU) that prior to this were available from the Farm Service 
Agency. As appraisers of rural properties, this has been a 
cause for concern and time delays since its inception as well 
as a threat to the overall accuracy of appraised values due to 
the lack of access to this information in many cases.
    We understand that the section allows for release of the 
information that we need to complete accurate appraisals given 
the consent of owners or operators through a release of 
information form. This requires the operator and owner to 
physically travel to the county office to obtain this 
information. It can then be shared with others. When we are 
working directly with the owner or operator, this is not overly 
cumbersome, but is a cause for time delays if the operator 
cannot immediately obtain this information. However, for the 
most part on a subject property, we have a cooperative customer 
whom we are working with. The major concerns, delays and lack 
of information typically involve the collection of comparable 
sales data.
    Farm specific geospatial information is widely used by 
professional appraisers. We know this is required information 
sought after by prospective buyers. These factors all have 
impact on value. Boundaries, yields, soils, topographic 
information, and details of any enrolled government program on 
the property are necessary for the proper analysis of not just 
the subject of the appraisal but all comparable sales used 
within the appraisal. In order to provide accurate comparable 
sales information farm specific data is needed for all recent 
transactions in order to provide an accurate reflection of 
market value.
    For proper analysis, the appraiser must be able to collect 
information on comparable farm sales from the area. It is not 
realistic for appraisers to go to recent buyers and sellers and 
expect to get access to their farm information via a consent 
for release form. Most typically the buyer and seller are not 
clients or acquaintances of the appraiser and therefore 
obtaining permission for access to this information is 
difficult, if not impossible, to say nothing of the time 
constraints. However, this information is market based evidence 
of comparable values for the area. If we cannot gain access to 
this information, or only limited information, our analysis 
could be faulty and impact another, buyer, seller and financial 
institution. Farmland appraisals for real estate transactions 
will suffer in accuracy if this information cannot be obtained. 
We note that the information that we seek is specific to the 
land and not operator specific information.
    The USDA-FSA recognizes the importance of this information 
to complete reliable farm appraisals. If we complete contract 
appraisal work for the USDA they allow us access to all of this 
information as they know it needs to be considered in both the 
subject property as well as the comparable sales. This is an 
exclusion that was written into Section 1619 but is only 
allowed for USDA contract work. We feel that the fact that the 
USDA recognizes this information as critical to proper analysis 
and appraisal technique offers strong support to the need for 
this information for the other users of our appraisal services. 
As currently interpreted, 1619 does not allow this. We believe 
that the information that we need for analysis is not personal 
information but information that is critical to proper analysis 
of sales and value conclusions.
    Appraisal Data Needed:
    The information that is needed includes:

   CLU field boundaries.

   Acres.

   Maps (aerial, soils, topographic) tied to FSA 
        boundaries.

   FSA yield information on the property.

   Whether the property is enrolled in CRP, WRP or 
        another easement or rental agreement or federal program 
        and the specifics of the program on the property.

    This information is not available anywhere else. We cannot 
seek this out in county courthouses when we are searching deed 
transactions. It is information that is only kept with FSA.
    We are aware of the confidential nature of the information 
contained in the CLU data. We respect the confidentiality and 
only need access to the limited information listed above. We 
are professionals that serve the public, and we are bound by 
strict confidentiality requirements contained in the Uniform 
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which is the law 
in all 50 states. We have a need to know this information for 
the proper analysis and valuation of rural property in order to 
carry out our professional duties, and we would only be using 
this information to carry out our professional duties. We are 
not asking that this information be made available to the 
public, but rather be made available only to professional, 
certified real estate appraisers.
    As professional appraisers we would be using this 
information to carry out our profession while providing a 
service to prospective buyers, sellers, lenders and investors. 
Our accuracy is vital to the safety and soundness of all 
parties involved. We specifically note that the operator's name 
is not in our list of necessary information.
    In a time when the safety and soundness of lending 
institutions is of critical concern to all we are very 
concerned that, without access to the key attributes that 
affect value, analysis and resulting values could be faulty and 
lead to a safety and soundness dilemma for agricultural lending 
and agriculture as a whole. In this case we believe safety and 
soundness far outweighs any minor privacy intrusion.
    Our recommendation: Allow professional real estate 
appraisers (only State Certified General Real Estate 
Appraisers) access to this FSA data without the cumbersome and 
time consuming requirements of the consent for release request. 
We have previously asked for a technical correction to the 
current Farm Bill in order to rectify this problem. If this is 
not possible, we strongly urge that this be corrected for the 
upcoming Farm Bill.
    We thank you for your time and consideration. We would be 
happy to discuss this issue further with you in the hopes of 
resolving this critical issue. Please contact us through 
Stephen Frerichs of AgVantage, LLC [Redacted].
            Yours Truly,

David W. GaNun, A.R.A.,
ASFMRA, Co-Chair of Government Relations Committee,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


             Comment of Diana Garcia-Padilla, Harlingen, TX

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Diana Garcia-Padilla.
    City, State: Harlingen, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Greenhouse/nursery, Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I am sorry I missed the June 14 deadline. But if 
it counts here are my comments.
    We are a small group of farmers trying to make a difference 
in our community and our environment chemical and pesticide 
free for our future children's and older persons. Please keep 
small farms under 50acres in your commitment to Agriculture 
concerns.
    Organic or just chemical free and herbicide free for our 
future generations health.

Concerned Farmer,
Diana Garcia-Padilla,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Scott Gardner, Clinton, MO

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Scott Gardner.
    City, State: Clinton, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a certified general real estate appraiser 
that specializes in agricultural/recreational appraisals 
throughout the Midwest. The CLU data that was historically 
available, prior to the 2008 Farm Bill, provided essential 
information in analyzing and reporting agricultural appraisals, 
while improving the quality and accuracy of data. I strongly 
support this non-personal information to be reinstated in the 
consideration of the upcoming Farm Bill.
                                ------                                


                 Comments of Lydia Garvey, Clinton, OK

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 1:05 a.m.
    Name: Lydia Garvey.
    City, State: Clinton, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Health Nurse.
    Comment: Promote Organic & demote big Ag fossil fuel! 
Protect Our lands, waters, wildlife & health! Do your job--Work 
for citizens, Not corporations!

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Lydia Garvey.
    City, State: Clinton, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Health Nurse.
    Comment: Invest/Support organic, family, non-GMO farming!!! 
Stop using our tax $ to subsidize factory/industrial/toxic 
farming!
    It would be much appreciated by all present & future 
generations of species, our water, wildlife & health!

Lydia Garvey.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Brianne Gates, Los Angeles, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Brianne Gates.
    City, State: Los Angeles, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment:

    Dear House Committee on Agriculture,

    At the same time that our Surgeon General has declared we 
have an epidemic of obesity, our government is using our tax 
dollars to cater to special interests and to subsidize the very 
foods that are making us fat. Thanks to lobbying, Congress 
chooses to subsidize foods that we're supposed to eat less of.
    Take a look at these numbers which tell how the percentage 
of federal food subsidies spending is allocated:

   Meat/Dairy--73.8 percent.

   Grains--13.2 percent.

   Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol--10.7 percent.

   Nuts/Legumes--1.9 percent.

   Vegetables/Fruits--0.4 percent.

    Please stop giving subsidies to BIG AGRICULTURE 
CORPORATIONS at the expense of people's health and well being. 
IF we want to spend less on Health Care we should start by 
making healthy food cheaper and more accessible.
    Another point is the giant pollutant that is Factory Farms 
and huge Monoculture farms. The pesticide, herbicide and 
fungicide is polluting our rivers, streams and oceans. Not to 
mention drinking water!! One-third of greenhouse gases come 
from factory farm pollution.
    The Gulf of Mexico (even before the oil spill) was a dead 
zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River due to pesticide 
residues coming from farms along the river.
    This practice of giving money to these horrible polluters 
must stop.
    I urge you to have a heart and stop this madness. Not only 
is it an outrage to the treatment of animals but its an outrage 
to the land, water and air that is polluted by these factory 
farms.
    ORGANIC AGRICULTURE should be supported and subsidized. 
Small family farms with biodiversity should be subsidized. To 
create healthy soil and healthy families all over the country. 
Imagine the money our country will save on healthcare. And all 
the farmers markets that will pop up!
            Thank you for your concern,

Brianne Gates,
Los Angeles CA,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


      Comments of Michael Gaudzels, Nashville, IL/Martinsville, IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:07 p.m.
    Name: Michael Gaudzels.
    City, State: Nashville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: There are serious issues caused by heavily 
subsidizing grain production while at the same time giving 
little or no subsidies to hay/pasture production.

    (1) Favors intensive (factory farm) livestock production 
        over other more environmentally sound and socially 
        acceptable livestock production practices. By 
        subsidizing grains that are the primary feedstock of 
        factory farm CAFOs, it stifles non-CAFO competition and 
        the ability of producers to raise livestock in pasture-
        based systems.

    (2) Subsidizes unnecessary soil erosion, especially on land 
        classified as HEL (Highly Erodible Land). Row crops 
        like corn & beans produce MUCH more erosion than does 
        hay, especially on HEL. Year-after-year production of 
        row crops leaves ground bare with limited root 
        structures to hold the soil, unlike perennial hay crops 
        & pasture which develop root systems and have good 
        ground cover for all/majority of the year. Soil erosion 
        is up to 20 times higher with row crops than with hay 
        or pasture. Our nation's topsoil is a tremendous 
        natural resource that helps farmers continue to provide 
        food for the world. It should not be taken for granted 
        because once it is gone it is very difficult, if not 
        impossible to get back.

    (3) Causes more chemical contamination of land & water. It 
        is no secret, although not widely understood, that row 
        crops require far more chemicals than does hay and 
        pasture.

Mike Gaudzels,
Nashville, IL.

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Michael Gaudzels.
    City, State: Martinsville, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock, Vegetables.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment:

   There are serious consequences to heavily 
        subsidizing grain production while at the same time 
        providing very few subsidies to hay & pasture 
        production, such as:

    b Favors intensive CAFO livestock production over pasture-
            based livestock systems. By subsidizing grains that 
            are the primary feed source on factory farm CAFOs, 
            non-CAFO competition is stifled and the ability of 
            producers to raise livestock in pasture-based 
            systems is diminished.

    b Subsidizes unnecessary and excessive soil erosion--
            especially on land classified as HEL (Highly 
            Erodible Land). Row crops like corn & beans produce 
            MUCH more erosion than does hay, especially on HEL. 
            Year-after-year production of row crops leaves 
            ground bare with limited root structures to hold 
            the soil, unlike perennial hay crops & pasture 
            which develop root systems and have good ground 
            cover for majority of the year. Soil erosion is up 
            to 20 times higher with row crops than with hay or 
            pasture. Our nation's topsoil is a tremendous 
            natural resource that helps farmers continue to 
            provide food for the world. It should not be taken 
            for granted because once it is gone it is very 
            difficult, if not impossible to get back.

    b Causes more chemical contamination of land & water. It is 
            no secret, although not widely understood, that row 
            crops require far more chemicals than does hay and 
            pasture. The more chemicals that are applied, the 
            greater the threat to chemical contamination of 
            soil & rivers.

    b The solution: Either eliminate crop subsidies altogether 
            or create hay subsidies that are more in line with 
            other crops so that they are more competitive with 
            grain crops--especially on Highly Erodible Land, 
            which is where the biggest threats of erosion and 
            chemical runoff occur.

   Biofuels from Corn and Soy are a HORRIBLE idea . . .

    b The energy efficiency we get from corn ethanol is around 
            1:1. Corn ethanol is CLEARLY not any magical or 
            necessary source of energy, but basically serves to 
            compete with the food supply. By subsidizing small 
            grain biofuels we subsidize intensive agriculture, 
            putting our land at further risk for excess soil 
            erosion and contamination.

    b Cellulosic ethanol still does not provide a huge energy 
            efficiency ratio and takes valuable organic 
            material from the land year after year. Over time 
            the tilth of fields will severely decline without 
            fertilizers made primarily from fossil fuels.

    b The solution: Eliminate subsidies to ethanol & biodiesel 
            production.

   Other issues

    b Place LIMITS on the amount of subsidies that an 
            individual farmer can earn, AND actively protect 
            from loopholes (such as setting up multiple 
            companies to maintain subsidy payments).

    b Consider the size of the operation when distributing 
            subsidy payments. Large farms should not be 
            receiving proportionally similar payments as small-
            scale farmers.

    b Implement programs to promote sustainability in 
            agriculture. Presently our system of agriculture is 
            heavily dependent on fossil fuels and also GMO & 
            chemical technology to manage pests and weeds. We 
            need to support research & development of 
            sustainable farming methods such as agricultural 
            systems of perennials in polycultures (i.e., Wes 
            Jackson's research @ The Land Institute) that are 
            closer to how natural ecological systems maintain 
            themselves.

            Thanks,

Mike Gaudzels.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Suzanne Geddes, Cumming, GA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Suzanne Geddes.
    City, State: Cumming, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Backyard Gardener, Mother.
    Comment: I would like more help for Organic Farmers so that 
they can succeed.
    I would like more restrictions on pesticides and 
fertilizers for all farmers.
    I would like support to all new organic fertilizer 
companies starting their business, so that they can work with 
current GA farmers to help grow healthier produce.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Gehrke, New Ulm, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: David Gehrke.
    City, State: New Ulm, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Rural Appraiser.
    Comment: As a rural appraiser it is extremely important 
that we have access to aerial photos and FSA (farm service 
admin.) information in order to proved accurate appraisals at a 
reasonable cost.
    I would be glad to visit with anyone regarding this issue 
and it's importance. [Redacted].
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Doug George, Sutton, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Doug George.
    City, State: Sutton, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Chemical Dealer.
    Comment: I use FSA maps everyday in our business. Many 
growers like it because they do not have to roundup their maps 
and bring them into me. It also helps to have the GPS lat. and 
long. on the with misapplications. We enter both into our GPS 
systems to make sure we are in the right fields. Please 
continue to make these maps available to us.
            Thanks,

Doug George,
George Bros. Propane and Fert. Corp.,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
Sutton, NE,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Olivia Geri, Vineland, NJ

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Olivia Geri.
    City, State: Vineland, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Senior Food Service Handler.
    Comment: I feel strongly about supporting farm markets and 
local farms, the fruit and vegetables are fresh, the taste is 
out of this world and local farms provide jobs and help the 
economy. I go out of my way for fresh fruit and I'll drive out 
my way to go to the local farm market where the fresh fruit is. 
I don't like factory grown synthetic fruit or how it tastes and 
it's not good for you. Please continue to help out the farms, 
farmers and employee's and the fresh fruit and vegetable 
markets.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


               Comments of Jim Gerritsen, Bridgewater, ME

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:36 a.m.
    Name: Jim Gerritsen.
    City, State: Bridgewater, ME.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Nuts.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear House Agriculture Committee,

    I am an organic farmer in northern Maine and President of 
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, based in Portland 
OR. OSGATA is a national membership trade organization. It's 
mission is to develop, protect and promote the organic seed 
trade and its growers, and to assure that the organic community 
has access to excellent quality seed, free of contaminants and 
adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture. I am 
writing to urge your Committee to designate development of the 
organic industry as a top priority for not only the 2012 Farm 
Bill but also for all future agricultural policy.
    The organic industry is responding to the heightened demand 
from consumers for pure and local food grown sustainably in a 
way that's good for our land over the long term. As a result 
over the last 10-15 years organic sales are booming. Yet ag 
programs aimed at developing organic farming--research and 
extension activities, conservation programs, tailored crop 
insurance and help for farmers transitioning to organic 
production lag far behind from where we should be due to 
inadequate funding over past decades.
    While we are heartened that many good traditional organic 
practices such as soil building, crop rotation and cover 
cropping are receiving attention by NRCS and others, and are 
being incorporated into best management practices of 
conventional farms, there is a critical need for increased 
research to sustain and support necessary organic development.
    In crop agriculture, we are facing a looming crisis over 
the steady decline of public seed breeding programs in the 
United States. Advances in public seed breeding have been the 
leader in our country's agricultural progress and we must 
reinvest in seed research now to maintain future agricultural 
progress. Tomato production illustrates this point. The focus 
of tomato seed breeding is currently aimed at large scale 
California production. Yet tomatoes are one of the most 
important high value crops to many thousands of organic family 
farmers across all 50 states. The conditions these organic 
farmers face are dramatically different from those in 
California. For example, last summer a devastating widespread 
Tomato Late Blight situation was encountered by northeastern 
states. As a result there is now renewed interest in developing 
great tasting Late Blight resistant tomatoes for the East. 
Public seed development is a long term good for both society 
and agriculture and deserves strong multi-year funding support 
from Congress.
    OSGATA urges the House Agriculture Committee to effectively 
invest in the future of American agriculture by increasing 
funding for the development of organic production.
            Sincerely,

Jim Gerritsen, President,
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Assn.,
Portland, OR,
www.osgata.org.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:06 a.m.
    Name: Jim Gerritsen.
    City, State: Bridgewater, ME.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear House Agriculture Committee,

    We are American farmers. Our family raises certified 
organic seed potatoes in northern Maine and we have been 
farming organically for almost 35 years.
    I am writing to request that you increase funding that 
supports organic farm production. Organic sales are increasing 
dramatically because organic farmers are responding to the 
demands of the American consumer for organic food that tastes 
good and is nutritious and comes from local organic farms that 
are treating the land well for the long term.
    Well designed organic farm systems improve the land and 
produce excellent quality food and seed. Productive organic 
farms succeed at simultaneous crop production and land 
conservation and they can serve as a model for all producers. 
But it costs money to farm for the future. Since society 
benefits from the good of conserved and enhanced farmland it is 
reasonable to reward farmers for the conservation efforts that 
the market does not.
    It is critical to invest in research and extension to 
facilitate continued development of organic farming. Crop 
insurance needs to be reformed so that our organic crops can be 
insured at real world organic crop values, not at unrealistic 
conventional prices. And if the country is to make continued 
conservation progress we need to help farmers transition into 
organic production so that they can afford to shift their 
production practices to follow organic models.
    American agriculture has a remarkable history of progress 
but that progress was the result of investments made for the 
future good. Organic farming is the future of American 
agriculture and needs research and development investment now 
so that it's growth may continue. And this current organic 
investment by Congress must increase to make up for decades 
worth of inadequate funding. Organic farm systems are 
sophisticated and long term. So it follows that research that 
will help develop organic production must also work on the long 
term and that means secure multi-year funding is the wisest 
investment that will bring the best results.
            Thank you.

Jim Gerritsen,
[Redacted],
Wood Prairie Farm,
Bridgewater, ME
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Elliott Getz, Lubbock, TX

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Elliott Getz.
    City, State: Lubbock, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I hope the new bill will continue to help keep 
lands in the CRP; we have enough dirt in the air as it is, and 
definitely not enough water to go around irrigating more 
farmland. On that note, I think the bill should address farmers 
in the driest areas across the country (like here around 
Lubbock) that are planting corn and other water-intensive 
crops. Lubbock simply does NOT have the water resources to 
support crops like that, and they shouldn't be allowed to plant 
them, they should at least face stiff tax increases if the bill 
can't bar them from planting it altogether.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Stephanie Gillespie, Redford, MI

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Stephanie Gillespie.
    City, State: Redford, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Farm bill must be centered around environmental 
sustainability.
                                ------                                


             Comment of William Gillison, Lake Village, AR

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: William Gillison.
    City, State: Lake Village, AR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I appreciate the efforts and monies that have been 
directed towards conservation cost share programs (i.e., EQIP, 
CRP, WRP) but cannot understand why these type of payments 
would be subject to Average Gross Income restrictions or 
Foreign citizenship. The payments are spent on U.S. land to 
conserve U.S. water and U.S. soil resources and since they are 
cost share they require contribution from whomever 
participates. I feel there should be no restrictions as to who 
receives cost share assistance for all soil and water 
conservation programs and feel strongly that most if not all 
normal thinking people would support such a modification.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Luke Gilson, Los Angeles, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 5:05 a.m.
    Name: Luke Gilson.
    City, State: Los Angeles, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Audio Engineer.
    Comment: Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic food is 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail 
market.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Katy Giombolini, Salem, OR

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 3:05 a.m.
    Name: Katy Giombolini.
    City, State: Salem, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Advocate.
    Comment: Please support sustainable farm initiatives as 
well as support for local processing facilities that rely on 
transparency rather than stringent regulations that keep 
smaller producers from being unable to compete in the market. 
Also support for young organic farmers!
                                ------                                


                Comment of David Glenn, Hillsborough, NJ

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: David Glenn.
    City, State: Hillsborough, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Director, Farming Nonprofit.
    Comment: I want to encourage budget allocations funding 
research--both academic and on-farm--for organic production. 
Organic is the fastest growing sector in the USA, yet receives 
very little attention or funding, compared to commodity based 
crops. If the kind of funding is put forth for organics, like 
was done during the 1970-1980s, there would be tremendous 
growth and improvement.
    We are losing farmers everyday, new initiatives need to be 
funded to encourage new, organic and sustainable farmers to be 
trained and establish farming businesses.
    Please support organic production!!!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Bruce Goldsmith, Galt, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Bruce Goldsmith.
    City, State: Galt, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Dairy Facility Owner; Environmental Compliance 
Consultant.
    Comment: The dairy industry has suffered through 1\1/2\ 
years of economic collapse. We can not wait another two years, 
until the 2012 Farm Bill, for a solution to the industry 
problems. Thousands of dairies, from all over this country, 
will suffer financial failure by that time. And the rural 
communities from all across this country will continue to 
suffer the negative effects of a dairy industry that is going 
broke. We need a solution from the Congress this year!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Maria Gonzalez, Tulare, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 6:36 p.m.
    Name: Maria Gonzalez.
    City, State: Tulare, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Dairy Milker.
    Comment: I am commenting because I live in Tulare, Ca. and 
work as a milker in one of the area dairy's. I support farmers 
and dairy men because there are thousands of hundreds of people 
that support their families with work that is provided by 
farmers and dairies. What would our families do if it was not 
for them? How would we support our families if it was not that 
they provide work? Where would all of America including your 
families get your milk and other food ingredients from if it 
was not for the work that I and my co-workers do in milking 
cows? What country would we have to buy our food and food 
source from? As it is in California, due to some endangered 
fish, farmers are not planting crops that would provide jobs to 
provide for our families. If the economy is to really turn 
around--which it has not done so--then support this Farm Bill 
so that jobs can be provided and our families can survive. We 
are not asking for a hand-out, we ask for government to support 
America's working families. Working Americans cannot continue 
on this path. We are tired of the prices that are so high. I 
beg of you listen to our farmers and dairy men. We need our 
jobs so that we support our families. PUT AMERICA BACK TO WORK 
AND THE ECONOMY WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF!
                                ------                                


              Comment of Michelle Gonzalez, Providence, RI

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Michelle Gonzalez.
    City, State: Providence, RI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Business Consultant.
    Comment: Please, take the World War II era subsidy funding 
which is currently given to large commodity crops such as corn, 
wheat and soy and instead put that funding into smaller scale, 
organic and local agricultural endeavors, the positive effect 
on child nutrition would be enormous.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Deany Goode, Kansas City, MO

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Deany Goode.
    City, State: Kansas City, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: I want no genetically modified seed or food 
allowed on American soil, especially not in American school 
meals. I want no Posilac in my milk. I want corn and soy out of 
all my food that is not corn or soy. I want to stop tax 
subsidizing corn and soy. I want everyone who has ever worked 
for Monsanto out of Washington and out of the EPA, FDA and 
USDA. I want you to give power to the FDA and the USDA to 
protect Americans from toxins and genetic modification in our 
food and punish those who poison us. If you cannot to that then 
I at least want genetically modified ingredients listed as 
genetically modified on the list of ingredients on the label of 
a product. I want people in government to stop taking money 
from Monsanto. I want you to give power back to farmers to keep 
their own seed. Lastly, I'd like you to take away the right to 
patent nature and life, namely genes.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Katherine Goodrich, Doylestown, OH

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Katherine Goodrich.
    City, State: Doylestown, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator and Mother of four young children.
    Comment: As a voting citizen, an educator and a mother of 4 
young children, I am very worried about the safety of our food. 
I am concerned about the regulations in place regarding the use 
of pesticides, growth hormones, meat processing and the 
condition of animal farms.
    I find it discouraging that in this day and age, I can't 
trust the food that I buy at the local grocery store will be 
safe for my children to eat. We do not live in a third world 
country, yet our food is starting to feel as if we need to take 
precautions as if we ARE in a third world country.
    The United States of America can do better and we need your 
leadership to make decisions to push farmers and farming 
corporations to grow and produce food that is healthy for our 
children. Thank you for your time and I will be watching to see 
if decisions are made to move our country into a safer food 
market.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lynette Goodson, Longview, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 07, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Lynette Goodson.
    City, State: Longview, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nonprofit.
    Comment: I've worked for a year to help put a Farmers 
Market together to represent all Texas farm products. There are 
significant expenses that producers incur when bringing many 
products to market. In Texas, eggs have to be refrigerated 
during transport and while at the market. Meat packaged at a 
USDA packing house still requires the same hand washing 
facilities for storage as a full service restaurant.
    We need grants for these producers so they can meet the 
health code requirements so we can make local farm products 
accessible for all.
    For those of us who strike out to make a difference, we 
need grants that are accessible to help us make local products 
available in our communities.
            Thank you,

Lynette Goodson.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Larry Goolsby, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Larry Goolsby.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Director of Legislative Affairs.
    Comment:

    June 14, 2010

Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.;

Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Ranking Minority Member, 
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.

    Dear Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Lucas:

    I write today on behalf of the American Public Human 
Services Association, which represents the state cabinet-level 
public health and human service departments as well as many 
local agencies. Our members administer all the major safety net 
programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program as well other vital assistance such as Medicaid, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, child welfare, child care, and child support. 
Our mission is to develop and promote policies and practices 
that improve the health and well-being of America's children, 
families, and adults.
    We are pleased that the House Agriculture Committee is 
already focusing attention on the 2012 Farm Bill, which as you 
know is a critical piece of legislation not only for the 
nation's agricultural community but also for the many millions 
of individuals who rely on federal nutrition assistance 
programs. The importance of the largest nutrition program, 
SNAP, has only grown as the current economic downturn has hit 
with full force. We are proud that as SNAP caseloads set new 
records monthly (and have grown over 40 percent in the last two 
years), we continue to serve SNAP recipients' needs effectively 
at a time when state and local budgets are in severe crisis. 
Most of our member agencies have had to reduce staff and other 
resources, yet we are maintaining a historically high degree of 
program integrity and are providing timely service to the 
overwhelming majority of applicants.
    This combination of unprecedented demand and declining 
state and local capacity further highlights the need for 
program improvements that APHSA has advocated for many years. 
While Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made 
many significant SNAP reforms in recent years, we strongly 
recommend additional program simplification and removal of 
access barriers; additional administrative support, such as 
that provided last year in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act and the Department of Defense appropriations 
measure; additional linkages with and coordination among other 
federal assistance programs; stronger support for nutritious 
food choices and nutrition education; and far greater 
encouragement of program innovations.
    Our recommendations for your consideration are attached to 
this letter. While they are grouped into categories, many serve 
multiple purposes; for example, changes that reduce 
administrative barriers both improve program access and 
streamline the workload for program administrators. We also 
believe that simplified program rules and less red tape will 
help families access more of the benefits to which they are 
entitled and thus choose costlier but more nutritious foods, 
something that will help in the fight against childhood 
obesity.
    We appreciate your consideration of our comments and 
recommendations. If we can answer any question or assist you in 
any way, please contact me or Larry Goolsby, APHSA's Director 
of Legislative Affairs, at [Redacted] or [Redacted].
            Sincerely,

Cari DeSantis,
Interim Executive Director.


                               attachment


    [Editor's Note: the comment was incomplete as submitted.]
                                ------                                


             Comment of Sabrina Gorbett, Fairview Park, OH

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Sabrina Gorbett.
    City, State: Fairview Park, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: The policy you decide in this bill will have far 
reaching effects. Subsidized wheat and corn become heavy parts 
of the USDA food programs, including feeding our kids in school 
food programs. Please step back from the over-reliance on 
staple crops to fund more fruit and vegetable growers and 
increase the USDA work on urban small plot farming.
    Please take into consideration the health of our children 
over the health of large agriculture businesses.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Rawson Gordon II, Suwanee, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 07, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Rawson Gordon II.
    City, State: Suwanee, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: Mr. Linder, so much needs to change. Federal 
subsidies that force farmers to produce corn, the fundamental 
building block of factory farm-produced meat and unhealthy, 
processed food, must be rerouted. Farmers need incentives to 
diversify their crops, so that a wide range of fruits and 
vegetables may be had at reasonable prices. It is not right 
that making a salad costs so much more than making a hamburger.
                                ------                                


                  Comments of Bryan Gotham, Hermon, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 10, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Bryan Gotham.
    City, State: Hermon, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I have been an active participant in finding 
solutions to the current dairy crisis. I have traveled to 
Washington 3 times in the last 12 months; spoke at dairy 
meetings, DOJ hearings, and an official NYS Senate Agriculture 
Committee hearing.
    I have looked long and hard at the answers to this crisis 
that threatens this nations long term food safety, food 
quantity and food sovereignty. Farmers have been told free 
market will provide for us and it will provide us a fair price. 
Milk buyers have merged into giants and our Dairy Co-ops. with 
the power of Capper Volstead claim they can't truly bargain for 
milk prices based off cost of production or increases in 
standard of living because they will be in violation of anti 
trust. We are told that we have to take this 30 year old price 
and a whole generation of the few farmers left today have been 
brainwashed into this mindset. This mindset affects our ability 
to find adequate solutions to this crisis because we have been 
trained to be ``price takers''.
    Why can't we run our dairy business like every other market 
oriented business where we set our product price based upon our 
production costs? Other business have this power, but dairy 
farmers do not with our daily perishable product and the 
Government setting minimum prices off the CME influenced NASS 
survey. I have become a strong supporter of S. 1645 The Milk 
Market Improvement Act of 2009 because this bill fits this 
philosophy in doing business off our basic costs. It doesn't 
guarantee a profit it only covers the minimum costs of 
producing milk in the U.S.A. with price discovery calculated by 
the researchers at the USDA Economic Research Service. 
Consumers also want farmers to be paid fairly because they 
understand the importance of food sovereignty.
    Our dairy media, Co-ops and academia have all 
misrepresented or failed to understand the real potential 
behind the ideas in S. 1645. First of all the bill is market 
oriented. The ERS numbers for our costs are variable economic 
models from markets like oil, fuel, labor, insurance, feed, 
etc. In fact one could argue this price discovery is a lot more 
market oriented because it is broader and more diversified than 
what we have today compared to the CME trading surplus cheese 
which is less than 1% of the cheese marketed. This type of 
pricing would get us off the perpetual treadmill of playing 
catch up, taking on long-term debt and always having to milk 
more cows to try to get out of the hole. Some believe this is 
growth, but others think this treadmill is insanity. The other 
distortion of the bill comes from the belief that the bill will 
flood the market with milk. I say yes that may be true in the 
short term but the bill has two great mechanisms for supply 
management. The first program assesses all milk up to 2.5% of 
production to fund the Commodity Credit Corp. in order to buy 
product off the market. However, if the oversupply grows worse 
100% of all extra milk could be paid zero dollars in order to 
fund the CCC sufficiently. I also believe that it will take 
some time, but all good businessmen or women will make 
intelligent decisions and dry cows off, sell some cows, or 
reduce grain levels instead of producing something with a zero 
return. The best part of this whole idea is that it is 100% 
percent farmer funded with no more handouts from Washington and 
our taxpayers. To me that means less Government involved not 
more. The School lunch program, food banks and the needy 
benefit from this program of supply management.
    Let's support this great idea that will revitalize rural 
America 's small businesses instead of starving it. Large milk 
buying conglomerates have hoarded the wealth from milk for far 
too long. I have heard politicians claim they want to ``spread 
the wealth around this country'' through taxes but I say it is 
time for rural America's small business to do this in an 
economically efficient way.

Concerned Dairy Farmer and Consumer,
Bryan Gotham,
Gotham Family Farm LLC,
Hermon, NY,
[Redacted].

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Bryan Gotham.
    City, State: Edwards, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Dairy Policy thinking needs to change 
dramatically. Today we have a pricing system that favors 
processors and retailers. Today our pricing system allows 
processors to get there cost of production through the make 
allowance and that is acceptable by the industry. It is set up 
wrong! Processors never get signals that there is too much 
product because they always break even on every lb of milk 
processed. This creates a guaranteed market that some dairyman 
feel the are entitled too. The CME cash cheese market is not a 
market with only 1-2 trades a day of surplus cheese controlled 
by few buyers and sellers. Developing a fair market to price 
milk has been a constant failure. The NASS survey and the CME 
have very tight correlation. Its time to remove this guaranteed 
market from the dairy industry and give farmers cost of 
production on their milk so increased costs burdened on the 
farmer can be passed through the supply chain. That way when 
processors get signals that there is too much product. Farmers 
can either pay to remove this product from the market place 
with supply management ideas proposed in S. 1645 Specter-Casey 
or processors can work directly with coops and individual 
farmers to reduce milk supplies coming into their plants. This 
is how the system should work. No guaranteed market and a fair 
price to the farmers so they have the potential to break even. 
Farmers need to be paid for all costs incurred on there farms 
including unpaid family labor. The numbers developed by the ERS 
are good representation of what it costs to produce milk in 
today's economic times. Dairy farmers do not want any more band 
aids or subsidies from taxpayers to fund insurance programs or 
costs need to be covered from the marketplace. The ERS cost of 
production figures are market oriented and do vary monthly to 
changing market patterns. It is the best way to value a 
perishable precious commodity.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Natalie Grace, New Hope, MN

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Natalie Grace.
    City, State: New Hope, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Patent Agent.
    Comment:

    (1) end crop subsidies, which are narrowing the scope of 
        American diets and causing severe health problems.

    (2) encourage seed cleaning, because this preserves 
        heirloom crops, widening our variety of diet.

    (3) ban steroids and antibiotics added to livestock feed.

    (4) demand labeling of GMO product, or allow a ``non-GMO'' 
        label.

    (5) stop corn ethanol subsidies/development. Farm land 
        should not be wasted to create fuel and plastics.

    (6) impose stricter animal cruelty regulations on 
        livestock.
                                ------                                


           Comment of LoriJayne M. Grahn, Pelican Rapids, MN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, July 08, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: LoriJayne M. Grahn.
    City, State: Pelican Rapids, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Enough of low milk prices, the corruption, and 
policies or programs where we keep paying more for less.
    Enough of giving us pennies instead of the dollars we 
justly earned.
    We need a cost of production and no less.
    We cannot continue on year after year with the same 
problems.
    Good farmers and many families are being forced out of 
business and losing everything.
    We need a solution and that solution is Dairy Bill S. 1645 
The Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009. It was 
written by farmers for farmers.
    The Bill, S. 1645 is a solution to fix a broken pricing 
system that fails us over and over again, leaving us with 
welfare subsidies and programs that don't work. This Bill S. 
1645 is a chance and answer to save our farms now and not 
later.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL stabilize farm raw milk prices and 
WILL give all dairy producers the average national cost of 
production determined by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of 
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The price 
would be adjusted quarterly.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL create transparency and the S1645 
bill eliminates any reference to the Chicago Mercantile 
Exchange (CME) for determining milk prices paid to dairy 
farmers. S. 1645 creates official transparency to report on 
import/export volume, milk displacement, and dollar value, and 
create accountability in the Federal Order amendment process. 
The crime of price manipulation and corruption have been proven 
that the CME is prone to this abuse.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL balance milk production and supply 
as the bill mandates that the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 
must be sure that the imports of dairy products do not exceed 
the amount of dairy exports before he can use the inventory 
management program. In other words, dairy farmers will not be 
required to balance the national oversupply of milk if the 
displacement of U.S. milk is caused by import increases; this 
includes imported Milk Protein Concentrate (MPC) and Casein. 
Under Bill S. 1645 importation of foreign dairy products will 
no longer be allowed to destroy dairy farmer raw milk prices.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL provide a Supply Management 
program to be implemented only when dairy exports exceed dairy 
imports by both the amount of milk represented and by dollar 
value. Bill S. 1645 Supply Management first phase--would affect 
all dairy producers by reducing the Class II price by up to 50 
percent on up to five percent of their production. U.S. dairy 
farmers would always maintain at least a 95 percent national 
cost of production during this process. It would also give 
farmers a signal to hold production down as well. The intent of 
Bill 1645 is not to tell dairy farmers how much milk they can 
produce, however, overproduction and supply are addressed in 
the Inventory Management Program of S1645, that is necessary to 
prevent a small amount of milk forcing all milk down in price 
per hundredweight. Bill S. 1645 second phase--if necessary 
under which when the Secretary of Agriculture would announce a 
reduced price for producers who have increased production on 
all milk that is excess of the dairy producers preceding years 
production. The funds collected from the supply management 
assessment would be transferred to the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC) to be used to remove excess products from the 
market.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL be burden FREE from the tax payers 
as the bill will be funded by farmers where the cost is paid 
through supply management provisions. Bill S. 1645 cost would 
be minimal as it uses existing entities such as ERS, Market 
Administrators, Farm Service Agency (FSA), Foreign Agriculture 
Service (FAS), where the required data is already being done, 
or could be done with little additional expense. S. 1645 IS a 
solution addressing the same roller coaster problems in the 
industry. Plus the MILC program or price support program, or 
tax payer dollars government spending.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL be able to be implemented 
immediately as stand alone legislation upon being voted on and 
passed by Congress (both the Senate and House of 
Representatives) and will not require the Farm Bill to be 
reopened to be put into effect.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL NOT interfere with existing 
federal and state marketing orders which remain intact and be 
responsible for determining the component value of milk.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL protect the continuation of the 
Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO) from being terminated by a 
negative vote during the referendum process.
    Senate Bill S. 1645 WILL eliminate Make Allowances, which 
are any cost of manufacturing plants, to be levied on dairy 
farmers.
    To make dairy farmers pay for insurance plans does not 
solve the problems and only allows a farmers debt to increase. 
Dairy Bill S. 1645 is a solution to save our dairy farmers with 
a cost of production, provide a supply management program if 
needed, address the imports of Milk Protein Concentrates 
(MPC's) that displace our U.S. dairy farmer's milk and creates 
an oversupply, plus threatens the safety and quality of our 
food supply, plus it is an ideal bill that will not affect our 
national debt or cost the taxpayers any money.
    In conclusion, the farmer's paycheck is what is left over 
after everyone else profits or takes their cost first. The 
roller coaster price system is destructive. Farmers have 
sacrificed everything and can't recover their debt-load or 
losses when the checks that they receive is always below cost 
of production. The corruption, consolidation, and corporate 
world has been able to control the dairy industry and it's 
path. This needs to stop now. Our Senators and Representatives 
need to change this path. Other destructive policies and anti-
trust abuses can not be tolerated and are not acceptable. Our 
country needs it farmers, and the health of our economy and 
rural America depends on them. U.S. dairy farmers, consumers, 
and the dairy industry as a whole need Dairy Bill S. 1645, The 
Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009. This is a 
solution NO MORE BAND-AIDS. There is no excuse for anything 
less. Our dedicated, good family farmers who provide us with a 
quality fresh local food supply are going out of business and 
losing everything. I know . . . for I am one of those dedicated 
farmers.
    To Colin Peterson: If you can take $50 million from the 
Farm Bill Budget and give it to Fargo, North Dakota for flood 
projects, there is no excuse for not passing Dairy Bill S. 1645 
which would save our family farms by giving a cost of 
production to our farmers, save our taxpayers money, eliminate 
government subsidies and spending that is a win-win situation 
for our national debt and dairy industry.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Philip Grandin, Grafton, MA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Philip Grandin.
    City, State: Grafton, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: Please focus efforts on giving the non-
industrialized farming community the resources it needs to 
produce locally-distributed and ecologically conscious foods 
for a public and society increasingly in need of healthy, 
environmentally sound, and sustainable crops.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Bennie Graves, Abilene, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, September 06, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Bennie Graves.
    City, State: Abilene, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Why did Congress cut $16 billion from the farm 
bills not yet in effect. My expenses have risen about 200% in 
last few years. Taxes have also increased about 200%. I live in 
the 19th district, but my farm is in another. I am a senior 
citizen, veteran and feel like there is 3 strikes against me 
now. My meds through VA are $9 each. Most can be bought at Wal-
Mart for $4. Does Wal-Mart have greater buying power than VA?
                                ------                                


             Comment of Tammy Graves, Richfield Springs, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Tammy Graves.
    City, State: Richfield Springs, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consumer, Mom.
    Comment: An adequate, stable price paid to our dairy 
farmers is critical for my community's livelihood and the 
wholesomeness of the milk and cheese that I want to eat and be 
assured it is made in USA.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Whisper Gray, Manteca, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Whisper Gray.
    City, State: Manteca, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Dog Breeder.
    Comment: I have an issue that is not directly related to 
what is about to be voted on. My issue is related to farm 
dumping, when migrant workers leave and dump their garbage and 
sometimes DOGS on the side of the road on their way home to 
Mexico. I also have issues with people in track homes coming to 
our farms and dumping couches and tires out on farm land. There 
is no respect for farmers and peoples land anymore. When I was 
growing up in the Stockton school district I remember there 
being a ``Litter bug'' education, we need it again!! Its a 
major pet peeve of mine to see anyone drop their garbage 
anywhere except in a trash can.
    Is it possible to add signs for Farmers to prosecute those 
caught dumping on their property? Fines or something, Not just 
trespassing. And Farmers should warn their workers from other 
countries not to get dogs and then dump them when they go home 
. . . our shelters are full enough!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Fred Greder, Mason City, IA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Fred Greder.
    City, State: Mason City, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: SECTION 1619: This firm specializes primarily in 
the practice of farm and rural property appraisals. Since the 
implementation of Section 1619, we have devised a ``written 
release'' form that all of the local Farm Service Agency 
offices are accepting. We have taken this approach because it 
has been our opinion that appraising a farm without the actual 
USDA information by subscribing to another vendor is a 
compromise. However, this process slows down the appraisal 
process by anywhere from one to several days (in one instance 
it stalled the process entirely) and it consumes a lot of man 
hours from my office staff.
    Consequently, we immediately raised our fees as soon as 
Section 1619 was enforced. In other words, Section 1619 has 
resulted in a regulatory imposed tax on our customers.
    As a partial solution, I would like to respectfully request 
that the local FSA offices at least be allowed to release the 
field measurements and field delineations on the aerial photos 
without needing written authorization from the owners or 
operators.
    I can understand how the CRP contract terms, NRCS 
determinations and base & yield information is confidential 
business information. But, there are many other ways to 
recreate the field measurement information. There is nothing to 
be gained by withholding the ``official'' measurements of the 
FSA.
    Finally, the impact of the enforcement of Section 1619 is 
particularly frustrating in light of the fact that the 
Environmental Working Group still seems to be able to get their 
hands on much more confidential information than a typical farm 
real estate professional needs.
    Thanks for the opportunity to share my observations.

Fred Greder, A.R.A.,
Benchmark Agribusiness, Inc.
[Redacted],
Mason City, IA,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                Comment of Tabita Green, Brookfield, WI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Tabita Green.
    City, State: Brookfield, WI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: VP, Product Management.
    Comment: Support local, organic farmers! They are the 
future. If we can get lots of healthy, local foods into our 
schools, we may be able to reverse the current trend of 
obesity, diabetes, and all the other health problems that our 
country faces today. Please listen to your hearts and do what's 
right.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Maya Greene, Austerlitz, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:36 p.m.
    Name: Maya Greene.
    City, State: Austerlitz, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professor.
    Comment: I firmly believe that our government needs to 
support 2 things in this farm bill: Diversification of crops, 
and organic practices. From a perspective of health for both 
our bodies and our planet, supporting organic farming & 
biodynamic practices is a smart move. Furthermore, I have 
concerns about our focus on growing corn in this country. 
Supporting diversification of crops is a smart way to ensure 
the health of our land for years to come.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Karen Griggs, Stockton, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 07, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Karen Griggs.
    City, State: Stockton, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired family ranching.
    Comment: Unless you turn on the water in the San Joaquin 
Valley, the money for subsidies is pointless. My family farmed 
and ranched all of my life. We got farm subsidies for not 
growing things that we never had grown. Those subsidies began 
with the program after the war and ended in 1989 when my 
grandmother died. The land was a feed lot/dairy/slaughter house 
before my grandfather's death. After his death, the land was 
leased to truck farmer's who grew produce. But I cashed the 
last check just before my grandmother's death in 1989 for not 
growing millet among other things, crops which had never been 
considered for planting. I have to assume that no one monitors 
the program and that type of waste is common place. What we 
want to see is water for the farmer's and to pay off the debt.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Robert Grillo, Chicago, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:36 a.m.
    Name: Robert Grillo.
    City, State: Chicago, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Marketing Consultant, Writer.
    Comment: How about we start by ``democratizing'' the farm 
subsidy program and stop funding the wealthiest corporations 
that control most of the agriculture in our country? Why not 
make livestock producers pay for the costs that they have 
externalized to the taxpayers, such as environmental 
degradation and human health epidemics (Swine flu for example)? 
How about addressing the contamination of our waters and land 
caused by the widespread use of pesticides? How about 
subsidizing organic producers and assisting them in making 
organic food more accessible and affordable to consumers?
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Janice Grimes, Webster, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Janice Grimes.
    City, State: Webster, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: My husband and I own a dairy farm and have nearly 
gone bankrupt due to the dairy crisis. We cannot trust our 
coops or other people that represent ``big milk''.
    We can only voice our opinions to this Committee in the 
hopes that someone will help us before the American dairy farm 
becomes extinct. Please consider these options when forming the 
new farm bill:
    New price discovery rather than Chicago Mercantile Exchange 
(CME) driven. The CME only sells surplus cheese. Why is the 
average cheese price based off the surplus?

   Provide a milk price that is adequate and supports 
        the ``Average'' sized farm. Without this, any policy is 
        not sustainable without extreme government subsidies, 
        such as those we have today. With adequacy, the MILC 
        program can be eliminated.

   The USDA inspects 1% of imported food for quality, 
        but 100% of domestic food is tested and sampled for 
        quality. Imported food needs to meet the same standards 
        and regulation as domestic food. If imported dairy 
        products cannot meet domestic standards, they should 
        not be put into our food.

   Provide quality incentives in the federal formulas.

   Class I fluid prices need to be paid on regional 
        cost of production factors to truly reflect the real 
        value of producing fresh, local milk.

   Reporting of cheese inventory needs to be mandatory.

   The value of cheese needs to be determined by the 
        entire market from high value to low value cheese. The 
        value needs to be broad based and electronically 
        driven.

   All dairy products wholesaled need to be included in 
        the pricing of manufactured dairy products for dairy 
        farmers.

   If the burden for the oversupply is completely 
        placed onto the farmer through a supply management 
        system, then a financial allowance for this financial 
        burden needs to be in the federal formulas for farmers. 
        This would remove the taxpayers' financial 
        responsibility today.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Marian Grimes, Dudley, MA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Marian Grimes.
    City, State: Dudley, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock, Other.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I am most concerned about the future of the USA 
dairy industry. Indeed, if the Federal Government is going to 
use their antiquated formula to continue to determine pricing, 
our dairy industry is doomed to failure. I believe a rate 
setting commission should be established to determine a fair 
price for milk. The Federal Government has rate setting 
commissions for other industries it controls, why not the dairy 
industry?
    If we continue to lose dairy farms the production of food 
in this country will go the way of manufactured goods, i.e., in 
the hands of other countries. I don't know about you, but I DO 
NOT want other countries to control the production of food in 
the USA.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Dick Groen, George, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Dick Groen.
    City, State: George, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I would like to urge you to make the FSA field 
data available to public again. This information is very useful 
in helping us serve our farmer customers.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Christopher Grotegut, Hereford, TX

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Christopher Grotegut.
    City, State: Hereford, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I support the removal of USDA payment limit in 
terms of amount.
    I support strengthening the definition of actively engaged 
in farming. USDA should only support actively engaged farmers. 
Actively engaged should be those people working on a farm or 
ranch greater than 20 hours per week.
    Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the preservation or 
managed stability of our underground water aquifers. Mining 
water is not good for our communities or country from a long 
term basis. It is in reality a form of deficit spending. Farm 
policy striving for local area financial and ecological 
sustainability is a must. USDA funds should not be used to 
increase under ground water usage unless it prevents flooding 
in areas prone to flooding.
    I support organic and local food efforts. The elimination 
of pesticide use has had only beneficial results on our ability 
to manage our farms. Employee satisfaction and compensation 
have both benefited significantly from the removal of 
pesticides. Additionally, our local equipment suppliers have 
also benefited through our quicker ability to adopt newer 
technology as a result of improved income streams. This has 
allowed us to buy more American.
    Continue to work to make inroads easier for small food 
processing companies including meat harvesting facilities. We 
need to be thankful for the strong infrastructure we have in 
our commodity buyers, but we also need to make sure that there 
is room for new ideas and new companies to create free market 
competition.
    I support national animal ID programs. The USDA 840 RFID 
tags used in cattle have been very useful in our business.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Debra Guenther, Durango, CO

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Debra Guenther.
    City, State: Durango, CO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I am writing in strong support of organic farming 
programs and research. The field of organics is a growing one 
and the need for technical assistance and information is 
strong.

   We need Research and Extension Programs, 
        Conservation Programs, Transition Programs, and

   Crop Insurance Programs that are aimed towards 
        organic farmers specifically.

    Please support a Farm Bill that will make these things 
possible.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Guith, Atwater, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: David Guith.
    City, State: Atwater, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: No more farm subsidies!! No other business gets 
them nor should they. Make it or let someone else do it better.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Randall Gustafson, Phillips, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Randall Gustafson.
    City, State: Phillips, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As an agricultural real estate appraiser, I 
support the reinstatement of CLU data into Section 1619 of the 
farm bill. This information was available and easily accessible 
prior to 2008. The CLU data provides important benefits for 
businesses that work closely with agricultural producers giving 
producers more timely, accurate, and cost efficient services. 
CLU data does not contain any compliance information, personal 
information, wetland information, Conservation Reserve Program 
(CRP) information, or ownership information. CLU data only 
contains field boundary information. Thank you for your 
consideration.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Terry Guttormson, Hendrum, MN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, July 08, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Terry Guttormson.
    City, State: Hendrum, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: My list of things that must be in the farm bill:

    1. $500,000 million for water retention and storage in the 
        Red River Basin. (or more)

    2. Save or improve the ``no cost to government'' sugar 
        bill.

    3. Raise commodity loan rates:

     wheat $5.50.

     soybeans $7.50.

     corn $3.50.

    4. Improve crop insurance.

    5. Keep round up ready technology in sugar beets.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Laura Guttridge, Vero Beach, FL

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:36 a.m.
    Name: Laura Guttridge.
    City, State: Vero Beach, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Housewife.
    Comment: Please stop supporting factory farming. The 
government is subsidizing the wrong end of the food chain. 
Fruits, and vegetables are very expensive, and unhealthy meat 
is cheap. This is wrong and one of the reason Americans are so 
over-weight, and unhealthy.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Traci Guynup, Lancaster, PA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Traci Guynup.
    City, State: Lancaster, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: We must make sure that farmers and ranchers have a 
full suite of conservation programs with adequate funding so 
that they can be the best stewards of our nation's natural 
resources. Federal farm policy should also support homegrown 
renewable energy like wind, solar, and biomass.
    I live in Lancaster, PA where the Amish used to produce 
their own electricity. We need to help farmers obtain solar 
panels and to make their own biodiesel (griesel) from dead 
animals.
    A strategic base of our agricultural land is absolutely 
essential to our long-term ability to produce and supply fresh 
healthy sources of food, fiber and energy with the fewest 
inputs. Federal farm policy must enhance farm and ranch land 
protection to adequately address the threat to our strategic 
agricultural land resources from non-farm development and 
fragmentation.
    We are losing too much farm land to development. We need to 
encourage current farmers not to sell out.
    It's critical to increase the production of, and access to 
local and healthy food while helping farmers remain profitable. 
Farm and food policy should be linked more strongly with 
national health and nutrition goals. Federal government 
programs should promote healthier diets and meet increased 
demand for specialty crops and fresh, locally grown food by 
expanding access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
supporting farmers markets.
    We have several excellent farm markets in Lancaster.
    We need to encourage black and Hispanic youth to purchase 
from farm markets. We also need to have cooking classes so that 
youth know how to prepare the food.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Frank Hagan, Everett, WA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Frank Hagan.
    City, State: Everett, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Commercial Airplane Process Engineer.
    Comment:

To: The Honorable Agriculture Committee:

    Just a general comment about studies of Biotechnology or 
Engineered foods. While reading a recent report on a 
genetically altered Atlantic Salmon species which is being 
reviewed by the FDA, and grows to maturity at a much faster 
rate to reduce time to market, has a Congressional Oversight 
Committee (FDA etc.) thought about the impact to the resources 
that feed these products? Specifically the impact of changing 
the life cycle on resource depletion. Example; if a normal 
species takes several years to mature along with it's food 
source, then you change the growth rate (Bio Engineer) of the 
species without altering the speed of growth of the food source 
(or the growth rate of all the components that support each 
links life cycle chain), is there a potential for resource 
depletion? Not sure if this aspect is considered in Bio 
Engineering studies or not. Thanks for your time and 
consideration.
            Regards,

Frank Hagan,
Everett, WA,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Hagert, Emerado, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: David Hagert.
    City, State: Emerado, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Software Development.
    Comment: In our software development the CLU data is used 
by producers and their wide range of support businesses 
including: appraisers, crop insurers, financial service 
providers, farm managers, irrigation, tilling installers, and 
aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure applicators for 
accurate and timely records and procedures. The CLU data was 
available from 2004 until the signing of the 2008 Farm Bill and 
should be placed back into public domain.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Leah Hagman, Arlington, TX

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Leah Hagman.
    City, State: Arlington, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified Public Accountant.
    Comment: Please end subsidies for big Agricultural 
business, especially for Corn and Soy. It is time to promote 
biodiversity to save our land, water and our bodies. End 
Monsanto's monopoly. Promote the small farmer, especially 
organic and non-GMO crops. Outlaw genetically engineered crops. 
Promote the labeling of our food sources. Protect the consumers 
of agriculture as well.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Barbara Haines, Louisville, KY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Barbara Haines.
    City, State: Louisville, KY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I'm a farm product consumer, and lived in farming 
communities for over a decade. My neighbors raised beef cattle, 
ran dairies, raised horses and sheep. I could drop by 
unannounced at any time of the day or night and find them hard 
at work.
    In fact, they were up hours before I was, and it wasn't 
unusual to see them high-tailing it across a field late at 
night if an animal had gotten itself into trouble or gone 
through a fence to get into another neighbor's crops.
    These were men and women who broke their backs all day, 
every day and never got a vacation because there's no such 
thing as a 'cow sitter' for a 250 head dairy farm.
    The amazing thing is these folks all took fantastic care of 
their animals, and often risked their own lives in bad weather 
or other dangerous situations to tend or rescue their stock. 
The idea of mistreating an animal is ludicrous to them, because 
that animal is their livelihood and means the difference 
between being able to feed their family and keep their farm, or 
lose everything.
    While human nature would seem to have a rule that there's 
always a bad apple or two trying to spoil the whole bushel, my 
direct experience in over a decade of daily contact with 
independent farmers and producers is that any such bad apples 
are ostracized by the rest; and underhanded practices are not 
the norm in the agricultural industry.
    I remember when I was growing up we were taught the 
greatest danger our nation faced was Communism. It's a sad day 
in America to think we've replaced that military threat with 
our own hard-working farmers.
    America's farmers have provided me and my entire family 
with the world's best, safest and most affordable produce for 
over fifty years. I'm proud to know that the United States can 
afford to help feed needy people in other countries because of 
the sweat on Darrell White's brow and the dust on the seat of 
Ray Casey's jeans.
    If you want to cripple this great nation of ours and 
destroy what's left of our economy, the fastest way to do it is 
to make it more difficult for our farmers to make a living. If 
you do so, you'll have accomplished what no terrorist 
organization or military power outside our borders has ever 
been able to accomplish.
    I say we give them all a medal for doing an exhausting and 
dangerous job most of us couldn't last half a day at, but which 
every one of us desperately depends upon; and give thanks we 
still have enough farmers willing and able to keep the rest of 
us alive.
    Thanks for caring enough to listen.

Barbara Haines.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Judy Hall, Livingston Manor, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Judy Hall.
    City, State: Livingston Manor, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chef.
    Comment: I would support all efforts, legislation and 
dollars that improve local rural economies especially farms and 
farmers. Dairy Farms in NY need help.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Richard Hall, Scotland, SD

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: Richard Hall.
    City, State: Scotland, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Applicator.
    Comment: Please leave the CLU data [as it is presently 
shared] alone! The field boundary data is of huge importance to 
ag users such as myself in the Aerial Ag Spraying trade and to 
my customers for verification work and historical data.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Betty DuBose Hamilton, Brownfield, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 03, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Betty DuBose Hamilton.
    City, State: Brownfield, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Educator--Teacher, Librarian.
    Comment: I hope that if subsidies must continue that they 
go to fund fruits and vegetables--foods that we need. Farmers 
will grow those items that they can afford to grow (with 
subsidies). When our tax dollars go to subsidize crops that are 
already overproduced and that we have to ship overseas to be 
utilized, we are selling our WATER too cheaply. When farmers 
water their crops with our precious water, they need to be 
growing crops that bring the most cost efficient produce and 
that does NOT mean foods and produce (cotton) that we are 
practically GIVING away.
    I would also like to see food stamps be removed from the 
Dept. of Agriculture and moved to the Department of Health. 
School meals should become a part of the Department of 
Education so nutrition and meals eaten at school can become a 
part of our youngsters' curricula.
    We need MAJOR changes in how our tax dollars are used.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Deborah M. Hamlin, Falls Church, VA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: Deborah M. Hamlin.
    City, State: Falls Church, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Director, Irrigation Association.
    Comment:

Deborah M. Hamlin, Executive Director, Irrigation Association

House Committee on Agriculture

June 14, 2010

    Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Lucas, Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback 
comments relating to U.S. agricultural policy in preparation of 
the 2012 Farm Bill.
    My name is Deborah Hamlin and I am the executive director 
of the Irrigation Association. The Irrigation Association is a 
trade association representing more than 2,000 member companies 
in the irrigation industry. Our members include irrigation 
product manufacturers, dealers, distributors, contractors and 
end users in the agricultural and landscape industries. The 
mission of the Irrigation Association is to promote efficient 
irrigation and our expertise lies in ensuring every drop of 
water applied to a crop is done so in an efficient manner; 
creating more agricultural output per unit of inputs, and 
thereby cutting down on water waste, runoff, etc.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
    Because we highly value the variety of benefits achieved 
with efficient on-farm water use, the Irrigation Association 
works collaboratively with various government agencies. One of 
the most notable and successful collaborations is with the 
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 
Conservation Service on the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program.
    As you know, irrigation is an important lever of 
agricultural productivity, so it is no surprise that irrigation 
comprises a significant proportion of the country's overall 
water use (37 percent of total water withdrawals according to 
the U.S. Geological Survey 2005 Water Use Report). As more 
farmers seek to leverage the productivity benefits of 
irrigation, irrigated acreage in the United States continues to 
grow. In fact, irrigated acreage in the United States has more 
than doubled from 25 million acres in 1950 to more than 60 
million acres in 2005. At the same time farmers are irrigating 
more acres, they are using less water for irrigation. In fact, 
water use for irrigation has dropped back to 1970 levels 
(Source: NRCS Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey 2009). The 
Irrigation Association joins the USGS and the Department of the 
Interior in attributing these decreases in irrigation water use 
to significant increases in on-farm irrigation efficiency. As 
our nation's farmers continue their global leadership in terms 
of both agricultural productivity and resource stewardship, 
efficient irrigation is a critical component of their success
    EQIP plays a significant role in enabling farmers to invest 
in efficient irrigation technologies, by offering financial and 
technical assistance to eligible participants. In FY 2008 
alone, $1.18 billion was allocated throughout all 50 states for 
more than 48,000 EQIP approved projects. However, nearly 24,000 
projects went unfunded in the same fiscal year due to several 
reasons, including lack of funds available for the projects. 
The Irrigation Association is very appreciative of both 
Congress and the Administration for the continued support of 
EQIP and requests that the original 2008 Farm Bill mandatory 
spending amounts be preserved and that funding for EQIP in the 
2012 Farm Bill further increase to meet unmet demand.
    Additionally, in order to be eligible for funding, the EQIP 
Interim Final Rule currently requires that land must have been 
irrigated two out of the past five years. The Irrigation 
Association finds this requirement problematic for growers, as 
it results in the development and encouragement of inefficient 
practices at the grower's point of investment. To maximize the 
full potential of the EQIP program and to fully realize the 
benefits of efficient irrigation, the Irrigation Association 
recommends removal of this provision in the 2012 Farm Bill.
    Finally, the program currently grants priority to projects 
resulting in a net reduction of water use on a producer's 
entire operation. The program currently does not reward 
producers using water efficiently by allowing them to utilize 
conserved water efficiently on other segments of their 
operation. We believe that this program is a disincentive and 
should be removed in the next Farm Bill in order to maximize 
food production for our country's growing population.
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
    In addition to the historic primary functions of EQIP, the 
2008 Farm Bill also created the Agricultural Water Enhancement 
Program, which is funded through EQIP. AWEP is a voluntary 
conservation initiative that provides financial and technical 
assistance to agricultural producers to implement agricultural 
water enhancement activities on agricultural land for the 
purposes of conserving surface and ground water and improving 
water quality.
    The Irrigation Association recognizes that without an 
increased focus on water quality, we run the risk of 
significantly affecting the water available for human health 
and sanitation as well as efficient irrigation. The 
agricultural community assists in this effort by promoting 
water quality through the reduction of runoff and using the 
water applied to their crops efficiently. The new AWEP strives 
to promote water quality and continuation of this program into 
the 2012 Farm Bill will allow the USDA to promote water quality 
successfully.
The Irrigation Association is a Resource for Policy Makers
    The Irrigation Association has created an internal working 
group on the 2012 Farm Bill and will be developing further 
analysis and recommendations over the coming months. We will 
update the Committee regarding these recommendations on a 
regular basis. If you have any questions regarding EQIP, AWEP, 
or any other irrigation-related issue, please contact IA's 
Agricultural Affairs Director Erin Huston at [Redacted] or 
[Redacted] or IA's Federal Affairs Director John Farner at 
[Redacted] or [Redacted].
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Janet Hammer, Cambridge, MA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Janet Hammer.
    City, State: Cambridge, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Physician Assistant.
    Comment:

    Dear Congressmen:

    Moderate size organic farms are the safest way to produce 
food for our nation without relying on petrochemicals. We must 
reduce our dependence on oil. Supporting organic farming means 
providing incentives and government support to organic farms 
and to even the playing field so smaller farmers can compete 
with large agribusiness. Especially while the Gulf of Mexico 
has become and ecological disaster, it is important to promote 
ecological advances by supporting the growth of organic farms. 
It is my hope that small farms and regional farms will be able 
to thrive as well as larger operations. Thank you.
            Sincerely,

Janet Hammer.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Gary J. Hansen, Aledo, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Gary J. Hansen.
    City, State: Aledo, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retail Sales for Farm Supply Cooperative.
    Comment: would like the FSA Fields to made public. This 
information is critical to proper application of fertilizers 
and pesticides.

G. Jay Hansen.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Lynn Hansen, Anita, IA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Lynn Hansen.
    City, State: Anita, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment:

Hon. Leonard L. Boswell,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Third District, Iowa.

    I have farmed and been in agriculture for most of my life 
and after reading and hearing the testimony of Professor Bruce 
Babcock I feel that a reasonable person who has been through 
the difficulties of farming in the 1980's it was necessary for 
me to relate my experience and thoughts in regards to his 
testimony today and the Farm Bill hearing in preparation for 
the 2012 Farm Bill. Please read my thoughts and I would be 
happy to answer any questions you or your staff might have and 
why I am as passionate about my experience and thoughts.
    I hope that you will read and record my message as part of 
the comments in regards to the farm bill hearing and that they 
will seriously considered.
    I would very much appreciate a response and your thoughts 
in regards to my comments.
    There are several fallacies on the Babcock theory that ACRE 
moving to a county yield plan should be the safety net of 
choice and sustain agriculture.
    The thought process that FSA can provide payments more 
efficiently through the use of ACRE program by moving to a 
county rather than a state wide program is unrealistic. The 
problem with even a county yield, the individual farmers that 
need the help, are not helped at all or not helped enough by a 
county yield plan, which is why the individual yield plan was 
developed in the late 1980's by the private sector. County 
yield payments only pay the farmers that raise significantly 
below the county average. Even then the payments are not large 
enough to pay off last year's operating note, and provide the 
equity to borrow for the next year. The farmers with better 
land, have higher yields, but in a low yield year, the better 
land, has a slightly reduced yield, which could be half the 
county. So the best land farmers, yields are slightly lower, 
but the poorer land in the county has drastically reduced 
yield. So the farmers with the best land get paid, when they 
did not really have much of a financial loss, and the farmers 
that need it most get very little or no payment, exactly the 
reverse of what needs to happen for the farmers with a disaster 
on their hands in their operation. Crop insurance pays the 
producers with larger losses to sustain them in their business.
    With a county yield plan, managed by FSA, how will the 
lending community react. Most Ag loans now are based on crop 
insurance guarantees. Without that safety need, we will be 
driving banking out of agriculture, and go back to farmers 
being forced back to FMHA. With move government loans and over 
site needed will create more bureaucracy, at FSA, through FMHA. 
Babcock has not addressed in his theory of FSA managing the 
crop payments through FSA how much that agency will have to 
grow. His theory seems to be FSA can do the work they already 
do now, plus all the crop insurance payments with the same 
staffing or just the help of the RMA staff. Lack of Ag credit 
available through the private sector by Banks or Farm Credit 
will create the need for the government to come in to do more 
loan guarantees through FMHA, which in turn also creates more 
bureaucracy. This will drive us back to the farm crisis era of 
the 1980's. Money and financial assistance arriving one or two 
years after the fact does not sustain agriculture. The Ag banks 
and Farm Credit, made it through this farm crisis without a 
bail out, primarily due to crop insurance payments and crop 
guarantees either carrying the producer through the credit 
crunch, or giving the lender confidence to continue to loan. 
Without the crop revenue payments from crop insurance to pay 
off operating loans many producers would no longer be in 
business. Lenders made loans in 2007, 2008, and 2009, based on 
crop revenue guarantees so there was no glut of land or 
Machinery on the market as there was in the 1980's. Land prices 
and ag sector jobs have been sustained through the current 
credit crisis, due to the flow of money created by crop 
insurance payment. The crop insurance revenue stream and 
guarantees provide lenders with staying power unlike what ACRE 
or SURE programs could not have done.
    The crop insurance program of today, avoided a farm crisis 
of the magnitude of the 1980's. With the high expense for 
putting in a crop in 2007, 2008, a crisis was avoided as the 
crop insurance payments safety net, kept pace with the economy, 
as a county yield plan would not sustain the producer. Also the 
crop insurance payments come immediately when the farmers need 
them, to pay off the past years operating notes, not 12-18 
months later, as the ACRE an SURE payments do. Babcock's theory 
that the farmers double dipped in 2007, 2008, 2009 by getting 
high price for the crop and a crop insurance payment comes from 
someone who has no idea of the cost of operating a farm or 
putting in a crop. The cost of putting in a crop, land payments 
cash rent payments and bank notes, machinery payments that are 
all due timely not to mention the cost to replace machinery 
equipment seed and chemicals are not addressed in the Babcock 
theory. A farmer getting a small payment 18 months after the 
fact, does not keep him in business for the next year. This 
would again drive many producers back to FMHA loans and to the 
government bureaucracy to little and too late as it did in the 
1980s, or simply put them out of business and devastate the 
farm economy.
    Babcock does not seem to realize when agriculture prospers 
so does the rest of the economy. When farmers make money, the 
city people benefit. The farmers spend money, new pickups, John 
Deere tractors, the farm wives and kids get new vehicles. They 
build things, new homes, machine sheds, garages, home 
additions, etc., the construction industry benefits. These 
items in turn benefit the schools, county and state as property 
taxes bases increase. The restaurants, clothing stores, the 
appliance stores all prosper. Last but not least the state and 
federal government benefits as the insured pays a lot of taxes, 
even on his crop insurance payment, as it takes him out of the 
red and in the green. The crop insurance industry does much 
much more than just sell and service crop insurance. It 
generates a lot of commerce, much more than an FSA program 
payment.
    Babcock is not looking at the big picture. The cost of crop 
insurance delivery is not only sustaining the Ag community, but 
the entire community. Crop insurance payments enable the farm 
sector to maintain the same moderate standard of living, which 
in turn, sustains the rest of the economy. I lived through the 
farm crisis of the 1980's it was not fun. If we would have had 
crop insurance as we know it today in the 79-83, the whole face 
of agriculture, and the country would be different. What 
happened to the Ag community in the 1980's has taken 25 years 
to recover. If we had not had crop insurance as we know it 
today, in the last 5 years, and Babcock's system had been in 
place we would have had a Ag Depression like the 1930's, much 
worse than the 1980's. If we are pushed back to a farm program 
payment system that is 25-30 years old, the Ag economy will be 
devastated.
    The puny payments that ACRE would provide through FSA would 
do nothing to sustain the Ag economy compared to what crop 
insurance has done for the whole community not just 
agriculture.
    Thank you for your consideration and response.

Lynn Hansen,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
Anita, IA,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Ann Hanus, Salem, OR

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Ann Hanus.
    City, State: Salem, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Association of Oregon Counties, Policy Manager.
    Comment: From the Association of Oregon Counties. We urge 
Members to:

    (1) Support an enhanced commitment to USDA Rural 
        Development programs in the next farm bill, especially 
        key infrastructure and business development programs 
        that support the agricultural sector and the retention 
        and attraction of new businesses. USDA Rural 
        Development's programs for water/wastewater 
        infrastructure, community facilities, broadband and 
        business development are key ingredients for county 
        economic development efforts.

    (2) Support the Administration's proposed Rural Innovation 
        Initiative or similar rural development strategies 
        which focus on making USDA's investments more efficient 
        and effective by rewarding strategic regional 
        approaches to rural development that allow counties and 
        their regional partners to focus on their local 
        economic assets, priorities and goals.

    (3) Support enhanced funding for Renewable Energy 
        development, especially programs that assist local 
        governments in their efforts to develop renewable 
        energy and increase energy efficiency.

    (4) Ensure that all farm programs recognize that youth play 
        a vital role in sustaining American agriculture and 
        rural communities. New programs and updates to old 
        programs are needed so that it is possible for young 
        and beginning farmers to survive and thrive in the 
        modern agricultural economy.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Donna Hargrove, St. Petersburg, FL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Donna Hargrove.
    City, State: St. Petersburg, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Physician.
    Comment: Please stop Monsanto's control on seed and 
farmers. If Round-Up Ready fields are to be allowed, have the 
fields labeled and separated from non-Round-Up Ready fields by 
a distant safe enough to reduce cross-pollination.
    Do not allow Monsanto to control and fine farmers who's 
crops are affected by cross pollination of Monsanto's crops 
when they did not plant any GMO seeds. Please help protect our 
organic farmers.
    Mandate labeling of all crops coming from GMO seed so the 
consumer knows and can make an informed decision on what food 
they choose to consume.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jennifer Harms, Orlando, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Jennifer Harms.
    City, State: Orlando, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small Business Owner/Mother of 2 Children.
    Comment:

    To whom it may concern,

    I am very concerned with the quality and safety of the food 
my family and I purchase and consume. As a consumer and a 
taxpayer, I would prefer to pay a little more for food that is 
high quality, non genetically modified and non corn based. If 
we are going to subsidize food, let it be for smaller organic 
and local farmers and the slow food movement. The health 
problems of this country could be greatly reduced by stopping 
the subsidy for corn and eliminating the use of corn as animal 
feed.
    I also strongly protest genetically modified crops which 
can contaminate the crops of smaller organic farmers. 
Pesticides and artificial fertilizers also need to be 
monitored. I for one, would like to know what pesticide was 
used on any fresh vegetables I am about to buy. Transparency is 
vital. American Consumers need to have this information in 
order to make healthy food choices; whether the food is grown 
in the U.S. or overseas.
    Please pass a bill which encourages full disclosure 
labeling, humane practices for animals and the workers in the 
slaughterhouses, no antibiotics or added hormones, no 
genetically modified crops or at the very least labeling of any 
use of a GMO ingredient.
    All we want is clean, healthy, sustainable food.
    Thank you.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Tim Harpster, Wapakoneta, OH

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Tim Harpster.
    City, State: Wapakoneta, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Property Appraiser.
    Comment: CLU acres and other information should be made 
available to appraisers so that the landowners can be better 
served. That is important information, and if it is not 
available, then it is more difficult to do ag appraisals and 
the appraiser has to make some assumptions.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Boyd Harris, Centralia, MO

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Boyd Harris.
    City, State: Centralia, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment:

    Greetings,

    I am writing with regard to the new Farm Bill, both as a 
producer and as a non-producer. From the real estate 
professional perspective, Section 1619 created an unreasonably 
difficult situation for the performance of a farm appraisals 
and professional farm management services. The prohibition on 
access to the data greatly impacted the ability to have all the 
information we need to correctly analyze a farm properly and 
prepare a complete appraisal report. While we can get written 
permission from the owner of the farm we are appraising, there 
is necessary data for the comparable sales which is critical to 
have to analyze the market; any limitation on this can 
negatively impact the proper preparation of an appraisal. Then, 
with the lack of the best data available, we can run into 
issues with completing a report. As we all know, in this 
current economic environment, anything we can do to shore up an 
analytical position when it comes to lending is a great aide. 
Generally, as an appraiser, we are simply concerned with 
accurate field measurements. The only financial data would be 
any CRP payments on those types of farm. Quite honestly, this 
information gets used in the analysis, goes in a file, and is 
basically forgotten. I know of no farm manager or appraiser who 
would have any reason to retain the data specific to a 
property; basically it is part of an analysis and then we move 
on to the next project. No need to retain or use the 
information for any other purpose.
    With my farm operator hat on, I would argue that for an 
appraiser or manager, someone with a legitimate reason to have 
the data, I would see no consequence to a professional having 
that information. In the long run, the Environmental Working 
Group did more damage to farmers from a public perception 
standpoint than any appraiser or manager would ever do, and EWG 
was granted access to much more information than legitimate 
professionals would need.
    I would strongly encourage the House to rescind Section 
1619, or at the very least, allow access to this information to 
professional farm managers and General Certified Real Estate 
Appraisers, legitimate professionals for whom this information 
is critical to be able to continue to provide services to 
America's farm and ranch land owners.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Patricia Harris, Raleigh, NC

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
    Name: Patricia Harris.
    City, State: Raleigh, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: State Government.
    Comment: As director for the state Division of Soil & Water 
Conservation, I value our partnership with the NRCS and the 96 
local conservation districts in North Carolina. To continue 
this strong and successful partnership, I support full funding 
of the current 2008 Farm Bill conservation programs, including 
EQIP, WHIP, CSP, FRPP and WRP, for the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill.
    I support increased funding of the NRCS Conservation 
Technical Assistance budget to enable NRCS to better address 
local resource concerns as well as Farm Bill program 
priorities.
    Finally, I support and urge you to continue the 
administration of Farm Bill conservation programs through the 
NRCS because:

     1. It will increase efficiency and accountability by 
        charging one agency to manage all aspects of the 
        programs;

    2. It will increase time spent by NRCS staff in the field 
        directly assisting customers while at the same time 
        improving overall administration and delivery of 
        programs;

    3. Of the mutual belief in the locally-led conservation 
        process that enables the conservation districts to have 
        significant input into the implementation of programs 
        to address local resource concerns;

    4. The established relationship between NRCS, the State 
        Soil & Water Conservation Commission and the State 
        Division of Soil & Water Conservation to promote 
        effective leveraging of state and federal dollars, 
        through conservation districts, to address local 
        resources needs;

    5. NRCS is recognized as the national leader for 
        conservation programs due to its science-based 
        technical knowledge to develop rules and processes for 
        successful implementation of conservation programs.

            Respectfully submitted,

Patricia K. Harris, Director,
Division of Soil & Water Conservation,
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Beth Harrison, Woodburn, OR

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 21, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: Beth Harrison.
    City, State: Woodburn, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Housewife/Volunteer.
    Comment: I have been following this issue for several 
years. So far I have not seen a reasonable approach to tracking 
livestock suggested. Having been a small farm owner in the past 
this issue is of interest to me.
    Please do not pass this bill in any form. It needs a 
complete revisit with input by small farm owners being involved 
not excluded.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jay Harter, Susquehanna, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Jay Harter.
    City, State: Susquehanna, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Biologist.
    Comment: How can you be protecting farming when your 
allowing Gas drill to take place in PA with for all practical 
purposes NO regulation. These companies drilling for GAS have 
already destroyed wells and had numerous spills. Farming needs 
Clean Water what does this do to protect it. Also you have 
allowed chemical companies such as Monsanto to patent genes 
which also threatens farming This is also outrageous NO one 
should have a patent on genes that nature produced. But I guess 
it's like everything else in this country including Congress 
it's for Sale to the highest bidder. You people in Congress 
keep proving that over and over.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Nathanial Hartway, Albion, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Nathanial Hartway.
    City, State: Albion, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I am very against farm subsidies that artificially 
prop up the price of grains. These subsidies unfairly favor 
large farms, are inefficient and make no economic sense.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kristen Haskell, Lovell, ME

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Kristen Haskell.
    City, State: Lovell, ME.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Business Owner.
    Comment: I am deeply concerned over the proliferation of 
GMO's and the power & control of Monsanto over the food supply. 
Monsanto has one goal and one vision, the goal is profit and 
the vision is world food domination. It is unacceptable that we 
have former employees working for the FDA. The FDA is supposed 
to be protecting people not corporate profits. With recent 
animal studies proving that reproductive damage is occurring, 
by the third generation of animals eating GMO products, they 
are rendered sterile, with a clear progression of fertility and 
infant mortality issues. I disagree with the fact that all of 
these foods are entering the general food supply without 
warning or labeling. It is clear that the intensive herbicide 
and pesticide processes used to germinate and maintain these 
crops are damaging the soil and environment. I am very upset 
that I can do nothing but sit by and poison myself with 
``conventional'' food since I cannot afford organics, while 
those of you that are our elected officials do nothing but make 
back room deals with this shameful organization. I remember 
what they tried to do to our local dairy farmers at Oakhurst, 
and I am aware of the tactics that they have used all over the 
country & Canada bullying farmers that don't bow down to their 
ways.
    In conclusion, it is my feeling that protecting the 
American public from & the American environment from GMO's that 
have no long term studied of the outcomes on human health and 
the ecology is your job. I simply cannot understand why like 
the EU, we have not ban these products. Does this not affect 
our GDP since we cannot export any items containing GMO's to 
the EU? These practices should be stopped before it is too 
late. We are already on the way to irreversible damage.
            Sincerely,

Kristen Haskell,
Human Lab Rat, being unwillingly experimented on through our 
public food supply.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kurt Haslett, Modesto, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Kurt Haslett.
    City, State: Modesto, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Health Care/Finance.
    Comment: I don't mind subsidizing crop insurance. I don't 
mind subsidizing water. I just don't agree with direct crop 
subsidies for crops grown or crops not grown. It distorts the 
market.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Brenda Hastings, Burton, OH

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 29, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Brenda Hastings.
    City, State: Burton, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: As a dairy producer, I recommend you look at 
Senate Bill 1645 ``Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 
2009'' and implement everything from that bill into the next 
Farm Bill. S. 1645 addresses stabilizing farm milk prices at a 
level that will provide dairy farmers with sufficient income to 
cover their cost of production by simplifying the milk pricing 
system. This proposal consolidates four classes into two; Class 
I and Class II. Class I differentials would remain the same in 
all federal orders and Class II would include all manufactured 
dairy products with a minimum farm price of the national 
average cost of production.
    The current milk pricing system is outdated and easily 
manipulated by a small number of buyers. Any new dairy policy 
must include a revised milk pricing system which is based on 
the dairyman's cost of production. A new milk pricing system is 
the only meaningful change that can stabilize the future of 
dairy in the U.S.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Caroline Hasty, Denver, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Caroline Hasty.
    City, State: Denver, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Book Keeper/Home Maker.
    Comment: Please make organic farming a top priority in the 
2012 Farm Bill. Organic farming is an opportunity to not only 
produce healthier food, but to move towards more sustainable 
agriculture, and decrease the negative environmental impact of 
conventional ag. I live by some of the most valuable farmland 
in the State of Iowa. Increasingly I am distressed by the 
unsustainable farming practices I observe, and the agricultural 
policies that created and support these practices. Please 
invest in programs that will support conservation and help 
farmers transition to more organic practices. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Debbie Hauff, Harvey, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Debbie Hauff.
    City, State: Harvey, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Specialty Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: The crop insurance program is working for farmers. 
Please don't allow Congress to Cut any Subsidy to the farmer 
for the purchase of Crop Insurance. The farmer needs to 
purchase crop insurance for Ag loans.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Chris Hauserman, Clay Center, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 17, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Chris Hauserman.
    City, State: Clay Center, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment: Crop insurance is the program that works the best, 
you could subsidize the higher levels more and require everyone 
to use it. On our farm it is an invaluable tool because we use 
it to market our bushels ahead of harvest. Any type of county 
plan that has been talked about would not be useful to many 
producers.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Robert Hays, Malvern, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Robert Hays.
    City, State: Malvern, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I urge you to reinstate the use of the CLU data 
into Section 1619. As a producer and also a custom applicator, 
the ability to use this information for producers reports as to 
where and when I have applied pesticides is crucial. It allows 
the ability for giving us all a more timely, accurate and cost 
effective method of reporting information. As a producer I see 
nothing wrong with having that information available as there 
is not any personal information as to ownership, wetland or CRP 
program payments or compliance information. The CLU information 
is used by a wide range of support businesses and will make the 
ability for them to get this kind of information very difficult 
if you choose to not reinstate the use of the CLU data. Again I 
urge you to reinstate the use of the CLU data.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Douglas Healy, Norris City, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Douglas Healy.
    City, State: Norris City, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I would like to ask for your support in the 
reinstatement of public access to Common Land Unit (CLU) data 
to the NRCS Data Gateway especially due to the following 
circumstances:
    USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
    As I see it as a farmland appraiser, this lack of access 
hurts the very ones whom I believe this action was meant to 
protect which is the farmer producers. By denying this access 
to nothing more than field boundaries and acreages to the many 
individuals and businesses who work with farmers it has created 
time delays and additional cost that are not necessary.
    Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Dana Hedberg, Atwater, MN

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Dana Hedberg.
    City, State: Atwater, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I would like to have the CLU borders reinstated as 
public download, because with all things we do on the farm with 
GPS technology it is nice to go get field data right from a 
third party website, we also do custom application work using 
VRA technology it is necessary to have all the field data in 
the GPS equipment to make the VRA work correctly it is every 
ones best interest to make this info public again it will cost 
everyone a lot less money in the future by implementing GPS 
tech in there farming operations and with out the CLU data it 
make use the GPS tech we have much harder and more time 
consuming. Thank you for your time.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Melanie Hedlund, Lexington, MA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Melanie Hedlund.
    City, State: Lexington, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Charitable Trust Administrator.
    Comment: Please stop Monsanto!!!
    Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the standard 
for Organic Food.
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Please promote Natural Healthy Foods and Products.
    Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive.
    Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our 
future.
    Help educate consumers about nutrition and ways to buy and 
cook healthy food their families.
    Thank you for your efforts . . .
                                ------                                


                Comment of R. Bruce Heiden, Buckeye, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 07, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: R. Bruce Heiden.
    City, State: Buckeye, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Crop Consultant, Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: The farm bill as it was written in 2008 needs to 
stay intact. The safety net as currently provided by federal 
crop insurance works.
    It provides collateral security to lenders who finance 
production agriculture all across the United States. A number 
of farmers would not be able to borrow money from lending 
institutions in adequate amounts to farm at a profitable level 
without this crop insurance and an assignment of funds for 
security to lenders in place. In certain situations, a number 
of farmers would not be able to borrow any crop financing at 
all without it.
    I keep hearing and reading of the ACRE program. It 
certainly does not cost as much as current coverages, but it 
also does not provide nearly the same coverage and amount of 
benefits in event of a loss, either to the farmer, or to his 
bankers and financing people.
    The bottom line is the system as it is structured has been 
working very well for a long time. If it is not broken, why 
apply a series of unneeded fixes?
    It appears to me at times that there is more interest at 
some levels in balancing the federal budget at any cost, and 
funding social programs, than providing a farm bill that is 
functional to the farmers who have been depending on it so 
heavily. Agriculture depends on this. Please do not let 
politics muddy this water.
    Look at what the prevented planting provision has 
accomplished recently in the state of California during the 
severe water shortage, and also in Texas during the extended 
dry periods with little rainfall.
    Federal crop insurance also responded very responsibly in 
the past couple of years when the Midwest suffered from too 
much rainfall and flooding. In certain areas, farmers had grown 
a crop, complete with all the needed financial inputs, but were 
unable to harvest portions of the crop, and in some instances, 
none of it at all. In some cases, quality was adversely 
affected because of all the excess moisture. Federal crop 
insurance was their salvation.
    My business cell phone is [Redacted] if further and more in 
depth discussion is desired.

R. Bruce Heiden,
Buckeye, Arizona.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lance Heikens, Lake Park, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Lance Heikens.
    City, State: Lake Park, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: We urge you to support the reinstatement of the 
CLU data into Section 1619. The CLU data provides a huge 
benefit for businesses like ours who work closely with 
producers to estimate inputs needs and cost along with accurate 
yield information which we provide to both crop insurance 
companies and the local Farm Service office. Should you have 
any questions please don't hesitate to contact my office. 
(Iowa's only remaining alfalfa dehydrating plant).
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Scott Heimes, Worthing, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: Scott Heimes.
    City, State: Worthing, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I understand the need for privacy policies, 
however I can see no issues with allowing the public to see CLU 
data. This has created a great inefficiency to a number of 
professions including, crop insurers, appraisers, banks, 
managers, producers, and irrigation info.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Michael Heine, Chase, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Michael Heine.
    City, State: Chase, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Our family farm (My wife and I) have no off farm 
income, strictly ag income. We are no-till (100%) and 
diversified growing alfalfa, wheat, corn, soybeans, grain 
sorghum, and sunflowers. We have both irrigation and dryland. 
We start harvest in early May and harvest until Thanksgiving. 
Neither Acre nor Sure work on this farm. We have wasted 
considerable amounts in NAP payments to verify the failings of 
the Sure program. Acre has little value outside of a 
monoculture. Direct payments are so outdated that in 2009 they 
amounted to only .16% (.0016) of our gross income. This leaves 
Crop Insurance. Because we constantly have crops at risk to the 
weather extremes here in Kansas, Crop Insurance is the only 
risk management tool available to me in the present farm bill. 
If I was only allowed one portion of the farm bill to be 
carried over to the next bill it would have to be crop 
insurance, with direct payments a distant second. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Paule Helland, Mapleton, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Paule Helland.
    City, State: Mapleton, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment:

    Greetings:

    Need to have public access (CLU) Common Land Unit.
    Daily duties in servicing customers require having access. 
Used in record-keeping, recommendations, servicing customers 
and their farm units.
            Regards,

PCH.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Roger Heller, Olivia, MN

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Roger Heller.
    City, State: Olivia, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dry Beans & Peas, Field Crops, Specialty Crops, 
Other.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment:

    Congressman:

    Please permit ag. professionals to access FSA information 
such as aerial photos, tillable acres and other data on farms 
so they can do their job. When the Environmental Working Group 
can access personal data such as the amount of direct payments 
on my farm but the local agland broker cannot obtain basic 
information on farmland so he can properly market the land, 
obviously the ag policy is wrong. Please correct this problem 
in the next farm bill.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Deloris Heminger, Dannebrog, NE

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Deloris Heminger.
    City, State: Dannebrog, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: County Assessor.
    Comment: I support reinstatement of public access of the 
Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway, 
especially due to the following circumstances:
    USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis
                                ------                                


              Comment of Robert Hendricks, Charleston, SC

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
    Name: Robert Hendricks.
    City, State: Charleston, SC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Sales.
    Comment: Get rid of the Monsanto monopoly and end genetic 
engineering of foods. Support the small farmer. Don't allow 
anyone who has ever had a connection to big agriculture 
(Monsanto) to serve in any high level government agriculture 
position. End the subsidies and stop flooding the markets with 
our subsidized grain.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Maggie Henry, Bessemer, PA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Maggie Henry.
    City, State: Bessemer, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Stop using tax dollars to subsidize huge farms 
growing corn and soybeans so that even bigger food 
conglomerates and process the grain into something no one 
should be eating anyway. Organic fruits and vegetables is what 
you should be subsidizing! America's health depends on it!
                                ------                                


            Comment of Elizabeth Hernberg, Mechanicville, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Elizabeth Hernberg.
    City, State: Mechanicville, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Stay at Home Mom.
    Comment: If Congress were to change even a small amount of 
the World War II era subsidy funding which is currently given 
to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and 
instead put that funding into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition 
would be enormous. While these subsidies of so called 
``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they were 
first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Linda Hezel, Kearney, MO

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Linda Hezel.
    City, State: Kearney, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Nuts, Poultry/poultry products, Specialty 
Crops, Vegetables, Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Consumers want un-poisoned, nutrient dense food to 
eat. Consequently, organic farming is one of the fastest 
growing segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food 
retail market.
    Organic farming systems conserve water, improve air 
quality, and build soil quality while providing high quality 
food.
    In order to increase the U.S. organic sector you must 
invest in programs that support organic farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth and 
depth of knowledge about organic farming systems and provide 
that knowledge to farmers and consumers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits (to agriculture as well as their 
communities) of organic farming systems and provide technical 
support for organic farmers who want to improve on-farm 
conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices.
    Crop Insurance Programs that compensate organic farmers for 
GMO contamination and restore organic capability. They should 
be funded by the bioscience industries who are contaminating 
agricultural systems with genetically engineered substances.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Rich Hickman, Papillion, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Rich Hickman.
    City, State: Papillion, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: This information is very helpful in my profession 
as a farm manager for clients and other producers. I look 
forward to the CLU information being updated and available to 
services such as AgriData.
    Thanks for your consideration of this request.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Sara Hignite, Dallas, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Sara Hignite.
    City, State: Dallas, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Museum Professional.
    Comment: I believe the current allocations of funding are 
outdated and desperately need to be changed.
    If Congress were to change even a small amount of the World 
War II era subsidy funding which is currently given to large 
commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and instead put 
that funding into smaller scale, organic and local agricultural 
endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition would be 
enormous. While these subsidies of so called ``staple'' crops 
may have made sense at the time they were first suggested in 
the early 20th century, the Farm Bill subsidy program as it is 
currently carried out actually contribute to declining child 
health due to its support for agribusiness such as the corn 
syrup producers and industrial meat and dairy production. 
Increased federal support for local, organic diversified 
agricultural would go a long way to ensuring that the local 
school districts have the ability to purchase and use 
healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats in 
school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Jaque Hill, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Jaque Hill.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Homemaker.
    Comment: I am a supporter of quality, organic food and 
sustainable farming practices. A strong food bill which 
supports local farmers, no use of pesticides, subsidies for 
fruits and vegetables instead of grains, and a firm stance 
against GMO's and all companies attempting to infiltrate our 
precious food supply with this dangerous, short-sighted 
technology is necessary for the health of the people, our 
nation, and the world as a whole.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Sarah Himes, Lansing, MI

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 12, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Sarah Himes.
    City, State: Lansing, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Not for profit Project Director.
    Comment:

    Good morning,

    I would like to add some feedback as the 2012 Farm Bill 
moves forward; please protect and strengthen SNAP. I live in 
Michigan, and as the director of a SNAP outreach project, I see 
first-hand how important SNAP benefits are to our state. The 
increase in benefits that the ARRA provided has made the 
difference between an empty cupboard and a full stomach for 
thousands of people in Michigan. Please do not roll back 
benefits provided under the ARRA. Instead, make SNAP benefits 
adequate enough to obtain a healthy diet consistently.
            Thank you,

Sarah Himes,
Lansing, MI.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Dixon Hitch, Malta, MT

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Dixon Hitch.
    City, State: Malta, MT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Chemical sales and custom application.
    Comment: Please fix the Section 1619 problem of the 2008 
Farm Bill. This section restricted access to CLU Data from the 
public, and has been a burden to producers and all of us who 
work for the producers.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and DOES NOT contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.

            Thank you,

Dixon Hitch.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Bill Hoag, Beallsville, OH

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 01, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Bill Hoag.
    City, State: Beallsville, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I raise and develop sheep, particularly the hair 
sheep class. I am full time professional over 15 years in Utah, 
Texas and now Ohio. USDA AMS has done nothing to promote the 
fastest growth in the sheep business the past 15+ years, which 
is hair sheep production, per Dr. Charles Parker Emeritus Ohio 
State University. Benefits of hair sheep, never the need to 
shear or dock these class, the grow a longer winter coat in the 
fall like cattle and then shed it off in the Spring. The meat 
is a sweet mild flavored meat. Hair sheep can out produce wool 
types in terms of number of lambs over the lifespan of the ewe. 
Leather the U.S. Military needs over 2 million feet of this 
fine leather for such things as U.S. Fighter helmet linings, 
gloves etc. . . . most of these skins go in the landfills from 
the packing houses. Since hair sheep can produce lambs all year 
around versus wool sheep which cannot, the largest emerging 
markets such as ethnic buyers hair sheep fit the demand and 
allow a large window of marketability. The American Lamb Board, 
they have the cart before the horse . . . the demand for lamb 
has exceeded the supply in this country for 50 years, not 
enough producers, thus they promote Australian Lamb and New 
Zealand Lamb since the U.S. doesn't produce enough. The sheep 
industry biggest problem is dependency on taxpayer money versus 
diversification and promoting such diversification along with 
USDA AMS due to lobbying. You may want to read Trends in the 
U.S. Sheep Industry, (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/
sheeptrends/aib787.pdf) USDA ERS (Agriculture Economic Research 
Service) * publication ``Trends in the U.S. Sheep Industry'', 
that is if you can find a copy as the Senator Bennett, Utah was 
lobbied and did not allow the publication to be produced in 
hardcopy. The author of the said publication told me it was the 
most scrutinized publication ERS had ever produced. Barry 
Carpenter USDA AMS ex Deputy told me the first time I talked to 
him, that hair sheep was a great idea, never heard a word back 
from him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document referred to is retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PS: Why should the producers who have undervalued costs to 
graze their sheep on public lands where the majority of sheep 
producers need to graze them on private lands? Feed costs are 
the largest expense in production. Final note: If the sheep 
industry and USDA AMS would have encouraged diversification in 
the sheep industry from wool to hair sheep production 15 years 
ago instead of blackball hair sheep producers things today 
would have happened a lot earlier and the supply of lamb would 
be much greater, also what happened to all the sheep producers 
the past 20 years? They quit, died or got out of it due to 
failure to promote a less labor and more cost effective type of 
sheep production plus a more consumer friendly lamb meat.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Louise Hodges, Hanford, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Louise Hodges.
    City, State: Hanford, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Civil Servant.
    Comment: As a Kings County resident I understand the value 
of agriculture to our economy both local and national. I 
vigorously disapprove of the subsidies provided to large 
agribusiness. Subsidies encourage leaving land fallow so as to 
ration the amount of a given product or to grow so much that 
the overabundance then must be stored and we have to pay for 
storage. I have friends who farm on a large scale and I know 
how very well they live. And as much as they complain about the 
difficulties and uncertainty of farming they insist they would 
never do anything else. It is quite normal to see large, very 
expensive SUVs in our area with license plates bearing some 
variation to indicate that dairies have been very good to the 
owner. I recall reading in the paper last year that the Farm 
Bureau was honoring the Family Farmer of the Year. He farms 
9,000, that is right, 9 thousand, acres. Does the Dept. of 
Agriculture even have a definition of what is a ``Family'' 
farm? Recently there has been a great deal of moaning from 
local dairymen about the abysmal price of milk. This from 
people who in this area, for the most part have at least 1,000 
or more cows. For artificial insemination they also learned to 
distinguish sperm that would produce female calves and were 
eagerly breeding just females. Now they complain about over 
production and a few months ago were slaughtering cows as a way 
to cut production and support prices. Despite this there was a 
very recent article in the Hanford Sentinel about a dairyman 
wanting permission to enlarge his facility so he could house 
more cows. That's illogical. And by the way, all those Happy 
Cows From California commercials we see are, if not outright 
lies, they are certainly misleading. The only cows I've ever 
seen in pastures have been in Northern California and not too 
many there. If we must have subsidies why aren't they going to 
smaller farms to encourage them? Of course there is an argument 
to be made that if you cannot make a living at a particular 
profession, you should change jobs. Agribusiness is good for 
BUSINESS. It produces a lot of cheap food and all too often 
despoils the environment. Industrialized hog, and chicken farms 
are terrible for the environment and are dreadfully inhumane. 
And while the food is cheap it often is not as healthy as that 
grown in a conventional (traditional) manner without so many 
chemicals. Resistance to antibiotics has become a health hazard 
because most of our beef is fed antibiotics as a way to protect 
the animals against disease and shorten the time it takes to 
make a calf ready for slaughter. Living here amongst this 
abundance and seeing how it is produced I am very concerned.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Robert Hodgetts, Carnegie, PA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 03, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Robert Hodgetts.
    City, State: Carnegie, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Bioenergy.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I cannot express enough the importance of the 
Alternative Fuels Mixture Tax Credit. The prohibition of the 
black liquor tax credit was a step in the right direction. 
However, there are legitimate uses for alternative fuel 
mixtures in providing clean energy and lessening our reliance 
on fossil fuels. As you discuss the biodiesel tax credit please 
do not overlook the Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit. A five 
year extension of both the Alternative Fuels Mixture Credit and 
the Biodiesel Tax Credit will provide green jobs, reduce our 
carbon emissions and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Bill Hoekstra, Oakdale, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 06, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Bill Hoekstra.
    City, State: Oakdale, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: The dairy farmers share of the dairy foods dollar 
has declined greatly over the last few years with record 
profits by large food processors and retailers. The price 
received by the dairy farmer at present is not adequate for a 
sustainable industry.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Bud Hoekstra, San Andreas, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Bud Hoekstra.
    City, State: San Andreas, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Research into biocontrols, BMP's, varieties of 
cover crops, etc.
    Organic sector of the economy is fast-growing.
    Organic agriculture is cleaner on the environment, and less 
burdensome on the resources.
    Organic methods are under-researched. Example: what is the 
best perimeter trap crop for cucumbers? What is the best 
variety of rose for commercial rose hips (processed into 
syrup)? What is the best cover crop for organic no-till 
operations?
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Steve Hoesli, Delphos, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: Steve Hoesli.
    City, State: Delphos, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy Dept. Manager.
    Comment: Maps are very useful for application accuracy in 
our business. updating them is very important to doing our job.
                                ------                                


                   Comments of Quint Hofer, Huron, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 10, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Quint Hofer.
    City, State: Huron, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Business Banker.
    Comment: Currently negotiations are ongoing with Risk 
Management Agency (RMA) in regards to cutting back the 
government's reimbursement to Crop Insurance Companies. It has 
been stated that if these cuts happen then current Crop 
Insurance Agents will be earning 8% which is over half of what 
is earned now. Do you feel that these cuts are in the best 
interest of the crop insurance program and won't affect the 
administration of it? They are also proposing caps for 
commissions. Are there floor limits as well? Are there proposed 
cuts within RMA as well?

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Quint Hofer.
    City, State: Huron, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Business Banker/Crop Insurance Manager.
    Comment: I am writing concerning the 2012 proposed farm 
bill. My son (11 yrs. old) and I attended the meeting in Sioux 
Falls. As we sat a heard the testimonies of the presenters it 
was brought from many Representatives of how we can get the 
next generation into agriculture opportunities. As I thought 
about this I thought of a topic that was not brought up. 
Inheritance Taxes. It was not brought up and I believe it is a 
big part of helping the next generation in agriculture. Raising 
Estate tax for farm families is not the answer and should be 
taken seriously.
    Also during the testimonies most were the same. The current 
farm bill is too complex which is evident only 18% of SD 
producers signed up for it. Crop insurance was also brought up 
as and important part of risk management each producer uses in 
their operation. Even as I write this the new SRA is being 
negotiated which includes further cuts back to crop insurance 
companies. If the current proposal happens crop insurance 
agents will earn half of what they currently are receiving. If 
that becomes true I believe it will affect the future success 
of the program because there will not be much incentive to 
continue in the business based on the liability, responsibility 
for the agents. It is unfair to compare crop insurance to other 
lines of insurance since it is not comparing apples to apples. 
The workload and time involvement are not the same! So I trust 
when the new farm bill is looked at these things will be 
considered so maybe my son can be involved in agriculture in 
some way!
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Brian Hoff, Wykoff, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Brian Hoff.
    City, State: Wykoff, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser & Assessor.
    Comment: It is imperative that you support the 
reinstatement of the CLU data into Section 1619. The services 
provided to farmers/producers need to TIMELY, ACCURATE, & COST-
EFFECTIVE.
    CLU data is used by producers & a wide range of support 
businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, financial 
service providers, farm managers, irrigation & tiling 
installers, & aerial, chemical fertilizer & manure applicators 
for accurate & timely records & procedures.
    The CLU data only contains field boundary information and 
DOES NOT contain compliance info, wetland, CRP or ownership 
information.
    Please support reinstating public access of the Common Land 
Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Sid Holderly, Reynolds, IN

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Sid Holderly.
    City, State: Reynolds, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: The field boundary and yield data is very useful 
is providing good farm land appraisals with good comparable 
properties. The accurate measurements of field area (those 
acres actually farmed) provides better and more consistent data 
across county and state lines. Many counties still do not have 
electronically accessible soil and field data or any data at 
all. Some counties still use the bead method of measuring acres 
and not modern plotting methods. Many new land slits or 
combinations of tracts do not get accurately posted to property 
cards or on-line sources for many months, sometimes up to 2 
years. Ag land tracts often sell by fields and with the 
AgriData field based information these (split/combined) 
transactions can be more accurately estimated on a timely 
basis. The FSA data increases accuracy and viability of Farm 
appraisal reports.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Tammy Holloway, Vale, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Tammy Holloway.
    City, State: Vale, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraisal Service Representative.
    Comment: Please reinstate the CLU data which contains field 
boundary and acreage information. We use this information on a 
daily basis to help identify land classes and land use for 
appraisals and on comparable sales. Accurate acreages help 
provide accurate appraisals and analysis of sales. Many 
appraisals are used to obtain loans for those in the 
agriculture industry. Easy access to this information speeds up 
time and reduces cost of appraisals, which benefits the 
agricultural producers. Thank you for your consideration.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Sheldon Holsinger, Flora, IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Sheldon Holsinger.
    City, State: Flora, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As real estate appraiser, I need access re-
instated to up-to-date CLU data/field boundary information in 
Section 1619. Note:

   USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jeffrey Honas, Aurora, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Jeffrey Honas.
    City, State: Aurora, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: As well as being a cow/calf producer I am also a 
real estate appraiser. I would like the new farm bill to 
reinstate public access of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to 
the NRCS Data Gateway. This information provide accurate up to 
date information with regards to ag land appraisals.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Gary Hoots, Fargo, ND

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Gary Hoots.
    City, State: Fargo, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access of the Common Land 
Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway. We as ag lenders 
utilize this data to evaluate RE values, which saves our 
customers from unnecessary fees to purchase or refinance 
smaller parcels of farm real estate.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Ruth Hopkins, Le Grand, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Ruth Hopkins.
    City, State: Le Grand, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Full-Time Student.
    Comment: I feel that the farm bill is a great thing for the 
San Joaquin Valley because today Americans are attempting to 
improve in healthy eating and prevent life-threatening 
illnesses, i.e., cancer. This valley produces vegetables and 
fruits high in certain nutrients which are necessary to healthy 
bodies. The American people desire longevity and healthy foods 
today. This Valley has always strived to please the American 
people, and needs the resources to continue producing for the 
United States.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Fred Horihan, Spring Grove, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Fred Horihan.
    City, State: Spring Grove, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser in Assessor's Office and Farmer.
    Comment: I would strongly encourage the reinstatement of 
the CLU data. We used it extensively here in the assessor's 
office. Land mapping is big with us. We're definitely are not 
out to divulge information that's sensitive. It's a major 
portion of our job. We have a heck of a time just getting 
statements out and being able to get people to respond as it 
is. This is complicated by the fact we've got several thousand 
ag parcels, and to get in contact with every one we need is 
overwhelming time wise when it was available at the click of a 
button. The public comes in and they get very annoyed too, when 
it's all govt. work and we can't share info. It just doesn't 
make sense that we can't get the CLU info without all the 
hoops. Time is money.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Brian Houser, New Albany, OH

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Brian Houser.
    City, State: New Albany, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Transportation.
    Comment: I support more funding for pesticide reduction 
efforts as well as fertilizer use reduction. We need to make 
faring more organic and sustainable.
                                ------                                


     Comment of Housing Assistance Council (HAC), Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Housing Assistance Council (HAC).
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Rural housing support organization.
    Comment: The Housing Assistance Council is strongly 
supportive of the Farm Bill and U.S. agricultural policy. HAC 
supports continuation of a robust and wide-ranging rural 
development title in the bill. Rural economic and community 
development are vital to agriculture and to the non-farm areas 
of rural life. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has very 
important programs for rural development, which we feel should 
be continued and possibly expanded (both in the Farm Bill and 
in other legislative authorizing arenas).
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jammie Howard, Traer, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Jammie Howard.
    City, State: Traer, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified Appraiser.
    Comment: I'm a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in 
the State of Iowa and I cover the eastern \2/3\ of the state 
doing farm appraisals. I starting appraising farms in 1993 and 
have been very active in the occupation ever since. When 
appraising farms we rely heavily on the land uses. In order to 
determine the land use on the subject property and the 
comparable sales I rely on aerial maps and owners statements. 
When talking with the producers they state what they feel they 
are farming, but sometimes that can be bias because they are 
either wanting a higher or lower value. To get an unbiased idea 
of acres I use the aerial maps. If these maps are not released 
to me and are not updated on my aerial map program I do not 
always have an accurate number to work with. I hope you change 
the farm bill to once again allow us to get aerial maps that 
show the actual amount of acres in production. This information 
is very helpful in having an accurate appraisal. I appreciate 
your time in this matter.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Priscilla Huang, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Priscilla Huang.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Assoc. Policy Director.
    Comment: As an organization dedicated to improving the 
health and well-being of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and 
Pacific Islanders, the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health 
Forum (APIAHF) seeks to ensure that the reauthorization of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill of 2012) 
removes barriers to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance 
Program (SNAP) that prevent lawfully-residing immigrants and 
their family members from enrolling in this vital anti-hunger 
program. We believe that the Farm Bill of 2012 must include the 
following provisions to mitigate these harmful barriers.

    1. Fairness for legal immigrants. Eliminate the five year 
        waiting period imposed on immigrant adults under 
        current law. Hunger does not wait five years, nor 
        should lawfully-residing families have to wait before 
        gaining access to SNAP. Households headed by immigrants 
        work at the same rate as U.S. citizens, but are twice 
        as likely to be poor. Approximately 12% of Asian 
        Americans and 16% of Native Hawaiians and Pacific 
        Islanders live in poverty, and almost 2-in-3 Asian 
        Americans is foreign-born. In these challenging 
        economic times, no U.S. household should have to suffer 
        from food insecurity due to arbitrary waiting periods.

    2. Clarify eligibility for immigrant families with 
        children. Eliminate sponsor deeming rules for SNAP 
        households that include children. Over half of young, 
        low-income children of immigrants live in households 
        that experience hunger or other food-related problems. 
        Most of these children (80%) are U.S. citizens. The 
        existing eligibility rules are confusing and complex. 
        Although lawfully-residing immigrant children are 
        exempt from waiting periods and deeming rules, many 
        households with mixed-immigration status individuals do 
        not participate in the program even though they are 
        eligible. In fact, U.S. citizen children in noncitizen 
        households experienced the greatest drop in 
        participation rates in SNAP/food stamps from 1994-2004 
        among all eligible participants.

    3. Simplify administrative reporting. The Department of 
        Homeland Security's requirement that SNAP agencies 
        collect data on sponsored immigrants who would go 
        hungry or homeless without assistance (the 
        ``indigence'' exemption from deeming) should take the 
        form of an aggregate report that omits individual 
        names. This alternative would meet federal statistical 
        needs while ensuring that eligible hungry families are 
        able to secure assistance without fear.

    We urge Congress to reauthorize the Farm Bill and 
strengthen the SNAP program to meet the needs of hungry 
families and promote program participation.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Gregg Hubner, Avon, SD

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Gregg Hubner.
    City, State: Avon, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I urge you to support the reinstatement of the CLU 
data into Section 1619. The data provided from the maps is 
paramount to the work I do in appraising agricultural land. 
Without that data, my work becomes less accurate and the client 
I work for receives a poorer product. We need access to the CLU 
data.
            Thanks,

Gregg Hubner.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Dale Hudson, Brewster, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Dale Hudson.
    City, State: Brewster, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: I am an agricultural producer and a certified real 
estate appraiser who works almost exclusively with farmers and 
farm managers. It would be extremely helpful to both me and to 
my clients, farmers if the CLU acres were made available again 
to us appraisers. Often times I have to request the client to 
obtain information from FSA office for his benefit. This 
usually requires a trip to the office which they dislike doing 
during busy times. So I would ask that you give this serious 
consideration, as there is no breech of privacy contained 
within the CLU acres.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Julie Hudson, Waymart, PA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Julie Hudson.
    City, State: Waymart, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Thank you for taking comments about the next farm 
bill. Everyone eats, but not everyone realizes how the farm 
bill affects the food system. As a farmer, local food activist, 
and an eater, I truly hope that the next farm bill encourages 
more of the type of agriculture people all over the U.S. have 
been clamoring for during the past decade.
    The public has realized that the overproduction of 
commodity crops such as corn and soybeans has been detrimental 
to our health (cheap source of sweeteners and fillers that show 
up in all processed foods), our environment (run-off into 
waterways creates problems for wildlife and fisherman), and to 
reducing hunger around the world (cheap commodities are dumped 
in developing countries, which puts those farmers out of 
business and creates food insecurity).
    We need more healthy foods (more fruits & veg. need to be 
grown in our country to meet the food pyramid, strive for five 
and Let's Move-type public health goals of our nation) and we 
need to reduce agricultural pollution and address hunger here 
and abroad.
    I urge you to stop subsidizing row crops and help farmers 
transition to more vegetable production (allow for planting 
flexibility, encourage organic transition, make crop insurance 
fair for veg. and organic producers); transition to grass-based 
livestock production, which is better for health and 
environment (increase funding for Conservation Stewardship 
Program and consider green payments program more like what they 
have in Europe); and support the development of more local 
markets. We need more competition in the marketplace, so we 
need to level the playing field for small farmers and 
especially ``agriculture of the middle.'' Also, there are many 
young farmers who want to either stay on the family farm or 
enter into farming, but they will need help to get a good start 
with a profitable operation. Beginning farmer programs are very 
important if we want to continue feeding ourselves.
    I appreciate your attention to these details. Let's take 
advantage of all the excitement around food and help farmers 
transition to different ways of production that will meet the 
demands of consumers while helping to keep farmers on their 
land and creating environmental benefits.
    Thank you!

Julie Hudson.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Elizabeth Humstone, Charlotte, VT

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 02, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Elizabeth Humstone.
    City, State: Charlotte, VT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: City Planner.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee,

    I support an enhanced commitment to USDA Rural Development 
programs in the next Farm Bill, especially programs that 
support downtown revitalization with a focus on business 
development and retention, rehabilitation of community 
facilities, heritage tourism, and housing. These programs 
foster sustainable rural development and job creation.
    I support the Obama Administration's proposed Rural 
Innovation Initiative (RII) or similar rural development 
strategies which focus on making USDA's investments more 
efficient and effective by rewarding strategic regional 
approaches to rural development that allow regions to build on 
their unique assets, including their heritage and culture. 
Rural development strategies could be a source of support for 
regional, ``heritage-based'' projects that incorporate 
initiatives such as Main Street revitalization, heritage 
tourism, farm building preservation, and agricultural 
conservation. I am from a rural state--Vermont. I have seen 
these programs work. We need your support for this to continue.
    I support funding for the Historic Barn Preservation 
Program. Barns are not only important historic structures of 
rural America, they are also practical, functional buildings 
that can be rehabilitated to meet modern agricultural needs. 
This program is designed to help document and rehabilitate them 
for productive use. My sister started the Barn Again! program 
that has proven that these buildings can be adapted to 
contemporary farming practices.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Elaine Hursen, Charleston, SC

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Elaine Hursen.
    City, State: Charleston, SC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Freelance Personal Trainer.
    Comment: Factory farms are destroying our health, as well 
as the welfare of animals.
    Consumer choice regarding food is almost nonexistent, as 
97% of the food produced comes from only a handful of 
industrial farms that confine animals to densely that they 
can't even turn around or escape their own waste.
    Speaking of waste, the environment is also being destroyed 
by Factory farm run-off.
    Family farms that treat their animals well and understand 
organic and sustainable farming are being run OUT of business 
by these factory farms. These small businesses are being run 
into the ground because they can't compete with the large-scale 
production methods--nor do they want to, because those methods 
are cruel, inhumane, and unhealthy. Family farms actually care 
about their animals and their customers, and welcome anti-
cruelty legislation because it will make the market more fair 
and ethical.
    PLEASE support ANIMALS, PUBLIC SAFETY and SMALL BUSINESS by 
voting for a Farm Bill that lessens the influence of Big 
Agribusiness lobbyists, improves the quality of school lunches, 
respects consumer choice, protects animals, and supports small 
business.
            Thank you,

Elaine Hursen.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of David Hursh, Lewisburg, PA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: David Hursh.
    City, State: Lewisburg, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Editor.
    Comment: I am not an expert on agricultural policy. I am 
simply a citizen who is very concerned about agriculture-
related issues such good nutrition and land and water 
conservation. I strongly urge the Committee to adopt policies 
that:

   promote the production of whole and healthy foods 
        and discourage the overproduction of highly processed 
        foods such as wheat flour and corn syrup.

   discourage the production of corn and other food 
        crops for energy purposes and encourage the production 
        of non-food energy crops.

   promote farming methods that protect our land, water 
        and other natural resources.

    Thank you very much for considering my views. I trust that 
you will take them into account.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jenny Huston, Oakland, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Jenny Huston.
    City, State: Oakland, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chef.
    Comment:

   Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
        segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
        food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. 
        food retail market.

   Organic farming systems have the potential to 
        conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil 
        quality while providing high quality food and fiber for 
        consumers here and abroad.

   If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue 
        to grow and thrive, we need to invest in programs that 
        support organic farmers, including:

     Research and Extension Programs that expand 
            the breadth of knowledge about organic farming 
            systems and provide that knowledge to organic 
            farmers.

    We need to support:
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of William Huston, Dresden, OH

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: William Huston.
    City, State: Dresden, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: SURE and NAP need to be fixed. My suggestion is 
that for SURE NAP crops should not have the coverage election 
nor the price election reductions. We only have one choice for 
insurance and it is CAT level coverage. With NAP crops expected 
revenue is calculated two years in advance and is a 5 yr. 
Olympic average. The actual revenue is calculated using the 
National Average Market Price from that year. Can't the NAP 
guarantee prices be set using the previous year's NAMP?
    Conservation programs should be administered by FSA not 
NRCS. In our county, CSP sign-up information was sent to only 
20 producers, the EQIP specialty crop program is also 
administered by NRCS and no sign-up information was announced. 
If it were not for growers magazines I would have not known 
about it. NRCS is great at technical work but awful at 
administration. FSA is great at administration and they already 
have the personnel to handle general sign-ups. Let the 
Administrative Agency handle what they're good at and the 
technical agency handle the technical side of the conservation 
programs.
    FSA could also be a clearing house for immigration issues. 
Vegetable/fruit and Dairy farmers could register how many 
employees they need, FSA could validate legal immigrants and 
provide lists to farmers. Current rules are too difficult for 
medium size farms to struggle through. Often documents that 
look okay to us are forged.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Clarice Hutchens, Ballwin, MO

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Clarice Hutchens.
    City, State: Ballwin, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Scientist.
    Comment: Please include organic farming in the farm bill. 
This approach has a strong market demand and is one of the 
fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail market.
    Organic farming goes with nature, which is good for people 
as well as replenishing the earth by conserving water, 
improving air quality, and build soil quality through the use 
of rich compost and not synthetic fertilizers.
    To support organic farming, we need to include incentives 
in the farm bill such as:

    (1) Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth 
        of knowledge about organic farming systems and provide 
        that knowledge to organic farmers.

    (2) Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for 
        the conservation benefits of organic farming systems 
        and provide technical support for organic farmers who 
        want to improve on-farm conservation.

    (3) Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
        farmers who want to transition to organic farming 
        practices but don't know how.

    (4) Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers 
        and reimburse them for any losses based on the organic 
        market value of the crop, not average conventional 
        prices.

    Thank you for your consideration.

Clarice Hutchens.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Sandra Hutcheson, Saint Augustine, FL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Sandra Hutcheson.
    City, State: Saint Augustine, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Writer.
    Comment: I hope that Congress will move to pass a strong 
food bill supporting local farmers, no use of pesticides, 
subsidies for fruits and vegetables instead of grains, and a 
firm stance against GMO's and all companies attempting to 
infiltrate our precious food supply with dangerous, short-
sighted technology.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Steve Ibach, Berthold, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Steve Ibach.
    City, State: Berthold, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy.
    Comment: I help schedule and organize ground and aerial 
application of pesticides. Being able to access FSA Maps online 
greatly aids in timely application of our products. It gives 
the applicator the correct acres and also provides GPS 
coordinates, so the fields are easier to find and the correct 
application is made to the correct field.

Steve Ibach.
                                ------                                


           Comment of Kristina Ichwantoro, Sandy Springs, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Kristina Ichwantoro.
    City, State: Sandy Springs, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I'd like to address the some changes to the Farm 
Bill that support child nutrition in 2012. First, if Congress 
were to change even a small amount of the World War II era 
subsidy funding which is currently given to large commodity 
crops such as corn, wheat and soy and instead put that funding 
into smaller scale, organic and local agricultural endeavors, 
the positive effect on child nutrition would be enormous. While 
these subsidies of so called ``staple'' crops may have made 
sense at the time they were first suggested in the early 20th 
century, the Farm Bill subsidy program as it is currently 
carried out actually contribute to declining child health due 
to its support for agribusiness such as the corn syrup 
producers and industrial meat and dairy production. Increased 
federal support for local, organic diversified agricultural 
would go a long way to ensuring that the local school districts 
have the ability to purchase and use healthier, organic fresh 
fruits and vegetables and meats in school nutrition programs. 
Malnutrition is having food with inadequate nutrients and we 
are seeing more and more of this.
    We do our country a disservice by not assuring that our 
children are well nourished. It seems like a huge problem with 
our budgeting is that it fails to consider the long term. Save 
a dollar on kids lunch programs today and you might end up with 
many dollars in the future in health care costs. If you want a 
sound horse or a fit healthy show dog you feed them well--
nutrient dense food. It is no less important to people, 
especially bodies still growing. These same bodies will 
eventually be in charge of the United States. Do we want well-
nourished bodies and brains in charge or enfeebled, medication 
dependent people who have no stamina, no creativity, no health?
                                ------                                


                Comment of Suahd Iddrissu, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Suahd Iddrissu.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: City Employee.
    Comment: My issue is the over subsidization of U.S. 
products that should not be produced in the U.S. if we actually 
followed our own rules in the so called free-Market system.
    Whatever happened to the Market Economy we praised so 
highly and letting the most able and cheapest producer make a 
particular product? I understand protecting our farmers and 
their livelihood but if we are not the most able to produce a 
particular products then we should not be making farming those 
products, especially when it has to be subsidized so highly in 
order for it to be economically viable (i.e., corn and its 
related products such as high Fructose Corn Syrup).
    Down with High Fructose Corn Syrup!
    Most of us know that high fructose corn syrup is much more 
detrimental to our health than cane sugar and the production of 
corn which is then processed into high fructose corn syrup is 
heavily subsidized. So, it make little economic and health 
sense to have high fructose corn syrup be our predominant form 
of sweetener.
    Correct me if I am wrong or not relevant.
                                ------                                


              Comment of David Ingvalson, Sauk Rapids, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: David Ingvalson.
    City, State: Sauk Rapids, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am writing to let you know that public access to 
the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway should 
be reinstated. It is very important to have accurate and 
verifiable information for agricultural producers and for the 
professionals and businesses that provide goods and services to 
the farmer and other producers of agricultural products. This 
data is very important in my profession as an agricultural 
appraiser. Restricted access to this data will only make the 
appraisal process more expensive and time consuming which is 
ultimately affects the cost and timeliness to the producer who 
is the farmer. There is no logical reason why simply the number 
of acres in a field, pasture, woods, wetland or other area 
should not be public information. Also the taxpayer is paying 
for it and as a result information like this should be 
available to the public.
    So I encourage that the public access be reinstated to the 
CLU Data Gateway so it is easily accessible by the public.
    Thank you for your consideration.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Mike Ingvalson, Blooming Prairie, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Mike Ingvalson.
    City, State: Blooming Prairie, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dry Beans & Peas, Field Crops, Vegetables.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: The government could save trillions of dollars by 
not continuing the farm program. If money is going to continue 
to support farming it should be used as subsidies for crop 
insurance payments, not these complicated programs we have now. 
Please continue to allow FSA Maps to be public data.
            Thanks,

Mike Ingvalson.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Taylor Inverarity, Lawrence, K

    Date Submitted: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Taylor Inverarity.
    City, State: Lawrence, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: I am a 21 one year old female college student and 
I am writing today to find out what is being done about 
America's food industry, and to hopefully press my government 
to do more. From documentaries and my college courses I have 
learned a great deal in last year or so about our food 
industry. I am disturbed. It seems that capitalism has bred so 
much greed into the business of food that people have lost 
concern for healthy lives.
    Forgive me, I have failed to properly organize all of my 
thoughts and arguments because I would like to make this 
message as brief as I think I can in the hope that it will 
actually be carefully read.
    The practice of monoculture has been absolutely proven to 
be devastating for soil. If America wants to continue to be the 
most powerful country in the world, it needs to think more long 
term. I think the ``think green'' campaign is a little 
confusing. People do not understand that protecting the 
environment is a very selfish and smart idea. The agricultural 
methods we use in America are simply not sustainable. I went to 
a presentation last semester given by The Land Institute. [If 
you are interested visit this site, http://
www.landinstitute.org/] Basically, out in Salina, KS they are 
developing a method of farming that would allow for future 
generations to have viable soil.
    Another issue is without a doubt the meat industry. All 
animal cruelty arguments aside, it simply cannot be healthy for 
people to be eating such unnatural meat products! It is not 
natural to eat genetically altered, sunlight-deprived animals. 
I am a history major with a serious handicap in the area of 
science and math, but anyone can see that eating something so 
unnatural cannot lead to good and is likely a contributor to 
the rising cases of cancer and new diseases. In an area of the 
Gunnison National Forest there is a place named Union Park. 
Here cows live in open range conditions. They have tons of land 
to roam and eat on. This is the kind of cow I would like to be 
in my hamburger, not a cow packed into manure soaked ground 
eating feed corn. Also, the meat industry is a huge contributor 
to water pollution. A Frontline documentary I watched showed me 
how much harm animal waste and fertilizers have on our water 
supplies.
    I think focus needs to be turned immediately toward 
increased localization of the meat industry and ending the 
practice of monoculture. Also, there needs to be a much greater 
respect for the way things are naturally done; the saying 
``don't mess with Mother Nature'' exists for a reason.
    I know it is not a lack of intelligence, science, or 
technology, but the presence of the ``getting the most as fast 
and as cheap as possible'' mentality that America seems to 
revolve upon. [There I go ending a sentence with a 
preposition.] Things need to change and I think regulation and 
reformation of the food industry is a perfect place to start. 
If done properly, focusing on this issue could have a positive 
domino effect on America's main issues (unemployment and our 
economy in general, the rising rate of cancers and diseases, 
and the environment).
    Please, any information that you can provide to educate me 
on what is being done and what more will be done, I would 
greatly appreciate.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Deanne Iovan, Ferndale, MI

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, September 07, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Deanne Iovan.
    City, State: Ferndale, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Secretary.
    Comment: I am a supporter of small, local farms and my 
husband and I are members of an organic farm in Yale, Michigan. 
We eat a mostly vegetarian diet, similar to what the USDA 
recommendations are. I am also a member of the Environmental 
Working Group and they recently brought to my attention an 
article in the Denver Post regarding excessive subsidies for 
farmers that produce grains, meat and dairy. See article here: 
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15996357.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document referred to is retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am confused as to why the USDA recommends food that does 
not get subsidized and then subsidizes commodities that are 
less healthy. I would love for my CSA organic farm, Maple 
Creek, to get subsidies. They have suffered through a very dry 
summer season here in Michigan. The reality for them is that 
there is no help from the U.S. Government for farmers in their 
situation. I credit my farmers with helping my family maintain 
a healthy diet, exposing us to vegetables and cuisine that I 
was unfamiliar with before I became a member five years ago.
    The wind is blowing in another direction and it's time for 
the Agriculture Committee to get it's head out of the sand and 
it's time for corporate farms to get their hands out of 
taxpayers pockets. Real farmers in this country need real help. 
These are the small business people that politicians are always 
bragging about helping. Maybe you should actually help them. 
They make our country healthier and our economy stronger.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Alec Irwin, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 1:35 a.m.
    Name: Alec Irwin.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Health.
    Comment: We need to dramatically decrease subsidies to 
agribusinesses who grow corn and soybeans. The money should be 
directed toward support for organic farmers growing healthy 
produce, as well as an expanded Food Stamps program, 
conservation efforts, development of biofuels . . . etc. 
    We need to reshape the Farm Bill toward a sustainable and 
just food system, not continue it as an ATM for giant 
agribusinesses.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Alison Irwin, Desert Hot Springs, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Alison Irwin.
    City, State: Desert Hot Springs, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Massage Therapist.
    Comment: Stop supporting factory farming and start 
supporting people and animals. Grow sustainable food and 
sustainable jobs that are healthy for people and animals and 
the environment. You can change this. You can do the right 
thing. It is time. We are ready. The time is right now. You are 
empowered. You have our support. We can do this together. We 
can do the right thing. We have to. PLEASE! Don't let another 
opportunity be wasted.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Burton Iversen, Austin, MN

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Burton Iversen.
    City, State: Austin, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a Certified General Appraiser specializing in 
Large Agricultural Appraisals in MN ND SD. The Privacy section 
of the new farm bill prevents me from getting information that 
is essential in the performance of my work. It is not 
beneficial to the farmer or the professionals that work with 
them.
                                ------                                


                         Comment of John J., IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:06 p.m.
    Name: John J.
    State: IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Computer Programmer.
    Comment: The farm bill should support the production of 
food for the nation, not support large producers of raw 
materials for the processed, and fast food industries.

   Stop subsidizing the overproduction of corn and soy, 
        and other grains.

   Protect and encourage farmers who produce real food.

   Allow, farmers who have taken subsidies to switch to 
        growing other crops.

    The farm bill shapes the food of this country. Your first 
priority should be to the people, not Monsanto.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Jon Jaffe, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Jon Jaffe.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Program Manager.
    Comment: I urge you to adopt policies in the Farm Bill to 
promote healthy soils by promoting the right behaviors within 
in our agriculture supply chain. This includes have a roadmap 
to reduce dependencies on the use of petroleum products, reduce 
agricultural based pollutants, increase crop diversification 
and encourage sustainable farming methods. Our farm system is 
not sustainable as-is and action needs to be taken by the Dept. 
of Agriculture to correct the existing policies so they support 
the future of farming.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Matthew Jager, Philomath, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 5:37 p.m.
    Name: Matthew Jager.
    City, State: Philomath, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Web Designer--Department of Horticulture at 
Oregon State University.
    Comment: Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic food is 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail 
market.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Sarah James, Berkeley, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Sarah James.
    City, State: Berkeley, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: Please focus on increasing support to small 
farmers, research for organic and sustainable agriculture, on 
increasing access to healthy food, especially in schools. 
Please do not continue to subsidize the excess amounts of corn 
and soy that we produce.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Stacy James, Champaign, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 04, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Stacy James.
    City, State: Champaign, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Water Resources Scientist for nonprofit Prairie 
Rivers Network.
    Comment: Agricultural pollution is a leading cause of 
impairment for our aquatic resources. Given that the federal 
Clean Water Act largely does not regulate pollution from 
agriculture/non-point sources, robust Conservation Compliance 
provisions are crucial for the health of America's rivers and 
lakes. Conservation Compliance requires producers to preserve 
soil and wetlands that might not otherwise be protected. 
Stronger and widely enforced Conservation Compliance provisions 
are needed because the Clean Water Act may no longer regulate 
certain isolated wetlands and intermittent/headwater streams. 
My suggestions for strengthening Conservation Compliance are:

    1. All land in production (HEL and non-HEL) should be 
        subject to Conservation Compliance to be eligible for 
        USDA benefits.

    2. All producers subject to Conservation Compliance should 
        have to comply with a cropping setback from waterways.

    3. Annual inspections for compliance should be increased to 
        5% of eligible tracts.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jon Janowski, Milwaukee, WI

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Jon Janowski.
    City, State: Milwaukee, WI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nutrition Program Advocate.
    Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments 
on the upcoming farm bill.
    Programs like SNAP (we call it Food Share in Wisconsin), 
CSFP, TEFAP, and the Senior FMNP play a huge role in 
alleviating hunger in Milwaukee County and throughout the State 
of Wisconsin. The reauthorization of these programs through the 
farm bill process is an issue that is extremely important to 
our agency and its customers and donors.
    Our agency is a private, nonprofit food bank headquartered 
in Milwaukee, WI. We provide emergency food to over 35,000 
people each month through a network of food pantries in 
Milwaukee County. We also provide over 65,000 hot meals each 
month to a network of soup kitchens in the county. We have been 
doing this work since 1974.
    The importance of the federal nutrition programs at stake 
in the reauthorization bill cannot be overstated. Every day we 
help people who are struggling to feed themselves and their 
families. We primarily provide emergency food to a community 
that has a high rate of ``food hardship''; in fact, according 
to a recent Food Research and Action Center report, our primary 
service area (the Fourth Congressional District in Wisconsin) 
ranks 36th out of 435 Congressional districts in terms of 
``food hardship.''
    As further evidence of food hardship, Wisconsin's Food 
Share Program now serves over 726,000 people--a 30% increase in 
the last 12 months alone. Milwaukee County has seen a 16% 
increase in its FoodShare caseload in the last 12 months. The 
program has a significant economic impact--in April 2010, over 
$83 million in benefits were spent statewide, including $25 
million in Milwaukee County alone.
    Every day we help people who are trying to apply for and 
retain Food Share benefits. Almost \1/3\ of the people we help 
are homeless, and others are elderly, disabled, or otherwise 
unable to work. We also see more and more people who are 
working part-time and full-time jobs yet still need federal 
help to put enough food on the table.
    Interestingly, as our state has moved to an online benefits 
system, we see more low-income people able to use the online 
system each month. There is a misperception that low-income 
people do not know how to find or use computers and scanners. 
We assist about 75 people every day with our state's online 
ACCESS website, about \3/4\ of whom had never used the website 
before. Eight in ten ACCESS users tell us they are likely to 
use the website again to apply for or maintain their benefits. 
To that end, we would like to see more federal investment in 
``modernized'' SNAP systems. Online benefit systems, 
development of systems whereby clients can scan verification 
paperwork directly to caseworkers, and technology for 
community-based organizations to help clients connect to 
benefits should be investment priorities within this farm 
bill's nutrition title. We believe that SNAP modernization is a 
more dignified way for clients to connect to the program as it 
allows people who need help to use the technology in places 
they feel comfortable.
    SNAP benefit levels also need to be examined within SNAP 
reauthorization. The minimum benefit level is still too low, 
particularly for disabled and elderly households. We believe 
the minimum benefit level should be raised to $25 as a further 
incentive to participate in the program. In addition, the 2009 
benefit increases were extremely helpful to thousands of 
families in our region, and we support the maintenance of this 
benefit increase within the farm bill legislation.
    SNAP categorical eligibility also needs to be protected. 
One of the most significant steps our state took to increase 
SNAP caseloads was taking full advantage of federal categorical 
eligibility options. Ensuring that states like Wisconsin are 
able to continue taking advantage of this policy is extremely 
important to us.
    We also believe that CAP (Combined Access Projects) should 
be expanded to increase participation among senior citizens and 
disabled populations. CAP pilot projects in 15 states have made 
all poor seniors categorically eligible for SNAP, thereby 
easing application requirements for less mobile individuals. 
Regarding CAP, the USDA reports that ``the combination of 
standardized benefits, minimal need for independent 
verification, and normally no need to go to the local offices 
has produced significant increases in participation within the 
target population (elderly and disabled).'' Expansion of CAP 
projects to more states is an additional step that Congress 
should take to alleviate hunger.
    Another SNAP issue that should be addressed within the farm 
bill process is restoring permanent eligibility for Able-Bodied 
Adults Without Dependent Children (ABAWD's). We know this 
population of single men and women is extremely poor; we serve 
many of them every day at our Food Share satellite offices. 
Most of these people are homeless, disabled, or otherwise 
unable to work. Although Wisconsin has taken full advantage of 
the federal ABAWD waiver options, there should be no 
restrictions or time limits in terms of this population 
accessing SNAP. In our experience, this group of people is in 
dire need of SNAP benefits, and therefore we ask that the 
current time limits and benefit restrictions be completely 
repealed in the next farm bill.
    The next farm bill should also fully restore eligibility to 
all legal immigrants. Policy changes enacted by the federal 
welfare reform law in 1996 made many legal immigrants 
ineligible for SNAP. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
found that ``food insecurity rose significantly among 
immigrant-headed households most likely to be subject to the 
restrictions while declining among most other households.'' 
While some eligibility restrictions have been rescinded since 
then, we ask that Congress finish the job and ensure that all 
legal immigrants have full access to SNAP benefits.
    Regarding the CSFP program (we call it ``StockBox'' in 
Milwaukee County), we are now serving over 6,000 people per 
month and expect to be serving almost 10,000 per month by this 
September. About 97% of the boxes we deliver each month are for 
elderly individuals. Our StockBox recipients are predominantly 
female (80%), have high prescription drug costs that inhibit 
their ability to purchase food, and regularly experience a food 
shortage (47% of our recipients had a food shortage every month 
or most months within the last year).
    As the agency that has operated CSFP in Milwaukee County 
since 2002, we see a need to align CSFP eligibility guidelines 
with WIC eligibility guidelines (i.e., set CSFP eligibility 
limits at 185% of the FPL). It is needlessly complicated to 
have different eligibility criteria for two programs that are 
so similar. Also, CSFP inventory requirements are overly 
burdensome. Current regulations require that we inventory by 
the unit; for example, each 3.5 ounce pudding snack must be 
reported, whether it is in the original case as received from 
USDA or packed with three others in a box with different items. 
TEFAP reporting requirements are more reasonable and require 
inventory by the unopened case. This is much more manageable 
from a staffing standpoint while still maintaining 
accountability. Allowing us to inventory by the unpacked case 
and by the packed distribution package would relieve a portion 
of the program's administrative burden.
    Regarding the Senior FMNP, our agency has been distributing 
the Senior FMNP coupons in Milwaukee County since 2004. Last 
year we distributed 3,200 coupons to needy seniors in Milwaukee 
County. We could easily triple the number of vouchers based on 
the demand we see. This is an extremely popular and attractive 
program to seniors as more than 80% of seniors fully redeem 
their vouchers in Milwaukee County. We urge Congress to provide 
more funding for this program. It is disheartening to tell low-
income seniors they can only get $20 each year to purchase 
fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers markets--and to turn 
away thousands of additional seniors who cannot get a voucher 
at all because of the limited supply. Ensuring that low-income 
seniors have increased access to fresh, nutritious produce 
helps their diet and also puts money in the pocket of small 
farmers. Funding for the Senior FMNP has remained stagnant for 
many years while demand for the benefit has increased 
significantly. We ask that Congress dramatically expand the 
number of vouchers for each state so we can meet the demand in 
our local communities.
    In summary, we ask that Congress use this legislative 
opportunity to authorize and fund policy options which 
alleviate hunger for the millions of people every day who 
struggle to feed themselves and their families. Thank you for 
the opportunity to submit comments on the upcoming farm bill 
process.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Michael Jenks, Watford City, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Michael Jenks.
    City, State: Watford City, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy MNGR.
    Comment: I would like to request that common land unit data 
(CLU) be made public again
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Nathan Jensen, Conroe, TX

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Nathan Jensen.
    City, State: Conroe, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Administrative Assistant.
    Comment: I would like to see greater incentives (tax) to 
landowners who lease out or sell parts of their property to 
young farmers (under the age of 40) interested in utilizing 
sustainable and organic practices in agriculture.
    I would also like to see a push for agricultural property 
tax exemption on a state level for smaller parcels of land 
dedicated to sustainable, organic agriculture.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Brock Jermark, Logan, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Brock Jermark.
    City, State: Logan, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy.
    Comment: By having these maps public in our business it 
allows us to be sure that our business and producer are in the 
same field and on the same page when we can hand them a printed 
map. The availability of these maps has increased our 
efficiency and accuracy of herbicide applications.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Erhard Joeres, Sanibel, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 18, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Erhard Joeres.
    City, State: Sanibel, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professor Emeritus of Civil & Environmental 
Engineering.
    Comment: We all know that our farm subsidy bill has created 
great distortions in our agricultural sector--we support 
corporate farmers rather than family farmers, we support the 
wrong crops such as corn that have led to an ethanol industry 
that is useless (distorts corn price and energy input per unit 
of ethanol energy out is almost a wash), we undercut third 
world farmers and keep them in poverty, we support a sugar 
industry in Florida for political reasons when sugar is cheaper 
elsewhere, we subsidize, often indirectly, the chemical 
industry at the expense of organic food, and on and on and on. 
Let's find a way to bring reason back to our farm sector.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Brad Johnson, Crosby, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Brad Johnson.
    City, State: Crosby, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Independent Insurance Agent.
    Comment: I am an independent insurance agent in NW North 
Dakota. I have 24 years experience as a crop agent. I feel the 
present crop insurance program has developed over the years as 
a very good risk management tool for the farmer, and they 
consider it a crucial part of their overall farm management 
plan. As of now, in our area, farmers prefer optional units. I 
can see some interest in enterprise units, however, if 
subsidized coverage is available up to the 85% level. I think 
most farmers consider the purchase of crop insurance a good 
value with present subsidies, but I would be quite concerned 
that any subsidy cuts would cause a large percentage to drop 
the program, or drastically decrease coverage levels. The cost 
of farming is so high now due to huge costs of fertilizer, 
chemicals, machinery, and fuel that it is difficult for young 
people to consider continuing to farm.
    Losses under the crop insurance program are processed and 
paid quickly, whereas we understand that the Acre and Sure 
programs are slow to get money to the farmer. The Crop 
Insurance Program is working, and farmers and ag lenders like 
it, and consider it the best management program available.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Douglas Johnson, West Fargo, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Douglas Johnson.
    City, State: West Fargo, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Insurance Agent/Business Owner.
    Comment: Crop Insurance works, it is effective, it is 
efficiently delivered and responds quickly to the various 
perils affecting today's farmers. I have spent a great deal of 
time working with farmers on both the ACRE and the SURE 
program, they both will pay in our area this year but those 
programs pay 12 to 30 months after the fact. Crop insurance is 
quick to respond, agents are experts, accessible and motivated 
to serve. In talking with our customers, the consensus is to 
move resources to crop insurance, allow 85% or higher coverage 
at regular subsidy rates. Move any SURE administration to the 
crop companies as that is where the data is. Crop insurance is 
working, the government is making money with this program 
through the risk sharing and quota share. Further cuts to this 
program will hurt the reinsurance market which will kill this 
successful program.
    Government subsidy will be a mute point if there is no 
reinsurance market available. Crop insurance is removing a 
great burden from the ag budget and further cutting this 
program will shift those dollars back to the tax rolls. This 
industry operates much more efficiently than other alternatives 
and our speed of business is a great asset to the American 
Farmer. Keep this program intact, continue to build on the 
success of this program rather than using it to fund other 
projects that fail.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Jayson L. Johnson, Mound City, MO

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Jayson L. Johnson.
    City, State: Mound City, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: Being a landowner and an insurance agent since 
1986, I have insight from both a farmer and an insurance 
agent's perspective.
    From an insurance agent's perspective, many of my clients 
rely on crop insurance in order to obtain there operating 
loans. In the 2008 crop year, my clients received over $6.2 
million in indemnities. Without crop insurance, many farmers 
would have suffered devastating losses. The safety net it 
provides for our farmers is also extremely important to the 
survival of Rural America.
    The crop insurance cuts sustained in the 2008 Farm Bill 
were, and currently are, difficult to absorb. Should an SRA 
Agreement in its current form be implemented, many companies 
will struggle to survive. This will create a situation where 
service to our farmers will not only suffer, but will make 
obtaining insurance more difficult.
    Crop insurance is one of the primary, and most important, 
risk management tools available to our farmers. Many agents, 
such as myself, are lifelong residents of their communities and 
essentially become part of the farmers operation. By developing 
a strong relationship with the farmer and getting to know their 
risks and financial exposures, we as agents are able to provide 
sound advice in developing a plan best suited to meet their 
needs.
    I appreciate the opportunity to submit this information to 
the Committee.

Jayson L. Johnson,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Julia Johnson, Sunol, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Julia Johnson.
    City, State: Sunol, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: We need to support small-scale organic farmers 
because they have the potential to conserve water, improve air 
quality, and build soil quality while providing high quality 
food and fiber. Nutrient-rich, local food is what Americans 
need in order to live sustainably.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Karla Johnson, La Crescenta, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: Karla Johnson.
    City, State: La Crescenta, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: The farm bill need to include more monies for 
natural, organic fruits and vegetables. There is too much money 
being used for meat production--the NUMBER 1 polluter in all 
the U.S. We need healthy bodies and a healthy environment!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kelly Johnson, Cavalier, ND

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Kelly Johnson.
    City, State: Cavalier, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: As a producer and a crop insurance agent I use 
AgriData a large amount to give myself and my clients accurate 
info regarding acreages and soil types. This program has proved 
to be very valuable also for the lenders I work with daily.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Louise Johnson, Modesto, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Louise Johnson.
    City, State: Modesto, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Homemaker and Social Justice Advocate.
    Comment: As a person of faith, I find it important that I 
remind everyone who is making decisions concerning the Farm 
Bill that the Farm Bill mostly deals with moral issues. 
Decisions are made concerning small farmers (both here and 
abroad) who put food on our tables and risk a great deal 
financially to do so. The Farm Bill also determines whether 
many poor people who qualify for food assistance have enough 
healthy food on their tables. Again people are affected by the 
Farm Bill because so many very poor people live in our rural 
communities throughout the United States.
    Living in the San Joaquin Valley of California, I find it 
very sad that there are so many people who live and work within 
the nation's fruit and vegetable basket who cannot afford to 
buy and eat the fruits of their labor. All human beings have 
the right to sufficient and nutritious food. It is the 
responsibility of our government (through the Farm Bill) to 
help all people, and especially children, to be able to grow to 
their fullest potential.
    I urge you to remember the moral importance of the many 
decisions that are made in developing this most important bill. 
The lofty profession of farming should not require a vow of 
poverty and the necessity of multiple professions to guarantee 
one's financial stability. Food and all crops should be grown 
for the good of all and should not be a financially dangerous 
occupation for the private farmer.
    Last but not least is the issue of land conservation. 
Farmers understand best the importance of proper land use and 
conservation. Our physical and emotional health requires care 
of our precious land.
    Thank you for the work that you do and the decisions that 
you make that affect all people in our country and many people 
throughout the world. I trust that you will do so with proper 
concern for all.
                                ------                                


    Comment of Marti Johnson, Central Coast Region of California, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: Marti Johnson.
    City, State: Central Coast Region of California, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Regional RCD Coordinator for the Agriculture 
Water Quality Alliance (www.awqa.org).
    Comment: As the House Agriculture Committee prepares for 
the 2012 Farm Bill, the Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) 
of the Central Coast of California request your consideration 
of the indispensable role that Conservation Districts have 
played for more than seventy years in preserving the natural 
resources on which United States agriculture depends. Through 
their unique and historic partnership with the USDA Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), America's 3,000 
Conservation Districts implement farm, ranch and forestland 
conservation practices across the nation to protect soil 
productivity, water quality and quantity, air quality and 
wildlife habitat. (National Association of Conservation 
Districts, ``About Conservation Districts.'' http://
www.nacdnet.org/about/districts/index.phtml)
    On the Central Coast, growers have been known to say that 
NRCS is the best use of federal tax dollars they know of 
because of this agency's accountability to local community 
through Conservation Districts. The unique relationship between 
Conservation Districts and NRCS stretches back more than 
seventy years. In the 1930's, when millions of acres of 
cropland were destroyed by drought and subsequent soil loss of 
the ``Dust Bowl'' crisis, the federal government established 
NRCS, then known as the Soil Conservation Service. 
Conservationists shortly realized that a centrally governed, 
Washington-based federal agency could not respond to local 
needs without input of local people. Consequently, with federal 
guidance, locally governed Conservation Districts began forming 
throughout the 48 states to facilitate the success of the SCS. 
(California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, 
``History of RCDs.'' http://carcd.org/about.php)
    Today, many Conservation Districts have evolved into 
thriving and sophisticated purveyors of locally based 
conservation services in their own right. Nevertheless, the 
historic relationship with NRCS continues to be a hallmark 
function of Conservation Districts. NRCS draws on our inherent 
tie to local land managers and owners in order to tailor Farm 
Bill programs to the particular needs of the community. The 
regular operations of District Boards cultivate informed 
landowners who become intimately familiar with programs such as 
EQIP and provide meaningful input to NRCS staff about the most 
effective methods for delivering services. By virtue of that 
same familiarity with NRCS, Districts that employ staff are 
frequently able to leverage Farm Bill programs in order to 
develop a suite of complementary programs tailored to address 
gaps in conservation needs identified on local agricultural 
lands. In summary, this symbiotic relationship enables 
community-driven delivery of NRCS Farm Bill programs, 
facilitates the creation of corresponding local District 
programs, and provides farmers and ranchers with a meaningful 
voice in a broader discourse about how environmental 
stewardship is implemented on agricultural lands.
    The role of Conservation Districts is unique among other 
organizations that provide assistance with conservation of 
natural resources on agricultural land. We administer locally 
based, voluntary programs geared toward helping people help the 
land. Because of our flexibility, size and agility with grant-
funding, we share many characteristics with nonprofits. As 
such, we can adapt to the changing needs of the communities 
much more rapidly than our centrally governed partners. 
Simultaneously, we resemble government agencies in that we have 
statutory permanence, the authority to form interagency 
agreements and are subject to public accountability laws, 
making us uniquely attractive partners to other governmental 
entities who may benefit from our flexibility, our transparency 
and our deeply established relationship to local stakeholders.
    Because of the unique combination of qualities that 
comprise Conservation Districts, NRCS staff in the Central 
Coast region of California consistently tell us that when 
assistance is needed to implement the Farm Bill workload, they 
have not found their most effective resource in outside 
entities, but in the historic partnership with local RCDs.
    The RCDs of the Central Coast of California urge you to 
continue to support the longstanding alliance between NRCS and 
Conservation Districts throughout the country. This proven 
partnership adds enormous value to Farm Bill programs delivered 
through NRCS.
            Respectfully,

Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County;
Resource Conservation District of Monterey County;
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District;
Upper Salinas-Las Tablas Resource Conservation District (San 
Luis Obispo and southern Monterey Counties); and
San Benito Resource Conservation District (San Benito County).
                                ------                                


               Comment of Nadia Johnson, Forest Hills, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Nadia Johnson.
    City, State: Forest Hills, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Community Organizer.
    Comment: Organic farming and expanding local markets must 
be a top priority in the 2012 Farm Bill.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Rodney Johnson, Norfolk, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Rodney Johnson.
    City, State: Norfolk, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager, Broker & Appraiser.
    Comment: The acreage figures for fields on FSA maps is 
imperative to my profession to provide accurate data to 
clients. Neither the acreage figures nor base acres is 
violating an owner's rights. Other sensitive data should be 
kept private. I feel the FSA overstepped their authority in 
calling these acreage numbers private information. I ask that 
you consider allowing access to persons in the real estate 
profession access to these numbers for accuracy in reporting to 
clients. Thank you for your consideration to this important 
matter.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Andrew Johnston, Decatur, GA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:36 p.m.
    Name: Andrew Johnston.
    City, State: Decatur, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Exercise Kinesiologist.
    Comment: I (and many of my clients who will be writing, 
too) am a supporter of quality, organic food and sustainable 
farming practices. A strong food bill which supports local 
farmers, no use of pesticides, subsidies for fruits and 
vegetables instead of grains, and a firm stance against GMO's 
and all companies attempting to infiltrate our precious food 
supply with this dangerous, short-sighted technology is 
necessary for the health of the people, our nation, and the 
world as a whole.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Carole Johnston, Avondale Estates, GA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Carole Johnston.
    City, State: Avondale Estates, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Social Security Representative.
    Comment: I just completed the book entitled The Worst Hard 
Time, which is about the dust bowl of the 1930's. One premise 
of the book is the effect that growing so much grain had on the 
land. I think we need to concentrate of locally grown and 
organically grown food, encourage family farms, and stop the 
spread of gargantuan agribusiness/corporations.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Laura Johnston, Mishawaka, IN

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Laura Johnston.
    City, State: Mishawaka, IN .
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher Assistant for Head Start.
    Comment: We need Congress to change even a small amount of 
the World War II era subsidy funding which is currently given 
to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and 
instead put that funding into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition 
would be enormous. While these subsidies of so called 
``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they were 
first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jessica Jones, Los Angeles, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Jessica Jones.
    City, State: Los Angeles, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Food Bank.
    Comment: Greetings from the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank! 
The Los Angeles Regional Foodbank serves approximately 10% of 
Los Angeles County residents (approximately one million 
people). We have seen a 46% increase in people receiving food 
assistance over the past four years, and a 34% increase in the 
past year alone. The Foodbank is currently distributing 1 
million pounds of food per week through our pantry network. 
That's 52 million pounds of food a year, and we're not meeting 
the need.
    A significant portion of that amount is TEFAP commodities. 
The commodities that the Foodbank receives through The 
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) help stabilize 
hungry, struggling families and individuals in Los Angeles 
County. Currently the Farm Bill funds TEFAP at $350 million, 
breaking that into $250 million for food, and $100 million for 
administration needs. Food banks around the country, including 
the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank, are functioning at higher 
capacities than ever. A funding increase to $425 million--$300 
million for food and $125 for administration--would allow food 
banks to better do their jobs, and would enable us to serve 
even more needy families in Los Angeles County.
    Through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the 
Foodbank serves approximately \1/3\ of the eligible seniors 
that live in Los Angeles County. Senior citizens are limited as 
to the programs they are eligible to participate in, and for 
many this program is their only chance at stability and 
accessing good nutrition. We would like to expand our program 
to be able to serve 50% of the seniors that need this program 
and are eligible for it.
    Food stamps are also a continuing concern for Los Angeles 
County. Only about 50% of the people eligible for Food Stamps 
are actually able to participate in the program. We are making 
strides in addressing this low participation rate, but need 
assistance to make the changes that are necessary to modernize 
and streamline the program so it is more accessible to those 
who are eligible for it.
    With increased poverty, unemployment and food insecurity 
rates, Los Angeles County has a tangible need to see these 
programs reauthorized and well-funded in the next Farm Bill.
            All the best,

Jessica Jones,
Los Angeles Regional Foodbank.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of A.J. Jordan, Peru, IN

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: A.J. Jordan.
    City, State: Peru, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am writing in support of reinstating public 
access to the Common Land Unit data to Section 1619 of the Farm 
Bill. The CLU data provides real estate appraisers more 
accurate data to work with and also allows lenders making 
direct loans to producers better information to make informed 
lending decisions in the agriculture industry. The CLU data 
does not give out any personal information or payment 
information. I appreciate your consideration of reinstating 
public access to the CLU data.
            Kind regards,

A.J. Jordan.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Bret Kahre, Wolsey, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Bret Kahre.
    City, State: Wolsey, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Retailer.
    Comment: We sell & custom apply crop protection products to 
area producers. The maps provided through surety mapping are a 
very useful tool in our business. We would be lost without 
them. The maps are used for several different things in our 
office. We use the maps for scouting, consulting, chemical 
recommendations, & for application records.
            Thanks,

Bret Kahre.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Hayky Kallenberg, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Hayky Kallenberg.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: The farm bill is a cumbersome piece of legislation 
that touches a great number of issues, both domestic and 
international. Congress often approaches the farm bill with an 
attitude that does not represent the attention that this 
legislation deserves. As the impact that the farm bill has on 
the average American (as well as thousand of farmers worldwide) 
becomes more transparent, there will need to be more input from 
small farmers, low-income consumers, and those aware of the 
international impact that our current farm subsidies produce. 
By re-evaluating our current farm subsidies (which focus on the 
five crops that are often used in heavily processed foods) and 
making the effects that this subsidy system has on nutrition 
and the economy in general more clear we will being to make 
strides in the right direction. By increasing funding to SNAP 
and TEFAP we will increase the low income population's buying 
power and awareness of organic and pesticide-free food. By 
increasing availability of non-processed and organic foods we 
can begin to change the structure of the food purchasing 
process in the U.S.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Anu Kamath, Brooklyn Park, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Anu Kamath.
    City, State: Brooklyn Park, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: This country spends the most amount of money on 
healthcare and the least amount on food than any other 
developed country in the world. One main reason for that is 
because Americans over-consume meat and under-consume 
vegetables and fruits which we are always told to eat more of. 
So, then I ask you (rhetorically) why is meat cheaper than 
fruits and vegetables? Bottom line is that government subsidies 
for corn are making meat cheap and in turn jeopardizing the 
health of people, the health of animals and the health of the 
environment. Anyone with a half a brain should know that a 
double cheeseburger should cost more than $1. Why does the 
government not subsidize fruits and vegetables? I would like to 
be able to go to the store and buy a head of broccoli for $1. I 
would like to buy some mushrooms for $1. I would like to buy a 
pound of brown rice for $1 and I would like to buy a pound of 
kidney beans for $1. Now for a little over $4 I can prepare my 
whole family a delicious, healthy meal at home instead of going 
to McDonald's and fattening them up with a $1 cheeseburger, 
fries and a super-sized high fructose corn syrup laced soft 
drink for about the same amount of money. Which is the better 
option? I urge you to take away the corn subsidies. Cows were 
meant to eat grass not corn. Pigs and chicken were not meant to 
be injected with antibiotics and kept in cages so small that 
they can't even turn around. Instead of spending all that money 
on the antibiotics and hormones, lets have the animals eat what 
they are meant to eat. Give them a little room to move around 
and let them be outdoors see the light of day. Let's pay a fair 
price for humanely raised meat instead of an artificially cheap 
price for inhumanely raised meat. The animals will be 
healthier, people will be healthier and the planet will be 
healthier.
            Sincerely,

Anu Kamath,
Brooklyn Park, MN.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Krista Kamer, Merced, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Krista Kamer.
    City, State: Merced, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Marine Scientist.
    Comment: Why do we still provide farm subsidies? Why do we 
pay farmers to grow crops, or in some cases, not grow crops? 
The money would be better spent investing in research to 
improve farming efficiency. People should pay what it costs to 
grow food.
    End farm subsidies!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of James Kanable, Philip, SD

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: James Kanable.
    City, State: Philip, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I would like to request that FSA fields be made 
public again.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Richard Kanak, Cherry Valley, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Richard Kanak.
    City, State: Cherry Valley, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: I would hope that any future farm bill supports 
the small producer throughout the country who are a vital 
component of the food chain.
    It appears to me that all past policies have been dictated 
by large agribusiness ventures to their benefit and to the 
detriment of the consumer. We now have corporations like banks 
deemed to large to fail since they control a vast segment of 
the food market and their failure would jeopardize the food 
supply.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Tom Kane, Honesdale, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Tom Kane.
    City, State: Honesdale, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: News Reporter.
    Comment: The situation with dairy farmers is not only 
critical but terminal if something isn't done to raise the 
price they get for their milk. Any farm bill must contain a 
clause that relates their cost of production to the price of 
their milk. Every other business has such a relationship. The 
formula for milk pricing is medieval and brutally unjust. The 
milk farmers of America are going out of existence. What will 
take their place? Milk from China? The present condition is 
intolerable. It has to change and the new Farm Bill is the 
proper time to change it.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Ruth Katz, Pocantico Hills, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Ruth Katz.
    City, State: Pocantico Hills, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture

Comments to House Senate Agriculture Committee on the 2012 Farm 
Bill

July 2010

    I am writing on behalf of Stone Barns Center for Food and 
Agriculture, to provide comments on the next U.S. Farm Bill. 
Stone Barns Center is a working farm and educational center in 
Westchester County, New York. We provide educational 
programming to children, families and schools; and training--
through technical, intensive workshops and apprenticeships--to 
the next generation of farmers. We also conduct innovative on-
farm experimentation through partnerships with Cornell 
University and others, on seeds, breeds, soil health, land 
management and energy conservation and production.
    We would like the next U.S. Farm Bill to represent values 
and principles that reflect the spirit of an entrepreneurial 
America, an ecological America, and a healthy America. These 
values and principles include fostering:

   An entrepreneurial spirit. We need to do all we can 
        to foster innovative, productive American family farm 
        businesses. We proudly display the independent family 
        farmer as a great America icon; our policies must 
        reflect this pride.

   Vibrant regional economies that directly link rural 
        farm communities with urban and suburban ones.

   Agriculture programs that recognize and support the 
        additional production capacities possible through urban 
        farming.

   Agriculture programs that recognize and support the 
        additional production and marketing capacities possible 
        through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs, 
        farmer cooperatives, and other small and medium-sized 
        farm operations. Currently smaller operations are 
        sometimes being referred to as ``hobby farms.'' Yet 
        many are the sole source of family income, are more 
        profitable than conventional operations, and--
        critically--reach communities in need of healthful, 
        affordable food.

   Healthy people and communities that have better 
        access to healthful food.

   A clean, restorative and resilient environment. This 
        includes a too-often overlooked and critical point: the 
        health of the soil that feeds us. It also includes 
        stronger energy conservation measures, as well as 
        innovations in producing clean energy without 
        sacrificing land where food crops are needed.

   A supportive business and training climate for the 
        next generation of American farmers.

   Supportive programming for ``factory farm''/CAFO 
        operators that want to transition to more sustainable 
        practices and gain access to profitable markets.

   Better and more efficient use of our Farm Bill tax 
        dollars. This means limiting subsidies (see below: 
        Reform Commodity Payment Programs, item #8), and using 
        that savings to support the notions mentioned herein.

    We feel these values and principles are well represented by 
the statement provided below, a working draft provided by one 
of our affinity organizations. Stone Barns Center is a member 
of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), and 
is working on Farm Bill priority setting with NSAC and its 
approximately 80 additional members.
    Finally, while it may not seem practical, ideally, we 
should craft a 50 Year--rather than a 5 Year--Farm Bill. Since 
we are unlikely to make such a monumental process change at 
this time, we should then at a minimum, craft our 5 Year Farm 
Bill as if it were part of a 50 Year one. In doing so, we 
demonstrate leadership and foresight, devising a bill that 
accounts for environmental, economic and social stewardship, 
preserving our farmland and heritage for future generations.

        . . . For 50 or 60 years, we have let ourselves believe 
        that as long as we have money we will have food. That 
        is a mistake. If we continue our offenses against the 
        land and the labor by which we are fed, the food supply 
        will decline, and we will have a problem far more 
        complex than the failure of our paper econ-
        omy. . . .

        . . . Any restorations will require, above all else, a 
        substantial increase in the acreages of perennial 
        plants. The most immediately practicable way of doing 
        this is to [reinvent] crop rotations that include hay, 
        pasture and grazing animals. . . .

        . . . research in Canada, Australia, China and the 
        United States over the last 30 years suggests that 
        perennialization of the major grain crops like wheat, 
        rice, sorghum and sunflowers can be developed in the 
        foreseeable future. By increasing the use of mixtures 
        of grain-bearing perennials, we can better protect the 
        soil and substantially reduce greenhouse gases, fossil-
        fuel use and toxic pollution. . . .

        . . . Carbon sequestration would increase, and the 
        husbandry of water and soil nutrients would become much 
        more efficient. And with an increase in the use of 
        perennial plants and grazing animals would come more 
        employment opportunities in agriculture--provided, of 
        course, that farmers would be paid justly for their 
        work and their goods.

        . . . Thoughtful farmers and consumers everywhere are 
        already making many necessary changes in the production 
        and marketing of food. But we also need a national 
        agricultural policy that is based upon ecological 
        principles. We need a 50 year farm bill that addresses 
        forthrightly the problems of soil loss and degradation, 
        toxic pollution, fossil-fuel dependency and the 
        destruction of rural communities . . .

        (From Wes Jackson and Wendell Berry, New York Times Op-
        Ed, Jan. 4, 2009.) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/
        opinion/05berry.html) *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The documents referred to are retained in Committee files.

    For more information on the concept of a 50 Year Farm Bill, 
please see the 50 Year Farm Bill booklet by The Land Institute 
at: http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/07/
28/4a6f2187e3d1c.*
    (Authors and contacts: Wes Jackson, The Land Institute: 
[Redacted], and Fred Kirschenmann, Stone Barns Center for Food 
and Agriculture and the Leopold Center: [Redacted])
    Please see the 9 point statement below, and feel free to 
contact us for further input as you proceed in the development 
of the 2012 Farm Bill. Thank you.

    1. Enact a robust and well funded Conservation Title to 
        support working lands conservation programs, 
        conservation easement programs, and sustainable and 
        organic transition assistance.

    Farms and ranches make up more than \1/2\ of the land mass 
of the lower 48 states. Farm polices driving the 
industrialization of agriculture have created a system of 
agriculture on these lands that is productive in the short 
term, but polluting, energy gulping and unsustainable over the 
long term.
    Agriculture is the largest source of pollution of rivers 
and streams, affecting roughly half of total stream miles. Over 
100 million acres of cropland continue to erode at levels that 
are unsustainable despite decades of soil conservation efforts 
stemming back to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Nearly \2/3\ of 
threatened and endangered species are listed due in some part 
to agriculture and agro-chemicals. Human health, ecosystem 
health, food security and even our long term economic well 
being are all tied to how well farmers and ranchers steward 
these resources.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to enact a 
Conservation Title of the 2012 Farm Bill that provides the 
technical assistance, cost share, and financial incentives 
necessary to ensure the long term productivity and stewardship 
of agricultural lands.
    Long term sustainable food production will require an 
increasing emphasis on the adoption of conservation practices 
on lands in active agricultural production. We must defend, 
strengthen, and extend conservation compliance, which requires 
that farmers receiving federal farm program payments adopt 
conservation plans. Conservation compliance must apply to 
federal subsidies for crop insurance as well as any new revenue 
insurance program that may be adopted. In addition, the 
survival of prime grasslands depends on the adoption of strong 
uniform Sodsaver protections.
    Working lands conservation programs must actively assist 
farmers to transition to sustainable and organic farming 
systems by providing the necessary technical and financial 
assistance. A shift to organic production and sustainable and 
grass-based livestock systems will yield environmental, 
economic, and public health benefits.
    As we move closer to enacting comprehensive energy and 
climate change legislation, policy makers must recognize that 
the best structure available for shaping agriculture's response 
to climate change is the Conservation Title of the next farm 
bill. Whether to help farmers cope with climate change or to 
reduce green house gas emissions attributable to agriculture 
the basic tools to accomplish climate change mitigation and 
farmer adaptation are already in place.
    Agriculture can make a substantial contribution to a shift 
toward renewable energy. That shift, however, must emphasize 
production of a new generation of cellulosic fuel stocks, 
strong sustainability criteria, and local and farmer ownership 
of production facilities.
    Wetland, grassland, and farmland easement programs do much 
to protect America's fragile soils and critical ecosystems. 
These programs also offer opportunities for climate change 
mitigation, ecosystem regeneration, and refuge for wildlife. 
They need to be extended and strengthened in the next farm 
bill. The Conservation Reserve Program should include an 
easement option so that land that should be permanently retired 
from production has the appropriate conservation tool 
available. As other Conservation Reserve Program contracts 
expire it is essential that those lands come back into 
production under sustainable systems, which in most cases will 
be grass-based production.

    2. Refocus federal farm program payments upon farming 
        systems and practices that produce environmental 
        benefits and promote long-term food security.

    Since the Great Depression, USDA has administered commodity 
programs for corn, wheat, rice, other grains, and cotton. For 
most of that time, the programs focused on reducing production 
and managing supplies to keep prices relatively constant. 
However, in the modern era, our federal farm programs have been 
transformed into pure production subsidies, encouraging 
overproduction of grain and cotton at tremendous cost to the 
environment and the family farmers they were intended to help.
      The next farm bill may make some changes to the commodity 
programs. One simple-to-craft reform could be a re-allocation 
of a portion of current production subsidies to farmer 
conservation and farmer value-added business development. One 
obvious place for increased funding is the Conservation 
Stewardship Program (CSP).
    The CSP pays farmers for producing healthier soil, cleaner 
water, fewer greenhouse gases and greater biodiversity. It is 
the only program in the USDA tool kit that rewards sustainable 
farmers for the multiple and ongoing environmental benefits 
delivered by their farming practices.
    This program can point the way forward for U.S. farm policy 
by providing a model for what the next generation of farm 
programs should look like. CSP rewards farmers for how they 
farm, not for what or how much they produce. CSP advances 
conservation practices on crop, pasture, range, and forested 
land and includes options that work for sustainable and organic 
operations, specialty crop farms, grazing operations, and 
diversified crop-livestock farms.
    Feeding ourselves and future generations will demand the 
expansion of sustainable production practices on working 
agricultural lands. Programs that reward our best stewards and 
encourage other farmers to make the transition to more 
sustainable farming practices are crucial to our food security.
    CSP is on track to sign up 25.6 million acres for 2009 and 
2010, or over 50 million acres during this current farm bill 
cycle, and 115 million acres by 2017. We urge Congress and the 
Administration to significantly expand its commitment to this 
program by providing the funding necessary to reach a total 
enrollment of 230 million acres by the end of the next farm 
bill cycle in 2017.

    3. Encourage and support the next generation of farmers and 
        ranchers.

    The future health and vitality of agriculture, the food 
system, and rural communities depends on the successful launch 
of a new generation of farmers and ranchers. Across the 
country, there is a groundswell of interest in agriculture 
among young people, farm raised or not who want to take up 
farming as a profession. Many new immigrants, women, and farm 
workers also aspire to becoming farmers.
    Over the next two decades an estimated 400 million acres of 
U.S. agricultural land will be passed on to heirs or sold as 
farmers 65 and older retire (currently \1/3\ of all farmland 
owners are retirement age). Transitions present opportunities 
for economic and social mobility. Given the opportunity, these 
new entrepreneurs can bring hope and capital to rural economies 
desperate for renewal.
    Changes in farming practices also happen at the transition. 
This new generation of farmers has enthusiastically embraced 
sustainable and organic agriculture. These farming systems 
offer new market opportunities and oftentimes lower start up 
costs. And not incidentally, these systems produce more 
economic multipliers for their communities than raw commodities 
sold into the conventional market. Public policy needs to 
encourage and reward this generation's embrace of 
environmentally sound farming practices.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to make a greater 
investment in beginning farmers and ranchers. The 2012 Farm 
Bill must ensure this new generation of farmers has the 
technical assistance, capital, access to markets and land it 
needs to succeed. Federal assistance to beginning farmers 
should prioritize those establishing sustainable and organic 
farming operations.

    4. Increase resources for research that fosters sustainable 
        agriculture systems.

    Agricultural research is a powerful and fundamental force 
that shapes our food and farming system. Publicly supported 
agricultural research has too often, and for far too long, 
produced technologies and tools that best serve industrial 
agriculture. This research fosters systems that strive for 
increased production at the expense of other important public 
values. The $2.5 billion USDA spends each year on food and 
agricultural research has produced a U.S. food system that is 
increasingly concentrated and focused on a narrowing base of 
crop and livestock breeds.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to enact a Research 
Title that truly serves the interests of rural communities and 
our collective long-term food security. Our research, education 
and extension programs must focus on the full and diverse set 
of practical, economic and social challenges facing America. 
Environmental degradation, depopulation, the loss of mid-sized 
family farmers, the loss of biodiversity, and climate change 
all demand an expanded federal commitment to research that 
fosters sustainable and organic farming systems.
    Publicly supported research should be aimed squarely at 
technologies and systems that support small and mid-sized 
farmers. It should examine food systems, sustainable renewable 
energy production and public health issues. Most importantly, 
the only competitive grants program in the entire USDA 
portfolio to involve farmers and ranchers directly in research, 
the Sustainable Agriculture, Research and Education (SARE) 
program must finally be funded at a level that begins to meet 
the demand.
    A renewed public commitment to classical plant and animal 
breeding is critical to conserving our dwindling genetic 
diversity. Increased genetic diversity will be vital in 
addressing global climate change, increasing pest pressure and 
our own food security. Sustainable and organic agricultural 
systems can contribute to the development of a new generation 
of seeds and breeds that are well adapted to local conditions 
and changing environmental conditions.

    5. Reinvigorate regional agricultural economies and local 
        food systems

    The surge in consumer demand for organically-produced food 
and agricultural products from local and regional markets 
offers a significant new opportunity for diversified rural 
development but we need to provide producers and their 
communities with the necessary tools to serve these new 
markets. Rising demand for these foods is an important 
incentive for farmers and ranchers, but many communities lack 
the processing and distribution infrastructure necessary for 
economically robust, sustainable food systems.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to provide the 
capital and technical assistance necessary to rebuild the local 
and regional food infrastructure.
    We applaud this Administration's commitment to the Know 
Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative. The grant and loan 
programs publicized through Know Your Farmer can provide the 
capital and technical assistance necessary for small and mid-
sized farmers to respond to new market demand.
    Mid-sized farms in particular are often too small to thrive 
in the international commodities markets but are well 
positioned to sell local and regional, organic and value added 
farm products directly to wholesale and institutional 
purchasers. Fostering these markets can help preserve those 
farms ``in the middle,'' the farm size category that is 
shrinking the fastest, yet which is essential for the vitality 
of rural communities. Further, cultivating the growth of 
regional food systems can create jobs, retain more food dollars 
in rural economies and spark development opportunities.
    Connecting food producers and consumers directly through 
existing USDA programs--when farmers sell directly to schools 
or when SNAP participants use their benefits to buy fresh, 
nutritious food at farmers markets--makes economic sense and 
ensures that the Nation's nutrition safety net is doing its job 
while also strengthening the bottom line for America's family 
farmers.

    6. Ensure fair and competitive agricultural markets.

    Large segments of the nation's food supply are dominated by 
a handful of corporations. Family farmers and ranchers are 
facing markets for the sale of their products that are 
increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer firms. This is 
especially true in the livestock and poultry sectors. In an 
attempt to gain market access, farmers and ranchers enter into 
production or marketing contracts with corporations that have 
far greater bargaining and market power.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to ensure more 
market channels, greater bargaining power, and strong rules 
that ensure fair contracts for producers. Fair contracts and 
competition will allow producers to provide consumers with a 
greater diversity of higher quality and fairly priced goods.
    In addition, we are greatly concerned over consolidation 
and concentration in the seed industry. Increasingly, the seed 
industry limits our access to seed varieties; limits our 
ability to experiment and innovate new seed varieties; and 
forces more farmers into monoculture practices which deplete 
our soil and threaten our food security. We must develop 
policies and practices that counter this extremely risky trend.

    7. Fully recognize the inherent value of sustainable and 
        organic farming systems in addressing climate change

    Conventional agriculture is a ravenous consumer of fossil 
fuels and producer of greenhouse gases. Yet, our federal farm 
and energy policies continue to reward intensive row-cropping, 
corn ethanol production and large-scale confined livestock 
production systems. These systems are all heavily dependent on 
mechanization, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. These 
systems are specialized, brittle and susceptible to collapse 
under the weight of climate change.
    To best address climate change, federal farm policy must 
emphasize farming systems that can best help farmers cope with 
climate change and reduce the overall level of green house gas 
emissions attributable to agriculture.
    Research confirms that sustainable and organic farming 
methods when compared to conventional agriculture can result in 
the reduction of nitrogen use and pollution. Studies also show 
that over the long term, organic crop rotations show increased 
yield and steadily improved soil quality over conventional 
systems. These systems are diverse, resilient and best suited 
to coping with the variability of weather and pest pressures 
resulting from climate change. They consume less fossil fuel 
and sequester more carbon than conventional agriculture. They 
also offer the most sustainable means of producing on farm 
renewable energy.

    8. Reform commodity payment programs.

    Commodity programs offer farmers production subsidies for 
commodity crops like corn, rice, cotton, and soybeans. While 
some payments are made when commodity prices are low, a 
majority of payments are made regardless of whether prices are 
high or low, and can be made even when a crop is not grown. A 
disproportionate share of benefits goes to the largest farms, 
with the largest one percent of farms receiving about a quarter 
of total benefits. The result is farm consolidation as farm 
subsidies are used to buy more land. The subsidy allows large 
farms to bid up land prices well above market levels while mid-
sized family farms disappear and farming opportunities diminish 
for a new generation of farmers.
    Furthermore, commodity programs, as currently administered, 
encourage the intensive production of one or two commodities on 
the same fields year after year, resulting in polluted runoff, 
soil depletion and loss of biodiversity. Taxpayers, consumers, 
farmers and rural communities deserve better. We urge Congress 
and the Administration to enact farm subsidy reforms that serve 
a broader set of interests including public health, rural 
economic development, resource conservation, and economic 
opportunity and entry.
    One starting place for reform would be to enact effective 
payment limitation reform to reduce program incentives to farm 
consolidation. In addition, farmers should be allowed to plant 
fruits and vegetables on at least a portion of their farm 
program acreage provided their payment is reduced accordingly. 
Re-invigorating the conservation compliance system is also 
overdue. If Congress takes the step of adding a more 
comprehensive revenue insurance option to the commodity program 
mix, it too should have effective payment limitations, full 
planting flexibility, and strong conservation requirements.

    9. Reform Crop Insurance.

    Farming is inherently a risky business. Weather, pests, 
variable costs for inputs, and wild fluctuations in market 
prices for farm products create a volatile business environment 
and can cause farm income to vary significantly from year to 
year. A healthy farm and food system depends on public policies 
that help farmers manage risk effectively.
    Traditionally, farmers managed risk by growing multiple 
crops and raising a variety of livestock. If one crop failed or 
prices for cattle or hogs were low, then sales of other 
products would make up the difference. By contrast, current 
crop insurance policies are skewed in favor of less diverse 
crop production systems that are not only more vulnerable to 
markets, weather, and pests, but that also have serious 
environmental impacts.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to reform Crop 
insurance to ensure that it is structured in a manner that 
significantly rewards diversification in recognition of its 
high environmental and risk management value.
    This farm bill should begin a transition toward an 
effective whole farm revenue insurance option.
    Unjustified surcharges on insurance premiums for organic 
producers should be removed and insurance options implemented 
that take organic product price premiums into consideration. 
New insurance provisions should also be adopted to allow 
farmers who are engaged in direct and value-added markets to 
insure their production based on their higher value markets.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Odile Kaylor, Sahuarita, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Odile Kaylor.
    City, State: Sahuarita, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teaching at community college and engineer.
    Comment: No GMO please. WE don't need them, they are 
dangerous and have not been tested.
    At the very least, have them listed as GMO in ingredient 
lists so people who don't want them (like me) don't buy them.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Jerry Keeter, Olney, TX

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Jerry Keeter.
    City, State: Olney, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Application (Crop Dusting).
    Comment: Your support is needed to reinstate public access 
of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway, 
especially due to the following circumstances:
    USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jolee Keifer, Hamburg, PA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 07, 2010, 10:36 p.m.
    Name: Jolee Keifer.
    City, State: Hamburg, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban 
farms across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear 
benefits: cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our 
water and endangers our health, while increasing economic 
development opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:
    Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good they do 
rather than for the amount of crops they produce.
    Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more kinds of 
crops), adding carbon in their soil, and putting perennial 
crops (such as hay and pasture) in their fields.
    Protect income for farmers who raise organic food crops 
that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA food pyramid, so 
that we get better food and fewer junk-food ingredients.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Wayne Keller, Steeleville, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Wayne Keller.
    City, State: Steeleville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate.
    Comment:

    Good morning,

    Please, we need to be able to access FSA data. I hear from 
angry customers weekly because of the delays caused by not 
being able to access data they have asked for. Much of the time 
for their own properties and with their permission FSA will not 
or will delay releasing the data.
            Thank you,

Wayne Keller.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Sharron Kelley, Gleneden Beach, OR

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 21, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Sharron Kelley.
    City, State: Gleneden Beach, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I have spent over two years growing and 
contributing all my fresh vegetables to the local food bank. 
The food system in this country has to be changed. I'm doing my 
part. Please do yours!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lorelei Kellogg, Santa Fe, NM

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:36 p.m.
    Name: Lorelei Kellogg.
    City, State: Santa Fe, NM.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Home maker.
    Comment: As someone who is on a very fixed food budget, I 
find it frustrating that fresh fruits and vegetables are so 
expensive when processed foods manufactured from subsidized 
items are so cheap.
    Most of the ingredients in processed food are manufactured 
from corn or soy, two of the most subsidized crops in this 
country. High Fructose Corn Syrup is too prevalent, being used 
in things like bread as a cheap filler to allow for inexpensive 
food. Many of these crops are genetically modified and there is 
no substantial evidence to indicate that these GMO crops are 
safe. Many other nations refuse to grow them, however we 
subsidize them with billions of dollars, ultimately 
guaranteeing they flood the food supply of this country.
    I urge the Committee on Agriculture to rethink the existing 
subsidies and look instead to subsidizing fruits and 
vegetables, crops that provide much more nutrition than the 
fillers manufactured and genetically engineered to fatten up 
cattle; which in turn appear to be fattening up our children.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Jeff Kelsey, Alpena, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Jeff Kelsey.
    City, State: Alpena, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Protection Provider/Seed Sales.
    Comment: It is my opinion and belief that section 1619 
creates unnecessary inefficiencies and negatively impacts 
agricultural professionals, producers, landowners, and others 
who utilize that data in their professions on a regular basis. 
The USDA, Farm Service Agency, CLU data had been available and 
easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data Gateway from 
2004 to the summer of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.
    This data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation, tilling 
installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of James Kennedy, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: James Kennedy.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: All food for human consumption should be produced 
without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or genetic 
engineering. Trees, plants and grass in the wild grow that way 
because their soil is not depleted.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Mark Kennett, Grinnell, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Mark Kennett.
    City, State: Grinnell, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Specialty Crops, Vegetables, Other.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: CLU data has no privacy issues. It is imperative 
that support entities have access to this mapping information 
to allow for the accurate and timely transfer of information as 
to acres, locations, and physical nature of the land area. When 
an applicator can show up with a good map picture they are 
already more accurate. In comparison the most recent Google 
earth picture is approximately ten years old.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Peggy Kent, Dawsonville, GA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, September 09, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Peggy Kent.
    City, State: Dawsonville, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Poultry/poultry products.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I am pleading with Committee to stand by us and 
help us farmers who are struggling just to get by we 
desperately need the purposed rule by GIPSA/USDA to be put into 
place if a reform is not passed then many, many farmers will 
lose their farms I myself included don't just stand up for 
these large companies for we farmers are what makes up that 
company if we go down then what is going to happen to the 
companies? We have suffered abuse from them for many years 
nothing has ever been done to help us the ones who work 
everyday farmers are on call 24/7 all year we need help. And we 
need it quickly please stand up for us it is we the people who 
put you all in the position and you are suppose to help us for 
God sakes help America. We don't need anymore bankruptcies, and 
more jobless, and penniless people that would have to go on 
welfare we just have the funds for all of this . . . Please 
take this very serious and know it is very critical . . . Thank 
you.
                                ------                                


               Comment of C. Brent Kerns, Brownsburg, IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: C. Brent Kerns.
    City, State: Brownsburg, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager and Rural Appraiser and Farm 
Owner.
    Comment: I am retired as the farm loan director for the 
Indiana Farm Service Agency. I now do farm appraisals and 
management.
    The lose of current CLU's is very expensive to my 
customers. It limits my ability to research comparable sales 
and adds cost to my work. I do not work for free.
    It is my understanding that this passed a few years ago 
because farm groups did not like the Environmental working 
group from looking at what they received from the government 
and being able to compare acreage's.
    It is time farmers, like most public paid servants, had to 
deal with disclosure! If you drink at the trough guess what is 
exposed?
    You or your staff may contact me at my e-mail address or my 
cell phone at [Redacted].
    Please note that I am a farm advocate!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of William Kerr, Woodstock, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: William Kerr.
    City, State: Woodstock, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Investor.
    Comment: The U.S. needs a Farm Bill that curbs factory 
farms and large food corporations. We need a Farm Bill that 
provides fresh, wholesome food in our cities' schools. We need 
a Farm Bill that allows farms to make a transition to organic, 
sustainable growing methods for the sakes of a cleaner 
environment, for our children and grandchildren. We MUST stop 
subsidizing agribusiness that produces poor quality, unhealthy 
food for our population (including dairy). There are no 
subsidies for healthy foods. And thanks to the serious 
mismanagement of our Farm Bill, we now have an entire 
generation that, for the first time in history, is expected to 
live a shorter life than the generation before it.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Glenn Keyes, Charleston, SC

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 6:07 p.m.
    Name: Glenn Keyes.
    City, State: Charleston, SC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Preservation Architect.
    Comment:

    Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

    As a historic preservationist and architect, I strongly 
encourage you to support an enhanced commitment to USDA Rural 
Development programs in the next Farm Bill. These programs 
foster sustainable rural development and job creation. When 
businesses, and buildings, in small towns are preserved, pride 
in the community grows and creates opportunities for growth in 
the surrounding areas.
    Additionally, the Rural Innovation Initiative, or similar 
rural development strategies, should be supported as a 
springboard for heritage-based projects that may incorporate 
Main Street revitalization, heritage tourism, farm building 
preservation and agricultural conservation.
    Please also support the Historic Barn Preservation Program. 
This program is meant to assist in documenting and restoring 
barns. There are scores of barn structures that are abandoned 
or demolished. This is a shame as they are an important part of 
history and can be rehabilitated for modern use.
    Thank you for your consideration.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Patrick Kiley, Okemos, MI

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 9:36 a.m.
    Name: Patrick Kiley.
    City, State: Okemos, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I would like to see more funds committed to 
training and apprenticeship programs for youth in sustainable 
farming professions.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Linda Kinman, Des Moines, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 03, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Linda Kinman.
    City, State: Des Moines, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Policy--IA Association of Water Agencies 
& Des Moines Water Works.
    Comment:

May 2010

Iowa Association of Water Agencies,
Des Moines Water Works,
Des Moines, IA.

RE: 2012 Farm Bill Comments

    The forthcoming Farm Bill provides significant 
opportunities and concerns for the Iowa Association of Water 
Agencies (IAWA) and Des Moines Water Works (DMWW). Water 
quality will only improve when we digress from a piecemeal 
approach and begin to move toward improving and protecting our 
water resources from a watershed, water management perspective. 
We all agree that the prosperity of Iowa farmers is important, 
but we also believe prosperity can be achieved while also 
protecting our water resources. A watershed-based approach 
provides the opportunity for both point and non-point sources 
to collaborate on water management projects that address water 
quality and quantity objectives holistically. A holistic 
approach also provides an opportunity to foster greater 
collaboration between urban and rural communities.
    As you consider re-authorization of agricultural programs 
within the 2012 Farm Bill, IAWA and DMWW asks that you consider 
the following opportunities to address our water quality and 
quantity concerns:

    1. Require environmental assessment and implementation of 
        on-farm practices that protect water quality and 
        minimize surface runoff and discharge from tile drained 
        fields as a requirement to receiving any federal 
        funding.

    2. Disallow any federal funding to an absentee landowner 
        (owning land in Iowa and living outside of Iowa), or 
        land owned or managed by a corporation whose principle 
        site of operation is outside of Iowa, unless they can 
        demonstrate there are no water quality or quantity 
        impairments attributable to their operation.

    3. Require all rental contracts to include the use or 
        implementation of conservation practices.

    4. Require applicants requesting farm bill funds to be 
        active participants in a comprehensive watershed plan 
        that addresses multiple impairments and prioritizes 
        needs within the watershed. Applicants should ensure 
        that the practices being implemented, utilizing farm 
        bill funding, is a priority in the watershed plan. Both 
        urban and rural contributions should be assessed to 
        provide a holistic approach.

    5. Mitigate agricultural tile line drainage by funding and 
        expeditious installation of natural and constructed 
        wetlands that reduce sub-surface drainage directly to a 
        water body and sequester and consume nutrients from 
        farm fields. Wetlands should be sited strategically to 
        ensure water quality is improved and drainage discharge 
        is minimized. Agricultural tile lines act as direct 
        conduits, discharging large quantities of water, 
        chemicals (nitrates) and other contaminants (bacteria) 
        directly to Iowa's rivers, streams and lakes.

    6. Where appropriate, provide funding for research and 
        installation of alternative technologies to mitigate 
        agricultural tile discharge including, but not limited 
        to installation of mechanical valves in agricultural 
        tile lines and edge of field bio-reactors to manage the 
        discharge of contaminants and water flow.

    7. Do not allow funding of terraces or buffer strips that 
        include installation of agricultural tile intakes and 
        drainage lines. While preventing soil loss, the 
        installation of an agricultural drainage system in 
        terraces and buffers rapidly transports water from the 
        field to a water source and diminishes the water 
        quality benefits of the practice.

    8. Provide funding for secondary containment structures of 
        manure facilities and feedlots to eliminate discharges 
        due to precipitation events.

    9. Provide funding for innovative collaborations for such 
        things as; composting, manure management technologies, 
        or regional cooperative treatment project alternatives 
        for manure management.

    10. Conservation Security Program funding should reward 
        producers based on collaboration, performance and 
        outcomes of a comprehensive and holistic watershed 
        plan.

    11. Stimulate research to evaluate the effectiveness of 
        current programs, practices and diversification of 
        crops used in energy production, crops which may have 
        the potential to impair a watershed.

    The effectiveness of current farm bill programs and 
practices to both improve and protect water quality or in 
reducing flood risk is not readily evident. Current 
conservation programs operate within a system of income/
commodity support programs, focused on maximizing production. 
The current approach distorts agriculture, distorts markets and 
hurts the environment. Rather than support commodity 
production, U.S. farm policy should support agricultural 
diversification to enhance ecosystems. Reward producers for 
environmental benefits. Generate policies that create options, 
provide safety nets if necessary, and offer incentives for 
innovative projects that could help restore vibrancy and 
diversity to Iowa's working landscape.
    Cumulative impacts exist when upstream practices affect 
downstream resources. Integrating watershed approaches and 
policies across environmental goals will provide a more 
holistic approach that decreases contaminants threatening 
public health, susceptibility of flooding, and contributing to 
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
    The reauthorization of the Farm Bill provides an important 
opportunity to move in new directions that are innovative and 
challenging, but with greater efficiencies to ensure water 
quality and other environmental improvements can be achieved. 
Establishing mechanisms and strategies incorporating watershed 
based approaches that reduce barriers and promote collaborative 
partnerships. The Farm Bill must encourage, enable, and reward 
collaborative water quality improvement and protection 
performance outcomes from a watershed perspective. Improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of current programs by 
consolidating programs and delivery mechanisms that share 
common purposes and incentives.
    It is time to transition from the comfort of existing 
programs and move toward a more responsible, multifunctional 
agriculture that protects and improves water quality in Iowa 
and the United States. An agriculture that is economically 
viable for producers, without taking economic viability away 
from others by contaminating water resources. An agriculture 
that is economically viable for producers, while embracing the 
economic viability of communities through energy production, 
tourism, and quality of life. Water quality will only improve 
when we digress from a piecemeal approach and move toward 
management of the country's water resources. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on the 2012 Farm Bill reauthorization. 
We look forward to contributing to the 2012 Farm Bill 
discussion and would be glad to provide any additional 
information if requested to do so.

Submitted by:

Linda Kinman,
Public Policy/Watershed Advocate
[Redacted],
[Redacted]

On behalf of:

 
 
 
Jerald Lukensmeyer,                  Randy Beavers,
IAWA-President;                      DMWW-CEO and General Manager.
 

                                ------                                


                  Comment of Erwin E. Klaas, Ames, IA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, July 01, 2010, 10:07 p.m.
    Name: Erwin E. Klaas.
    City, State: Ames, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Research Ecologist.
    Comment: I am a Soil and Water Conservation Commissioner in 
Story County, Iowa. Something needs to be done to provide our 
conservation districts with more trained personnel who can 
provide the necessary technical assistance to deliver 
conservation to our producers. More than a third of the 
conservation districts in Iowa are now sharing District 
Conservationists with neighboring counties. We also have a 
shortage of soil conservationists, resource specialists, and 
engineers. Our county has a two year backlog in filling 
applications from producers for cost-sharing conservation 
practices. I know from talking to other districts, this is the 
case all across the state. State budget cuts have greatly 
reduced the number of technicians and secretaries funded by the 
state. I am pleased that Representative Tim Holden's 
Subcommittee held public hearings today to discuss 
administration and delivery of conservation systems. This is a 
very important problem that needs to be solved in the next Farm 
Bill.
    Spending more money does not necessarily mean greater 
conservation benefits. NRCS staff should be rewarded by the 
amount of improved natural resources/$/staff hour spent, or 
some other reward structure that is not based on spending money 
but based on improving the environment of agriculture systems.
    I sincerely hope that the House Committee on Agriculture 
will consider technical assistance for conservation programs.
            Thank you,

Erwin E. Klaas,
Commissioner,
Soil and Water Conservation District,
Story County Iowa.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of David Klein, Normal, IL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: David Klein.
    City, State: Normal, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: Please consider in the next farm bill our need to 
have Farm Acreage Data from USDA-FSA made public again. In my 
role as a farm realtor, manager and appraiser, we are currently 
using old data, which can be difficult to identify any farms 
that have been split, and their acreage sizes for performing 
appraisals and valuations. This changed during the last farm 
bill and we would request that it be considered to be allowed 
once again.
    On another front I would ask that you support the amendment 
to H.R. 5297 introduced by Senators. Blanche Lincoln and Jon 
Kyl regarding estate tax relief. Having a moderated amount, 
such as this, will keep my family from being forced to sell the 
land we own to pay estate taxes, from the manner in which it 
reverts back to on January 1, 2011. Farm families reinvest 
their earnings into the business (land and machinery to operate 
it), and if we are forced to sell the land, in order to pay 
estate taxes this means that our small business shrinks rather 
than continuing to grow. As a result, larger operations that 
will pay higher rents on rented land to absentee landowners 
will continue to grow disproportionately. When too much 
concentration comes into too few hands we can have real 
problems in any industry. Hopefully, with wise guidance, this 
will not happen in row crop agriculture in Illinois. Yet, 
unless something is done--the middle sized farmer will start to 
disappear and we will have a country of large scale operations 
or part-time farmers with little in between.
    Thank you for considering this request.

David Klein.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Pamela Klein, Sunset, TX

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Pamela Klein.
    City, State: Sunset, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I would like to see the House Agriculture 
Committee consider the same help for farms who want to grow 
using sustainable farming methods as described by ATTRA as 
those who are committed to the National Organic Program.

   We need the same programs as the participants in the 
        ``NOP'' that will help us improve our lands and water 
        courses while providing nutrient dense clean food to 
        our communities.

   We support your efforts to include programs 
        enhancing the National Organic Program but would like 
        to see the same programs and funding for those who 
        follow the sustainable farming methods as described by 
        ATTRA. We feel this is the truest form of independence 
        for our country and our food supply. Sustainable 
        farming is the way to ensure that a select few don't 
        continue to exploit our Nations most precious 
        commodity. That all across the lands of America 
        everyone profits from the economic benefits of growing 
        our own local food.

   I challenge the House Agriculture Committee to be 
        the first to take a step toward change that truly 
        protects our lands, food and economic viability. A step 
        that will attract all farmers to a sustainable or 
        Organic method of growing.

    You all have the power to make real changes that will 
protect our people and this beautiful country. Please help us 
clean up our land and our food.
            Thank you,

Pamela Klein.
                                ------                                


                Comments of Farryl Kluis, Faribault, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Farryl Kluis.
    City, State: Faribault, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: I marked producer because I do own farm land. I am 
an appraiser that works on farm appraisers. We need section 
1619 changed. The farm crop base and yield are important 
information for buyer and seller. It must be important as if we 
are doing an FSA appraisal, we are provided the info on the 
comparable sales and the subject. This information goes with 
the land, not the owner or producer. It should be available to 
state licensed appraisers. We need it to make the best possible 
appraisal!

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Farryl Kluis.
    City, State: Faribault, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Rural Appraiser.
    Comment: The Common Land Units, current maps and 
information related to the parcel is very important information 
to arrive at a credible opinion of value. The section 1619 of 
the farm bill removed access to this information from 
appraisers. The information available from services such as 
AgriData, Inc and others is not as current as we would like it 
to be. Without allowing this information to be available to 
appraisers on comparable sales the appraisals maybe not as 
accurate. This is NOT Private information as it stays with the 
parcel and not the owner or tenant. It must be important 
because if we are doing the works for a government agency like 
FSA, the information is provided. Please correct this in the 
next farm bill.
    I did discuss this with Rep. Peterson and he understands 
but others are not requesting a change. This is likely because 
it has not yet effected them. It likely will in the future when 
they need an appraisal and want it as current and accurate as 
they would like. We can be only as accurate as the information 
available to us.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Anthea Knapper, Wildomar, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Anthea Knapper.
    City, State: Wildomar, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Paralegal and Mother.
    Comment: These are my wishes and concerns for the future of 
our farms, our agriculture industry, and all the families that 
depend on you:
    First and foremost, stop selling out to corporations. They 
don't have the consumer's best interest in mind.
    Please keep our food safe and healthy!
    Please protect our rights as consumers!
    Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the standard 
for Organic Food . . .
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive . . .
    Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our future 
. . .
    Please take care of the Land, the Soil, the Water, and our 
Bodies!
    This is not a fad and it will not go away! Thank you for 
your efforts . . .
                                ------                                


                Comment of Dave Koenigshof, Cumming, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Dave Koenigshof.
    City, State: Cumming, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Appraiser.
    Comment: I am certified general appraiser from Iowa. While 
we still have some older USDA farm service agency CLU data from 
some sources, this data is becoming older and less accurate. 
While in some cases we can obtain permission to receive CLU 
data, in most instances we are blocked from this information. 
This data is vital in maintaining the accuracy of appraisals 
and ultimately the collateralization of loans. I urge you to 
reinstate public access of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to 
the NRCS Data Gateway.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Justin Koenigshof, Sacramento, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Justin Koenigshof.
    City, State: Sacramento, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Hi, I am a real estate appraiser who uses FSA 
records on a constant basis. I regularly use a program called 
AgriData to access FSA farmable acres to assess my properties. 
It has been inconvenient not having current FSA acreages since 
the passing of the Farm Bill and I ask that you reconsider 
allowing access to these records.
            Thank you,

Justin Koenigshof.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kenneth Kolevzon, Oakland, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 1:35 a.m.
    Name: Kenneth Kolevzon.
    City, State: Oakland, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please honor the First Lady's (and every parent 
and child's) wishes, and include in the farm bill:
    Funds for farm to school programs, and better school lunch 
programs (more
$) . . . children deserve better nutrition than what districts 
can buy for $2.70 per child, this should be a higher priority 
than subsidizing large producers of corn, soy, etc.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kim Kondracki, Cranbury, NJ

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Kim Kondracki.
    City, State: Cranbury, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Management Consultant.
    Comment:

    Dear House Committee on Agriculture:

    As part of my research for a masters degree, I have studied 
how economic growth is stifled because entrenched interests 
fight efforts by others to take advantage of new options. 
Continued subsidizing of animal and other factory farming is 
just such an interest. We all know that the factory farmed food 
supply is unhealthy. You just need to have the courage to open 
up the opportunity for us to make new choices. We can do it, 
but you have to take the first step and end farm subsidies that 
provide an advantage/incentive for the worst kind of food 
production for our national health and well being. Just do it!!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Edward J. Kopp, Lexington, KY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Edward J. Kopp.
    City, State: Lexington, KY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chef, Culinary Student.
    Comment: Please read ``Everything I Want to Do is Illegal'' 
by Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms in Swoope, VA. It is clear, 
concise and to the point regarding the issues with our nations 
agricultural policies.
    As a 20 year veteran of the food service industry and 
culinary student I am keenly aware of the issues regarding our 
food/agricultural policies. Stop subsidizing monocropping and 
large corporations. Promote locally raised food that keeps 
dollars in our communities. Stop restricting our freedom from 
buying healthy food from our friends and neighbors.
            Respectfully,

Edward J. Kopp.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Walter Kotecki, Stockton, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Walter Kotecki.
    City, State: Stockton, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: In balancing the needs of farmers and other 
agricultural water interests, you have an opportunity to also 
save the Delta, a unique and valuable resource that mother 
nature has blessed us with. Please keep this in mind.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Kramer, Minden, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: David Kramer.
    City, State: Minden, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Own and operate a retail farm supply business.
    Comment: As a business which relies almost daily on the use 
of CLU data we strongly support public access of the Common 
Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Darrell Kraupie, Bridgeport, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Darrell Kraupie.
    City, State: Bridgeport, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Broker.
    Comment: Pleased allow more access to records which affect 
the transfer of property. Buyers must be informed with the best 
information possible to purchase land. This would require more 
transparency. As a Broker we have a fiducial and confidential 
relationship with the Seller. We are also required to have a 
specific Agency Relationship representing the Seller. We are 
also required by law to disclose adverse material facts.
    It would make property transfers much easier for the Farm 
Service Agency if all new or existing producers knew the facts.
    I have received permission from Sellers for 30 years (in 
writing) allowing us to get the pertinent information regarding 
the transfer of Agricultural lands.
    I would strongly recommend re-instating CLU data into 
Section 1619. Please try to allow more co-operation with 
professionals who deal in Ag Land.
             Thank You,

Darrell Kraupie.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Allan Krech, Rolla, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Allan Krech.
    City, State: Rolla, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Retailer.
    Comment: The Survey maps are a great tool for us and the 
producer and would really hate to not have them available for 
our use.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Timothy Kreft, Williston, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Timothy Kreft.
    City, State: Williston, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I would greatly appreciate the reinstatement of 
the CLU data into Section 1619 of the previous farm bill. Your 
support will reinforce the huge benefits that CLU data provides 
for businesses who work closely with producers, such as giving 
producers more timely, accurate and cost-effective services. 
Below are my reasons for reinstating public access to CLU data.

    1. USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

    2. Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
        bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

    3. CLU data only contains field boundary information and 
        does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

    4. CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
        support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

    5. Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Chris Kreuder, Indianola, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Chris Kreuder.
    City, State: Indianola, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: The 2008 Farm Bill prohibited the public access of 
CLU data. CLU data is invaluable to me as a producer and the 
fact that it is no longer available outside of the FSA office 
is a major inconvenience for myself and other producers. It is 
very useful when collaborating with other producers, custom 
applicators, and real estate professionals. Please ensure that 
in the future CLU data will be made publicly available so that 
producers like myself can use it to more efficiently feed and 
fuel the world.
    Also, as far as I am concerned, you can eliminate direct 
and counter cyclical subsidies for corn and soybeans as long as 
you maintain or increase the assistance in the form of crop 
insurance. The use of crop insurance to limit risk and more 
easily obtain financing has been a major boon for the industry. 
Direct subsidies, in my opinion, only give more fuel to the 
anti-farmer anti-subsidy movement that seems to be growing in 
the media. I do support the move to reduce the payments to crop 
insurance agents, though, they make far too much money ($250k+) 
in some instances, which can be better spent on other ag 
programs.
            Thank you,

Chris Kreuder.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Greg Krieger, Galesburg, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Greg Krieger.
    City, State: Galesburg, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Consultant.
    Comment: Please continue to make CLU data (FSA Fields) 
available for public access. As an agronomist, I find this 
information helpful as I help my producer customers manage 
their crop inputs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Josef Kriegl, Redwood Falls, MN

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Josef Kriegl.
    City, State: Redwood Falls, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retail Fert. & Chem. Dealer.
    Comment: We need farm programs to support family farmers 
not industrial size operations--also we need FSA MAPS available 
to the public
                                ------                                


                Comment of Richard Kriese, Mitchell, SD

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Richard Kriese.
    City, State: Mitchell, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: Thank you for reading this. I work as an 
agronomist in the Mitchell, SD area and have done so for 25 
years. I know a lot of the fields in the area very well. The 
field mapping programs that we use are very useful to us and 
help us to get accurate acres on each field we do work on. We 
treat every field confidentially and do not share any 
information with out the producer or land lord's consent. These 
resources help our producers with crop rotation decisions and 
plant population plans. I treat these services with high 
respect and would greatly miss having the use of them. I would 
encourage all efforts to allow us to have access to them. Thank 
You!

Rick Kriese,
[Redacted],
Mitchell, SD.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Eldon Krull, Marshall, MN

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Eldon Krull.
    City, State: Marshall, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: As an appraiser who is charged with determining 
the most probable price for farm land, it is critical that we 
have access to information about all comparable sale and 
subject property soils maps, CRP info, wetland determination 
maps, and other pertinent information. If we are denied access 
to this information, any loss of accuracy and subsequent loan 
loss problems created by inaccurate information will rest with 
those who failed to allow we appraisers access to essential 
information.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Wendy Krupnick, Santa Rosa, CA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Wendy Krupnick.
    City, State: Santa Rosa, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: It is clearly time to move human society away from 
fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources of both energy and 
fertility for our agriculture. Organic farming holds the 
answers to our future food production and climate change 
mitigation. Please invest in organic and truly sustainable 
methods in the next farm bill.

   Organic methods rely on building soil organic 
        content, taking carbon from the atmosphere and holding 
        it in the soil, where it increases fertility and water 
        holding capacity. It is crucial that these techniques 
        be implemented a large scale and that nitrogen 
        fertilizer from fossil fuels be discontinued in the 
        very near future.

   Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
        segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
        food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. 
        food retail market.

   Organic farming systems have the potential to 
        conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil 
        quality while providing high quality food and fiber for 
        consumers here and abroad.

   If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue 
        to grow and thrive, we need to invest in programs that 
        support organic farmers, including:

     Research and Extension Programs that expand 
            the breadth of knowledge about organic farming 
            systems and provide that knowledge to organic 
            farmers.

     Conservation Programs that reward organic 
            farmers for the conservation benefits of organic 
            farming systems and provide technical support for 
            organic farmers who want to improve on-farm 
            conservation.

     Transition Programs that provide technical 
            support to farmers who want to transition to 
            organic farming practices but don't know how.

      Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic 
            farmers and reimburse them for any losses based on 
            the organic market value of the crop, not average 
            conventional prices.

    It's now or never for preserving at least some of the life 
on Earth we know now.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Mary Lou Kugel, Shawano, WI

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Mary Lou Kugel.
    City, State: Shawano, WI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I am writing in regards to #1619--CLU on FSA 
aerial photos. CLU= common land unit. As a real estate 
appraiser and dairy producer, I have found the removal of the 
CLU on FSA aerial photos to be a burden. As an appraiser, I use 
the CLU to determine how many acres of the various classes of 
land base a farmer has. For example out of a 40 acre tract, 23 
acres may be in crop, 10 may be in pasture and 7 may be in 
wooded. The CLU's no longer show up on the maps that I am able 
to obtain from the FSA office, so therefore I am ``using a best 
estimate'' as to the number of acres, whereas previously the 
CLU were mapped. It saved me time, which ultimately saved the 
farmer ``cost'' associated with preparing an appraisal.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Keith Kuper, Ackley, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Keith Kuper.
    City, State: Ackley, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment: Unless there are much smaller and much tighter 
payment limitations applied to farm programs, such programs 
will only hasten the demise of smaller farms. As it is, farm 
payments are largely capitalized into higher land charges--both 
rents and land values.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Matthew Kupstas, Elkins, WV

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Matthew Kupstas.
    City, State: Elkins, WV.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: AmeriCorps VISTA.
    Comment: Thank you for taking the time to read comments 
about the next Farm Bill.
    I want for our government to completely stop subsidizing 
corn and soybeans. While this would be a drastic change, it is 
causing drastic problems. With the debt of the U.S. 
skyrocketing daily and we need to tighten our belts. Our 
subsidization of corn has made Concentrated Animal Feedlot 
Operations the norm in beef production in the United States. 
CAFO's are inhumane, they produce much less healthy meat, and 
cause major environmental problems. The concentration of cow 
manure causes major water pollution and CARO's are causing the 
Ogallala Aquifer to dry up.
    CAFO's also require exorbitant levels of antibiotics, which 
leads to an increasing amount of antibiotic resistant bacteria 
that will infect humans. The subsidization of corn and soybeans 
funnels tax dollars to fast food companies and junk food 
companies. Therefore, the poor eat the least healthy food 
available, get diabetes, heart disease, or both and then tax 
dollars are needed to cover their health care costs.
    Our subsidization of corn is putting Mexican corn farmers 
out of work. They then come to the United States illegally so 
they can provide for their families. Who can blame them? Our 
Agriculture policies put them out of work.
    The subsidization of corn and soybeans reduce quality & 
diversity of crops on farms. Small scale farming is more 
productive, more environmentally friendly, increases community 
solidarity and provides more jobs. Small farmers are model 
citizens, and I can't think of a better way to put people to 
work doing something truly valuable to the well being of our 
people, country, and environment. Subsidizing corn and soybeans 
hurts small scale farming economically.
    We need policies that do not hinder local food systems. The 
more local food we eat, the less pollution and a higher quality 
of life for all.
    We need soda to be off limits to those with food stamps 
just as tobacco and alcohol are.
    Thanks again for your time.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jon Kvols, Sioux City, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Jon Kvols.
    City, State: Sioux City, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraisal.
    Comment: Reconsider reinstating the CLU data back into 
section 1619 of the farm bill. This data does helps appraisers 
provide a better product to our clients. The CLU data does not 
include any personal information.
            Thank you,

Jon Kvols,
Sioux City, IA.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Gwen Lambert, Dayton, OH

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Gwen Lambert.
    City, State: Dayton, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Manager.
    Comment: Organic farming systems have the potential to 
conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil quality 
while providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here 
and abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Kaitlyn Lambert, Brookfield, MO

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Kaitlyn Lambert.
    City, State: Brookfield, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: I request that CLU Data (Farm Borders) be again 
made public in the upcoming farm bill. I am a farm appraiser 
and it's very challenging to determine accurate values for 
properties when the acreage of sales cannot be verified. My 
issues are not with the subject property, because I Can have 
the owner sign over that information to me. However, if the 
comparable sales that I am using to estimate value for the 
property have not been analyzed accurately, it is impossible to 
know how accurate my estimations of value are.
    Accurate appraisals are vital to the strength of not only 
the financial sector, but the agricultural sector as well. We 
do no favors to anyone by not allowing appraisers the 
information we need to ensure we are doing the best possible 
job at estimating a market value on these properties. It's 
already challenging enough to perform an accurate analysis in a 
state that does not provide any way to verify sale prices so we 
must at least ensure this measure is taken to stop inflation of 
appraised values.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Brian Landis, Lebo, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Brian Landis.
    City, State: Lebo, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As your Committee considers changes to the Farm 
Bill, I urge you to rescind Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill. 
As you know, Section 1619 restricts access to property specific 
information created by the FSA and maintained in a Geospatial 
Information System. The agricultural community relies on the 
FSA field measurements for a wide variety of management and 
decision making issues. The real estate markets trade tillable 
land based on the FSA field measurements. There is no alternate 
source for this data. In order for an appraiser to properly 
analyze both a subject property and the comparable sales, 
access to the following FSA information is required: aerial 
photography, CLU field boundaries and acreage, soils, yield 
information and enrollment terms in such programs as CRP, WRP 
and other easement programs. The information required is 
property specific and should not considered personal 
information of an owner or operator. It is not realistic for 
appraisers to contact recent buyers or sellers of farmland and 
expect to get written authorization for release of this 
information. A GIS has proven to be a very efficient method of 
managing and retrieving this type of data. Without this data, 
an appraiser's analysis of market data for agricultural land 
appraisals becomes incomplete and potentially flawed resulting 
in value conclusions with a lower confidence. Therefore, 
restricting appraisers' access to this GIS data results in a 
substantial decrease in market transparency and possible 
negative consequences to all intended users of our services and 
the public as a whole. Thank you for your consideration.

Brian Landis,
Staff Real Estate Appraiser,
Frontier Farm Credit.
                                ------                                


                     Comment of Sam Lang, Star, ID

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: Sam Lang.
    City, State: Star, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Chef.
    Comment: Please stop subsidizing GM foods. It's bad for our 
health, bad for the environment, and bad for farmers. WE WANT 
ORGANIC!!!!!
                                ------                                


             Comment of Lynne Langevin-Doran, Girdwood, AR

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Lynne Langevin-Doran.
    City, State: Girdwood, AR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Administrative Assistant.
    Comment: I would like to see an increase in funding to 
support for local, organic diversified agricultural versus 
large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy. This would 
benefit the health of all Americans.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Sarah Lantz, Media, PA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 8:36 p.m.
    Name: Sarah Lantz.
    City, State: Media, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Piano Teacher.
    Comment: The Committee needs to focus on subsidizing 
healthier foods. Our country is the most overweight on the 
planet, and it needs to change if we want our children to live 
long and happy lives. How are we to pursue happiness if we 
can't walk from point A to point B without gasping for air? We 
are taking positive steps in helping to save planet and other 
species--it's time to save our own. Help the farmers produce 
higher yields of greens (mustard greens, spinach, watercress), 
instead of corn and soy. Cultivate farms based on the Polyface 
principle, if at all possible. Help our families get back to a 
healthier lifestyle, or the health care reform will be for 
naught.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Max Lappin, San Diego, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Max Lappin.
    City, State: San Diego, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Engineer.
    Comment: Please abolish the ethanol subsidies that's 
costing the taxpayers a lot of money without any benefit to the 
citizens other than giving the giant corporation money.
    Thanks.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Lee Larabee, Burlington Jct., MO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:06 a.m.
    Name: Lee Larabee.
    City, State: Burlington Jct., MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Fertilizer and Ag Chem. Dealer.
    Comment: We truly need to have access to the FSA field 
maps. This is very important in directing applicator to the 
right fields also gives us a way to measure fields when they 
are split for some reason. Even though maps are given to a 
farmer, they usually do not have them with them when they are 
giving us a order. We can go to the FSA office and get a aerial 
map but this is time consuming and is 20 miles from here. I can 
not see a reason or concern for not allowing us access to these 
maps.
            Sincerely,

Lee Larabee,
Manager Farmers Supply,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                Comment of Chris Larson, Park River, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Chris Larson.
    City, State: Park River, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Appraiser.
    Comment: I hope the Committee will take into consideration 
what the CLU data restriction means to the agricultural 
industry as a whole from appraising to fertilizer applicators. 
In order to do an accurate appraisal it is imperative to have 
prudent information available, with these restrictions in place 
that hinders our ability to do a good job as appraisers. I also 
don't understand how government contracts (CRP payments) to 
private citizens can be considered confidential considering it 
is tax payer money going to these farmers. I urge the Committee 
to reinstate the CLU data into Section 1619.
                                ------                                


               Comment of John Larson, Buffalo Center, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: John Larson.
    City, State: Buffalo Center, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: We need this mapping information to be available 
to all producers. it is critical to application of all 
pesticides and crop protection chemicals.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Mike Larson, Perham, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Mike Larson.
    City, State: Perham, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Spraying.
    Comment: My comments are directed to the section 1619, Data 
information field borders. For it is a valuable tool to be able 
to look up information on AgriData for our spraying needs.
            Thank you for your time,

Mike Larson.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Bryan Lawrence, Chatham, NJ

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Bryan Lawrence.
    City, State: Chatham, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Management Consultant.
    Comment: Please consider the impact the 2012 bill will have 
on consumers and the price, diversity and nutrition of the food 
produced for them by farmers. This should be renamed the `Food 
Bill' to reflect the fact that this legislation is about 
creating a farming environment that provides healthy affordable 
food for all Americans. Lets make sure fruits, nuts, vegetables 
and legumes can be sustainably produced and made affordable. 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Bob Lebacken, Reynolds, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 3:22 p.m.
    Name: Bob Lebacken.
    City, State: Reynolds, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment: I am a farmer in ND. I see the damage CRP acres 
have done to my state, and would ask that this contract be 
changed to allowing no more than 10% of a land parcel, and no 
more than the same for a county. It has killed small towns and 
communities, as businesses have closed along with churches and 
schools. Of course the ``tree huggers'' are writing the farm 
bill, so I know my letter means little. This is a goal by many 
to depopulate the country side in favor of wildlife. The 
elected officials should be ashamed to what they have done to 
destroy rural America. Much the same can be said with the use 
of other resources in this country. Also the EPA is nuts, 
defund them. They will make it impossible to farm in our 
country, of course that is their intent.

Bob Lebacken,
[Redacted],
Reynolds ND.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Barbara Lechtenberg, Hutchinson, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Barbara Lechtenberg.
    City, State: Hutchinson, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: CLU data (FSA Field boundaries) needs to be made 
available again to appraisers, along with CRP contract 
information and GRP and WRP easements. Without this 
information, arriving at an appraised value for agricultural 
properties becomes much more expensive for the client 
(producer).
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ann LeClercq, Oswego, IL

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Ann LeClercq.
    City, State: Oswego, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Homemaker.
    Comment: As our country and our planet face increasing 
challenges from climate change, farmland and agriculture become 
even more vitally important. As such, we must make sure that 
farmers and ranchers have a full suite of conservation programs 
with adequate funding so that they can be the best stewards of 
our nation's natural resources. Federal farm policy should also 
support homegrown renewable energy like wind, solar, and 
biomass.
    Also, a strategic base of our agricultural land is 
absolutely essential to our long-term ability to produce and 
supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber and energy with the 
fewest inputs. Federal farm policy must enhance farm and ranch 
land protection to adequately address the threat to our 
strategic agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
and fragmentation. Here in Kendall County, we have watched our 
farmland be literally swallowed whole by urban sprawl, and are 
now having to face unpleasant consequences.
    It is critical to increase the production of, and access to 
local and healthy food while helping farmers remain profitable. 
Farm and food policy should be linked more strongly with 
national health and nutrition goals. Federal government 
programs should promote healthier diets and meet increased 
demand for specialty crops and fresh, locally grown food by 
expanding access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
supporting farmers markets. In addition, local food requires 
less oil for transportation, which lowers greenhouse gas 
emissions as well as our dependence on foreign oil.
    To help achieve these goals, we need to build upon the 
success of the 2008 Farm Bill in creating the ACRE program, a 
new safety net for farmers. I believe ACRE better serves 
farmers by providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of our 
current programs, and is a better investment of public tax 
dollars into agriculture.
    Thank you for your time.
            Sincerely,

Ann LeClercq.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Gregory Ledgerr, Chicago, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Gregory Ledgerr.
    City, State: Chicago, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Artist.
    Comment: I would like to see more subsidies for vegetables 
and fruits, and less for corn and soybeans. We need to make 
healthy eating as affordable as unhealthy eating.
    Thanks.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of William LeDuc, Mankato, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: William LeDuc.
    City, State: Mankato, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I would like Congressman Tim Walz to support the 
reinstatement of public access to the CLU data in Section 1619 
of the Farm Bill.
    I work closely and on behalf of farm producers/land owners 
and having this accurate data available helps me get projects 
completed in a more timely fashion and is more cost effective.
    Here are some facts about Common Land Unit (CLU)

   USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.

    Confidential information is not compromised in supporting 
this. Please do what you can.
            Thanks,

Bill LeDuc,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Adolfo Lee, Brooklyn, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Adolfo Lee.
    City, State: Brooklyn, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Filmmaker.
    Comment: I just read this article:

 http://www.good.is/post/help-make-a-salad-cost-less-than-a-
big-mac/ 

and I wish that healthier food was more affordable to more 
people and not a luxury for a few.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document referred to is retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ------                                


                   Comment of John Leezer, Toulon, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: John Leezer.
    City, State: Toulon, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate agent.
    Comment: I sell farm real estate and crop insurance. We 
frequently use the Farm Service Agency CLU's in our work to 
service our farm clients. Please consider making this part 
public information in the next farm bill. This does not violate 
the producers privacy and will help us service our clients much 
better.

John Leezer.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Dan Legner, Princeton, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Dan Legner.
    City, State: Princeton, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Land Appraiser.
    Comment: I would respectfully ask that appraisers be 
allowed to obtain FSA maps for the use in land appraisals. When 
analyzing sales, of which the buyer or sellers are not clients 
of the appraiser, the appraiser is not able to obtain accurate 
information as they do not have the FSA maps. I can be reached 
at [Redacted] if you would like a further explanation.

Dan Legner.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Steve Lerman, Plainview, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Steve Lerman.
    City, State: Plainview, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I urge Congress to pass the Farm Bill to provide 
additional funding and support for organic farming. Organic 
farming is a rapidly growing trend in food production, and is 
no longer just for tree-huggers. In addition to ridding the 
ecosphere of tons of pesticides annually, it also promotes 
sustainable agriculture and saves precious natural resources. 
We can't afford to be without it.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Emma Levin, Wilsonville, OR

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:38 p.m.
    Name: Emma Levin.
    City, State: Wilsonville, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Self Employed.
    Comment: I would like to see healthy foods become more 
available to all people. We need a drastic change to our food 
culture and making it easy and affordable to get fresh, local, 
organic produce. It is important that the people who typically 
choose the cheaper ``fast'' foods that are available are made 
more aware of the implications on their health, and that they 
have other, just as affordable options. I think we are all 
aware of the frightening state our country is in with the rise 
in childhood obesity and diabetes. It is time now to start 
fixing the very heart of this problem instead of putting band 
aids on. The problem is so widespread, the habits so ingrained 
into our culture that it will now require government 
intervention and policy change. We have to stop pumping 
ourselves full of corn and start eating real meat and fresh 
produce again. The next generation, our children, are going to 
be left with an epidemic that is irreversible if we don't start 
towards change now. The truth is we are what we eat.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Stuart Leviton, Baltimore, MD

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:06 a.m.
    Name: Stuart Leviton.
    City, State: Baltimore, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Statistician.
    Comment: Organic farming must be a top priority in the 2012 
Farm Bill and all future agriculture policy. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jake Lewin, Santa Cruz, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Jake Lewin.
    City, State: Santa Cruz, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Organic Certification.
    Comment: Please support organic food and farming. At least 
please provide funding on parity with funding for non-organic 
Ag. This is important for farmers, the environment, and the 
U.S. generally.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Debra Lewis, Beardstown, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Debra Lewis.
    City, State: Beardstown, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment:

    Dear Honorable House Committee on Agriculture:

    As a Real Estate Appraiser who serves the West Central 
Illinois counties of Cass, Schuyler, Brown, Morgan and Menard, 
I respectfully request that you support the reinstatement of 
public access of the CLU data into Section 1619 of the farm 
bill. In so doing, you will reinstate benefits that CLU data 
provides for individuals like myself who work closely with 
producers and land owners in providing real estate valuation 
services. It will help me to give more timely and accurate, and 
thus, cost-effective real estate appraisals to the people I 
serve in West Central Illinois.
    Currently in Section 1619 there is no compliance, CRP, 
wetlands or other personal information in the CLU data. This is 
a vital part of the information needed by me in the appraisal 
valuation process.
    Since the 2008 Farm Bill, I am required by the local USDA 
offices to have written permission from a land owner to get the 
information that I need for appraising their farmland. While 
this is not an insurmountable task, and on the surface would 
seem rather easy, this method does not adequately supply me 
with information needed for every assignment I encounter. It 
makes it very difficult for me to obtain much needed 
information in real estate appraisals for out of State and 
absentee land owners, or estate valuations for deceased owners.
    When I do have the needed documentation signed to provide 
to the local USDA office, I would often encounter reluctance at 
giving me the information without further documentation. It was 
not a question of them knowing who I was, why I was getting the 
information, but rather making sure they weren't violating a 
law or rule within the 2008 Farm Bill. Initially, there was a 
lot of confusion as to what they could give out and to whom. I 
can completely understand. But even with all of the proper 
documentation, I would often encounter pleasant but VERY busy 
workers at the local USDA offices who were reluctant to wait on 
the person at the counter because they were busy doing their 
work on behalf of the land owners and producers of their 
county. Once again, I completely understand. But this is only 
part of the obstacle course for me. All of this is what what I 
must do to obtain information on the farm that I am actually 
appraising (the ``subject property'' in appraiser speak). I 
cannot obtain this much needed information from the USDA office 
on the comparable farmland sales that I use in the valuation 
process. For those properties, I must dig for the information 
otherwise from the best sources possible, and hope that it is 
reasonably correct. In short, if I were able to access the 
accurate information that I need on my own, I would glady do 
it! It would save all involved time, and be a whole lot more 
efficient.
    After discussing this issue with other area appraisers, I 
came to the conclusion that it would be more time effective if 
I subscribed to a farm data site, such as AgriData. However, 
they, too, are limited in the information that they can provide 
because of the 2008 Farm Bill. Lack of public access hurts us 
all. In real estate appraising, I am very reliant on data, and 
the data must be as accurate as possible. Public trust and 
confidence is everything to me. The most accurate data is not 
readily accessible to me because of Section 1619 of the 2008 
Farm Bill. Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural service professionals like 
myself, as well as producers, landowners, and others who 
utilize that data in their professions on a regular basis.
    I respectfully request that you make the necessary changes 
to allow this information to be accessible to the public. It 
will benefit the agriculture community as a whole. And in West 
Central Illinois, agriculture is our economic backbone!
    Thank you in advance for your consideration of my request.
    As a courtesy, I am cc'ing my Congressman, the Honorable 
Aaron Schock with this request made to your Committee for his 
information.
            Sincerely,

Debra Lewis,
Debra N. Lewis Appraisals,
State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser,
[Redacted],
Beardstown, IL,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jerry Lewis, West Point, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Jerry Lewis.
    City, State: West Point, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Acres need to be shown on the aerial photo maps 
that I obtain from the FSA in order to provide accurate farm 
appraisals. If the acres are not available, the cost of doing 
an appraisal will increase significantly since an appraiser 
will have to find another source for the data. The acres are 
needed in order to provide clients with accurate value 
estimates based upon the land use of the property.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Laura Lewis, Shelton, WA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Laura Lewis.
    City, State: Shelton, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small Business Owner--Custom Cakes.
    Comment: I live in a small town in Western Washington, 
where it is completely normal for my neighbors to share their 
crops and eggs from their farm. It concerns me greatly to think 
that would be taken away from us! I do not believe any 
corporation has the right to impose on a person's farm! Don't 
forget that our country was founded on the principal by the 
people for the people. Not for the corporations!!! Do not make 
this country Monsanto's guinea pigs!!
                                ------                                


              Comment of Darrell Limkeman, Bloomfield, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Darrell Limkeman.
    City, State: Bloomfield, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: As a State Certified General Appraiser in Iowa the 
restriction on allowing access to FSA data has been a real 
problem. The section 1619 of the last farm bill made access to 
this data all but impossible. We need the maps and information 
in order to do our jobs and I don't know of a single appraiser 
who abused the privilege. Please reinstate the benefit that 
allows certified appraisers access to this data.
                                ------                                


   Comment of Lincoln County Wyoming, Board of County Commissioners, 
                              Kemmerer, WY

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 17, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Lincoln County Wyoming, Board of County 
Commissioners.
    City, State: Kemmerer, WY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: County Government.
    Comment: Enhancing efforts to protect communities, 
watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health 
are important to local governments like ours. We believe that 
management programs must provide for fuel load management that 
will prevent catastrophic events and provide for reduced fire 
potential. The ``roadless'' designation has effectively 
eliminated access for vegetative treatments, logging, and other 
tools to reduce the fire potential. The ``roadless'' area 
boundaries are completely arbitrary--there is no logic to how 
they were developed. The Forest and Cooperators have expressed 
a desire to amend the roadless map to what exists on the 
ground. However, this requires a review by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, who has a backlog of requests. We believe that the 
``roadless'' area should to be determined at the local level as 
part of the forest planning process.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of T. Lineberry, Crestview, FL

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 28, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: T. Lineberry.
    City, State: Crestview, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I would like to see farm subsidies go to farmers 
who produce fruits and vegetables. Currently these basic foods 
are too expensive for many consumers--in particular the poor. 
Our food supply is over-run with nutrient poor ``junk food'' 
style processed foods due to below market subsidies of corn . . 
. i.e.,: vegetables need to be cheaper than fast food 
hamburgers!
    Special consideration should be given to help farmers 
transition to organic farming. Currently the demand for organic 
is outstripping supply. This is causing organic to be too 
expensive for average middle income to poor households. We 
should make it a goal to give all consumers the ability to 
choose between organic or conventional or genetically modified. 
This includes allowing conventional farmers who grow non-
genetically modified crops the ability to state on packaging 
that their product is non-GMO. Our labeling laws should also 
reflect this in order to give all producers/consumers equality 
in the marketplace.
    More legislation should be passed to prevent cross 
contamination of non-GMO crops. Such contamination is a 
drawback to committing local farm funds to alternative methods 
of agriculture such as organic. Contamination also hurts 
conventional farmers who can lose an entire season's production 
and sales overseas. There need to be clear laws for 
compensating farmers hurt by contamination by GMO field trials 
and crops.
    There should be laws which protect livestock producers from 
being bullied into covering up deplorable health conditions. 
Currently many farmers who try to blow-the-whistle on bad and 
dangerous practices lose their contracts. Such farmers should 
be fully compensated for the entirety of their contracts with 
the offending producers. Many farmers are forced into such 
practices by producers.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Mary Liss, Kearney, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Mary Liss.
    City, State: Kearney, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: General Certified Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a rural appraiser in central Nebraska. 
Current aerial photographs are imperative to accurate appraisal 
analysis on agricultural land.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Timothy Litwiller, Hillsboro, KS

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Timothy Litwiller.
    City, State: Hillsboro, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Service.
    Comment: I am concerned that the Common Land Use will 
remain available. This is invaluable to our industry in 
supporting growers. The main use I see is accuracy--Making sure 
spray operators get on the correct piece of land. having these 
outlines and don't have other information that could be a 
privacy concern helps us make sure we have the correct acres 
and get to the correct place and helps so we don't need to 
carry any more chemical than needed for each application.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Frank Livingood, Postville, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Frank Livingood.
    City, State: Postville, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment: On the matter of Section 1619 CLU. Lets reinstate 
public access to Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data 
Gateway. This should be available to all.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Sarah Lloyd, Wisconsin Dells, WI

    Date Submitted: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Sarah Lloyd.
    City, State: Wisconsin Dells, WI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: It is very important that the producer check-off 
programs be reevaluated and opened up for changes. The dairy 
check-off is not helping producers. Dairy farmers are going 
bankrupt and on food stamps in some cases, meanwhile the check-
off coffers are overflowing. Please make sure that the check-
off programs, especially the dairy check-off is looked at with 
producer interests in mind. The idea that mandatory check-off 
dollars restricted to promotion of consumption would some how 
trickle down to benefit producers is an outdated economic 
model.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Locker, Slidell, LA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: David Locker.
    City, State: Slidell, LA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: The farm bill needs to point toward overhauling 
our food system. We need to subsidize local, small farms that 
can grow sustainable plants and animals organically. Eliminate 
the large feed lots that create pollution in the form of run 
off down our rivers and into the Mississippi River that ends up 
in the Gulf of Mexico. Legislate transparency into the laws 
that govern large industrial animal production regarding 
poultry, beef and pork. Move toward putting more information 
about blood sugar on high sugar foods in grocery stores. The 
bill should point toward less processed foods and more whole, 
natural foods with less scale and processing. Thanks for your 
attention.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Rob Loe, Cooperstown, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Rob Loe.
    City, State: Cooperstown, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Real Estate, Property Management and Farm 
Land Appraisal.
    Comment: I use AgriData on a daily basis to assist my 
agricultural clients.
    It is important to access the CLU information.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of T. Logan, Austin, TX

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: T. Logan.
    City, State: Austin, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Citizen.
    Comment:

   We must make sure that farmers and ranchers have a 
        full suite of conservation programs with adequate 
        funding so that they can be the best stewards of our 
        nation's natural resources. Federal farm policy should 
        also support homegrown renewable energy like wind, 
        solar, and biomass.

   A strategic base of our agricultural land is 
        absolutely essential to our long-term ability to 
        produce and supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber 
        and energy with the fewest inputs. Federal farm policy 
        must enhance farm and ranch land protection to 
        adequately address the threat to our strategic 
        agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
        and fragmentation.

   It's critical to increase the production of, and 
        access to local and healthy food while helping farmers 
        remain profitable. Farm and food policy should be 
        linked more strongly with national health and nutrition 
        goals. Federal government programs should promote 
        healthier diets and meet increased demand for specialty 
        crops and fresh, locally grown food by expanding 
        access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
        supporting farmers markets.

   We need to build upon the success of the 2008 Farm 
        Bill in creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Theresa Logsdon, Lakeport, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Theresa Logsdon.
    City, State: Lakeport, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: It sure would be nice if Farm Bill subsidies were 
switched to Specialty Crops from Commodities. Particularly to 
show under 100 acres; which tend to be closer to consumers.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Michael Long, Camrillo, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 07, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Michael Long.
    City, State: Camrillo, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Independent Insurance Agent/Broker.
    Comment: Ventura County is still heavy in agribusiness, a 
well as our neighbor Santa Barbara County. I sent you a letter 
regarding the need for a strong USDA. I pushed the private 
sector and our relationships to farmers. I offer the USDA RMA 
Programs and have really helped many keep a float. I hope there 
comes a time when the private sector can offer the USDA NAP 
Program to growers. There should be no emergency funds given to 
a grower who has not procured either FSA or RMA Programs.
            Regards,

Michael Long.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Gary Loos, Clear Lake, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Gary Loos.
    City, State: Clear Lake, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professional Farm Manager.
    Comment: As a farm manager, I am interested in maintaining 
a healthy Ag sector. In the big picture, we need to reduce the 
size and scope of government. That must include Ag policy. It 
is unfortunate that we have developed a system that results in 
farmers depending on government for a significant portion of 
their income. This must be reduced and eventually eliminated 
even if it is painful in the near term.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Joel Loseke, Chamberlain, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Joel Loseke.
    City, State: Chamberlain, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Retail Application and Supplies.
    Comment: Please reinstate the CLU portion of USDA as we 
find it very helpful in our business when dealing with our 
customers for services and supplies. This information helps us 
greatly by saving time and money in getting the right 
information for fulfilling our customers needs and passing 
these savings on to them. Thanks.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Michelle Lourenco, Corona, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 06, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Michelle Lourenco.
    City, State: Corona, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Please support S. 1645. We must receive at a 
minimum the cost of production. We are on the verge of losing 
our family dairy farm as this has been the most devastating 
year in dairy history. Something is drastically wrong when the 
producers can't even receive the cost of production for their 
milk. How are we to pay our employees? More people will be 
losing their jobs. Something must be done NOW!!! Please help.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Sarah Lovas, Hillsboro, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Sarah Lovas.
    City, State: Hillsboro, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment:

    To Whom it May Concern:

    My Husband, Jason, and I raise about 5,000 acres of corn 
and soybeans near Hillsboro, ND. I also work in Hillsboro as a 
Sales Agronomist for the Halstad Elevator Company where I crop 
monitor 24,000 acres on a weekly basis in the summertime. I 
also advise many other customers on how to use agriculture 
input products. One tool that I use on both my own farm and for 
my customers is the Common Land Unit Data (FSA Fields). 
Previously this has been public information and has allowed us 
to use it with farmers for many purposes such as Precision 
Agriculture Applications.
    Furthermore, at this point, land ownership is public 
knowledge, and this Common Land Unit Data (FSA Maps) is paid 
for by our public tax dollars. Since both of these hold true, 
it would seem that this information should be free and public 
knowledge. As a farmer, I do not believe that it is in the best 
interest to be taxed once for the creation of this data and 
then charge me again to use it. As a Sales Agronomist working 
for a relatively small, local co-op, charging us for this data 
will negatively impact Halstad Elevator and my ability to 
provide my customers with the best agronomic information. This 
is especially true as I work with precision agriculture 
technologies.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Cari Lubiner, Highland Mills, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Cari Lubiner.
    City, State: Highland Mills, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Occupational Therapist.
    Comment: Lack of nutritional food in the schools is 
effecting student's academic and physical performance. We need 
to ensure that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Tobias Lunt, Brooklyn, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Tobias Lunt.
    City, State: Brooklyn, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retailer.
    Comment: Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic food is 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail 
market.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers Conservation Programs that reward 
organic farmers for the conservation benefits of organic 
farming systems and provide technical support for organic 
farmers who want to improve on-farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
    Supporting small-scale slaughterhouses and the 
decentralization of meat processing
    Replacing, at least partially, the incentives for corn, 
soybeans, wheat and cotton with a more level financial playing 
field that encourages the production and consumption of a 
variety of vegetables and fruits.
    The farm bill is the single most important piece of 
legislation for the health of our nation. Our nation is in a 
crisis of health, largely caused by diet. This needs to be 
solved NOW. Do not continue to allow processed food to be 
cheaper than a simple apple or carrot!
            Sincerely and respectfully,

Tobias Lunt.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Jay Luse, Lebanon, IN

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Jay Luse.
    City, State: Lebanon, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am an independent farm real estate appraiser who 
uses FSA acreage figures analysis of the farm I am appraising 
and other farms which have sold. These acreages are a basic 
building block in my analysis. My appraisals are used for many 
purposes including estates, loans, divorces, partitions and 
eminent domain. Having the accurate and widely accepted FSA 
acreage figures available for use makes my work more accurate 
and generally eliminates the number of acres as a point of 
argument. It also eliminates my time in calculating acres, 
which tends to reduce the fee I must charge.
    My report is confidential to my client, and I do not use 
the information outside the appraisal analysis.
    Please modify Section 1619 to make the FSA acreage figures 
available to me and other qualified appraisers.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Joseph Lutter, Zell, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Joseph Lutter.
    City, State: Zell, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment: The Farm Service Agency CLU data should be 
reinstated into Section 1619. This data should be readily 
available to agricultural producers and professionals helping 
making informed decisions impacting agriculture today.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kristie Lyon, St. Louis, MO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: Kristie Lyon.
    City, State: St. Louis, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consumer, Housekeeper.
    Comment: Monsanto is out of control. You have let them 
patent a seed, which is serious trouble. They have power to 
only have their seed used and if they use GMO seed we could all 
die. GMO causes organ failure, it is also very unhealthy. 
Please do not let Monsanto have all this power, please stop 
them. Please as it affects you too.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Shari Lyon, Mesa, AZ

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Shari Lyon.
    City, State: Mesa, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Health Coach.
    Comment: If Congress were to change even a small amount of 
the World War II era subsidy funding which is currently given 
to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and 
instead put that funding into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition 
would be enormous. While these subsidies of so called 
``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they were 
first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jennifer M., Pompano Beach, FL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Jennifer M.
    City, State: Pompano Beach, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Horticulturist.
    Comment: Please stop supporting Factory Farms/CAFOs and 
start helping local plant based farms instead. Animal 
agriculture is cruel, unnecessary and pollutes our planet more 
than anything else.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Lup Ma, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Lup Ma.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Systems Developer.
    Comment: Please diversify the food we eat. Thank you.
                                ------                                


               Comment of David Maciewski, Worcester, MA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: David Maciewski.
    City, State: Worcester, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I've worked for several seasons as a part-time 
organic farm hand, raising mixed vegetables on farms varying in 
size from a couple of acres in active cultivation (other land 
being fallow as part of good sustainable practice) to ten plus 
acres in active cultivation. I also have volunteered at a 
couple of different consumer-operated natural food coops so am 
familiar with a part of the reality of both producers and 
consumers of these foods.
    For consumers, if there is any way to make organic less 
expensive, especially for low-income folks. I've just been 
reading a book ``The One-Straw Revolution: An Introduction To 
Natural Farming'' by Masanobu Fukuoka, and in it he makes the 
common sense point that if a truly organic method requires less 
inputs, it should be less expensive.
    As a man in my mid-30's desiring at some point to work a 
farm on my own, and not knowing all of the politics (I will 
educate myself more and I appreciate all of the hard work of 
legislators and their aides), I ask these questions in 
ignorance: What is being done to help new growers access land; 
learn to grow the desired or needed crops and learn sustainable 
soil management; develop a successful business plan; and foster 
opportunities for growers to support one another and work 
collaboratively? For Mother Earth, and healthy communities both 
now and in the future, thank you for taking the time to read 
this.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Catriona MacMillan, Sydney, Australia

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Catriona MacMillan.
    City, State: Sydney, Australia.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Australian Food Advocate.
    Comment: Lead the way, show support to the soil and the 
soul of your society your farmers . . . Please consider that 
decisions you make will effect the world. your agricultural 
policies influence many other nations. Please also note that 
lack of support of family farms and support of global corporate 
businesses like Monsanto have a negative effect on the standing 
of your food. why allowing GMO canola and corn contaminate your 
crops you have disadvantaged USA. Others countries do not want 
GMO USA and you have been reduced to giving it away free as 
AID.
    Most of all please protect your farmers who farm and 
support families your agricultural workers, your rural towns 
and communities. they are the backbone of America. You can 
produce the food you need from your great vast land, each 
community that is lost to global homogensiation, to a massive 
factory farm, is a loss to humanity. in the great depression 
thousands of farmers committed suicide. suicide rates of 
farmers is increasing around the world as farm and farmers are 
replaced by massive factory farms and families lose their place 
in society
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jody Madeira, Bloomington, IN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Jody Madeira.
    City, State: Bloomington, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professor.
    Comment: As a mother of four, I am very concerned about the 
safety of our food, in particular the effects of toxic 
pesticides and hormones being used in U.S. food. Few studies 
exist of how many of the substances that are applied to our 
crops and injected into animals affect the human body in the 
long term, although research suggests correlations such as that 
between pesticides and ADHD. More detailed research--and much 
more caution--is needed.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Scott Magneson, Cressey, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Scott Magneson.
    City, State: Cressey, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: I feel strongly that we need a supply management 
system with mandatory basis. Our price for quota milk should 
return at minimum the cost of production, we need to do away 
with end-product pricing. End-product pricing discourages 
plants from being market oriented, causing surpluses that 
degrade product values which intern lower dairymen's prices.
    NMPF is promoting programs that benefit 1-2% of the largest 
producers along with the processing industry, all you have to 
do is look at the state of our industry to see where their 
leadership has gotten us. It's time for the House leadership to 
follow a different path before we loose all of our family farms 
and rural communities. NMPF and IDFA are working together to 
keep a policy of cheap milk where producers pay for all market 
development and all the risk that is associated with it.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Gretchen Maine, Waterville, NY

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Gretchen Maine.
    City, State: Waterville, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: We are dairy farmers in central NY state. We have 
farmed it for 43 years and last year was the worst year of our 
lives. Our income from milk was down $58,000 from 2008. We had 
to sell off our woodlot at 50% less than it would have brought 
the year before to make it through the summer. That woodlot was 
supposed to be our retirement fund.
    It is my opinion that the Specter-Casey bill needs to be 
passed. It is the only plan out there that stands even a chance 
to save us. We have to have a cost of production. Specter-Casey 
does that. The processors all have a cost of production in 
their make allowance. We have all the risk, do all the work, 
put our blood, sweat, and tears into it, and right now the 
processors are the only ones getting rich--off of us. Imports 
of MPC's should be outlawed or at least kept in check. Specter-
Casey does that. There has to be some kind of growth 
management. Specter-Casey does that.
    The one thing that we absolutely do not need is more 
insurance. We can't pay for all the insurance that we have now! 
From what I hear, that insurance would cover some of our 
losses, but not all of them. So, what good would that be?
    As a proud member of Progressive Agriculture Organization, 
I can say that this whole farm bill deal has not been fair 
right from the start. We have been shut out of all the 
hearings. The so-called North East Dairy Leaders are shutting 
us out of their hearings as did Sen. Gillibrand from her 
hearings and the PA people in Harrisburg. We have not had a 
chance to be heard, and I feel that we have been discriminated 
against. Therefore, you MUST take into consideration all the 
aspects of Specter-Casey, and not let the major players who 
don't want to see anything change rule.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Steven Mandzik, Arlington, VA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Steven Mandzik.
    City, State: Arlington, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Director, Green IT.
    Comment: Farm Bill Feedback--I do not understand this bill 
at all. My grandma just passed away from obesity. She was too 
poor to get good food around her. I was once obese, my friends 
are. So why does this bill subsidize corn, soy, sorghum to such 
enormous effect?
    Is that because we need more cows or fast food?
    Why oh why is a fruit or vegetable a specialty crop?
    U think that has anything to do with obesity or healthcare!
    Uggh!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kevin Manion, Sangerfield, NY

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Kevin Manion.
    City, State: Sangerfield, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: AgriData mapping is a great tool and the 
information available ag field acreage totals and soil 
descriptions does not violate any private ownership issues. 
USDA should take time to fully understand that the information 
should remain in the public domain.
                                ------                                


     Comment of J. Rives ``Judge'' Manning, Jr., Roanoke Rapids, NC

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 14, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: J. Rives ``Judge'' Manning, Jr.
    City, State: Roanoke Rapids, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Former Farmer/Current Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment:

McCoy Hackney Insurance Agency, Inc.

J. Rives ``Judge'' Manning, Jr.,
Producing Agent,
[Redacted],
Roanoke Rapids, NC
[Redacted].

May 14, 2010

U.S. House Agriculture Committee

RE: Response to Testimony of Dr. Bruce A. Babcock

    Dear Honorable Representatives:

    I do not have the academic laurels that Dr. Babcock 
displays, but I do think that you should know someone who is 
different than one of your presenters at the Agriculture 
Committee hearing on Thursday, May 13, 2010.
    I am J. Rives Manning, Jr. and I was born and raised now 
reside in Halifax County, NC. I attained a BS degree in Animal 
Science from NC State College. I farmed (row crops and 
livestock) for several years, then I was employed as Field 
Supervisor with the USDA/Agricultural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service for five years. I trained and became an 
insurance agent in 1972, concentrating on Farm insurance. In 
1981, I opened my own Independent Insurance agency and I signed 
up to sell and service Federal Crop Insurance. This was the 
first year that anyone, other than Federal Crop Insurance 
employees, was allowed to sell Federal Crop Insurance.
    I have written, sold and serviced Federal Crop Insurance 
and the re-insured product, Multi-Peril Crop Insurance and have 
seen it evolve into what we now have. I have written coverage 
on Cotton, Corn, Peanuts, Soybeans, Flue Cured Tobacco, Wheat 
and Peaches here in eastern North Carolina. I have been active 
with the Independent Insurance Agents of North Carolina and the 
Independent Insurance Agents of America, where I have served on 
the IIABA Crop Insurance Task Force for several years.
    Many of my insureds are insureds that I first wrote in 
1981. They have received excellent service and are satisfied 
with the coverage and service provided by me and the company I 
represent. I have a relatively small ``book of business,'' with 
policy size (Gross Premium) running from $240 up to $54,000 
last year. The spread of my earned commission on these policies 
runs from $35.00 on the smallest up to $7,700.00 on the largest 
policy.
     I give you this information about myself and my business, 
not to try to impress you with my academic credentials but to 
let you know that I have the knowledge, experience and 
credibility to provide you with some knowledge and insight into 
the Crop Insurance issue. I have been a client and purchaser of 
Federal Crop Insurance, when I was farming. I know the benefits 
of adequate protection for all lines of insurance for my 
insureds. I know the types of coverages that benefit the 
farmers in Halifax County and in Eastern North Carolina.
     Farmers need to have protection for the money they put 
into their crops, whether they furnish it from their own 
savings or borrow it. Without Crop Insurance most of the 
farmers cannot borrow their ``operating'' money. The financial 
``lender'' wants a guarantee that they will get their money 
back. Also the farmer needs to know that he will receive X 
Dollars from his crop at the end of the year, even if there is 
a drought, excessive water, hail storm, insect damage, wildlife 
damage, floods, or other natural disasters. They also need to 
know that they will receive a fair price for their production 
at harvest time.
     I notice that Dr. Bruce A. Babcock has a very impressive 
list of academic credits. I even see he had a short stint at NC 
State University.
    The information that I was most impressed with is found in 
his Disclosure Form. In his response to Item #1 I found his 
list on the back of the form to be very interesting. It seems 
that he has received over $1,400,000 from USDA since October 1, 
2007. This is almost like the ``old robber barons and their 
hired guns''. Is that what Dr. Babcock is, a ``Hired Gun'' for 
RMA.
    I sincerely hope that any cuts that you make do not make it 
so that an agent cannot afford to serve the American farmers.
    Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
            Sincerely,

J. Rives Manning, Jr.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Gerardo Marin, Oakland, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:06 p.m.
    Name: Gerardo Marin.
    City, State: Oakland, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

July 28, 2010

    Dear House Agriculture Committee,

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments as part of 
this 2012 Farm Bill Field Hearing series. We are a coalition 
called REAL (Respect. Eat. Act. Live.), a group of youth, youth 
organizers, and adult mentors working to change our food system 
to one in which the healthy and ethical choice is the easy 
choice for all Americans--regardless of age, income level or 
geographic location.
    We feel that it is our responsibility and our right to 
achieve this goal. We strongly hope that during the farm bill 
hearing process, we will have the opportunity to offer our 
testimony and feedback to help shape this important legislation 
that impacts all of us. Below, we have included our preliminary 
list of recommendations for inclusion in the reauthorized Farm 
Bill:

    1. Youth Engagement: More than any other demographic, young 
        people from low-income communities face the most risk 
        resulting from today's current food system. Childhood 
        obesity rates are skyrocketing, and diet-related 
        chronic disease remains the leading cause of death for 
        families living in low-income neighborhoods across the 
        U.S. We urge Congress to invest in community based 
        programs that teach youth about food and agriculture, 
        provide employment opportunities for youth, and develop 
        their capacity to lead their own communities and shape 
        the food system of the future.

    2. Urban Food Systems: In recognition of the role land use 
        and planning has on impacting the experience of 
        community space, we need federal support to develop 
        model zoning codes for urban agriculture to flourish 
        and become and meaningful part of the civic landscape.

     Increase incentives for sustainable urban food 
            system development, including investment in 
            community-owned healthy food retail, urban food 
            processing and distribution centers, and access to 
            and policies that encourage using and for urban 
            food production.

     Expand the Healthy Food Financing Initiative to 
            ensure that it benefits low-income urban consumers 
            by providing access to affordable, nutritious, 
            culturally appropriate foods, job creation, and 
            economic ownership opportunities, and that this 
            initiative supports existing growers and programs 
            already providing these benefits for their 
            communities.

    3. Local Food Systems: The average American spends over 
        $1,200 per year on 20 basic food items, including meat, 
        dairy, and bread, while an average meal travels 1,500 
        miles from field to table. Invest in local food 
        systems, including incentives for local, small-scale 
        fruit and vegetable production, processing 
        infrastructure for meat and produce, and local 
        distribution infrastructure, to help keep consumer 
        dollars circulating in local communities, supporting 
        small-scale growers, preserving open space, creating 
        local jobs, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and 
        reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while increasing the 
        freshness and nutritional quality of food consumed. 
        Expand and invest in Community Food Projects to help 
        achieve this goal.

    4. Labor: America's food system workers continue to face 
        abuse, often earning less than minimum wage or being 
        forced to work overtime without compensation. These 
        workers are also exposed to harsh and sometimes toxic 
        working conditions, including chemical pesticide 
        application, extended hours in the sun, and minimal 
        water, shade, or bathroom breaks. Channel resources to 
        ensure oversight of working conditions and contractual 
        agreements that abolish human rights abuses in the 
        field. Incentivize provision of housing and healthcare 
        for farm workers. Ensure safe, humane, and fairly 
        compensated working conditions in all sectors of the 
        food system, including the field, the meat processing 
        industry, and the restaurant industry.

    5. [Editor's Note: the comment was incomplete as 
        submitted.]

    Whole Child Approach: Numerous studies have documented the 
        impact of inadequate nutrition on school performance 
        and physical health.

     Increase funding for schools to purchase more 
            fruits and vegetables, and increase flexibility for 
            schools and the Department of Defense Fresh program 
            to purchase local and regional foods to support 
            local growers.

     Continue to support free, reduced, summer lunch 
            and after-school programs for low-income 
            communities. Direct dollars to support kitchen 
            construction for school districts to prepare fresh 
            food for meal programs.

    7. The Environment: In many ways, farmers are, more than 
        any of us, stewards of the land, air, water, and 
        wildlife habitat.

     Increase incentives for growers to implement 
            environmental quality programs, including programs 
            that increase wildlife habitat, protect our water 
            quality through the creation of tailwater ponds and 
            the use of recycled water, reduce the runoff of 
            nitrogen and chemical inputs and conserve the 
            health of our soil for generations to come through 
            conservation tillage practices.

     Incentivize conversion to organic or beyond 
            organic farming techniques to minimize the 
            consumption of fossil fuels in the development and 
            use of chemical inputs, to protect the soil, and to 
            protect wildlife (including pollinators) from the 
            harmful impacts of synthetic chemicals. The 
            Institute of Science and Society estimates that by 
            switching to locally-based organic agriculture we 
            could cut global warming pollution by 30% and save 
            \1/6\ on energy use.

     Reward farmers who demonstrate stewardship of 
            land, air, water, and wildlife through these and 
            other practices, by expanding and streamlining the 
            EQIP program

    8. Beginning Farmers, Ranchers, and Retailers: The average 
        age of the farmer in the United States is 57, yet the 
        largest growing population of farmers is under 30.

     Provide infrastructure, entrepreneurship training, 
            and technical assistance for beginning farmers to 
            acquire land, access to markets, and other 
            resources to become successful farmers.

     Simultaneously, provide entrepreneurship training, 
            tax incentives, and technical assistance for 
            consumers, particularly low-income consumers, to 
            establish health local food retail stores within 
            their own communities.

    9. Global Food System: U.S. commodity programs, coupled 
        with international trade agreements, including NAFTA 
        and U.S. global aid policy, negatively impact the 
        livelihood of small growers around the world, 
        particularly in the global south, resulting in urban 
        and transnational migration. Work in concert with the 
        Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of 
        Development to ensure that our agricultural and trade 
        policies support the well-being of small farmers around 
        the world.

    10. [Editor's Note: the comment was incomplete as 
        submitted.]

    11. Nutrition Assistance Programs:

     Create new and expand existing programs that 
            encourage the use of WIC and food stamp dollars at 
            farmers markets and on locally produced fruits and 
            vegetables.

     Simultaneously invest in incentives for farmers 
            markets and local retail stores to promote the 
            purchase of fruits and vegetables at these venues 
            by WIC and food stamp recipients.

    12. Commodity Reform: Our outdated commodity system is 
        hurting all Americans. Corn subsidies, in particular, 
        which result in cheaply priced products containing high 
        fructose corn syrup, are contributing to high rates of 
        obesity and diabetes in our communities, and to the 
        skyrocketing costs of healthcare for all Americans. Low 
        grain prices also result in cheap animal feed, 
        incentivizing inhumane, industrial production of 
        livestock, In addition to hurting Americans, U.S. 
        commodity programs compromise the livelihood of small 
        farmers around the world, resulting in poverty, hunger, 
        and urban migration. Create new policies that limit and 
        phase out commodity payments for large farms while 
        protecting and supporting small and mid-size farmers 
        that are growing real food that nourishes people.

    We thank you again for the opportunity to submit our 
comments as part of this hearing process, and look forward to 
the opportunity to engage further in planning for the 
reauthorization of the 2012 Farm Bill.
            Sincerely,

Navina Khanna,

On behalf of:

REAL Executive Team

Anim Steel,
Brett Ramey,
Gerardo Marin,
Lloyd Nadal,
Sam Lipschultz,
Siena Chrisman,
Tim Galarneau,
Kate Casale.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Tara Marks, Pittsburgh, PA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Tara Marks.
    City, State: Pittsburgh, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Co-Director for Policy and Communication.
    Comment: Just Harvest is a regional nonprofit focusing on 
eliminating hunger and poverty in Allegheny County. We advocate 
for policy change and provide direct service, helping families 
with tax preparation, applying for SNAP benefits and accessing 
other safety net programs. In the last year we helped more than 
2,200 families receive $4.3 million dollars in tax refunds; we 
also completed over 1,500 SNAP applications for families in 
Allegheny County, up more than 400% from the previous year.
    Many people are struggling against hunger during 
challenging economic times. Unemployment and underemployment 
are serious problems. The BLS estimate of unemployment/
underemployment in Pennsylvania for the period April 2009 
through March 2010 is 14.3%. Over the past year we have helped 
many families and individuals access public benefits for the 
first time.
    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 
formerly Food Stamps), The Emergency Food Assistance Program 
(TEFAP) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) 
provide important food supports to people struggling with food 
insecurity.
    Hunger and food insecurity are serious problems in our 
community. 17.8 percent of residents of the 14th Congressional 
district of Pennsylvania reported that there had been times in 
the past 12 months when they did not have enough money to buy 
food that they or their family needed.
    SNAP is important to recipients and the economy. Each 
dollar in federal SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in economic 
activity. We applaud steps Congress took in the 2008 Farm Bill, 
the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and the FY 
2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to boost SNAP 
benefits for clients and administration supports to states. 
Future action is needed to ensure that the value of the ARRA 
benefit boosts do not erode with food inflation.
    SNAP is effective but its reach is undermined by gaps in 
access and adequacy of benefits as well as by administrative 
burdens. Even with the ARRA boosts, the average SNAP benefit 
per person per day is only about $4.50.
     Recommendations for changes include: improve benefit 
adequacy by replacing the Thrifty Food Plan with the Low Cost 
Food plan as the basis for SNAP benefits; increase the minimum 
benefit (especially to help elderly many of whom now only 
receive $16 a month); restore eligibility to legal immigrants; 
permanently suspend time limits on able-bodied adults (18-50) 
without dependents; and provide greater supports for states, 
including for SNAP administration and outreach.
    SNAP is an important part of an anti-hunger and anti-
poverty agenda. SNAP allotments need to be raised to allow 
families to afford a nutritious diet on a regular basis. SNAP 
Nutrition Education and access to supermarkets and farmers' 
markets EBT contribute to good health outcomes.
    Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact 
me to speak about the realities of hunger and poverty facing 
our families in Pennsylvania.
            Sincerely,

Tara Marks, Co-Director,
Just Harvest,
[Redacted],
Pittsburgh, PA,
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


              Comment of Amanda Marshfield, Marcellus, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 10:36 a.m.
    Name: Amanda Marshfield.
    City, State: Marcellus, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: Something NEEDS to be done about the current milk 
pricing system. There needs to be some way that the price 
farmers receives correlates to the price milk is sold for in 
the supermarket. We are tired of hearing how all of these milk 
processors are making billions while farmers are pinching 
pennies grasping to save the farm and their way of life. The 
American farm is under financial attack and it's about time 
somebody started realizing that without our Farms our Country 
is headed towards major disaster!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Carol Martin, Ashland, ME

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Carol Martin.
    City, State: Ashland, ME.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Office Assistant/Appraiser Assistant.
    Comment: In my work, we do mostly farm properties, we need 
assess to these maps.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Kent Martin, Kahoka, MO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Kent Martin.
    City, State: Kahoka, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment:

    Sir:

    I am a real estate appraiser trying to do my job. Since you 
have stop us appraisers from receiving information from the 
USDA offices on FSA Maps especially, you have cost the consumer 
for us to spend more time than you can believe, having the 
customer to pay more. You all have carried the restrictions to 
far and creating a mess. It does severely limit the information 
to the lenders on what is out there. There is no other source. 
Please provide us appraisers to the USDA for information on 
maps and production records including CRP Payments.
    We just can not do a good job without this information.

Kent Martin.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Nicole Martin, Baton Rouge, LA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Nicole Martin.
    City, State: Baton Rouge, LA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nutrition and Lifestyle Coach.
    Comment: Our future health depends on good, clean, WHOLE 
foods not tainted with chemicals and genetic modifications. We 
can prevent much disease and enhance many lives by simply 
growing healthy food.
    I strongly urge you to support quality, organic food and 
sustainable farming practices. A strong food bill which 
supports local farmers, no use of pesticides, subsidies for 
fruits and vegetables instead of grains, and a firm stance 
against GMO's and all companies attempting to infiltrate our 
precious food supply with this dangerous, short-sighted 
technology.
            Thank you,

Nicole Martin.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Patrice Martin, Homewood, IL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Patrice Martin.
    City, State: Homewood, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Social Worker.
    Comment: I have made many efforts in the last two years to 
eat more locally--by growing my own garden, going to the local 
farmers market and recently joined a CSA for meat. I believe 
that by eating locally grown food that I am contributing to 
many causes: me and daughter's health, supporting small 
businesses, helping the environment by reducing all the energy 
costs/waste it takes to transport food and enjoyment of food 
that is fresh and tastier.
    I am most frustrated by the school lunches provided by the 
schools--I believe our children deserve better than eating 
processed food. As a single mother that works full-time, I 
often depend on the school lunch program. So, I would love to 
see aggressive efforts to incorporate fresh, local foods into 
the school lunches. Maybe offering subsides for farmers that 
grow fresh fruits and vegetables would help the costs go down 
so that school districts could afford this.
    Thank you for interest in our opinions!!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Robert Martin, Modesto, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Robert Martin.
    City, State: Modesto, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Nuts.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: If you are for the ag community, why is the 
Administration cutting back on supporting the crop insurance 
programs and funding. You are causing a greater demand for 
government control by eliminating the private crop insurance 
programs.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Ron Martin, Steele, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Ron Martin.
    City, State: Steele, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: From the comments I get from farmers is that the 
ACRE and SURE programs are a lot of work and red tape and then 
you have to wait so long for your money. Please take the monies 
designated for those programs and stick them in the crop 
insurance program to improve it. Claim checks get to farmers a 
lot quicker than the program monies. Please do not let Congress 
cut any subsidy to farmers to help buy crop insurance. The 
subsidy goes a long way in helping a farmer with buy-up 
coverage to increase protection. Remember the government does 
get premiums back from the farmers for their insurance 
protection which helps cover the cost of the insurance. There 
are no premiums collected for the ACRE and SURE programs.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Chad Martinsen, Elgin, NE

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Chad Martinsen.
    City, State: Elgin, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified General Appraiser.
    Comment:

    Dear Congressman Adrian Smith,

    Please ask for the CLU data (FSA Fields) to be made public 
again. I am an Ag Appraiser, this information is crucial for 
analyzing sales for accurate appraisals. This information gives 
the reader/lending institution a good grasp of the market 
conditions for solid lending practices. This information is 
used to make an informed lending decision. We must have this 
information reinstated.
            Thank you,

Chad Martinsen.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Judith C. Marvin, Lewisburg, PA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 5:03 p.m.
    Name: Judith C. Marvin.
    City, State: Lewisburg, PA.
    Comment:

    Dear Representatives,

    I am writing in support of a comprehensive 2012 Farm Bill.
    America needs its small farms. Please help ensure their 
continued existence. American farmers are basic to the American 
identity.
    People in large cities who have had no connection with 
farms are flocking to farmers' markets to BUY FRESH LOCAL FOOD.
    PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO EAT FOOD FROM CHINA AND OTHER 
COUNTRIES WHERE FRAUD AND CONTAMINATION ARE COMMON.
    I support the use of renewable energy on farms, and the 
using of waste products, such as wheat chaff, for biofuels.
    I support increased conservation measures, to ensure 
buffers that clean our water, habitat for wildlife, a 
diversified landscape. Farmers need to provide homes for native 
pollinators and creatures that eat pests.
            Thank you,

Judith C. Marvin,
[Redacted],
Lewisburg, PA.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Paul Marx, Corning, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Paul Marx.
    City, State: Corning, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Director--Nonprofit Organization.
    Comment: Funds for food distributed through community food 
banks and funds for food stamps are important avenues to assure 
that all of our citizens receive their daily food needs.
    Please consider adding/increasing funding of community 
garden project and community garden schools as a way of getting 
the whole of our population to begin to use the gift of fertile 
soil in their back yards and community properties. There is a 
need to re-teach Americans how to grow food that will lead to 
healthier lives and have some of their daily food needs met by 
local sources.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Michael Masley, Manville, NJ

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Michael Masley.
    City, State: Manville, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: We must make sure that farmers and ranchers have a 
full suite of conservation programs with adequate funding so 
that they can be the best stewards of our nation's natural 
resources. Federal farm policy should also support homegrown 
renewable energy like wind, solar, and biomass.

   A strategic base of our agricultural land is 
        absolutely essential to our long-term ability to 
        produce and supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber 
        and energy with the fewest inputs. Federal farm policy 
        must enhance farm and ranch land protection to 
        adequately address the threat to our strategic 
        agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
        and fragmentation.

   It's critical to increase the production of, and 
        access to local and healthy food while helping farmers 
        remain profitable. Farm and food policy should be 
        linked more strongly with national health and nutrition 
        goals. Federal government programs should promote 
        healthier diets and meet increased demand for specialty 
        crops and fresh, locally grown food by expanding 
        access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
        supporting farmers markets.

   We need to build upon the success of the 2008 Farm 
        Bill in creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jeff Mason, Jefferson, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Jeff Mason.
    City, State: Jefferson, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy Retail.
    Comment: I support to reinstate public access of the Common 
Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway, especially due 
to the following circumstances:

   USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                Comment of David Masten, Greencastle, IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: David Masten.
    City, State: Greencastle, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: Please reinstate CLU data back into Section 1619. 
As a farm appraiser, this data helps provide accurate, up-to-
date information on land characteristics, which allows for 
better, more accurate, well-supported appraisals, which can in 
turn limit potential losses due to incorrect appraisals. Thank 
you very much for your consideration.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Loy Matthes, Rapid City, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Loy Matthes.
    City, State: Rapid City, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ranch/Farm Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment:

July 26, 2010

RE: Common Land Units should be available to the general 
public.

    Dear House Agriculture Committee,

    USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
    I urge you to allow public access to the CLU (Common Land 
Unit). I provide written appraisal reports for landowners, 
lenders, and estates. Not having the CLU information available 
only hinders the accuracy of the report for my client(s).
            Sincerely,

Loy Matthes, A.R.A.,
State Certified General Appraiser:

    South Dakota
    Nebraska
    Wyoming

d.b.a. MATTHES LAND COMPANY, LLC,
[Redacted],
Rapid City, SD
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Judith Mattson, Tucson, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: Judith Mattson.
    City, State: Tucson, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Writer/Consultant to Local Producers.
    Comment: Something must be done to separate rules and regs 
created to address ``big ag'' that have frequent unintended 
consequences for ``little ag''--the forefront of the ``back-to-
real-food'', know your farmer/know your food, return to all 
things local and small supplier preferences of many Americans 
today? It's not just a matter of preference any more; it's an 
issue of the food and health sustainability of all communities! 
It shouldn't be necessary to fight this fight over and over 
every time the USDA, FDA and others have new or revised 
legislation and regulations! Please find a way to address this 
re-localization and small producer issue within the next Farm 
Bill--once and for all! Thank you for listening.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jenifer May, Yonkers, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Jenifer May.
    City, State: Yonkers, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Restaurant Employee.
    Comment: Please help the farmers. lets get back to eating 
real food, and not chemically processed garbage. this stuff is 
going to kill our kids!! All this Salmonella and E. coli . . . 
its gross!!!!
    This shouldn't be happening . . . we need reform!!!!!!!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Gabriele Mayer, Okemos, MI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Gabriele Mayer.
    City, State: Okemos, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: My husband is from North Dakota where his brothers 
farm 8,000 acres. When I met my husband 23 years ago, his 
family farmed wheat, soybeans, Northern beans, sunflowers, 
barley, corn and maybe more crops. Today all is left is 
soybeans and corn, nothing that I can consume directly. I know 
that his family is the recipient of large farm subsidies but I 
would very much encourage you to consider supporting small 
farms that actually grow produce that the consumer wants. The 
large family operation uses machinery that can easily cost 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, they spend huge amounts of 
money on seeds, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides but at 
the end of the year, when all loans are paid back the actual 
family net income is not that high. Isn't there something wrong 
in the way we farm?
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lynne McBride, Lafayette, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Lynne McBride.
    City, State: Lafayette, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Director, California Farmers Union.
    Comment:

California Dairy Campaign and California Farmers Union 
Testimony

    Dairy operations throughout California continue to be in 
serious jeopardy due to record low producer prices. Many 
dairies have either filed or are in the process of filing for 
bankruptcy and many more are closer to bankruptcy each day. 
Many of the dairy operations near bankruptcy today have been in 
operation for several generations. They are family dairy farms 
that have weathered many economic storms, but the crisis they 
confront today is unparalleled in history.
    From the third quarter of 2008 until the second quarter of 
2009 dairy producers lost more than $1.4 billion dollars and 
producer continue to operate at a significant loss today. In 
addition farm values decreased by more than $1.2 billion during 
that time and today farm value declines are estimated to have 
reached $2 billion statewide. Feed and other input prices 
remain high and producer prices continue to be well below the 
average production costs.
    The toll the dairy crisis has taken on dairy producers and 
related industries that supply and provide services to dairy 
producers will be felt for years to come. Even if dairy 
producer prices continue to improve, it will take five solid 
years of prices at $1 per hundredweight over production costs 
for producers to be able convert their debts to assets. Given 
the volatility of dairy producer prices, it is unlikely even 
under the most optimistic scenarios that producer prices will 
remain strong for that length of time.
    Money is being made in the dairy industry, but producers 
are left out of the profit opportunity. Dean Foods Co., the 
largest U.S. milk supplier, reported last Monday that its third 
quarter profit rose 32% and raised its full-year profit 
forecast. Executive compensation at Dean Foods is up more than 
50 percent from last year. According to Morningstar, Kraft 
Foods has a four star rating and executive compensation there 
is up by more than 60 percent. The gap between the farm and 
consumer dairy price is near an all time high. Many companies 
have prospered at the expense of dairy producers who are unable 
to pay their bills and are accumulating debt at unprecedented 
levels. Under the current system, plants are able to cover 
their production costs while producers do not have that 
ability. The gap between the farm and retail dairy price is 
near an all time high which shows that consumers do not benefit 
from the current system either.
    CDC and CFU members traveled to Washington, D.C. 
extensively in 2009 calling on the President and Congress to 
take action to end the dairy crisis caused by record low 
producer prices. One important step taken by USDA Secretary 
Vilsack was his decision to raise the support purchase price. 
Since the beginning of 2009 CDC and CFU members have called on 
federal lawmakers to raise the support purchase price to a more 
reasonable level. CDC and CFU members met in person with 
Secretary Vilsack to urge him to take this important step which 
he announced in July of this year. Due to the current pricing 
system, California dairy producers do not benefit from this 
important safety net that was intended to aid producers in 
California and around the country. We call on lawmakers to 
correct this inequity so that producers in California receive 
the higher of the prevailing market price or the USDA announced 
federal support purchase price.
    During discussions of the current dairy crisis it is often 
suggested that producer income in previous years could make up 
for the current economic shortfall. But the data on the 
``average dairymen's'' monthly incomes and losses proves that 
it will take many years of profitability to regain lost equity. 
Acceptance of the alternative proposal we have put forward 
would be a good first step toward correcting inequities in the 
system and improving the outlook for dairy producers in the 
future.
    It is difficult, if not impossible, for producers to pay 
their feed and other input costs when producer prices are so 
far below production costs. As a result, low dairy producer 
prices are having a ripple effect on the rest of the state 
agricultural economy and all related businesses. At the same 
time that producer prices have dropped, input costs continue to 
remain high.
    Under the current system, producers are not able to recoup 
their higher input costs from the market. It is the processors 
and retailers who have that ability, not the producers.
    We believe the current make allowance system overall sends 
a false signal to processors to continue production regardless 
of market demand. The current fixed make allowance system 
provides a strong incentive for processors to run as much raw 
milk through a plant regardless of market conditions. The 
result from this system is that it puts the needs of the 
processor at odds with the needs of the dairy producer. Too 
much milk reduces the price to the dairy farmer and milk 
shortages decrease the amount of milk available to the 
processor.
    We believe the make allowance system should be reformed so 
that it provides benefits to the producer and processor. We 
favor the establishment of a variable make allowance that would 
tie processor and producer prosperity together. A variable make 
allowance would increase significantly when milk prices are 
high, thereby giving an incentive to the processor to continue 
production because the return would be greater. However when 
milk prices are low the make allowance would decrease and send 
a signal to the processor to limit production in order to allow 
demand to catch up with production. We believe a variable make 
allowance is a ``win-win'' proposal because it would enable 
producers and processors to make a higher return when milk 
prices rise.
    Under the current pricing formulas, the plant make 
allowance is a fixed number; while the price received by the 
producer is highly volatile and until now, has not included the 
dairyman's cost of production. A milk pricing system that is 
balanced requires that dairy product prices, producers' cost of 
production, and plants' cost all be given consideration when 
determining the value of milk. Each of these items sends 
signals to the other in a free market environment, so that 
adequate price and production adjustments will occur.
    Under a variable make allowance, when the supply of 
processed product is in line with demand, the make allowance is 
generous. As the market signals oversupply through lower 
prices, the make allowance would automatically decrease causing 
manufacturing to slow until once again supply and demand are in 
balance.
    In California's milk pricing system there is insufficient 
marketplace balance between these factors, because the make 
allowance guarantees that the costs of the processing segment 
of the industry are covered. In fact, since the make allowance 
includes costs plus a profit for an efficient plant, over 
supply can actually be a benefit to proprietary processors 
because it lowers the raw product costs. This is less true for 
cooperatives whose members are dairy farmers affected by lower 
producer prices.
    The California dairy pricing system has allowed plants to 
be profitable and expand processing of the lowest value dairy 
products regardless of true market demand because producers 
covered the plant costs. This has resulted in lower producer 
milk prices in our state. The generous make allowance level 
enables processors to use the additional margin to discount 
their product price to gain market share at the expense of 
producer pay prices and at the expense of other manufacturers 
in the rest of the United States. Plants are merely operating 
by the rules of the system. The CDC variable make allowance 
proposal is aimed at creating a true market-oriented system.
    As long as the manufacturing allowance is fixed at the 
processor's cost plus a return on investment, and is paid for 
by farmers, the processing segment of the industry will be 
unconcerned with market signals. We need a system that works 
with the marketplace at all levels: producer, processor, 
wholesaler, retailer and consumer to provide an equitable, 
stable and viable economic environment for all segments of the 
dairy industry.
    Our members support a variable make allowance based on the 
relationship between the commodity price and the producer's 
cost of production. It is unfair and market distorting to force 
the producer to continually cover the costs of processing 
including a profit, when he has no similar compensation 
guarantee. It is far from certain if and when a producer is 
able to cover his production costs. Market signals should be 
sent to both the producing and processing sectors of the 
industry and our variable make allowance proposal achieves this 
important goal.
    California leads the nation in dairy production generating 
more than $61 billion in economic activity and more than 
434,000 full-time jobs. The dairy crisis is adversely affecting 
all the related businesses that supply and provide services to 
dairy producers. Dairy producers across the country face the 
same grim outlook due to record low producer prices that cover 
just a fraction of the average cost of production.
    In order to end the dairy crisis it is vital that dairy 
producers come together to agree upon policy changes that will 
lift our industry out of this deepening crisis. Prices have 
remained below production costs for more than 18 months now and 
many dairy producers are desperate for relief.
    There is considerable and widespread consensus among dairy 
producers and their allied industries about what should be done 
to improve federal dairy policy end this crisis.
Increase the Dairy Support Purchase Price
    In order to be effective, the dairy support purchase price 
must factor in today's cost of production so that is can 
provide a meaningful safety net during crisis like the one 
faced by producers across the country today. We support a 
temporary emergency floor price of $18 per hundredweight to 
provide immediate relief to producers. We call for an increase 
in the federal support purchase price to the level included in 
the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program, which is the 
Boston Class I price plus the feed adjuster.
    The federal government supports the price of dairy products 
at $9.90. This is the price milk producers received 30 years 
ago. We call upon Congress to act quickly to adjust the federal 
purchase price so that it includes the current cost of 
production, not the costs paid to producers more than 30 years 
ago.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the last 
Administration publicly stated that the price support needs to 
be at the cost of production. We call upon Congress and the 
Obama Administration to act quickly to adjust the federal 
purchase price so that it includes today's cost of production, 
not the costs paid by producers more than 30 years ago.
    The recent devastation of the dairy industry can be 
attributed to a number of factors including the financial 
meltdown that began last fall, rising concentrated dairy 
imports, a lack of competition in the marketplace, 
consolidation, rising input costs and other factors. To be an 
effective safety net, the price support program must be 
increased in response to rising production costs.
    The U.S. is already a net deficit milk producer. Federal 
dairy policy should foster a healthy and viable domestic milk 
supply because each cow in the U.S. generates $20,000 per year 
to the national economy. In these uncertain financial times, it 
is critical that dairy producers receive a fair price that is 
based on their full cost of production. An equitable price 
support that more closely reflects the prevailing cost of 
production would be an important first step in ending the dairy 
crisis.
Implement Fair Tariffs on Unregulated Dairy Solids
    Concentrated dairy imports for January and February of 2009 
surged upward more than 70 percent compared to 2008 despite 
record low producer prices. Much attention has been paid to the 
decline in dairy exports. But rising imports of concentrated 
dairy proteins are the real threat to the future of our 
domestic milk supply. With these imports a little goes a long 
way in displacing domestic milk production and most do not meet 
basic food safety standards.
    It is difficult to comprehend the impact of concentrated 
dairy imports because these imports, including milk protein 
concentrate (MPC), casein and caseinates for food usage, are 
not included in the commercial disappearance data issued by 
USDA. A 2004 USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) report 
titled, ``Milk Protein Products and Related Government Policy 
Issues'' stated that the amount of imported milk protein 
concentrates accounted for 5.9 percent of the total U.S. milk 
protein production. The report concluded that on average milk 
protein imports are equivalent to approximately five percent of 
our domestic milk protein production.
    The U.S. dairy market is the world's largest single 
commercial dairy market. This market last year reached and 
exceeded 200 billion pounds of milk including exports. However, 
the USDA ERS fails to include any usage data for casein, 
caseinates and MPC in its commercial disappearance of milk 
data. Therefore, the commercial disappearance or utilization 
reports from USDA ERS are not complete or accurate. Once all 
the different categories are included in the commercial 
disappearance calculation such as casein, butter, MPC, and 
lactose the total for imports surpasses 15 billion pounds of 
milk equivalent or more than 7 percent of U.S. milk production. 
Just a few percentage changes in milk consumption can have a 
significant impact on producer prices. Concentrated dairy 
imports amount to more than 7 of our domestic milk production 
and have a substantial impact on the prices received by U.S. 
dairy producers and have made our country net deficit in milk 
production.
    Dairy producers have fought for years to pass legislation 
to regulate dairy imports by supporting passage of the ``Milk 
Import Tariff Equity Act.'' So far, dairy processors and food 
manufacturers, with their well funded lobbying firms, have 
fought off any regulation. To end the dairy crisis, lawmakers 
need to direct their attention to the dairy imports that are 
flooding our market and forcing so many operations to the brink 
of financial collapse.
    As consumers become more interested in where their food 
comes from, a trade loophole is allowing a flood of 
concentrated dairy imports from far off places. Our country 
already relies on dairy imports to meet our domestic needs, and 
if action isn't taken soon we are going to become even more 
dependent on imports.
Mandate Greater Market Transparency
    In order to establish an effective dairy price discovery 
system the federal government must restore fair, transparent 
and open dairy markets. The consolidation that has occurred 
over the past couple of decades has eliminated market 
competition to the point that now the last one percent of our 
daily milk production determines the price of all of the milk 
produced regardless of prevailing market demand for dairy 
products.
    A handful of traders set the prices for cheese and butter 
on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). This thinly traded 
market operates for only a few minutes five days per week yet 
it is the mechanism that sets all milk futures contracts. The 
CME completely lacks transparency. Traders use code names to 
guarantee their anonymity. Capitalism and the interests of 
society are trumped by a handful of traders that are self-
regulated with virtually no over site. Dairy producers across 
the country are very concerned that the lack of federal 
oversight and transparency at the CME has led to market 
manipulation, and created a highly volatile market that 
negatively impacts dairy producers.
    Due to the lack of transparency at the CME, producers that 
may be economically impacted by anti-competitive trading 
practices, have no recourse to independently inquire or 
investigate the lack of competition in the marketplace. If the 
CME was more open and transparent, more businesses would trade, 
and the sales volume would increase fostering a more accurate 
and reliable market that better reflects the actual value of 
milk in the United States.
    In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a report on the spot cheese market titled, ``Market 
Oversight Has Increased, But Concerns Remain about Potential 
Manipulation.'' The 2007 GAO report documented that few daily 
trades occur on the CME and a small number of traders account 
for the majority of trades. The report further concluded that 
the CME is susceptible to potential price manipulation.
    One of the greatest challenges facing U.S. producers and 
every other producer in the world is consolidation and 
concentration of the marketplace, which also drives market 
globalization. Capitalistic markets function properly when 
there is a balance of buyers and sellers. There are about 
60,000 dairy farms marketing milk today through 200 
cooperatives. Half a century ago, there were 180,000 dairy 
producers marketing through 1,000 cooperatives. While the 
number of farms and cooperatives continue to decline, the 
marketing presence of farmer-owned dairy cooperatives has 
actually expanded during the past generation. Despite this 
expansion there is less competition vying for producers at the 
co-op level, with more intervention by non-cooperatives and 
non-farmer controlled businesses.
    Dairy cooperatives continue to grow in size and form 
strategic alliances with private entities. For example, my own 
cooperative, Land O' Lakes, sells a large portion of their 
cheese to Kraft Foods. The largest cooperative, Dairy Farmers 
of America, has ongoing agreements to supply milk to Dean Foods 
and Leprino Foods, and continues to expand its relationship 
with Fonterra. Cooperatives justify their actions by claiming 
they are subject to the growing demands of retailers. Wal-Mart, 
for example, wishes to consider no more than two suppliers for 
each food product it features in its stores across the U.S. The 
consolidation and concentration not only harm producers through 
lower prices, but also negatively impacts consumers with less 
choice at the grocery store.
    In most U.S. metropolitan areas, one company, Dean Foods, 
has acquired the majority of fluid plants. Two corporations 
dominate the cheese sector; Kraft Foods at the retail level and 
Leprino Foods at the food service level. Regardless of which 
cooperative a U.S. producer markets his milk, at the end of the 
day the vast majority of milk is purchased by only three major 
buyers that dictate each market. Dean Foods dominates the fluid 
market, Kraft owns the retail market and Leprino runs the food 
service market. Until steps can be taken to end the 
stranglehold that these three entities have on the three major 
components of the dairy sector, competition will be stifled and 
producer prices depressed.
    Economic power concentrated in the hands of a few players 
has essentially eliminated the price system, which capitalism 
is thought to rest. The farm-gate price is no longer cost plus 
profit; instead it is a command economy with a few corporate 
players dictating farm price. The loss of producer economic 
power is best illustrated by the widening gap between retail 
prices and farm-gate prices. While consumers continue to 
experience sticker-shock on dairy products, dairy producers are 
left with a shrinking percentage of the consumer dollar.
    Many organic dairies throughout the country are also 
struggling due to the dairy crisis. Many have seen the price 
they receive for organic milk decrease substantially and are 
now subject to production caps. Organic dairy producers have 
invested heavily to meet organic standards, but now that many 
of the same corporate processors have entered the organic 
market, these producers are also struggling due increasing 
consolidation and concentration.
Establish an Inventory Management Program
    Inventory management is sorely needed now more than ever. 
At the turn of the century the federal order adopted the 
California style make-allowance structure. This pricing 
mechanism establishes cost of production values for plants. 
These values remain constant whether the market is short or 
long. Plants become isolated from market conditions and are 
decoupled from capitalistic signals in regard to supply and 
demand.
    Since the loss of parity in 1981, the gap between retail 
and farm-gate prices has continued to widen dramatically. As 
the mid 1990's approached, volatility constantly increased due 
to several factors including consolidation; introduction of 
futures contracts, and the U.S. became a net-importer. 
Establishing a milk inventory management program will ensure 
the stability of the marketplace and provide sustainability for 
all in the dairy industry and these benefits will also be 
enjoyed by retailers and consumers alike.
    California dairy producers have been in a constant growth 
mode. When prices are good, we add cows; when prices go down, 
our bankers tell us to add cows in order to cash flow, even 
though, historically, California has had some of the lowest 
mail box prices in the nation. An effective inventory 
management system would provide an incentive for dairy 
producers to manage milk production to meet prevailing market 
demand. Producer price volatility is a threat the dairy 
producers in California and across the nation. The current 
system provides an incentive for dairy producers to simply 
maximize their production, especially when producer prices are 
high which can lead to lower prices due to the increase in 
supply that results. An inventory management program could 
provide an incentive for smart growth in milk production that 
is based upon current market conditions. It would lead to the 
end of the boom and bust cycles that have plagued dairy 
producer prices for so many years and provide some stability in 
the future for all producers.
Conclusion
    The outlook for dairy producers in California and across 
the country is grim unless Congress acts quickly to reform 
federal dairy policies. We call upon Congress to increase the 
dairy support price to factor in today's cost of production; 
address rising unregulated imports of concentrated dairy 
proteins; mandate greater market transparency and establish and 
inventory management program to balance milk supply with market 
demand.
    We greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify today and 
look forward to working with members of the House Agriculture 
Committee to end the dairy crisis and sustain our domestic milk 
supply in the future.


                               attachment


California Dairy Resolution
    Relative to dairy producers.

    Whereas, California has been the nation's leading dairy 
state since 1993 and is ranked first in the U.S. in the 
production of total dairy product, butter, ice cream, yogurt, 
nonfat dry dairy product, and whey protein concentrate and is 
second in cheese production, and
    Whereas, the dairy industry provides an economic impact of 
an estimated national average of $20,000 per cow per year, 
primarily in local economies, and
    Whereas, dairy farming is the leading agricultural 
commodity in California generating more than $7 billion in 
revenue each year, and
    Whereas, the California dairy industry generates more than 
$61 billion in economic activity and more than 434,000 full-
time jobs, and
    Whereas, the absence of profitable prices in the dairy 
industry for farmers, the lack of competition in dairy product 
processing ownership, as well as outdated regulations are 
causing an economic crisis among California dairy producers, 
and
    Whereas, since last year, the price that dairy product 
processors pay farmers for their dairy product has dropped as 
much a 50 percent, and
    Whereas, the primary safety-net for California dairy 
producers is the federal dairy product price support program of 
$9.90 per cwt., and
    Whereas, the federal dairy product price support program 
does not adequately provide a safety net due to the fact that 
it is based on production costs from thirty years ago, and
    Whereas, the federal government in 2006 implemented an 
ethanol policy mandate that has increased all feed costs to 
dairy producers in California, and
    Whereas, the federal dairy product price support program 
does not account for this new federal energy mandate, and
    Whereas, the federal dairy product price support program 
should maintain market prices near average operating costs in 
order to be successful. This will ensure that efficient 
producers are able to stay in business until prices recover; 
however, few efficient producers will have the protection at 
the current price support level, and
    Whereas, California dairy product prices are set by the 
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) cash cheese exchange. A June 
2007 General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the CME states 
that the CME is thinly traded and is not a very competitive 
market. As a result, the CME should be reviewed and analyzed to 
determine if it is an effective and transparent price discovery 
mechanism; and
    Whereas, the federal dairy product price support program 
needs to be at an adequate level to ensure California dairy 
producers have a viable, competitive and stable market free of 
manipulation, and
    Whereas, a significant loss of capacity would create a 
dependence on imported dairy product and other dairy products 
and reduce our nation's food security, and
    Whereas, concentrated dairy imports for January and 
February of 2009 surged upward more than 70 percent compared to 
2008 despite record low producer prices.
    Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of 
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of 
California respectfully requests that the President, Congress 
and the United States Department of Agriculture acknowledge the 
importance of the dairy industry nationwide as well as the 
unique aspects of the dairy industry region-by-region through:

    (1) Updating the federal dairy product price support 
        program to reflect today's cost of production;

    (2) Implementing fair tariffs on unregulated imported dairy 
        solids;

    (3) Mandating greater market transparency.

    (4) Establishing a milk inventory management program.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Sarah McCann, Philadelphia, PA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 8:06 p.m.
    Name: Sarah McCann.
    City, State: Philadelphia, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Administrative Assistant/Student.
    Comment: I hope that farming policy can be adjusted to 
better serve our country's dietary needs. The high subsidies 
for unhealthy foods are making it next to impossible for many 
people to eat as well as they should. I believe subsidies 
should be used to encourage the purchase of healthy foods, 
instead of making the most unhealthy options--fast food--the 
cheapest.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Walter McClatchey, Alexandria, LA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Walter McClatchey.
    City, State: Alexandria, LA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Lawyer.
    Comment: I propose these considerations for the next farm 
bill:

    1. Farmers and ranchers must have a full suite of 
        conservation programs with adequate funding so they can 
        be the best stewards of our natural resources. Federal 
        farm policy should also support homegrown renewable 
        energy like wind, solar and biomass.

    2. A strategic base of our agricultural land is essential 
        to our ability to produce and supply fresh, healthy 
        sources of food, fiber and energy with the fewest 
        inputs. Farm policy must enhance land protection to 
        address the threat to our land resources from non-farm 
        development and fragmentation.

    3. We must increase production of and access to local and 
        healthy food while helping farmers stay profitable. 
        Farm and food policy should be linked more strongly 
        with national health and nutrition goals. Congress and 
        the USDA should promote healthier diets and meet 
        increased demand for specialty crops and fresh, locally 
        grown food by expanding access, facilitating 
        institutional purchases and supporting farmers' 
        markets.

    4. We need to build on the success of the 2008 Farm Bill by 
        strengthening the ACRE Program.

    Thank you.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Marlene McCleary, Upper Sandusky, OH

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Marlene McCleary.
    City, State: Upper Sandusky, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Property & Casualty & Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: I find it amazing that the House Agriculture 
Committee is already thinking about the next farm bill when the 
2008 bill was not implemented timely. The Farm Service Agency 
recently received their THIRD BOOK on the SURE Program with the 
third set of changes. The FSA offices have not been given the 
necessary information, books and tools for the 2008 farm 
program on a timely basis. The information and training should 
have been done prior to the planting of the 2008 wheat crop. It 
does not appear that Congress or the Agriculture Committee 
realizes the ``businessman'' the farmer of today needs to be. 
The farmer/producer needs information in plain English in 
regards to any new farm bill and needs to have the information 
along with the FSA, and all other agricultural offices in a 
timely, organized fashion I do not know of any successful 
business that implements a new plan or direction for the 
business two years after it was supposed to be in effect. 
Please realize that producers do plan ahead and set goals for 
their operation. The agriculture of today is far past the 
``Hee-Haw'' days. I also feel that it is a problem with 
different Farm Service Agencies interpreting rules, 
regulations, etc. differently. The training should make changes 
and implementation rules clear so that the offices are doing 
things the same way. Agriculture and farmers are so important 
to this great country. We do not want to get to the point that 
farmers give up farming in frustration. It is vital that the 
United States realize the importance of a safe food supply in 
this country. We do not want to get to the point that we depend 
on other countries for too much of our food supply. Think about 
what could happen if we do not take the agriculture community 
seriously. Do you want your children or grandchildren to have a 
safe good supply or do you want to make it a possibility that 
some day there could be an embargo on incoming food supplies to 
teach us a lesson. Do not think that is far fetched. Who ever 
would have thought that something as horrendous as the 
Holocaust could happen. Also, I am a crop insurance agent who 
feels the recent proposed cuts to the SRA and crop insurance 
program are too deep. I do understand that some cuts are 
necessary but feel that the proposed cuts will damage the 
program. A crop insurance policy is more time consuming than 
any commercial, home or auto policy. I work in a full service 
agency so I do know first hand.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Dale McClure, Omaha, NE

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Dale McClure.
    City, State: Omaha, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I think its time for the American Farmer to step 
up to the plate and request the elimination of farm program 
payments! For years the farmers have said that they wanted 
their income from the market. With $4.00 corn and $10.00 
soybeans the farmer does not need assistance from the 
government! Why do think that farm land prices are at record 
highs! So its time to dump the farm programs that cost money 
for no significant reason!
                                ------                                


            Comment of Chad A. McCollester, Silver City, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Chad A. McCollester.
    City, State: Silver City, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager/Crop Insurance.
    Comment: In the passing of the 2008 Farm Bill Section 1619 
was slipped in at the last moment, and was not subject to 
public comment. As a Farm Manager and Crop Insurance Agent 
having access to accurate CLU data on a daily basis is a 
important part of my business.
    While I understand the importance of privacy, I feel that 
Section 1619 has taken the spirit of privacy a bit too far. 
Please reconsider the inclusion of Section 1619 in the next 
farm bill.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.

            Sincerely,

Chad A. McCollester, A.F.M.,
Accredited Farm Manager.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Peter McCrea, Westport, CT

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Peter McCrea.
    City, State: Westport, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nonprofit.
    Comment: Stop subsidizing agribusiness, GMO seeds, 
Monsanto-types, etc., and instead support local small farmers 
and organic growers!
                                ------                                


               Comments of David McElhaney, Hookstown, PA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 17, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: David McElhaney.
    City, State: Hookstown, PA
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: The U.S. needs a full Animal Disease Traceability 
system, much like Australia. Minus a full traceability system, 
U.S. producers will be at a disadvantage on the world market. 
Traceability will be used as a non- tariff trade barrier. Other 
country's such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the EU 
have systems in place. Brazil is now working on a full 
traceability system similar to Australia's, at 200 million head 
of cattle, this will have dramatic effect on U.S. Beef Exports. 
Successful programs have been implemented for less than the 
U.S. has spent on an unsuccessful voluntary system, a mandatory 
traceability needs to be made law by Congress. Thank you.

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 17, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: David McElhaney.
    City, State: Hookstown, PA
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: The U.S. needs to incorporate Ethanol production 
for dairy products (Whey) into energy and dairy policy as a 
long term solution to dairy over production. Country's such as 
Ireland and New Zealand utilize this as a means of reducing oil 
imports while insuring the future of the dairy industry. The 
CWT program has shown to be a very short term solution and also 
puts pressure on cull beef prices. USDA has done a study on 
this manor of Ethanol production in 2006. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Allison McGarry, Flint, MI

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Allison McGarry.
    City, State: Flint, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: My suggestion to the House Agriculture Committee 
would be to review and evaluate what crops this country 
subsides for farmers. Subsides for crops like corn and soy 
provides the foundation for much of the low quality, less 
nutritional food that is produced and sold in the United 
States. I feel this is one of the contributing factors to the 
obesity problem here and it limits the access to healthily 
sustainable crops to our nation's lower income communities. If 
the government provides subsidies to farmers, provide those 
subsidies to farmers who practice sustainable agriculture 
practices and grow food that is good for a person's health and 
not detrimental to it.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Kyle McGarry, Ammon, ID

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Kyle McGarry.
    City, State: Ammon, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agriculture Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Please make the CLU data public in order to for us 
to better serve our local farmers financial needs. The CLU data 
makes it possible to provide more accurate appraisals and 
decrease the cost of doing business.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Corey McGillis, Portland, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Corey McGillis.
    City, State: Portland, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Sales.
    Comment: ACRE and Sure are programs that are very slow in 
getting money to the farmer. If that farmer needs that money, 
many times it will be late to help him/her in there situation. 
Crop Insurance is a much more efficient way to manage farmers 
risk. Take the money spent on ACRE and Sure and put it into the 
Crop Insurance Program. We all will admit that the program 
needs improvements however it is still the best form of 
protection that is available to the farmer. By allocating other 
money from ACRE and Sure, that could help to make more 
improvements and expand into other crops that are lacking 
proper coverage. Crop Ins checks can be issued within week of 
farmers signing there proof of loss. ACRE/SURE take up to 12-15 
months. To slow and inadequate. Farmers in our area like crop 
insurance and do not prefer to go to the FSA if they don't have 
to. We spend a large amount of time helping them with ACRE 
because nobody seems to have a grasp of how it works. Also we 
can use the money for ACRE and Sure to increase subsidy to 85%, 
reducing the need for disaster payments. Cutting farmer 
subsidy, what Congress wants to do will hurt the program and 
increase the need for Disaster payments. Whole farms is a bad 
idea, doesn't fit in different areas of the country, and in our 
part we raise 9-12 different crops. That makes for poor risk 
management and banks would not be as willing to loan money. As 
the program stands now, banks like the program, it gives them 
protection for their risk. Lets work on making a good program 
better and stop trying to re-invent the wheel. It is fact that 
the government has made more money on the program than the 
industry. Why is it that when the government gets something 
fairly right, they work twice as hard to destroy it. This 
program is good for farmers, it is good for rural America, it 
works and with reallocated funding, it could become a whole lot 
better. Not to mention, I believe that the WTO do not score 
crop insurance negatively, I also see that as a plus for trade.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Sean McGinty, Lutz, FL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Sean McGinty.
    City, State: Lutz, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Training and Development.
    Comment: The farm bill is a great Food Stamp support and 
development bill. However it does not address the nutritionally 
deficient aspects of our nations corporate food production. The 
government continue to help people become fat by the 
subsidization corn. Cows were not meant to eat a diet of whole 
grains. Nor does it address Monsanto and there GMO soy beans 
creating a monopoly in there industry. You want a farm bill I 
would be happy to support ban GMO food items that includes 
Monsanto and the cloned fish getting ready to enter the supply 
chain. I wish the Federal Government cared about what the 
nation was eating. Hopefully government run health care will 
open everyone's eyes, if we had clean foods with less 
processing the average weight of the nation would decrease and 
so would a host of managed care problems. Stop avoiding the 
source of a lot of problems just because they provide campaign 
dollars. There not paying enough in campaign cash and taxes to 
cover the health problems there products cause.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Tim McGuire, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Tim McGuire.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Photographer.
    Comment: I want close regulation of companies like Monsanto 
making sure they do no harm to our food supply, environment, 
and ecosystems with their genetically modified products. We 
cannot allow these multinational corporate entities to do what 
makes them the most money. See what happened in the oil and 
banking industries lately? Don't let that happen with the big 
agribusiness conglomerates. They act first to make money and 
then think later when they get caught. Insects such as bees and 
birds and other animals who exist with these GMO's need to be 
studied for harmful affects from altering nature for profits. 
And it must be done long before the practice is widely used and 
approved. These are issues we cannot afford to take risks with 
as we have in other industries that should have been better 
regulated by the government.
    Thank you for you time.
                                ------                                


               Comment of William J. McHale, Stockton, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: William J. McHale.
    City, State: Stockton, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Delivery Driver.
    Comment: We can produce amazing amounts of top-quality food 
here in the Central Valley. But I see fields going to the weeds 
and I see orchards dying of neglect. Farmers do NOT have enough 
water. We have all the water we need, but we allow it to go to 
waste for the sake of the Delta Smelt. GIVE ME A BREAK! Turn 
the Tracy pumps back on and put our agricultural producers back 
in business.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Virginia McKay, Sprague, WA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Virginia McKay.
    City, State: Sprague, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Please don't forsake agriculture for the animal 
rights such as HSUS and PETA. They claim 11 mil members then 
why were there only 1,000 people at last weeks national 
conference or in Oct. 2009 HSUS annual meeting in D.C. had only 
18 people present, mostly board members. They had the meeting 
in a room designated for 60. Less than 13,000 cast ballots to 
elect HSUS board. They just don't have the numbers they claim. 
If and when the minority have control of our food supply they 
will have control of our country.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jennifer McKendrick, Manti, UT

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Jennifer McKendrick.
    City, State: Manti, UT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Like many Americans, I would like to own my own 
organic farm and greenhouse. However, I settle in helping my 
parents with their garden. I am disgusted and outraged at the 
power of the corporations to hold little to no responsibility 
towards food safety and health. Pesticides, insecticides, 
genetically modified foods, and food additives are all a source 
of major concern to me. Illness and the health care system pay 
for these, and every person across the world. Please keep GMO's 
out of America's farms, and start to regulate food additives. 
Many of them have shown to be cancer causing. Please subsidize 
only organic farmers. We have enough chemical imbalance in this 
country, we don't need another catastrophe around the bend.
                                ------                                


          Comment of Teresa A. McLean, Ph.D., Watkinsville, GA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Teresa A. McLean, Ph.D.
    City, State: Watkinsville, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Behavioral Scientist.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee Members,

    I would like to urge you to make organic farming a top 
priority in the 2012 Farm Bill. Besides being a behavioral 
scientist, I am a mother of young children. My husband and I 
are committed to feeding ourselves and children organic produce 
and farm products. I would like to see the support by our 
government increased for the producers of these products.
    Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of 
U.S. agricultural production and organic food is one of the 
fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail market.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber to American consumers and 
consumers abroad.
    I would like to urge you to invest in programs that support 
organic farmers, including:

    1. Research and extension programs that expand the breadth 
        of knowledge about organic farming systems and provide 
        that knowledge to organic farmers.

    2. Conservation programs that reward organic farmers for 
        the conservation benefits of organic farming systems 
        and provide technical support for organic farmers who 
        want to improve on-farm conservation.

    3. Transition programs that provide technical support to 
        farmers who want to transition to organic farming 
        practices but don't know how.

    4. Crop insurance programs that work for organic farmers 
        and reimburse them for any losses based on the organic 
        market value of the crop, not average conventional 
        prices.

    Thank you in advance for your consideration and support for 
making organic farming a top priority in the 2012 Farm Bill.
            Sincerely,

Teresa A. McLean, Ph.D.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Liz McLellan, Halfway, OR

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Liz McLellan.
    City, State: Halfway, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consumer.
    Comment: Small meat producers desperately need regional 
mobile slaughter units so that their meat isn't ruined by 
travel to huge commercial slaughter factories. Please consider 
grants and subsidies to support rural development in this way.
    STOP subsidies for petroleum dependant corporate 
agriculture.
    MORE support for integrated sustainable small growers.
    More regulation for corporate CAFOS--less for small 
producers.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Monica J. McManigal, Center, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 07, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Monica McManigal.
    City, State: Center, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nebraska Knox County Assessor.
    Comment: I am writing to you on behalf of Knox County, 
Nebraska. We wish to strongly urge the Agriculture Committee to 
make an adjustment to the current farm bill. The one piece of 
information that would help us greatly is allowing us to view 
the GIS layer that is now available to the local FSA Offices. 
In 2008, the bulk of information was made confidential and will 
not release this information to other governmental agencies. It 
contains no personal or owner information, nor actual crop 
production information. This information is recreatable, but at 
a substantial cost to the taxpayers.
    We respectfully request that this GIS field layer be made 
available to other governmental agencies, including the county 
assessors. It would make identifying parcels more convenient 
for our office and we also feel that our information should be 
the same as the FSA records.
    Thank you greatly for your time and we wish that our 
concerns will be heard and considered for the updating of the 
farm bill.
            Sincerely,

Monica J. McManigal,
Knox County Assessor Center, NE.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Mary Anna McNair, Driscoll, TX

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Mary Anna McNair.
    City, State: Driscoll, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock, Specialty Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: The Agricultural Family is dwindling slowly and 
dying a slow death. Before long, all of our food, clothing, and 
all necessary essentials will be imported. I do not want to 
rely on another country for basic necessities such as food, but 
if we do not do something to support the American Farmer more, 
that is exactly what is going to happen. He works from sunup to 
sundown and only asks for a reasonable price for his commodity 
but somehow the middle man always gets his share and 
unfortunately the farmer's share is almost nil. Without Federal 
Subsidized programs, such as crop insurance to help him with 
his expenses, he cannot survive. He pays RETAIL for everything 
he purchases and then sells his commodity for WHOLESALE! What a 
disservice we are doing to the backbone of our nation. He 
relies heavily on his crop insurance agent to help him manage 
his financial risk. Please do not cut subsidies any more for 
the farmer or the few people left in agriculture that help him 
survive. I SINCERELY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE MY CHILDREN AND MY 
GRANDCHILDREN STANDING IN FOOD LINES WAITING ON A SHIPMENT FROM 
A FOREIGN COUNTRY!!!! Please, please do not let this happen. 
Thank you for listening.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Susan McNamara, Southampton, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Susan McNamara.
    City, State: Southampton, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Health Counselor.
    Comment: I am writing to urge you to change the way food is 
subsidized in this country. The Farm Bill needs an update 
representing the needs of the people. Big agriculture should 
not be receiving our money, especially when the majority of 
their crops, corn, wheat, soy go to fast food production and 
feed lots. We need more fresh, local, clean food. Support local 
organic with your funding distribution.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Thomas Meekins, Tom, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Thomas Meekins.
    City, State: Tom, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a State Certified General Appraiser that 
appraises agricultural land in eastern South Dakotas for the 
past 18 years. The lack of access to FSA aerial maps affects my 
ability to accurately analyze comparable sales. With cropland 
values sometimes being twice the amount of pasture land, it is 
not hard to see where the analysis can lead to misleading 
values. Most of my appraisals are for banks and attorneys 
dealing with filing estate tax returns. This lack of FSA aerial 
maps for comparable sales can affect the bank's collateral 
value as well as the amount owned on estate taxes.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Joey Meibergen, Enid, OK

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Joey Meibergen.
    City, State: Enid, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agribusiness.
    Comment: Why is the United State still paying farmers to 
not grow a commodity. Especially when we are trying to pass 
environmental laws in the U.S. that will further distance U.S. 
competitiveness in Commodity Exports and make it even harder to 
feed the world's growing population. What does the average 
citizen in the United States get from CRP?? It sure has been a 
great taxpayer funded retirement program for what used to be a 
producer.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Julie Meisner, Harpursville, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 04, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Julie Meisner.
    City, State: Harpursville, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear Honorable Sirs and Madam's of the House Agriculture 
Committee:

    Please note: That the number of producing dairy farms in 
the United States in heading for a number below 60,000, down 
from 648,000 in 1970.
    I am submitting this letter to state that we small dairy 
farmers are being systematically exterminated by the lack of 
for thought and understanding of the complexities of farming in 
2010. We have the volatility of fuel and feed prices going up 
at the blink of an eye. And we are competing against 
corporations such as Dean Foods, whom now have their dairies 
and our own Co-ops who are only looking out for their next golf 
game with the Ag Secretary.
    Not all farms have 1000 head of cattle, nor do we all have 
hired help. But, what we do have is hard working men and women 
trying to full fill our American dream of our businesses and 
take care of our families, by providing the American people and 
safe and reliable food grown here.
    Fact: Dairy farmers need a fair and equitable price for 
their milk. There is a very wide difference between what is 
paid to the dairy farmer and what is charged to the consumer. 
Processors are allowed to charge back to the farmer a item 
called make allowance to secure their income profitability. 
But, there is no safety net like that for the American Dairy 
farmer Right now, 92% of milk produced in this country is 
valued at a price of 8% of the products sold, (Cheddar cheese--
sold on the CME with very few buyers.)
    Needed Change: The complicated milk pricing, needs to 
change to include all utilized milk and products made for 
consummation in this country and prices paid by consumers. It 
should not include imported products brought into this country 
and then put in to storage and then is included in our 
inventories and used in the equation for pricing.
    Fact: Dairy farmers are required to pay for hauling of 
their milk to creameries.
    Needed change: Creameries--processors should pay for milk 
at the farms, and should be required to pay for hauling.
    Fact: Dairy farmers are required to sell their milk 
products in this country with a specific set of health 
standards.
    Fact: Products are being imported into this country and 
used or food production that are not categorized as food grade. 
Therefore, the exporting countries and have an unfair advantage 
in the production of their milk and products sold here and 
utilized in the production of food for the American public. 
(Milk Protein Concentrates--MPC)
    Needed change: The FDA should classify Milk Protein 
Concentrate as a food product, not as an industrial product. 
Therefore, the MPC's and products like them would be under the 
USDA and those safety requirements that the United States 
dairymen use in the production of milk and milk products used 
for the American people.
    Fact: Parts of the United States produce more milk than is 
needed in their areas, and may have contributed to the over 
production of milk in this country.
    Needed Change: Regional milk production and utilization of 
milk and its products should be included into a base-quota 
pricing plan such as Canada's for those specific regions, along 
with residency requirements. Regions in this country that have 
an excess in milk could be used to make MPC's for the companies 
that use it in their products here in the U.S.
    Fact: Farmers are worried about buying quota, especially 
with the last few years of income.
    Probable Change: Quota could be based on 5 years of 
production, taking out the highest and lowest and averaging the 
rest together, with each fall having an open quota building 
time of 3 months, if additional production was necessary. Thus 
after, the quota could be bought and sold giving the farmers 
added equity.
    Fact: Farmers are unable to borrow money without adequate 
information regarding the price of their milk.
    Probable Change: With the farmers knowing how they were 
going to get for their milk, they could actually, do reliable 
cash flow, including the purchase of base or quota if it was 
needed for their business. (There has been some reluctance on 
the use quota, because of the new farmer starting out. But if 
they have enough equity they will find the way.)
    Fact: The American people are buying milk and milk products 
that may or may not be made in this country, but assume that it 
is.
    Needed Changes: Country Of Origins labeling should include 
milk and its products. The Manufactures will say they cannot 
change the labeling on the carton. But, they have to put 
expiration date and where it was made on the carton. Putting 
the Cool Labeling on the carton could be added at that step, 
along with the percentage of that countries content in the 
product. This would be helpful to the American consumers, so 
that they would know where their food was coming from.
    Fact: There may be a need to lower the cattle inventories 
in the United States.
    Need Change: Instead of using CWT, a buyout program. Fellow 
farmers have suggested using our veterinarians and DHIA to cull 
cattle with diseases that we would like to eradicate. Such as 
Johnnes, BDV, mastitis etc.
    Thank you for your time.

Julie Meisner.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Wolf Melbourne, Rocky Mount, NC

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 6:35 a.m.
    Name: Wolf Melbourne.
    City, State: Rocky Mount, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Military.
    Comment: As a father of two young children entering school 
age I am concerned about the direction our nation is headed in 
terms of food policy and its effect of child nutrition.
    If Congress were to change even a small amount of the World 
War II era subsidy funding which is currently given to large 
commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and instead put 
that funding into smaller scale, organic and local agricultural 
endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition would be 
enormous. While these subsidies of so called ``staple'' crops 
may have made sense at the time they were first suggested in 
the early 20th century, the Farm Bill subsidy program as it is 
currently carried out actually contribute to declining child 
health due to its support for agribusiness such as the corn 
syrup producers and industrial meat and dairy production. 
Increased federal support for local, organic diversified 
agricultural would go a long way to ensuring that the local 
school districts have the ability to purchase and use 
healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats in 
school nutrition programs.
    I appreciate the hard work and attention you all are giving 
to this subject. We have an opportunity to steer this nation 
towards a responsible food policy which supports rather than 
undermines child nutrition. Please seize it.
            Respectfully yours,

Wolf Melbourne.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Elizabeth Melugin, Raleigh, NC

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Elizabeth Melugin.
    City, State: Raleigh, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Yoga Instructor and Seamstress.
    Comment: Please make our farmers' food safe to eat. Cut the 
chemicals, cut the genetic engineering, cut the coast to coast 
transport. If subsidies are a necessary evil, then subsidize 
the farmers who grow organic. Offer incentives to the farmers 
to encourage more of them to go organic. Please look into the 
correlation between the death of the small family farm and the 
fattening of America. I do everything I can to feed my family 
locally grown, organic produce and meats. It is not easy and it 
certainly is not cheap. Living in the south makes it easier for 
me than for those in more northern locales, but it is a 
challenge.
    Another thought is this . . . you have got to fix the 
school lunch program. For far too many children it is the only 
meal they are going to get. And what do they get? Sugar laden 
breakfasts, deep fried lunches, and dessert every single day is 
what's on the menu. This is a government sponsored program. It 
almost looks like our government is trying to make our children 
fat, weak, and sick. Contract it out if you have to. I could 
cater my children's entire school lunch for what they're paying 
for the school lunch.
    The fact that the cheapest way to get the most calories for 
our shopping dollars is to buy sugar and chemical laden junk is 
beyond wrong. Whole, fresh, local foods logically (to me) 
should be the least expensive. Those foods produced from many, 
many ingredients that are shipped repeatedly across the country 
should not. The system is broken. Please fix it. Please give 
our citizens access to the fresh healthy foods they need. 
Please.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Dr. Joan P. Mencher, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: Dr. Joan P. Mencher.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Not-for-Profit Chair.
    Comment: Considering the fact that there is a growing body 
of scientific data that shows how small scale, organic 
agriculture grown on farms with significant inter-cropping and 
the inclusion of trees and the rotation of crops can absorb 
CO2 rather than adversely affect the climate on this 
planet, I strongly urge:

    1. Enact a robust and well funded Conservation Title to 
        support working lands conservation programs, 
        conservation easement programs, and sustainable and 
        organic transition assistance.

    Farms and ranches make up more than half of the land mass 
of the lower 48 states. Farm polices driving the 
industrialization of agriculture have created a system of 
agriculture on these lands that is productive in the short 
term, but polluting, energy gulping and unsustainable over the 
long term.
    Agriculture is the largest source of pollution of rivers 
and streams, affecting roughly half of total stream miles. Over 
100 million acres of cropland continue to erode at levels that 
are unsustainable despite decades of soil conservation efforts 
stemming back to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Nearly \2/3\ of 
threatened and endangered species are listed due in some part 
to agriculture and agro-chemicals. Human health, ecosystem 
health, food security and even our long term economic well 
being are all tied to how well farmers and ranchers steward 
these resources.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to enact a 
Conservation Title of the 2012 Farm Bill that provides the 
technical assistance, cost share, and financial incentives 
necessary to ensure the long term productivity and stewardship 
of agricultural lands.
    Long term sustainable food production will require an 
increasing emphasis on the adoption of conservation practices 
on lands in active agricultural production. We must defend, 
strengthen, and extend conservation compliance, which requires 
that farmers receiving federal farm program payments adopt 
conservation plans. Conservation compliance must apply to 
federal subsidies for crop insurance as well as any new revenue 
insurance program that may be adopted. In addition, the 
survival of prime grasslands depends on the adoption of strong 
uniform Sodsaver protections.
    Working lands conservation programs must actively assist 
farmers to transition to sustainable and organic farming 
systems by providing the necessary technical and financial 
assistance. A shift to organic production and sustainable and 
grass-based livestock systems will yield environmental, 
economic, and public health benefits.
    As we move closer to enacting comprehensive energy and 
climate change legislation, policy makers must recognize that 
the best structure available for shaping agriculture's response 
to climate change is the Conservation Title of the next farm 
bill. Whether to help farmers cope with climate change or to 
reduce green house gas emissions attributable to agriculture 
the basic tools to accomplish climate change mitigation and 
farmer adaptation are already in place.
    Agriculture can make a substantial contribution to a shift 
toward renewable energy. That shift, however, must emphasize 
production of a new generation of cellulosic fuel stocks, 
strong sustainability criteria, and local and farmer ownership 
of production facilities.
    Wetland, grassland, and farmland easement programs do much 
to protect America's fragile soils and critical ecosystems. 
These programs also offer opportunities for climate change 
mitigation, ecosystem regeneration, and refuge for wildlife. 
They need to be extended and strengthened in the next farm 
bill. The Conservation Reserve Program should include an 
easement option so that land that should be permanently retired 
from production has the appropriate conservation tool 
available. As other Conservation Reserve Program contracts 
expire it is essential that those lands come back into 
production under sustainable systems, which in most cases will 
be grass-based production.

    2. Refocus federal farm program payments upon farming 
        systems and practices that produce environmental 
        benefits and promote long-term food security.

    Since the Great Depression, USDA has administered commodity 
programs for corn, wheat, rice, other grains, and cotton. For 
most of that time, the programs focused on reducing production 
and managing supplies to keep prices relatively constant. 
However, in the modern era, our federal farm programs have been 
transformed into pure production subsidies, encouraging 
overproduction of grain and cotton at tremendous cost to the 
environment and the family farmers they were intended to help.
    The next farm bill may make some changes to the commodity 
programs. One simple-to-craft reform could be a re-allocation 
of a portion of current production subsidies to farmer 
conservation and farmer value-added business development. One 
obvious place for increased funding is the Conservation 
Stewardship Program (CSP).
    The CSP pays farmers for producing healthier soil, cleaner 
water, fewer greenhouse gases and greater biodiversity. It is 
the only program in the USDA tool kit that rewards sustainable 
farmers for the multiple and ongoing environmental benefits 
delivered by their farming practices.
    This program can point the way forward for U.S. farm policy 
by providing a model for what the next generation of farm 
programs should look like. CSP rewards farmers for how they 
farm, not for what or how much they produce. CSP advances 
conservation practices on crop, pasture, range, and forested 
land and includes options that work for sustainable and organic 
operations, specialty crop farms, grazing operations, and 
diversified crop-livestock farms.
    Feeding ourselves and future generations will demand the 
expansion of sustainable production practices on working 
agricultural lands. Programs that reward our best stewards and 
encourage other farmers to make the transition to more 
sustainable farming practices are crucial to our food security.
    CSP is on track to sign up 25.6 million acres for 2009 and 
2010, or over 50 million acres during this current farm bill 
cycle, and 115 million acres by 2017. We urge Congress and the 
Administration to significantly expand its commitment to this 
program by providing the funding necessary to reach a total 
enrollment of 230 million acres by the end of the next farm 
bill cycle in 2017.

    3. Encourage and support the next generation of farmers and 
        ranchers.

    The future health and vitality of agriculture, the food 
system, and rural communities depends on the successful launch 
of a new generation of farmers and ranchers. Across the 
country, there is a groundswell of interest in agriculture 
among young people, farm raised or not who want to take up 
farming as a profession. Many new immigrants, women, and farm 
workers also aspire to becoming farmers.
    Over the next two decades an estimated 400 million acres of 
U.S. agricultural land will be passed on to heirs or sold as 
farmers 65 and older retire (currently \1/3\ of all farmland 
owners are retirement age). Transitions present opportunities 
for economic and social mobility. Given the opportunity, these 
new entrepreneurs can bring hope and capital to rural economies 
desperate for renewal.
    Changes in farming practices also happen at the transition. 
This new generation of farmers has enthusiastically embraced 
sustainable and organic agriculture. These farming systems 
offer new market opportunities and oftentimes lower start up 
costs. And not incidentally, these systems produce more 
economic multipliers for their communities than raw commodities 
sold into the conventional market. Public policy needs to 
encourage and reward this generation's embrace of 
environmentally sound farming practices.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to make a greater 
investment in beginning farmers and ranchers. The 2012 Farm 
Bill must ensure this new generation of farmers has the 
technical assistance, capital, access to markets and land it 
needs to succeed. Federal assistance to beginning farmers 
should prioritize those establishing sustainable and organic 
farming operations.

    4. Increase resources for research that fosters sustainable 
        agriculture systems.

    Agricultural research is a powerful and fundamental force 
that shapes our food and farming system. Publicly supported 
agricultural research has too often, and for far too long, 
produced technologies and tools that best serve industrial 
agriculture. This research fosters systems that strive for 
increased production at the expense of other important public 
values. The $2.5 billion USDA spends each year on food and 
agricultural research has produced a U.S. food system that is 
increasingly concentrated and focused on a narrowing base of 
crop and livestock breeds.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to enact a Research 
Title that truly serves the interests of rural communities and 
our collective long-term food security. Our research, education 
and extension programs must focus on the full and diverse set 
of practical, economic and social challenges facing America. 
Environmental degradation, depopulation, the loss of mid-sized 
family farmers, the loss of biodiversity, and climate change 
all demand an expanded federal commitment to research that 
fosters sustainable and organic farming systems.
    Publically supported research should be aimed squarely at 
technologies and systems that support small and mid-sized 
farmers. It should examine food systems, sustainable renewable 
energy production and public health issues. Most importantly, 
the only competitive grants program in the entire USDA 
portfolio to involve farmers and ranchers directly in research, 
the Sustainable Agriculture, Research and Education (SARE) 
program must finally be funded at a level that begins to meet 
the demand.
    A renewed public commitment to classical plant and animal 
breeding is critical to conserving our dwindling genetic 
diversity. Increased genetic diversity will be vital in 
addressing global climate change, increasing pest pressure and 
our own food security. Sustainable and organic agricultural 
systems can contribute to the development of a new generation 
of seeds and breeds that are well adapted to local conditions 
and changing environmental conditions.

    5. Reinvigorate regional agricultural economies and local 
        food systems.

    The surge in consumer demand for organically-produced food 
and agricultural products from local and regional markets 
offers a significant new opportunity for diversified rural 
development but we need to provide producers and their 
communities with the necessary tools to serve these new 
markets. Rising demand for these foods is an important 
incentive for farmers and ranchers, but many communities lack 
the processing and distribution infrastructure necessary for 
economically robust, sustainable food systems.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to provide the 
capital and technical assistance necessary to rebuild the local 
and regional food infrastructure.
    We applaud this Administration's commitment to the Know 
Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative. The grant and loan 
programs publicized through Know Your Farmer can provide the 
capital and technical assistance necessary for small and mid-
sized farmers to respond to new market demand.
    Mid-sized farms in particular are often too small to thrive 
in the international commodities markets but are well 
positioned to sell local and regional, organic and value added 
farm products directly to wholesale and institutional 
purchasers. Fostering these markets can help preserve those 
farms ``in the middle,'' the farm size category that is 
shrinking the fastest, yet which is essential for the vitality 
of rural communities. Further, cultivating the growth of 
regional food systems can create jobs, retain more food dollars 
in rural economies and spark development opportunities.
    Connecting food producers and consumers directly through 
existing USDA programs--when farmers sell directly to schools 
or when SNAP participants use their benefits to buy fresh, 
nutritious food at farmers markets--makes economic sense and 
ensures that the Nation's nutrition safety net is doing its job 
while also strengthening the bottom line for America's family 
farmers.

    6. Ensure fair and competitive agricultural markets.

    Large segments of the nation's food supply are dominated by 
a handful of corporations. Family farmers and ranchers are 
facing markets for the sale of their products that are 
increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer firms. This is 
especially true in the livestock and poultry sectors. In an 
attempt to gain market access, farmers and ranchers enter into 
production or marketing contracts with corporations that have 
far greater bargaining and market power.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to ensure more 
market channels, greater bargaining power, and strong rules 
that ensure fair contracts for producers. Fair contracts and 
competition will allow producers to provide consumers with a 
greater diversity of higher quality and fairly priced goods.

    7. Fully recognize the inherent value of sustainable and 
        organic farming systems in addressing climate change.

    Conventional agriculture is a ravenous consumer of fossil 
fuels and producer of greenhouse gases. Yet, our federal farm 
and energy policies continue to reward intensive row-cropping, 
corn ethanol production and large-scale confined livestock 
production systems. These systems are all heavily dependent on 
mechanization, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. These 
systems are specialized, brittle and susceptible to collapse 
under the weight of climate change.
    To best address climate change, federal farm policy must 
emphasize farming systems that can best help farmers cope with 
climate change and reduce the overall level of green house gas 
emissions attributable to agriculture.
    Research confirms that sustainable and organic farming 
methods when compared to conventional agriculture can result in 
the reduction of nitrogen use and pollution. Studies also show 
that over the long term, organic crop rotations show increased 
yield and steadily improved soil quality over conventional 
systems. These systems are diverse, resilient and best suited 
to coping with the variability of weather and pest pressures 
resulting from climate change. They consume less fossil fuel 
and sequester more carbon than conventional agriculture. They 
also offer the most sustainable means of producing on farm 
renewable energy.

    8. Reform commodity payment programs.

    Commodity programs offer farmers production subsidies for 
commodity crops like corn, rice, cotton, and soybeans. While 
some payments are made when commodity prices are low, a 
majority of payments are made regardless of whether prices are 
high or low, and can be made even when a crop is not grown. A 
disproportionate share of benefits goes to the largest farms, 
with the largest one percent of farms receiving about a quarter 
of total benefits. The result is farm consolidation as farm 
subsidies are used to buy more land. The subsidy allows large 
farms to bid up land prices well above market levels while mid-
sized family farms disappear and farming opportunities diminish 
for a new generation of farmers.
    Furthermore, commodity programs, as currently administered, 
encourage the intensive production of one or two commodities on 
the same fields year after year, resulting in polluted runoff, 
soil depletion and loss of biodiversity. Taxpayers, consumers, 
farmers and rural communities deserve better. We urge Congress 
and the Administration to enact farm subsidy reforms that serve 
a broader set of interests including public health, rural 
economic development, resource conservation, and economic 
opportunity and entry.
    One starting place for reform would be to enact effective 
payment limitation reform to reduce program incentives to farm 
consolidation. In addition, farmers should be allowed to plant 
fruits and vegetables on at least a portion of their farm 
program acreage provided their payment is reduced accordingly. 
Re-invigorating the conservation compliance system is also 
overdue. If Congress takes the step of adding a more 
comprehensive revenue insurance option to the commodity program 
mix, it too should have effective payment limitations, full 
planting flexibility, and strong conservation requirements.

    9. Reform Crop Insurance.

    Farming is inherently a risky business. Weather, pests, 
variable costs for inputs, and wild fluctuations in market 
prices for farm products create a volatile business environment 
and can cause farm income to vary significantly from year to 
year. A healthy farm and food system depends on public policies 
that help farmers manage risk effectively.
    Traditionally, farmers managed risk by growing multiple 
crops and raising a variety of livestock. If one crop failed or 
prices for cattle or hogs were low, then sales of other 
products would make up the difference. By contrast, current 
crop insurance policies are skewed in favor of less diverse 
crop production systems that are not only more vulnerable to 
markets, weather, and pests, but that also have serious 
environmental impacts.
    We urge Congress and the Administration to reform Crop 
insurance to ensure that it is structured in a manner that 
significantly rewards diversification in recognition of its 
high environmental and risk management value.
    This farm bill should begin a transition toward an 
effective whole farm revenue insurance option.
    Unjustified surcharges on insurance premiums for organic 
producers should be removed and insurance options implemented 
that take organic product price premiums into consideration. 
New insurance provisions should also be adopted to allow 
farmers who are engaged in direct and value-added markets to 
insure their production based on their higher value markets.
            Signed:

Dr. J. Mencher, Chair,
The Second Chance Fd., NYC.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Isabelle Menozzi, Fairfield, CT

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: Isabelle Menozzi.
    City, State: Fairfield, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: Please support this bill so our children can have 
healthier food in school!!
    No farms, no food!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Greg Merrill, Stockton, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 17, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Greg Merrill.
    City, State: Stockton, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: Please keep crop insurance status quo, as per the 
2008 Farm Bill and review for the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill. 
Further reductions in funding via the 2010 SRA will ultimately 
hurt the producer/farmers who rely on crop insurance as: (1) 
Loan funding requirement, (2) Risk management safety net & (3) 
Stability for their farm and family during adverse weather 
years. Producers/farmers have no control over the weather, 
please don't restrict the program that allows them to keep 
operating year-after-year even when Mother Nature is 
unpredictable. Agriculture is the backbone of this nation and 
to further reduce funding to the Federal Crop Insurance Program 
would be a critical blow to the carrier industry that 
underwrites the program, agencies that sell it, and producers/
farmers that rely on it.
            Sincerely,

Greg Merrill, AFIS--Pan American Insurance Agency, Inc.,
Director of Crop Insurance Services.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of John Meyer, Brattleboro, VT

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: John Meyer.
    City, State: Brattleboro, VT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: CEO of a dairy breed association.
    Comment:

    Dear Chairman Peterson and members of the House Agriculture 
Committee:

    Please accept these comments from John M. Meyer, Chief 
Executive Officer of Holstein Association USA, Inc.
    Almost one year ago, Gordon M. Cook, Jr., a member of the 
board of directors of our 30,000 member producer organization, 
testified in your Committee room to explain our proposal: The 
Dairy Price Stabilization Program (DPSP).
    While much has happened since that time, the dairy farmers 
of this country are still suffering. The reason they continue 
to suffer is because the market signals they receive are still 
telling them to produce more milk. In fact, this is the signal 
dairy farms constantly receive, no matter what the price of 
milk is.
    It was our hope that swift action would be taken in 2009 in 
the form implementation of Holstein Association USA's Dairy 
Price Stabilization Program. The principles of the DPSP are:

   To prevent severely depressed producer milk prices 
        that result in low and negative returns over feed costs 
        to dairy producers.

   To reduce the volatility of milk prices to dairy 
        producers and thereby reduce the price risk to dairy 
        producers, dairy processors, and consumers of milk and 
        dairy products.

   To complement, and not replace, other existing dairy 
        programs such as the federal dairy product price 
        support program and the Milk Income Loss Contract 
        Program. In fact, our program may reduce the federal 
        government cost of both of these two programs.

    With the Dairy Price Stabilization Program, we have a long-
term solution that can have an impact almost immediately, with 
no cost to taxpayers. The DPSP was developed for dairy 
producers, by dairy producers. The key to this program is that 
dairy farmers now have an incentive to produce milk for the 
market instead of producing all the milk they can and finding 
out what they are paid after it is sold. The program will be 
beneficial to dairy farmers, milk cooperatives, processors and 
consumers.
    In closing, I would like to emphasize three points:

    1. The Dairy Price Stabilization Program could be put into 
        place without affecting any current dairy programs.

    2. Implementing the DPSP does not require opening the Farm 
        Bill.

    3. The Dairy Price Stabilization Program is the only new, 
        detailed program available that can have a positive 
        effect on mailbox milk prices now and in the future.

    On behalf of the Holstein Association USA's 30,000 members 
across the country, we ask that you implement supply management 
legislation with the principles of the DPSP as soon as 
possible.
    Thank you for your consideration.
                                ------                                


                     Comment of Melody L. Meyer, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Melody L. Meyer.
    State: CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Wholesale Distributor Alberts Organics.
    Comment: Please Invest in Organic Farmers in the 2012 Farm 
Bill . . . Why because Organic farming is one of the fastest 
growing segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food 
retail market. Organic farming systems have the potential to 
conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil quality 
while providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here 
and abroad. If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue 
to grow and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support 
organic farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
            Many thanks,

Melody L. Meyer.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Naomi Meyer, Boston, MA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Naomi Meyer.
    City, State: Boston, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Legal Services Organization.
    Comment: Greater Boston Legal Services provides assistance 
to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) applicants 
and recipients throughout Boston and 31 surrounding cities and 
towns, including working families, those suffering from 
disabilities and/or homelessness, immigrants and those with 
limited English proficiency. The SNAP program is essential to 
the well-being of our clients and their children. The following 
recommendations are based on our extensive experience 
representing individuals and families, as well as working with 
the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance to 
improve access to SNAP benefits in our state.

    (1) Increase the amount of the SNAP benefit to reflect the 
        real costs of an adequate, healthy diet. In addition, 
        income and asset eligibility limits and deductions for 
        expenses should be raised to ensure that everyone who 
        needs SNAP benefits to meet their nutritional needs--
        for example, due to high expenses for housing or 
        medications--is able to participate in the program.

    (2) Fully restore SNAP eligibility for legal immigrants, 
        including eliminating sponsor deeming. The current 
        restrictions not only deprive those who are living 
        legally and permanently in the United States of access 
        to proper nutrition, they are complicated and confusing 
        for state workers to implement. My colleagues and I 
        have represented numerous clients who were erroneously 
        denied benefits, sometimes for many months or even 
        years. Moreover, giving adult immigrants access to the 
        SNAP program will reduce fears within immigrant 
        communities and encourage them to obtain benefits for 
        their eligible children.

    (3) Continue ``categorical eligibility'' options. This 
        provision has dramatically simplified the application 
        process and successfully facilitated the participation 
        of eligible families in the SNAP program in 
        Massachusetts. It also saves administrative staff time, 
        allowing that time to be better used toward the effort 
        to timely process applications and recertifications.

    (4) Increase funds for SNAP administration. States need 
        more funding to ensure that staffing is adequate to 
        process and maintain SNAP cases in a timely and 
        accurate manner.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Patricia Middleton, Queensbury, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
    Name: Patricia Middleton.
    City, State: Queensbury, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Underwriter.
    Comment: I would like to see the subsidies end. They are 
resulting in cheap, non-nutritious food that is destroying the 
health of the American public. It is a shame that healthy food 
is unaffordable to so many Americans. In discussing this topic 
with a farmer I buy from at my local farmers market, he stated 
he would like the subsidies to end as well to at least try to 
level the playing field for small farmers.
    Our current food production methods contribute heavily to 
our reliance on oil and to climate change. We need to shift to 
sustainable, organic food production to improve our health, 
reduce our reliance on oil and address climate change.
            Sincerely,

Patricia Middleton.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Brian Millard, Arenzville, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 5:37 p.m.
    Name: Brian Millard.
    City, State: Arenzville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Lender.
    Comment: Please make sure the proposed farm bill includes 
language to make FSA field data public information. Disclosure 
of this type of information is critical to the agricultural 
lending and appraisal industry. Making this information public 
should not adversely affect producers or landowners that may 
have privacy concerns because that information is no different 
than the assessed value of farm real estate for property tax 
purposes. Assessed value information is publicly available. 
Thanks for your consideration.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Barbara Miller, Yuma, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Barbara Miller.
    City, State: Yuma, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: I appreciate my current freedom to purchase 
organic, non GMO produce and supplements discerned by 
appropriate labeling. I would like to see more funding go 
towards boosting organic farming for the overall health of our 
nation's people and environment. Thank you for reading and 
considering this voter's concerns.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Delvis Miller, Norton, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: Delvis Miller.
    City, State: Norton, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Applicator.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access to Common Land Unit 
(CLU). Proper mapping is very important to my business and to 
our small rural/farming community!!
            Thank you for your time,

Delvis Miller.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Diane Miller, Southampton, NJ

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Diane Miller.
    City, State: Southampton, NJ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock, Poultry/poultry products, 
Other.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Please end the corn subsidy. Change all policy 
that rewards producing food using chemical fertilizers, 
pesticides and herbicides. There is ample proof that these 
practices are destructive, to farmland, farm economy, the 
environment at large, our health and our national security, 
insomuch as chemical supports are mostly petroleum based. 
Change policy that rewards monoculture and the use of GMO 
crops. Again there are ample proofs that these practices are 
ultimately destructive. We need to foster diversity on the 
farm, we need to put animals back on the land as well as crops, 
instead of segregating each to the detriment of both. Plants, 
animals and humans all need to be treated with respect and 
dignity. Our farmland is shrinking and our farmers are aging. 
If we want to engage the young, farming must return to a 
vibrant community lifestyle. Local food is critical to the 
health of a community. Animals are critical to the health of 
the land. Too many farmers are captive to corporate interests, 
be it for seed, machinery, how to raise their animals. We do 
not need cheap food, we need good food. We do not need to feed 
the world, we need to feed our own, the absolute best we can. 
Current policies do not support those goals and have resulted 
in depleted land, plants and animals that produce substandard 
food which in turn is producing substandard humans. We, the 
richest nation in the world are starving our population through 
plenty, plenty of worthless, cheap ``food''. Good farm policy 
and good food will solve many of our social ills. Overall 
health will improve with good food. Students will do better in 
school with good food. Our land and overall environment will 
improve with better husbandry of the land. Ending subsidies 
will help level the playing field for small local producers. 
Ending monoculture will improve food safety.
    Putting animals back on the land will negate the need for 
antibiotics. Please, please make the hard decisions, the right 
decisions, the inexpedient decisions. Let us care for and 
foster our land, plants, animals and humans, rather than 
exploiting them.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Duane Miller, Cobleskill, NY

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Duane Miller.
    City, State: Cobleskill, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: The farm and field borders are very important to 
me as a farm appraiser. In very simple terms the borders should 
be public information. They don't give away any personal 
information about the farm. When this information is not 
available it will make my job more difficult which simply 
translates into a GREAT EXPENSE FOR THE FARMER, JUDGE, BANKER, 
ETC. THAT HIRE ME. With the current problems in the dairy 
industry--why would anyone make an appraisal more expensive for 
a farmer.
            Thanks,

Duane Miller.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Beverly Mills, San Francisco, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:07 p.m.
    Name: Beverly Mills.
    City, State: San Francisco, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Artist/Civic Leader.
    Comment: Bloated agricultural subsidies have resulted in 
overfed, undernourished generations. All sorts of health issues 
strain our public funds, more sustainable methods of 
agriculture are threatened and we increasingly squeeze our food 
supply into a very few corporate hands. We need an agricultural 
policy that promotes land conservation programs, sustainable 
farming practices, and encourages a wide range of energy saving 
and ecological practices.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Cecile Mills, Royal Oaks, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:35 a.m.
    Name: Cecile Mills.
    City, State: Royal Oaks, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Food Waste Recycling.
    Comment: Invest in Organic Farming in the 2012 Farm Bill. 
Organic farming means less pollution (both air and water); 
better habitat; better soil and water health; and improved 
human health. I am a Horticulture student studying Organic 
Production. My community will benefit from support for Organic 
Farming.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Bradley Mitchell, Charleston, SC

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 7:05 a.m.
    Name: Bradley Mitchell.
    City, State: Charleston, SC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Computer Scientist for the Navy.
    Comment: Please provide higher subsidies for growing fresh 
fruits and vegetables. Please also note that when I say 
vegetable, I do not mean ketchup!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Barb Moberg, Marietta, OH

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Barb Moberg.
    City, State: Marietta, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: P.E. Teacher.
    Comment: Everyday I teach P.E. in the Washington School gym 
in Marietta, OH that also serves as the cafeteria at lunchtime. 
I'm shocked at some of the food choices offered to our kids, 
kids who are the future of America. Most mornings I smell the 
food that's being heated for lunch, food loaded with fat and 
salt. No food is cooked at our school. It's only heated up 
here. Kids need more fresh fruit and vegetables, not more 
processed food. The stuff we're feeding them is leading to the 
health problems we are currently faced with: heart disease, 
cancer, stroke. This is no way to educate our kids. Our 
government needs to support local produce as much as possible 
and stop or reduce all these corn, meat and dairy subsidies. 
Our government overly subsidizes these industries. I would also 
like to see kids have some non-dairy options on a regular 
basis. Many children are lactose intolerant. It's a sad state 
of affairs when the cheapest food is the unhealthiest. The free 
breakfast program Marietta City Schools offers is hardly a 
breakfast . . . it's frequently processed food, like cookies or 
waffles in a bag. Please change how the school meal programs 
are funded and provide healthier options. I see food and health 
care closely allied. Our country is in a downward spin with 
health care costs spiraling out of control. Yet, we teach our 
kids everyday that it's acceptable to eat the junk food that is 
served in school, even though we know it's not healthy. 
Children don't understand this. They trust their parents and 
adults to do what's in their best interest. Please help turn 
this sad situation around. Something must be done. Our national 
security is at risk because of the poor shape our young people 
are in. Let's start with healthier food choices in our schools.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kelly Moltzen, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Kelly Moltzen.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Small and medium sized farmers need to be 
supported, as do farmers of fruits and vegetables. Please stop 
subsidizing the large agriculture corporations and support 
sustainable, regionalized food systems. Work with nonprofits 
such as the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) 
and academic institutions such as the Tufts Friedman School of 
Nutrition Science and Policy (where Kathleen Merrigan is from). 
Please do provide farmers in developing countries with the 
ability to have a livable income. Also, support $4 billion PER 
YEAR for Child Nutrition Re-authorization.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jeff Montgomery, Phoenix, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Jeff Montgomery.
    City, State: Phoenix, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Application.
    Comment: I'm writing on the behalf of the Aerial 
Application industry that's responsible for application of 
seed, fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides that are applied 
to millions of acres every year. Over the last ten years, this 
industry has become more a science than ever before.
    The technology that is used today is called ``precision 
application'', which means a limited amount of products are 
applied to target areas of a field. GPS, infrared technology, 
and variable rate equipment are used to make this happen. This 
not only saves money for the growers by reducing the amount of 
chemicals used, it also protects the environment.
    It is important that we amend the Farm Bill to reinstate 
public access of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS 
Data in SECTION 1619.
    Without this change, the data we need to measure field 
boundaries and acre counts will render this technology useless 
and create an environmental impact.
    Support a change to Section 1619 and be assured that there 
is no compliance, CRP, wetlands or other personal information 
in the CLU data. This is your chance to make a difference.
            Best regards,

Jeff Montgomery.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Michelle Monti, Mansfield, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Michelle Monti.
    City, State: Mansfield, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Website Producer.
    Comment: Please consider putting funding into smaller 
scale, organic and local agricultural endeavors to enhance our 
children's nutrition at school. Thank you!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Margaret Moore, Calabasas, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Margaret Moore.
    City, State: Calabasas, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: 1,000,000 strong against factory farming. Please 
support local, organic farming systems for a healthy and 
sustainable America.
    Thank you!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Phyl Morello, White Pine, TN

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Phyl Morello.
    City, State: White Pine, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: YOU MUST support fully organics! Small farming, 
not factory mega farming is needed. If ag businesses continue, 
they MUST stop using chemicals, toxins & GMO's.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Ava Morgenstern, Cambridge, MA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Ava Morgenstern.
    City, State: Cambridge, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Accountant.
    Comment: I oppose Farm Bill subsidies for these reasons:

    1. Budget.

      A. The subsidies cost the government more over time, 
            since the increased yield each year lowers the real 
            price of the food on the market (the government 
            pays the difference between floor price and market 
            price).

      B. The health care bill of America would be decreased 
            DRAMATICALLY if ingredients like high fructose corn 
            syrup weren't artificially cheap and finding their 
            way into everything we eat instead of real 
            ingredients.

    2. The price floors result in the maximization of crop 
        yields each year regardless of market signals.

      A. Environmental consequences

        i. Subsidies are resulting in over-use of pesticides 
            and fertilizers, which is
              poisoning our waterways (agriculture is now the 
            biggest polluter of water-
              ways in the world, creating vast dead zones which 
            hurt both wildlife and
              our fisheries).

        ii. The pesticides and fertilizers are petroleum 
            products, and cutting their
              use back to efficient levels would improve air 
            quality along with helping to
              stave off climate change.

        iii. Subsidies on specific crops result in vast 
            monoculture, decreasing bio-
              diversity, increasing vulnerability to disasters, 
            pests, and other shocks.

      B. Cost to farmers

        i. As the program gets more expensive, it puts 
            pressures on law makers to
              levy more taxes and cut funding to other areas.

        ii. Their land quality is degrading with such intensive 
            use, further increas-
              ing need for petroleum products like fertilizers 
            to off-set the reduced fer-
              tility.

        iii. Most of the subsidy money goes to large industrial 
            farms, giving them
              even more of an edge over small farmers, who are 
            losing their jobs in
              droves.

        iv. The increasing input costs (fertilizers, 
            insecticides, GMO seeds, etc.)
              which farmers are using more and more as land 
            quality degrades dramati-
              cally cuts down profitability of farms.

    3. International considerations

      A. The over-production is filling international markets 
            with artificially cheap crops.

        i. This is incredibly detrimental to developing 
            countries, whose producers
              are getting pounded by our cheap exports. 
            Remember, their economies
              are generally overwhelmingly agricultural. 
            Result: huge increase in poverty
              and bigger pressures for international aid.

        ii. Increases animosity toward U.S.

      B. Fertilizer and insecticide are petroleum products, and 
            thus their ever-increasing use is resulting is an 
            enormous increase in our dependence on foreign oil.

    Yes, these subsidies are keeping prices in the grocery 
store low, but the real costs are showing up in things like our 
health bills and taxes, not to mention the social and 
environmental cost associated with these practices.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Jack A. Morlock, Indianapolis, IN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Jack A. Morlock.
    City, State: Indianapolis, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: As the Committee discusses the 2012 Farm I would 
like to make it known that this bill must provide more and 
stronger investment in organic & sustainable agriculture. For 
too long as Washington rolled with the tune of agribusiness and 
left the consumer and family/small independent farms in the 
dust.
    It must be known that Organic farming is one of the fastest 
growing segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food 
retail market. There are many benefits to organic agriculture. 
Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve water, 
improve air quality, and build soil quality while providing 
high quality food and fiber for consumers here and abroad. I 
consider all of you as people serious about organic agriculture 
and there you must understand that if we want to see the U.S. 
organic sector continue to grow and thrive, we need to invest 
in programs that support organic farmers, including:

    1. Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth 
        of knowledge about organic farming systems and provide 
        that knowledge to organic farmers.

    2. Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for 
        the conservation benefits of organic farming systems 
        and provide technical support for organic farmers who 
        want to improve on-farm conservation.

    3. Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
        farmers who want to transition to organic farming 
        practices but don't know how.

    4. Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers 
        and reimburse them for any losses based on the organic 
        market value of the crop, not average conventional 
        prices.

    These four programs along in added incentives and 
investment must be the staple of the 2012 Farm Bill. Anything 
else would be a major failure on your part as the U.S. House of 
Rep. Agriculture Committee.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Jarrett & Ruth Morris, Clayton, AL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Jarrett & Ruth Morris.
    City, State: Clayton, AL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock, Poultry/poultry products, Vegetables, 
Other.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment:

Attended Meeting in Troy, Alabama

    1. I've attended national farm programs (Louisville, 
        Kentucky) and statewide programs (Tuskegee, Alabama)--
        Representatives. Representatives or interpreters of the 
        farm bill seem to discourage Black individuals seeking 
        assistance by saying ``This farm bill is too 
        complicated.''

    2. Meetings that I have attended statewide give lost hope 
        in farming by only offering farm loans and no grants. 
        White farms have been given subsidies, which are no 
        different than welfare to start some successful 
        business in farming.

    3. Why the secretive meeting (hush, hush) hearing to review 
        U.S. Agriculture policy in advance of the 2012 Farm 
        Bill. Meeting information given by a secret source. The 
        Black to White ratio was approximate 1 to 20 at the 
        meeting. There was no Black representation on the 
        panels. We were informed at the meeting that 5 more 
        meetings were scheduled. On our way home, we saw some 
        of the key members, including Mike Rogers at a farm in 
        rural Pike County after the meeting. Was this a secret 
        meeting? Speaker of meetings never gave next location 
        of meeting. There was a sense of the movie Guess Who's 
        Coming To Dinner and the Invisible Man by Ralph 
        Ellison.

    4. Yes, this Sate Farm Bill discriminates. I can stand up 
        bold and say it, being a black woman that is socially 
        disadvantaged. Am I actually socially disadvantaged, or 
        is this something only in Ink. I feel used. If these 
        FSA offices in the Deep South wanted others to achieve 
        and be successful, more effort and support would be 
        provided.

    5. There is a need for more ``people of color'' in the Deep 
        South FSA Agencies as full time workers. The minority 
        farmers need to be kept informed of every aspect of 
        farming. The minority advisor in Barbour County does 
        not keep Blacks informed.

    6. The new 2012 Farm Bill is already deceitful in allowing 
        a few to gather and give their opinions about its needs 
        and structure secretively. What about the farmers who 
        didn't know about the June 14, 2010 deadline. God will 
        not bless anything that is not right. My God is a God 
        of Justice. You may come up with the unscrupulous, 
        unethical ways and methods of keeping farmers like me 
        who really want to know all he/she can about farming. 
        Some of us are in the dark, because we are only allowed 
        assess to some farm programs. We all lose in the end if 
        we don't help each other equally. The Bible does state 
        that which you reap you will sow. Any private farming 
        organization supported by state and/or federal monies 
        should be revealed to all incoming farmers so all the 
        farmers can benefit.

    7. Who is the real American Farmer? Do all farmers receive 
        benefits equally? Can I inquire each farmer who 
        received state and/or federal benefits with a previous 
        10 year span? Are there any private federal auditors 
        that oversee whether funds are distributed fairly? Is 
        there assistance to help farmers pay for farm 
        equipment? There are farmers everywhere new tractors 
        and etc. Many don't have large farms. My father Leon 
        Morris, was a lifelong farmer and he worked double due 
        to a lack of reliable farming equipment. He passed away 
        on March 8, 2010, but it is sad how he was denied 
        assistance even though he did so much for Alabama 
        politics.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Heather Morrison, Long Beach, CA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Heather Morrison.
    City, State: Long Beach, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Parent.
    Comment: I am writing to ask you to consider supporting 
changing the way the Farm Bill allocates money. The Farm Bill 
is an antiquated subsidy system that benefits large scale 
industrial agribusiness and does nothing to help with the 
nutrition of our citizens, in particular children. I would love 
to see a change in the Farm Bill that would help smaller scale, 
organic, diversified agriculture and help to promote healthier 
options for children in settings such as the school lunch 
program. The system is broken. You can help fix it. Our 
children are counting on you. Thank you very much.
            Kind regards,

Heather Morrison.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Emanuel Moss, Austin, TX

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Emanuel Moss.
    City, State: Austin, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Archaeologist.
    Comment: It seems to me that the crops receiving the 
majority of subsidies, i.e., corn and soy, contribute to a 
diminishing proportion of what most nutritionists would 
consider healthy meals and an increasing role as industrial 
inputs, contributing to corn plastics, soy-based inks, 
cellulose-based products, food additives, and chemicals. It 
therefore seems backward to me that the companies producing 
these crops receive large subsidies while farmers producing 
fruit and vegetable crops that have little or no non-food-based 
demand receive relatively smaller subsidies. It is my opinion 
that the U.S. Government should apportion subsidies based on 
the desired proportional contribution of food products to a 
healthy diet, not based on the historical disbursement of 
subsidies or the concentrated political power of certain crop 
producers.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Gregory Moststad, West Fargo, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Gregory Moststad.
    City, State: West Fargo, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: I want to make sure that on the next farm bill, 
FSA maps are available for public viewing. I use these maps 
very often to verify fields and acres for custom spraying and 
fertilizer applications. They are extremely valuable to my 
business and it helps us to reduce mistakes when applying 
fertilizer or herbicides.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Laralyin Mowers, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Laralyin Mowers.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Farm subsidies in the U.S. are not going to the 
farmers who need assistance and are undermining farmers 
producing commodity crops in developing countries. They are 
only serving corporate agriculture.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Annie Mroz, Media, SC

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Annie Mroz.
    City, State: Media, SC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Engineer.
    Comment: Please reduce subsidies for corn and increase 
those for other important agricultural commodities such as 
fruit and vegetables.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lee Mulcahy, Huntersville, NC

    Date Submitted: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Lee Mulcahy.
    City, State: Huntersville, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: It's time to make food that's good for you 
affordable. There's something seriously flawed with a system 
that makes a Big Mac cheaper than a salad. These subsidies need 
to be amended, and they need to be amended now. Make good food 
affordable for everyone and they'll live longer, healthier 
lives! Regardless of where you stand politically, that's a goal 
we can all get behind.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Randy Murbach, Ellicott City, MD

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Randy Murbach.
    City, State: Ellicott City, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Project/Program Manager.
    Comment: The World War II era subsidy funding which is 
currently given to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat 
and soy and instead put that funding into smaller scale, 
organic and local agricultural endeavors, the positive effect 
on child nutrition would be enormous. While these subsidies of 
so called ``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they 
were first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Vicki Murfin, Satellite Beach, FL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Vicki Murfin.
    City, State: Satellite Beach, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: In the Farm Bill please do not support Factory 
Farming of animals. Close confinement of animals is inhumane, 
unhealthy and people who eat factory farmed animals become 
unhealthy themselves, The impact of factory farming on the 
environment is devastating. Vote against supporting factory 
farming in the Farm Bill.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Cortney Murphy, Langhorne, PA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 03, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Cortney Murphy.
    City, State: Langhorne, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Pediatric Nurse.
    Comment: I want to see the farm bill help the health of the 
nation and our environment. By supporting health and 
environmental protection you will be truly doing the most good 
you can in the position you hold for those that need you the 
most. You will also be supporting lower cost and fiscal 
responsibility. Better health ultimately equals lower cost for 
healthcare spending. Please support organic agriculture.
    Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban farms 
across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear benefits: 
cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our water and 
endangers our health, while increasing economic development 
opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:
    Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good they do 
rather than for the amount of crops they produce.
    Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more kinds of 
crops), adding carbon in their soil, and putting perennial 
crops (such as hay and pasture) in their fields.
    Protect income for farmers who raise organic food crops 
that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA food pyramid, so 
that we get better food and fewer junk-food ingredients.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Macy Murphy, Vincennes, IN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Macy Murphy.
    City, State: Vincennes, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I work for one of the largest agricultural 
lender's in the U.S. and regularly access online information 
sites to obtain data about farm fields. None of the data that I 
access gives any private information that would put a producer 
at risk. Rather the information I gather allows me to produce 
and accurate and competent appraisal assignment. We have all 
seen what has occurred in our economy over the past couple 
years due to issues in the real estate market.
    Accurate and timely appraisal assignments are something 
that not only my client expects, but so does the producer. In 
order to produce accurate and timely appraisals it is necessary 
in today's modern technological based economy to have data/
information made available online via the Internet. I would 
hope that you respectfully consider the value of making this 
information available through companies such as Surety Mapping 
Systems. We are respectful of private citizens and protecting 
that information that might put them at risk, however, that is 
not what we are asking for. We simply would like to see 
producer's field data made available to help us create accurate 
picture of the various rural real estate markets throughout the 
country.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Thomas Murphy, Livingston, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Thomas Murphy.
    City, State: Livingston, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Broker.
    Comment: We have been using CLUs since their release by 
FSA. They are invaluable to ensuring we have the correct land 
insured for a client, and that the client's unit structure is 
appropriate for their risk tolerance.
    Also, RMA now requires we report back to them CLU data, yet 
we are restricted from access to current CLU access. In the 
CLUs that were available prior to May 2008, there were no 
attributes included that would even come close to violating a 
producer's privacy. In fact, a plat book published by various 
companies, or a trip to the county court house would reveal 
more info about a land owner or operator of a parcel of land 
than I have ever seen in a CLU data set.
    We have been mapping for our insurance clients since 1998, 
and CLU files help us provide our clients with the service they 
deserve, and that RMA requires.
    Please give us back access to CLU data!
                                ------                                


              Comment of Larry E. Naake, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Larry E. Naake.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Director, National Association of 
Counties.
    Comment:

June 14, 2010

House Committee on Agriculture Members
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

    Dear Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:

    I am writing on behalf of the National Association of 
Counties (NACo), the only national organization representing 
America's counties. NACo commends Chairman Peterson, Ranking 
Member Lucas and the members of the House Committee on 
Agriculture Committee for seeking public input as you prepare 
to consider reauthorization of the 2012 Farm Bill. We offer the 
following suggestions and key priorities for reauthorization 
and seek to provide detailed testimony as we move further into 
the reauthorization process.
    The Farm Bill ensures that all Americans have access to a 
safe, secure and inexpensive food supply, provides a safety net 
for farmers and ranchers and provides critical assistance to 
rural communities with key infrastructure and business 
development programs. It also authorizes important nutrition 
programs, encourages environmentally friendly conservation 
programs, and supports the development of agriculturally based 
renewable energy, which will help to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. The law affects the economy and the tax base of 
many of the nation's counties. The ability of county 
governments to provide services financed by property and other 
local taxes is dependent on farm income and rural business.
    Therefore, NACo supports full funding of all titles in the 
2012 reauthorization of the Farm Bill and calls on Congress to 
place a particular emphasis on crafting a bill that provides 
enhanced resources to Rural Development programs and strategies 
that promote rural prosperity. NACo supports full funding for 
flexible rural development programs that allow counties to work 
regionally and locally to develop infrastructure improvements, 
community facilities, business development, broadband 
deployment, entrepreneurship, healthcare and many other 
essential programs.
    NACo supports four key priorities in the Farm Bill 
reauthorization that will help rural counties revitalize their 
economies and quality of life.

    (1) NACo supports an enhanced commitment to USDA Rural 
        Development programs in the next farm bill, especially 
        key infrastructure and business development programs 
        that support the agricultural sector and the retention 
        and creation of businesses.

    (2) NACo supports rural development strategies which focus 
        on making USDA's investments more efficient and 
        effective by rewarding strategic regional approaches to 
        rural development that allow counties and their 
        regional partners to focus on their local economic 
        assets, priorities and goals.

    (3) NACo supports enhanced funding for renewable energy 
        development, especially programs that assist local 
        governments in their efforts to develop renewable 
        energy and increase energy efficiency.

    (4) NACo supports policies that ensure all farm programs 
        recognize that youth play a vital role in sustaining 
        American agriculture and rural communities. New 
        programs and updates to old programs are needed so that 
        it is possible for young and beginning farmers to 
        survive and thrive in the modern agricultural economy.

    Again, we thank you for inviting our comments and pledge 
that NACo will work with you to continue to strengthen this 
critical piece of legislation.
            Sincerely,

Larry E. Naake,
Executive Director,
National Association of Counties.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Kevin Nash, Salt Lake City, UT

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Kevin Nash.
    City, State: Salt Lake City, UT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I would love to see Congress work harder to 
protect the small farmers or this country. Large scale 
commercial agriculture is starting to encroach on small scale 
in such a way that family farmers are losing their land due to 
law suits or just by being re-zoned and broken financially. We 
need to get our country back to its roots, back to where 
everything we produced we produced here, in America. All of our 
agriculture should be returned to a community based system, not 
large scale mono crops which hurt the soil. What we need is 
many small farms, all producing an abundance of different 
products, only this will save the Earth's biodiversity and also 
save the soil which is so essential to our survival. In using 
these methods we can eliminate the need for harsh chemicals 
which not only hurt nature, but they poison the soil and the 
food they grow. Thank you for your time, and hope together we 
can make a better future for our food.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Sean Nash, Santa Cruz, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Sean Nash.
    City, State: Santa Cruz, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear Mr. Farr,

    As an American concerned about the future of farming for my 
children and grandchildren, I would like to see more support 
for farming that protects the land from unsustainable practices 
that are eroding our soil away to the tune of 38 tons annually. 
In order for our state to continue to be economically viable, 
we must protect this important resource through new advances in 
farming. Another natural disaster due to poor farming practices 
like the once of the 1930's is possible with our current 
drought in California. I think that educating farmers and the 
public on soil conservation is the most important thing we can 
do.
            Sincerely,

Sean Nash.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Gary Nation, Pittsfield, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Gary Nation.
    City, State: Pittsfield, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I urge you to support the reinstatement of the 
Common Land Unit (CLU) data into Section 1619.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Nancy Neal, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Nancy Neal.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Increase funding for TEFAP and Food Stamps. Rework 
the subsidies program so that it supports small farmers as 
opposed to corporate farmers. For food aid, support local 
economies by sending cash payments for purchase of local food.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of David W. Nebel, Nevada, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: David Nebel.
    City, State: Nevada, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: The last farm bill prohibited FSA offices from 
providing appraisers with farm information on properties we are 
appraising and properties we use as comparable sales.
    Appraisers and lenders, it is very ironic that the farm 
bill makes it difficult, if not impossible, for state certified 
appraisers to obtain information which is fundamental to 
accurate farm appraisal.
    At the least, please make FSA field boundaries available to 
the public once again. It would also enhance appraisal accuracy 
if we could have access to the 156EZ, aerials, and CRP contract 
information on all farms. This information is tied directly to 
the real estate and in no way reveals any private information 
regarding the owner.
    Please give serious consideration to the affect the farm 
bill has on the ability of appraisers to provide accurate 
valuations. We need this information to better analyze and more 
accurately value farmland.
            Sincerely,

David W. Nebel, A.R.A.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Ruth Neil, Austin, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Ruth Neil.
    City, State: Austin, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Extension Education Assistant.
    Comment: Please try to counteract the consolidation in 
agriculture. Having more farmers each improving a smaller piece 
of land, which they personally own, is intuitively better for 
the environment, local economies, and nation than having 
landlords owning broad swaths of land. ``In no other country in 
the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in 
the United States,'' wrote Alexis de Tocqueville in 1840. If my 
generation, those born after 1980, lack farm property because 
of a lack of skill, fine. Or if we just aren't interested, 
fine. But if it is because our nation's policies favor the rich 
farmers and help them get richer, that is not okay with me.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kyle Nelson, Moorhead, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Kyle Nelson.
    City, State: Moorhead, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I strongly urge the reinstatement of CLU data in 
Section 1619. I am an agricultural real estate appraiser and I 
rely on access to this data to be able to accurately analyze 
comparable sale data. Not having access to this data makes me 
less accurate, and adds time and expense which gets passed on 
to the client, who are typically farmers.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Shauna Nep, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Shauna Nep.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Demand fair prices for commodity crops. It's 
hurting all of us.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Robin Nesburg, Fairfax, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Robin Nesburg.
    City, State: Fairfax, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Please consider revising rules regarding 
disclosure of CLU data in the new farm bill. CLU data only 
contains field boundary information and does not contain 
compliance information, wetland, Conservation Reserve Program 
(CRP) or ownership information. I do NOT believe this 
information compromises the privacy of the producer or the 
landowner, but does increase the cost of services to them. Many 
of the services which the producers and landowner use including 
appraisers, crop insurers, financial service providers, farm 
managers, irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, 
chemical, fertilizer and manure applicators, are made more 
costly because of the current rules.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Robert Newman, Burlington, OK

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Robert Newman.
    City, State: Burlington, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Retail.
    Comment: Public access to the USDA Farm service Agency 
Common Land Units is a very important tool in field 
identification. Having access to our customers CLU's, provides 
us the ability to produce maps for our applicators and this 
greatly reduces the chance of applying product to the wrong 
location.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Joseph C. Newton, Eufaula, AL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 04, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Joseph C. Newton.
    City, State: Eufaula, AL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Resource Facilitator for Town and County 
Library, Clayton, AL.
    Comment:

    Dear Sir,

    I am the Joseph C. Newton, President of the Bullock/Barbour 
County Cooperative of Agricultural Producers. As president I 
represent 25 farmers in the area. I missed your field hearing 
session in Troy, AL because I was running for the State 
Representative seat in our area.
    We are a minority group of farmers in dire need of 
resources. We are beef cattle ranchers, produce growers and 
farmers. We deserve modern equipment to grow vegetables and to 
run our farms. We deserve better equipment, irrigation systems 
and better fencing, both parameter fencing and pasture fencing. 
We are in need of fertilizer and herbicide, fuel and other 
resource in order that we may grow better produce and more 
produce. At our meeting last evening, there were a gambit of 
needs expressed by the membership. We further need, excavation 
equipment to clear the land and farming equipment, (tractors, 
tillers and plows) to grow decent produce. Additionally we need 
subsidies to pay the cost of fuel and other product used to 
grow our produce. If I was to place a figure on our needs, the 
figure would be approximately $500,000.
    Our ranchers need de-wormers and other medical suppliers to 
grow a good head of cattle. We need replacement cattle and a 
better price for our cattle when we sell them on the market. I 
know the federal government has subsidies to aid the ranchers 
and we want our share of those subsidies.
    I closing, I am sorry I missed the meeting in Troy, AL, on 
May 15, 2010, but our comments need be hear. The Federal 
Government owes the Black Farmer and we want our share of the 
resources being given out by the government to help all 
farmers.
            Respectfully,

Joseph C. Newton.
[Redacted],
Eufaula, AL
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Patti Noethe, Britt, IA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, August 21, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Patti Noethe.
    City, State: Britt, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Wholesale Pet Distributor--USDA Licensed.
    Comment:

    Dear Sir:

    This letter is on behalf of the citizens of our great 
country who are not farmers. I am a 63 year old widow, raising 
2 grandchildren. I am also a small business owner, employing 7 
people full-time. I work hard for every penny I make and I 
didn't inherit any money or land that helped me build my 
business. I did it from scratch, using credit, elbow grease, 
and ingenuity. No one ever told me the American dream was dead, 
and I still don't think it is.
    I live in a rural farming community in Iowa, and many of my 
friends are farmers. In addition, my deceased husband was a 
farmer until shortly after we married. Every time I file my 
income tax return, I still laugh about the first time he had to 
file as a non-farming entity. He couldn't believe the tax 
deductions that were allowed to farmers, that he was no longer 
going to benefit from. I just said, ``Welcome to the world of 
the average working stiff!''
    Well, this isn't about the tax deductions farmers are 
allowed. They are after all, in business, and every business 
has it's share of expenses which are indigenous to that 
particular vocation, and should be acceptable tax deductions. 
What I don't understand though, is why the rest of the American 
taxpayers have to subsidize the farmer's business further. No 
one subsidizes my business, governmentally or otherwise. In 
fact, quite the opposite is true. My business is government 
regulated and new legislation is making it almost impossible to 
continue to operate it cost effectively. But that's another 
letter, to a different government official.
    We all realize that farm subsidies came into being during 
the Depression era, when farming was a whole different 
situation and consisted of basically smaller tract family 
farms. These people surely needed that help back then, but in 
today's high-tech world, where corporate farming has taken over 
the agricultural scene, and small family farms are fewer and 
fewer, it appears as if the people who might still truly need 
this program are benefiting the least from it.
    A recent article in Reader's Digest noted that $13 BILLION 
in government subsidies are given out to farmers and 
agribusinesses each year, with 75% of it going to only 10% of 
the recipients. The article is titled ``Phony Farmers 
Exposed'', and it's easily found on the Reader's Digest 
website, if you missed it (http://www.rd.com/your-america-
inspiring-people-and-stories/phony-farmers-exposed/
article179127.html).* The purported abuse of the farm subsidy 
program is documented and another website is listed for the 
Environmental Working Group (farm.ewg.org/farm) where you can 
find out who is getting the farm subsidies in your state, by 
county, and how much they've gotten for the last 14 years. I 
was shocked to learn, upon going to the site, that most of 
those receiving the largest subsidies in my county, are far 
from living in dire straits. It made me angry to know that 
these people, who have a living standard far, far, far above 
mine, are obviously getting rich on the tax dollars that I must 
work (at 63 years of age) between 40 and 70 hours a week to 
pay. HELLO!! Is there something wrong with this scenario??? And 
the article was right . . . there are actually DEAD people 
getting farm subsidies in my county!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document referred to is retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Removing this $13 billion a year from the nation's enormous 
deficit sounds like a good place to start. At the very least, 
the farm subsidy program obviously needs investigating for 
abuses and some controls instated, similar to those of another 
worthy government program . . . FIP (or as it used to be called 
. . . ADC). Personally, I'd rather see my tax money going to 
help the UNDER-privileged people in our country. We had Welfare 
Reform, and it's HIGH TIME for Farm Subsidy Reform!!
    Thank you for listening and for giving this matter your 
utmost concern.
            Respectfully,

Patti Noethe.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Erica Nofi, Brooklyn, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Erica Nofi.
    City, State: Brooklyn, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nonprofit Fundraiser.
    Comment: It is essential that government subsidies to 
agriculture be modified to promote the production of healthy 
foods, rather than commodity crops. The fact that current 
subsidies make processed, HFCS- and soy-based foods cheaper 
than fresh produce is shameful, and detrimental to the overall 
health (and therefore economic productivity) of the country. 
Instead of supporting giant agribusinesses and their economic 
stranglehold on the family farmers that depend on subsidies, 
the government should be supporting diversified, sustainable, 
independent farmers. While awareness of these issues is 
growing, and people are beginning to vote with their wallets, 
they cannot truly be solved until the corn and soy subsidies 
are abolished.
    Additionally, as a taxpayer, I resent that my tax dollars 
are making unhealthy foods cheaper for others while I also pay 
more for vegetables. In effect, I am paying for this terrible 
policy twice. Of course, everyone is losing much more than 
money in this equation.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Timothy R. Nolen, Carmi, IL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Timothy R. Nolen.
    City, State: Carmi, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: IL & IN Certified General Real Estate 
Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a farm real estate appraiser located in 
Carmi, White County, IL. Not having access to FSA/USDA aerial 
maps with only field boundaries and acreages marked has made my 
job more difficult. It makes it harder to arrive at the most 
accurate market value estimates possible, and forces me to 
charge more for each assignment. With the obvious need for farm 
loan providers to have the most accurate appraisals humanly 
possible, it is obviously ridiculous to not allow certified 
general real estate appraisers easy access to the type of FSA 
aerial maps I mentioned above. Don't you agree?
    I have yet to be informed by a farm land owner that they 
did not want a certified general real estate appraiser, and 
other professionals, to have access to those maps. Their 
concern is that I complete my assignments as quickly and as 
accurately as possible.
    I would like very much to hear you opinion on this matter. 
My contact information is below.

Timothy R. Nolen,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
Carmi, IL,
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                Comments of Michael Norgaard, Tyler, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Michael Norgaard.
    City, State: Tyler, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager/Real Estate Salesperson.
    Comment: This message is regarding Section 1619 in the farm 
bill. As a property manager and a licensed real estate 
salesperson, I rely heavily on the accessibility of current CLU 
boundaries and current acreages. It is now much more difficult 
to perform property valuations and accurately research 
properties for our clients. Our company has incurred much 
higher administrative costs because of Section 1619 and at 
times we must pass that along to our clients. I am certain that 
Section 1619 has also increased the administrative costs at all 
Farm Service Agency offices across the country. I believe that 
certain information regarding each parcel of farmland should be 
kept confidential and should not be available to the general 
public. Field boundaries and acres should NOT be deemed 
confidential. Thank you.

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Michael Norgaard.
    City, State: Tyler, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager/Real Estate Salesperson.
    Comment: Please consider reinstating public access to the 
USDA CLU data. I rely on this data daily in our efforts to 
effectively manage property for our landowner clients. As a 
real estate agent, having access to the CLU data helps us to 
efficiently analyze comparable properties for valuation 
purposes. Our firm also provides certified appraisals and the 
use of the CLU data drastically improves the accuracy of our 
work.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Dan Nosal, Castle Rock, CO

    Date Submitted: Thursday, July 01, 2010, 4:37 p.m.
    Name: Dan Nosal.
    City, State: Castle Rock, CO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Range Conservationist.
    Comment: I think the best way to describe what has happened 
to agriculture in the U.S. is to read the following story. I 
would encourage the Committee to consider eliminating farm 
subsidies. It does not allow the free market system to operate 
as it should and makes producers dependent on the federal 
government. It is also counterproductive to conservation 
because marginal cropland remains in production (cropland 
subsidy payments are hard to resist!) rather than being 
converted back to permanent vegetation. In the case of CRP land 
it is returned to cropland for the same reason (cropland 
subsidy payments). Permanent vegetation allows the land to have 
less erosion problems, higher carbon sequestration, lower 
fossil fuel inputs, better water quality, lower air pollution, 
less dependence on pesticides, better wildlife habitat, 
increased plant and animal diversity, and an overall healthier 
environment.
    Subsidies are trumpeted as being necessary for a cheap food 
policy, but it is not cheap. It costs billions in tax dollars 
and is ultimately detrimental to the environment. It is time to 
eliminate farm subsidies and allow U.S. agriculture producers 
to prosper.
    The Wild Hog Story . . .
          Some years ago, about 1900, an old trapper from North 
        Dakota hitched up some horses to his Studebaker wagon, 
        packed a few possessions and drove south. Several weeks 
        later he stopped in a small town just north of the 
        Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. It was a Saturday 
        morning--a lazy day--when he walked into the general 
        store. Sitting around the pot-bellied stove were seven 
        or eight of the town's local citizens.
          The traveler asked, ``Gentlemen, could you direct me 
        to the Okefenokee Swamp?'' Some of the old-timers 
        looked at him like he was crazy. ``You must be a 
        stranger in these parts,'' they said. ``I am. I'm from 
        North Dakota,'' said the stranger. ``In the Okefenokee 
        Swamp are thousands of wild hogs,'' one old man 
        explained. ``A man who goes into the swamp by himself 
        asks to die!'' He lifted up his leg. ``I lost half my 
        leg here to the pigs of the swamp.'' Another old fellow 
        said, ``Look at the cuts on me; look at my arm bit off! 
        Those pigs have been free since the Revolution, eating 
        snakes and rooting out roots and fending for themselves 
        for over a hundred years. They're wild and they're 
        dangerous. You can't trap them. No man dares go into 
        the swamp by himself.'' Every man nodded his head in 
        agreement. The old trapper said, ``Thank you so much 
        for the warning. Now could you direct me to the 
        swamp?'' They said, ``Well, yeah, its due south--
        straight down the road.'' But they begged the stranger 
        not to go, because they knew he'd meet a terrible fate. 
        He said, ``Sell me ten sacks of corn, and help me load 
        it in the wagon.'' And they did. Then the old trapper 
        bid them farewell and drove on down the road. The 
        townsfolk thought they'd never see him again. Two weeks 
        later the man came back. He pulled up to the general 
        store, got down off the wagon, walked in and bought ten 
        more sacks of corn. After loading it up he went back 
        down the road toward the swamp.
          Two weeks later he returned and again bought ten 
        sacks of corn. This went on for over three months. 
        Every week or two the old trapper would come into town, 
        load up ten sacks of corn, and drive off south into the 
        swamp. The stranger soon became a legend in the little 
        village and the subject of much speculation. People 
        wondered what kind of devil had possessed this man that 
        he could go into the Okefenokee by himself and not be 
        consumed by the wild and free hogs. One morning the man 
        came into town as usual. Everyone thought he wanted 
        more corn. He got off the wagon and went into the store 
        where the usual group of men was gathered around the 
        stove. He took off his gloves. ``Gentlemen,'' he said, 
        ``I need to hire about ten or fifteen wagons. I need 
        twenty or thirty men. I have six thousand hogs out in 
        the swamp, penned up, and they're all hungry. I've got 
        to get them to market right away.'' ``You have WHAT in 
        the swamp?'' asked the storekeeper. ``I have six 
        thousand hogs penned up. They haven't eaten for two or 
        three days, and they'll starve if I don't get back 
        there to feed and take care of them.''
          One old-timer said, ``You mean you've captured the 
        wild hogs of the Okefenokee?'' ``That's right.'' ``How 
        did you do that? What did you do?'' the men urged. One 
        of them exclaimed, ``But I lost my arm!'' ``I lost my 
        leg to those wild boars!'' chimed a second. The trapper 
        said, ``Well, the first week I went in there they were 
        wild all right. They hid in the undergrowth and 
        wouldn't come out. I dared not get off the wagon, so I 
        spread corn along behind the wagon. The old pigs would 
        have nothing to do with it. But the younger pigs 
        decided that it was easier to eat free corn than it was 
        to root out roots and catch snakes. So the very young 
        began to eat the corn first. I did this every day. 
        Pretty soon, even the older pigs decided that it was 
        easier to eat free corn. After all, they were all free; 
        they were not penned up. They could run off in any 
        direction they wanted at any time. The next thing was 
        to get them used to eating in the same place all the 
        time. So I selected a clearing, and I started putting 
        the corn in the clearing. At first they wouldn't come 
        to the clearing. It was too far. It was too open. But 
        the very young decided that it was easier to take the 
        corn in the clearing than it was to root out roots and 
        catch their own snakes. And not long thereafter, the 
        older pigs also decided that it was easier to come to 
        the clearing every day. And so the pigs learned to come 
        to the clearing every day to get their free corn. They 
        could still subsidize their diet with roots and snakes 
        and whatever else they wanted. After all, they were all 
        free. They could run in any direction at any time. 
        There were no bounds upon them. The next step was to 
        get them used to fence posts. So I put fence posts all 
        the way around the clearing. I put them in the 
        underbrush so that they wouldn't get suspicious or 
        upset. After all, they were just sticks sticking up out 
        of the ground, like the trees and the brush. The corn 
        was there every day. It was easy to walk in between the 
        posts, get the corn, and walk back out. This went on 
        for a week or two. Shortly they became very used to 
        walking into the clearing, getting the free corn, and 
        walking back out through the fence posts. The next step 
        was to put one rail at the bottom. I left a few 
        openings, so that the older, fatter pigs could easily 
        walk through. Still there was no real threat to their 
        freedom or independence. They could always jump over 
        the rail and flee in any direction at any time. Now I 
        decided that I wouldn't feed them every day. I began to 
        feed them every other day. On the days I didn't feed 
        them the pigs still gathered in the clearing. They 
        squealed, and they grunted, and they begged and pleaded 
        with me to feed them. But I only fed them every other 
        day. And I put a second rail around the posts. Now the 
        pigs became more and more desperate for food, because 
        they were no longer used to going out and digging their 
        own roots and finding their own food. They now needed 
        me. They needed my corn every day. So I trained them 
        that I would feed them every day if they came in 
        through a gate. And I put up a third rail around the 
        fence. But it was still no great threat to their 
        freedom, because there were several gates and they 
        could run in and out at will. Finally I put up the 
        fourth rail. Then I closed all the gates but one, and I 
        fed them very, very well. Yesterday I closed the last 
        gate, and today I need you to help me take these pigs 
        to market.''

        (Author Unknown)

    What is the price of free corn? The parable of the wild 
hogs has a very serious moral lesson for all of us. This story 
is about federal money (free corn) being used to bait, trap and 
enslave a once free and independent people. Federal welfare, in 
its myriad forms, has reduced individuals to a state of 
dependency. Folks, lest you think this could never happen to 
you, think again. Farmers and ranchers are slowly being baited 
in to feed on the federal government's so-called ``free'' corn. 
In fact, many have already found themselves in a trap that they 
do not know how to escape from. They think it would be 
impossible for them to survive without the government's free 
corn. That sounds a whole lot like the wild hogs squealing and 
begging to be fed, because they no longer knew how to make a 
living for themselves. Billions and billions of tax dollars are 
being paid out every year to farmers and ranchers. Our current 
farm program has essentially guaranteed that the prices farmers 
receive for their crops will remain at or below break-even 
prices. Opportunities to prosper have all but been eliminated. 
Ironically, the producers who benefit the most from these 
government programs are NOT the small family farms and ranches 
that these programs were originally set up to help. Instead of 
helping the small family farms and ranches, the existing farm 
programs are making it harder and harder for them to compete 
and survive. A few very big producers actually receive the bulk 
of the government's free corn.
    What are we to do? Like the wild hogs, farmers and ranchers 
will eventually lose their freedom and independence if we don't 
get the federal government out of farming and ranching. We need 
to restore a free market system that enables farmers and 
ranchers to truly prosper. When New Zealand stopped its runaway 
government, it completely eliminated all agricultural 
subsidies. In the process, 1% of their farmers fell by the 
wayside, but the other 99% are happier and more profitable than 
ever.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of David Nuttle, Tahlequah, OK

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: David Nuttle.
    City, State: Tahlequah, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Bioenergy.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: USDA grant applications and procedures have become 
far too complex for most small, disadvantaged, minority, and/or 
refugee farmers/ranchers--or groups representing these farmers/
ranchers. In addition, USDA still acts to discriminate against 
these groups despite considerable efforts to stop the 
discrimination. Not less than 30 percent of grant funds should 
be placed in a grant lottery that said farmer/rancher groups 
can qualify for with very very minimal paperwork--and no 
potential for USDA's usual bureaucratic and political games. 
Funds will then start going to those most in need.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Colleen O'Brien, Mont Vernon, NH

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Colleen O'Brien.
    City, State: Mont Vernon, NH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: Please include organic farmers on the next Farm 
Bill!

   Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
        segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
        food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. 
        food retail market.

   Organic farming systems have the potential to 
        conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil 
        quality while providing high quality food and fiber for 
        consumers here and abroad.

   If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue 
        to grow and thrive, we need to invest in programs that 
        support organic farmers, including:

     Research and Extension Programs that expand 
            the breadth of knowledge about organic farming 
            systems and provide that knowledge to organic 
            farmers.

     Conservation Programs that reward organic 
            farmers for the conservation benefits of organic 
            farming systems and provide technical support for 
            organic farmers who want to improve on-farm 
            conservation.

     Transition Programs that provide technical 
            support to farmers who want to transition to 
            organic farming practices but don't know how.

     Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic 
            farmers and reimburse them for any losses based on 
            the organic market value of the crop, not average 
            conventional prices.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Phil O'Bryan, Paris, IL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Phil O'Bryan.
    City, State: Paris, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As a real estate appraiser involved in farm land 
appraisals I urge you to open up the privacy protections of the 
farm program to allow viewing of current aerial photography and 
field mappings. It is often not possible to get an absentee 
property owner's signature for the property under appraisal. 
More importantly the ability to view up to date mapping of 
comparable sale property is restricted by the present law and 
is an impediment to accurate farm land appraisals. The field 
layout, tillable acreages and other land designations can 
provide information that is not otherwise available with any 
degree of accuracy for these sales. And the procurement of 
permission slips is not realistic for comparable research. I do 
not care about the amount of payment an operator is receiving, 
albeit there are concerns about transparency with my tax 
dollars. If you see the need to keep those number secret so be 
it, but the mapping can be a valuable tool toward the objective 
of improving the appraisal product and ultimately the insurance 
of good loan collateral values for the banking industry as 
well.
    Thank you for your consideration.

Phil O'Bryan,
Real Estate Appraiser.
                                ------                                


             Comment of MaryBeth O'Donnell, Manchester, VT

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: MaryBeth O'Donnell.
    City, State: Manchester, VT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Stay At Home Mom with four school aged 
children.
    Comment: Please make natural, real unprocessed food more 
accessible for our children. Stop subsidizing school food 
budgets with items called ``ham turkey'' turkey so filled with 
nitrates and food color to give the illusion of ham? How about 
ham or turkey? Please look at Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution 
and realize not only our food would be revolutionized by local 
farm grown meals, but also our health care system.
    We just started our first vegetable garden. I can't tell 
you how delicious our food is. Our children are active 
participants in bringing food to our table and it takes time 
and energy and it feels really right. The same as shopping at 
our local farmer's markets.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this. You have the 
power to help our Nation become healthier and keep our 
agricultural heritage alive. Don't forget Farm to School!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of James O'Dowd, New Paltz, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:07 p.m.
    Name: James O'Dowd.
    City, State: New Paltz, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: Federal Funding for school food is inadequate. A 
$.06 increase per child is insulting to our nation's children.
    Healthy Non dairy plant based foods need to be a regular 
part of school nutrition
    Local and organic farm to school programs need to be 
encouraged and subsidized.
    Heavily processed foods with multiple additives, sugars 
salt and high saturated fat content need to be eliminated or 
drastically limited.
    Dept. of Agriculture dual role as an advocate of 
Agribusiness and as setting nutritional standards is a recipe 
for a conflict of interest. A structural change is needed. The 
health and safety should come before short term corporate 
interests. The high cost of poor nutritionally based health 
issues should be a part of the calculus. Even in sheer economic 
terms the costs of childhood obesity and concomitant diseases 
such as diabetes, premature heart disease and even cancer are 
staggering compared to the cost of a nutritionally sound school 
lunch program. ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure.'' Ben Franklin got it right!
    Please, guys, get it right for our kids and grandkids!
            Thank you,

Jim O'Dowd,
[Redacted].

    P.S.: I've been actively working with a group of families 
in my community to get our school district to improve the food 
served in the cafeterias, but unless there is support on a 
federal level there is very little that can be done. We need 
your help!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kent Olson, Bismarck, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 12, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Kent Olson.
    City, State: Bismarck, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance.
    Comment:

    Dear Representative Peterson,

    THANK YOU for coming to ND last week along with Rep. 
Pomeroy.
    Here are some IDEAS I hear from around the country as I 
visit with FARMERS and CROP INSURANCE AGENTS:

    1. Crop Insurance is the best Risk Management Tool out 
        there--DON'T cut or underfund it. It is finally a 
        product that farmers and bankers can rely upon.

    2. ACRE and SURE are TOO slow--They payments are 12-15 
        months behind the need for money. This is no one's 
        fault but by design of both the SURE and ACRE program 
        based upon ``after the fact'' disasters. Crop Claim 
        Checks are immediate--within weeks after the Proof of 
        Loss is agreed.

    3. IDEA: Take all of the monies in the SURE and ACRE 
        program and ADD to the Crop Insurance Budget. Then add 
        ALL crops in an actuarial sound rating base and 
        subsided the premium or supplement the program. This 
        will allow the minor crops as well as the major crops 
        to receive a sound crop risk plan. Crop Ins should be 
        the ONLY game in town for risk management. NO ad hoc 
        disaster--No money for it. Farmers than self-insure--by 
        not buy Crop Ins.--are just that--self insured!

    4. Whole farm--not popular in the upper Great Plains and 
        Midwest. Too many variables such as livestock, truck 
        farming and other incomes that affect the ``whole 
        farm'' income. The poor ACRE sign-up and the SURE 
        program demonstrate that farmers don't like group plans 
        or being compared to other farmers to depending upon 
        losses outside of their farm exposure.

    I'd be glad to visit about these ideas if you are 
interested.
            Sincerely,

Kent Olson, Director,
PIA of North Dakota,
Bismarck, ND.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Steve Olson, Mayville, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Steve Olson.
    City, State: Mayville, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am a Real Estate Appraiser. I work for many 
banks, attorneys, Farm Service Agency, buyers and sellers. In 
the last farm bill you took away the access to the common land 
units that the Farm Service Agency provides. We were not able 
to access even the tillable acres on parcels of land much less 
data about farms that we were appraising such as CRP acres, 
base acres, yields, etc. It was even difficult trying to value 
land for Farm Service loans. Would you put the CLU data back in 
the public domain again. And make data about farms easier for 
licensed appraisers available so we can do our jobs in a 
consistent manner. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of John Oppelt, Castroville, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 17, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: John Oppelt.
    City, State: Castroville, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Sales and Marketing of Agricultural Input 
Products.
    Comment: John Oppelt is a member of the executive board of 
directors for the Texas Ag Industries Association (TAIA).
    TAIA was created in 1995 from the merger of the Texas 
Agricultural Chemicals Association and the Texas Plant Food 
Institute. In 1997, the Texas Commercial Ground Applicators 
Association merged into TAIA. Since then, the association has 
grown to represent over 300 member companies and 200 individual 
members involved in providing inputs to production agriculture 
in Texas.
    In my comments today my primary message is: There are major 
policy needs related to bioenergy in the Farm Bill.
    The existing programs for biomass energy production 
incentives (including BCAP) for alternative energy production 
are complex, cross agencies, are continued and then 
discontinued, have varying deadline dates, and require 
approvals through a variety of unrelated Government agencies. 
Instead of focusing on the production of jobs and timely 
production of renewable energy, the on-again, off again nature 
of the incentives leads to huge project development 
inefficiencies and development. What is needed is a new program 
that is offered as an alternative option to the current 
programs so that new applications can be completed in less than 
90 days with all approvals. It should be designed to speed up 
the production of jobs, and to meet national energy production 
replacement priorities.
    Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), which was 
established in the 2008 Farm Bill and has the potential to 
further help stimulate the growth of a biomass production 
industry. It is critical to fully study the impacts of such 
programs and then to provide consistent, uninterrupted funding 
which will allow the program to have the desired effect of 
establishing the new bioeconomy. The new farm program should 
serve as a platform to extend this program. It should also 
continue to serve as a basis for supporting an important 
segment of our economy to develop sustainable and renewable 
energy.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be able to submit these 
comments to the Committee and that Texas agriculture will be 
involved in this process as it moves forward.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jim Ormiston, La Conner, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Jim Ormiston.
    City, State: La Conner, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access of the Common Land 
Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information. This 
information is vital to appraisers and many others serving the 
agriculture industry.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Scott Osborne, Bandon, OR

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Scott Osborne.
    City, State: Bandon, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Self-Employed.
    Comment: Don't handcuff small producer with micro 
regulating and taxing. Allow it to be feasible for families to 
produce a USA food sources that are sustainable for are future. 
Regulate the use of GMO seeds.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Ray Otto, Palmyra, MO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Ray Otto.
    City, State: Palmyra, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: As an appraiser of farm land it is very helpful to 
fully see the FSA map with the field acreage. I do not belive 
this is confidential information.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Paul Overby, Wolford, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Paul Overby.
    City, State: Wolford, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: This comment is regarding the sneaky insertion of 
the removal of Common Land Unit (CLU) boundaries from public 
access in the last Farm Bill. While I support the removal of 
name, address, farm, etc. from the CLUs in the public access 
data base, removing access to the updated boundaries is just 
silly. We use them for a variety of services FOR farmers as 
part of my consulting business, as well as for my OWN farm! It 
is ridiculous that the public can have access to how much money 
USDA provides a farmer in program payments, yet USDA won't 
allow the CLU boundaries to made public. Time to fix the fix.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Kevin Paap, Blue Earth County, MN

    Date Submitted: July 7, 2010.
    Name: Kevin Paap.
    County, State: Blue Earth County, MN
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: President, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation
    Comment: Good morning, my name is Kevin Paap. My wife Julie 
and I own and operate a fourth-generation family farm in Blue 
Earth County, Minnesota where we raise corn, soybeans and boys. 
I also serve as president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau 
Federation. As you know, Farm Bureau is the nation's largest 
general farm organization, representing producers of every 
commodity, in every state of the nation as well as Puerto Rico, 
with more than 6 million member families.
    I would like to thank Representative Pomeroy and Chairman 
Peterson for holding this forum. I appreciate the opportunity 
to participate and provide some views on the next farm bill.
    In June, county Farm Bureaus from across Minnesota came 
together to begin our policy development process. Based on 
those meetings it is clear that Minnesota farmers are poised to 
look ahead to the 2012 Farm Bill. As the 2,800 county Farm 
Bureaus across the country work through the policy development 
process to provide more detailed recommendations, I would like 
to begin the discuss by outlining five key principles that will 
guide us in our work on the 2012 Farm Bill and any proposals 
that we ultimately put forward:

   The options we put forward will be fiscally 
        responsible. Proposals that we put forward will work 
        within the budget constraints Congress must use to 
        draft the new bill. Our members are greatly concerned 
        about the deficit and want to be fiscally-responsible 
        in considering farm policy.

   The basic funding structure of the 2008 Farm Bill 
        should not be altered. Farm Bureau's proposals for the 
        next farm bill will not shift funding between interest 
        areas. For example, if we suggest an increase in 
        spending for a particular conservation program, we will 
        offset that increase by reducing spending elsewhere in 
        conservation programs.

   The proposals we put forward will aim to benefit all 
        agricultural sectors. Again, Farm Bureau is a general 
        farm organization, with members who produce everything 
        from pork to peanuts. As such, the overriding goal of 
        Farm Bureau's proposals will be to maintain balance and 
        benefits for all farm sectors. It can be tempting for a 
        single interest organization to say Congress should 
        allocate more funding for programs that benefit only 
        its producers without worrying about the impact of that 
        funding shift on other commodities. Farm Bureau does 
        not have that luxury and will seek balance for all 
        producers.

   World trade rulings will be considered. Farm 
        Bureau's options may include changes to comply with our 
        existing World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations and 
        litigation rulings. However, they will not presuppose 
        the outcome of the Doha round of WTO negotiations, 
        which are far from complete. To do so would reduce our 
        negotiating leverage in the ongoing Doha round.

   Consideration will be given to the stable business 
        environment critical to success in agriculture. 
        Abruptly changing the rules of the game on farmers, 
        particularly in a tight credit environment, can be 
        disastrous to a farmer or rancher's operation. Our 
        options will recognize the need for transition periods 
        for major policy changes so that farmers and ranchers 
        will have an opportunity to adjust their business 
        models accordingly.

    I have witnessed or been part of the development of farm 
bills since 1981 and I can say with confidence that each has 
faced new and more difficult challenges. The 2012 Farm Bill 
will be no exception. Budget constraints, baseline decreases 
and political pressures are among the many challenges we will 
face. Another challenge for the 2012 Farm Bill will once again 
be to address the priorities of a wide variety of interests, 
from farm and ranch groups to conservation groups to nutrition 
groups. Even within the agricultural community, farm bill 
priorities and agendas will likely vary by commodity and 
region. As an agricultural organization that represents all 
types of farmers and ranchers in every state, we look forward 
to working with you to achieve the balance in interests that 
will be necessary to craft a successful piece of legislation.
    As I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, Farm 
Bureau members from throughout Minnesota recently came together 
to begin the 2010 policy development process. During the 
discussions surrounding the farm bill, one thing was clear--
there are varying views on what is right about and what needs 
to improve in the farm bill. Some farmers think the safety net 
coverage provided under the 2008 Farm Bill is ``Just right.'' 
But in other cases and for other farmers the coverage is 
sometimes too little. In a small number of cases, the coverage 
may even be duplicative and too much.
Whole-Farm Revenue Programs
    Given the great deal of discussion that has already 
occurred regarding whole-farm revenue programs, we would be 
remiss if we didn't at least briefly discuss our thoughts on 
this topic.
    There are currently crop insurance products and components 
of the farm safety net that use the whole-farm revenue concept, 
and challenges that have arisen with these programs can be very 
instructive if the concept is further pursued in the context of 
the 2012 Farm Bill. For example, there and whole-farm revenue 
insurance programs already in place through USDA's Risk 
Management Agency, namely the Adjusted Gross Revenue and the 
Adjusted Gross Revenue Lite plans. While they are both only 
available in limited areas, the acceptance of these programs 
has been modest at best. There are limitations on farm size as 
well as on the proportion of the farm's income that can derive 
from livestock operations. Producers must submit several years 
of tax records in order to establish their revenue benchmark, 
and in many cases, complicated adjustments to the records are 
required to determine those benchmarks. In addition to 
submitting tax records, a producer also must file farm plans. 
These limitations, as well as the complicated paperwork 
involved, have discouraged sign-up for the programs.
    The SURE program provides us another case study on whole-
farm revenue programs, although SURE only covers crops and not 
livestock. Yet, the complexity of this program still has caused 
implementation delays and has created technological challenges 
for USDA. Another issue with the SURE program is that it does 
not provide support until months, even years, after the 
disaster event. In true disaster situations, such a delay 
negates the value of the program.
    A whole-farm program that included livestock exponentially 
increases the complexity of a program and the paperwork 
involved. Consider a livestock producer who decides to sell 
cattle every other year. On average, the rancher's income might 
be constant, but that income would gyrate significantly year 
over year and thus could be seen as triggering a payment every 
other year. Even for crop producers, determining appropriate 
whole-farm revenue guarantees can be complicated. For example, 
farm size may vary from one year to the next due to changes in 
rental agreements or real estate purchases or sales. Accounting 
for these changes over time is essential to having a fair and 
effective program, but it does increase the complexity of the 
program.
    Moving beyond these examples, a whole-farm revenue safety 
net raises a number of both pragmatic and philosophical 
questions. Does the program cover gross or net revenue? Will it 
require full access to Internal Revenue Service filings? Would 
it be more appropriately administered by FSA or RMA? How would 
the protection offered under such a program be viewed by our 
WTO partners? These represent only a few of the questions that 
need to be answered.
    Understand that Farm Bureau would not necessarily reject a 
whole-farm revenue option out-of-hand, and in fact would be 
very interested in continued discussions in this regard. But 
such a program needs to be easily understood, be 
straightforward to administer and needs to actually provide 
producers with risk management tools before we commit to such a 
path.
    In conclusion, we appreciate the hard work of the 
Agriculture Committee to ensure that America's farmers have a 
practical safety net that provides protection against the 
vagaries of the market and weather and allows our farmers to 
continue to produce the safest, most abundant, least expensive 
food supply in the world. We look forward to working with you 
toward this goal.
    I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to 
speak this morning, and I look forward to answering any 
questions you have.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Christine Pado, Third Lake, IL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Christine Pado.
    City, State: Third Lake, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: H.R. Consultant.
    Comment: Please stop supporting factory farms in the Farm 
Bill, and instead support local, organic, plant-based farming 
systems.
    As a citizen and taxpayer I want my tax dollars going to 
sustainable local plant based farming systems that do not harm 
the environment. I do not want to subsidize cruelty or 
environmental degradation.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Stacey Palevsky, San Francisco, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Stacey Palevsky.
    City, State: San Francisco, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Journalist.
    Comment: There is a reason so many American children are 
fat. It's because the food that is cheap and accessible to 
working families is laden with corn and soybeans, foods that 
are heavily subsidized by the federal government that have 
little to no nutritional value. It is a great tragedy of our 
time that subsidies enacted during the Great Depression are 
still in place during the Great Recession 80 years later. They 
are horribly out of date! The 2012 Farm Bill should be 
subsidizing farmers who grow fruits and vegetables, especially 
those who don't use harmful pesticides on their crops. This 
would make fruits and vegetables more affordable and accessible 
to our nation's children, to our public schools and to low-
income Americans. Please repeal or reduce the subsidies to corn 
and soybean farmers and put REAL FOOD in school cafeterias and 
on the dinner table again.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Michael Palmer, Stillwater, OK

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Michael Palmer.
    City, State: Stillwater, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Scientist.
    Comment: Please help level the playing field for small 
producers, and in particular for organic producers. The BP 
disaster is teaching us that we need energy efficiency, and the 
agricultural sector consumes a huge proportion of the nation's 
agency. Encouraging sustainable production of high-quality food 
that is close to the markets will decrease our demand for 
fossil fuels. Please help the little guy, for the sake of the 
consumer, the nation, and the planet.
                                ------                                


         Comment of Noel and Meghan Parenti, Winston-Salem, NC

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Noel and Meghan Parenti.
    City, State: Winston-Salem, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Owners, Operators, Teachers of Yoga Studio.
    Comment: We would like to see in the 2012 Farm bill more 
support for farmers to raise food that using sustainable, 
organic practices for local consumption. We would like more 
incentives for farmers to use renewable forms of energy and to 
conserve land for wildlife and for protection of species, 
habitat, and soil and water resources. Small farms that provide 
food to local communities should be supported by the 2012 Farm 
Bill.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Andrea Parham, Sherborn, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Andrea Parham.
    City, State: Sherborn, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Sales Manager--mostly ``just'' a Concerned 
Citizen.
    Comment: Please re-allocate a portion of the exiting 
subsidy funding currently given to large commodity crops such 
as corn, wheat and soy and instead put that funding into 
smaller scale, organic and local agricultural endeavors.
    Increased federal support for local, organic diversified 
agricultural would go a long way towards improving the 
nutrition in our food supply and ensuring that our school 
districts have the ability to purchase and use healthier, 
organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats that are more 
nutrient dense in school nutrition programs.
    It would be a key component to reversing the obesity issue 
our country is experiencing as it would reduce the 
subsidization of less healthy foods, such as the corn syrup 
production and industrial meat and dairy production.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Alvin Park, Mililani, HI

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Alvin Park.
    City, State: Mililani, HI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Self-Employed.
    Comment: I highly encourage the House Committee on 
Agriculture to start moving towards a progressive society and 
ban intensive confinement of farm animals. As constituents in 
California last year demonstrated with the passing of 
Proposition 2, public sentiment of animal welfare is widespread 
and demanded. I strongly urge this Committee to ban the usage 
of battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation crates for 
sows, and veal crates for calves. I also encourage the 
eradication of cruel and archaic practices such as de-horning, 
de-beaking, and tail-docking which is ALWAYS administered 
without the use of anesthesia. Please, let our country move 
towards a nation that is caring and compassionate toward the 9 
million animals we condemn to death every year for our palate 
preferences. Thank you!
                                ------                                


               Comment of James D. Park, Presque Isle, ME

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: James D. Park.
    City, State: Presque Isle, ME.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser--Rural Resource Properties.
    Comment: At Farm Credit and as rural land appraisers, we 
use the CLU layers extensively to verify crop acreage, tillable 
ground within a property and to aid in defining property 
boundaries. We do not request that specific payment information 
to property owners be made public or acreage of crops that they 
are growing, but request that the maps, overlays of boundaries 
and soil types be made available. We also request that specific 
payment information be supplied by a simple call from the 
property owner or by a signed release. The present system and 
requirements are very cumbersome and invasive to the property 
owner making it difficult to obtain needed data.
    Please consider a revision to the policy that makes common 
sense, allowing for better use to the land owners and their 
associates.
            Thank you,

Jim Park.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Melissa Parker, Westport, CT

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Melissa Parker.
    City, State: Westport, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nutritionist.
    Comment: The Farm Bill sorely needs a BIG `makeover' to 
ensure that local farmers can survive and flourish. Our 
children, families, communities and citizens deserve wholesome, 
organic, local crops and foods that will help support local 
businesses and our overall health. As we approach 2011, our 
country is both economically and physiologically challenged. We 
are getting sicker and larger each day with no end in sight, 
PLEASE restructure this bill to level the Farming/Food 
Production playing field and help to contribute to a healthier, 
more productive American public.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Riley Parker, North Bend, WA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: Riley Parker.
    City, State: North Bend, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please vote for the Organic Farmer. On our small 
farm we work hard to supply the local public with quality grass 
fed beef. It is important that the organic, small farmer is 
well represented in our government.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Dr. Damian Parr, Davis, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Dr. Damian Parr.
    City, State: Davis, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic food is 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail 
market.
    Organic farming systems have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:

   Research and Extension Programs that expand the 
        breadth of knowledge about organic farming systems and 
        provide that knowledge to organic farmers.

   Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers 
        for the conservation benefits of organic farming 
        systems and provide technical support for organic 
        farmers who want to improve on-farm conservation.

   Transition Programs that provide technical support 
        to farmers who want to transition to organic farming 
        practices but don't know how.

   Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic 
        farmers and reimburse them for any losses based on the 
        organic market value of the crop, not average 
        conventional prices.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Clifford Patrick, Alexandria, MN

    Date Submitted: Sunday, May 02, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Clifford Patrick.
    City, State: Alexandria, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Dairy Inspector for the Minnesota Dept. of Ag.
    Comment: Please be mindful of water usage (irrigation), 
field run-off & pollution of stream, lakes & rivers. Well water 
quality, land & soil erosion from wind & water.
    A supply management system for dairy, the market is not 
doing producers justice.
    Limit payments to producers of grain, corn, beans & wheat. 
Support mo [Editor's Note: the comment was incomplete as 
submitted.]
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kerry Patrone, High Point, NC

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 5:35 a.m.
    Name: Kerry Patrone.
    City, State: High Point, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Health Nutritionist.
    Comment: Could we please have a bill that supports the 
health of Americans? Let us support organic farming and small 
farms that grow fruits and vegetables in order to make them 
more affordable for all Americans. Let us stop spending over $5 
billion a year of our tax dollars each on high fructose corn 
syrup (HFCS) and hydrogenated oils, giving millionaire 
corporate farms millions to increase diabetes and heart 
disease. Can we stop making HFCS so artificially cheap for soda 
manufactures and start making organic broccoli and grapes more 
affordable for families and school systems?
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Paul Patterson, Morris, IL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Paul Patterson.
    City, State: Morris, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Chef.
    Comment: As a chef of thirty some years, working at summer 
camp, boy scout camp, colleges, universities, casino, resorts 
and hotel. I have cooked for many people and many young people. 
We have gone away from the truck farms of my fathers age to 
where we do not know where the produce is grown or under what 
conditions it is grown. Plus travel times to bring it to market 
places a huge burden on our infrastructure. If something would 
happen that would limit the transportation of goods across this 
country many people would get very hungry. I grew up with corn 
and soybeans planted all around my town, but not one vegetable 
garden that could supply a town of 12,000 souls. Change this 
attitude in Congress before it hurts all of us. A fresh picked 
tomato, cucumber or pepper is so much better than one trucked 
across country. Most students do not know where or how most 
vegetables are grown. I plant a garden each year for my house 
and friends and it is no bigger than 30 by 30 yet I always 
have extra to give away. We are teaching our children that 
someone else will supply us with our food and they sit back and 
do nothing. The computer is not bad for us but the idea of 
sitting in front of it all day and after school and during 
summer breaks is making all of us a lazy nation. Change the 
funding for our schools to reflect what it actually cost to 
provide a good health meal to our children. I have read the 
guidelines for planning a meal by the USDA standards for meal 
reimbursement to the local schools it takes more time to do the 
paper work than it does to plan and prepare the daily lunch 
that most of our children receive. Why do you make it hard to 
supply a basic meal to the children?
            Sincerely yours,

Paul Patterson,
ACF Chef Member 30 years.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Darrell Patzer, Jamestown, ND

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Darrell Patzer.
    City, State: Jamestown, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Banker/Land Management.
    Comment: Farmers and their bankers require crop liens 
annually and security must be by crop by farmer. MPCI is the 
only program that fits their need and everyone I know wants to 
get rid of ``SURE and ACRE Programs'' and improve crop 
insurance to be more affordable and simplified. Each farmer 
wants to feel in control of his individual farm business and 
income protection plan. He knows his expenses and financial 
obligations and wants to buy protection according to his need. 
There should be one dependable insurance plan with all other 
programs eliminated with funding directed to their MPCI 
individual program.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of David Patzer, Jamestown, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: David Patzer.
    City, State: Jamestown, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: I am a crop insurance agent. I do not sell any 
other lines of insurance. As a whole our Crop Insurance program 
is working. I would like to see some improvements but for the 
most part producers and lenders like the program. My thoughts 
regarding areas to improve:

    (1) Prevent Plant payments should be a flat rate. This will 
        fairly compensate producers for acres that cannot be 
        planted and will also entice them to seed when 
        possible.

    (2) Stop disaster payments from FSA--SURE and ACRE--and use 
        that money to improve the already working crop 
        insurance program by allowing producers to buy up to a 
        higher level or having a trigger point to automatically 
        increase the insurance level based on the experience of 
        the producer. This meets the need on a producer level 
        and is helpful in large diverse counties/areas.

     (3) Whole farm policies don't work. An enterprise unit is 
        catching on because of the lower premium but in order 
        for the enterprise unit structure to grow the premium 
        will need to be substantially lower so the producer is 
        willing to take on the added risk. If optional units 
        are available there will always be some producers who 
        choose the added protection.

    (4) Increased penalties for when the system is abused.

    (5) Independent agents are why the system works. We compete 
        for business through quality service and program 
        knowledge. If you take away financial incentives and 
        reduce competition the program integrity will suffer.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Dexter Payne, Boulder, CO

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 04, 2010, 6:35 a.m.
    Name: Dexter Payne.
    City, State: Boulder, CO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables, Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: 2012 Farm Bill should promote organic. Organic 
agriculture, both rural and urban, small and large scale, is 
diverse and provides clear taxpayer benefits: cutting pesticide 
and fertilizer use that fouls our water and endangers our 
health, while increasing economic development opportunities. 
Please:

   Remember the pollinators. If we do not tend to the 
        health of smallest in our food chain, insects which 
        pollinate the plants we depend on for food, clothing, 
        feed and fuel, there will be big news and it will not 
        be pretty, nor reversible. We will die.

   Farmers must receive incentive for environmental 
        good they do: increasing biodiversity (more kinds of 
        crops), adding carbon in their soil, and putting 
        perennial crops (such as hay and pasture) in their 
        fields. Farmers who raise organic food crops, the most 
        nutritious parts of the USDA food pyramid, are our best 
        asset. Reward them! When the sole remuneration is for 
        quantity of crops produced--we end up with GMO!

   Take a stand on GMO crops, which have been proven 
        dangerous--to public health AND to biodiversity. The 
        health of our planet IS our health. And our wealth! If 
        corporate agendas control our agriculture, we are in 
        for a rough ride. Sooner . . . or later. (The same can 
        be said for ALL legislative issues!!!!!!!!!)

   Remember--Consumers are not against organic. Some 
        feel they can not afford it. It does not lend itself, 
        by nature (hmmmm, interesting!), to facilitate the 
        money grab. But it is time for our government to stand 
        up for what is clear and right. Trashing our planet, 
        and our food supply, is NOT OK! In reality, we cannot 
        afford to do anything else!

    I am a very small producer, for those close to me, and a 
friend of plants that feed pollinators--often considered by 
economic powers to be a nuisance. I am a champion of ``weeds'' 
that farmers and gardeners pull and toss, which are more 
nutritious for human consumption, and easier to grow, than the 
actual crops. But they do not make money for anyone. (They DO 
create vibrant health and save money for those who eat them). 
Should the Ag Dept. be a special interest promoter just for 
those who make money off of the need for food????? I think not!
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Mark Peachey, Pratt, KS

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 07, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Mark Peachey.
    City, State: Pratt, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Give up direct payments and all the requirements 
at FSA office and fund crop insurance at a higher level that 
can really be used for risk management in your farming 
operations and at the bank for operating loans.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Nicole Peirce, Holland, PA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Nicole Peirce.
    City, State: Holland, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: As you consider the next farm bill, I urge you to 
hold high standards for the medications being used in the meat 
and dairy produced on the farms in this country. I am happy to 
see the current recommendations from the FDA and I hope the new 
bill will have strong enforcement of these recommendations 
outlined. I also have great concern for the pesticides being 
used on the U.S. grown produce and cotton. I do not want to put 
toxins on or in my body from the crops grown on U.S. farms. I 
urge you to include incentives for farms to use organic and 
cruelty free practices. I hope there is some way to encourage 
local sustainability in the new bill. Finally, I'd love to see 
some way for local farms to connect with the school lunch 
programs that are also federally supported so that we can get 
back to providing quality, fresh, healthy foods to our youth. 
Thank you for listening.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Justin Pence, Omaha, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Justin Pence.
    City, State: Omaha, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: GIS Mapping.
    Comment: One item I would like to see changed is in Section 
1619 in the Farm Bill 2008 pertaining to Common Land Unit Data 
(CLU) from the Farm Service Agency. A special provision in 
Section 1619, thrown in the last minute, banned the release of 
CLU data to the public. I would like this amended allowing once 
again for the public release of CLU data. CLU data only 
contains field boundary information and does not contain 
compliance information, wetland, Conservation Reserve Program 
(CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data was at one time, from 2004 to 2008, released to 
the public in a GIS file format that many GIS and Agricultural 
professionals used. We do not need specific information on each 
tract released, all that we are looking for to be released is 
the CLU shapefile, which just contains the farm field 
boundaries, nothing else.
    Please reconsider this in the 2010 farm bill. Having this 
data allows me to perform my tasks for my job, without this 
data, I can not perform them.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Amy Pennington, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:06 a.m.
    Name: Amy Pennington.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Gardener.
    Comment: Please make organic farming a top priority in the 
2012 Farm Bill!!

   Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
        segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
        food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. 
        food retail market.

   Organic farming systems have the potential to 
        conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil 
        quality while providing high quality food and fiber for 
        consumers here and abroad.

   If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue 
        to grow and thrive, we need to invest in programs that 
        support organic farmers, including:

     Research and Extension Programs, Conservation 
            Programs, Transition Programs are of utmost 
            importance in order to continue building healthy 
            soils for our next generations.

    Look at what happened with BP--laws were not updated after 
new technology for drilling was developed and as a result of 
this outdated law, we've suffered a catastrophe. Be forward 
thinking! Make a change!!
            Thank you,

Amy Pennington.
                                ------                                


             Comment of David Perkins, Saint Augustine, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: David Perkins.
    City, State: Saint Augustine, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: Please limit or cut out subsidies paying farmers 
to grow corn. Ethanol has been a waste and costs more to make 
than benefits us, corn is turned into many products that are 
not productive and significantly affect the obesity in our 
country and by subsidizing corn and not other vegetables we 
make wholesome vegetables more expensive for the poor.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Julie Perry, Towanda, PA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:36 a.m.
    Name: Julie Perry.
    City, State: Towanda, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I am submitting comment even though I feel that 
our voice has no power compared to lobbyists.
    As a sustainable farmer with a small dairy/swine/chicken/
hog/produce operation I would hope for the simple chance to 
have our efforts go into a fair market situation with hope of 
making a modestly comfortable income. We desperately need 
transparency and choice in the dairy industry; the system as 
set up bans (or makes cost-prohibitive) the ability to sell our 
products competitively as the middle ends take the lion share 
and enjoy an unreasonable amount of the profit. We need on-farm 
sales of raw milk or a small local creamery in many areas and 
other products available for informed consumers to have a 
choice, without regulations and requirements that make such 
options so cost prohibitive they are guaranteed to fail.
    We need the bulk of the funding from the farm bill to go to 
the small and medium producers (even in the form of building 
local processing facilities), who have more personal interest 
and ability to manage quality and safety instead of almost all 
the funding going to fake farms and mega corporations whose 
lobbyists are camped on your steps. We also need protection 
from the absurd. Odor management plans because people from town 
want to buy up cheap land from fallen farms but don't want us 
to smell like a farm? Honestly? The regulations and 
requirements have become over-the-top silly.
    I invite any one of you to watch as my friends and 
neighbors stand proud with tears streaming out of their eyes 
while their herds, each with a name and a story go to slaughter 
as the current system is so broken that the real backbone of 
this country does not have a chance to scrape by, let alone 
earn even a modest living.
    Small and medium farms can feed this country, can do it 
well, safely, environmentally sensitively; and do it under the 
eyes and ears of the neighbors we serve in our localities. We 
can produce both the needed volume with the quality and safety 
the public deserves at a price that is fair to all, but only if 
something is done, and done yesterday.
    Again, we don't want handouts, all we want is a fighting 
chance.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Melissa Pettus, Lafayette, LA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Melissa Pettus.
    City, State: Lafayette, LA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Realtor.
    Comment:

    Dr. Boustany,

    Please do not support subsidies to large, mono-
agricultural, genetically modified crops such as corn and soy. 
Please support smaller farms who grow diversified, non GMO 
crops. With obesity running rampant in our culture, we must 
find ways to produce healthy foods for Americans. If you have 
ever traveled to Europe, I'm sure that you experienced that the 
food they eat is far superior to ours. It's not rocket science, 
you can taste the difference. They have stricter standards and 
often reject stuff that we feed our very own children in school 
cafeterias no less.
    We must support smaller operations, that raise food in a 
sustainable manner. I already refuse to buy food from the big 
players that use all of that subsidized corn. However, many 
citizens are much less informed about the impact that the large 
mono culture crops have on their health. Please support better 
farming practices and eliminate the outdated subsidies.
            Respectfully,

Melissa Pettus.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Christine Pevarnik, Mobile, AL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Christine Pevarnik.
    City, State: Mobile, AL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small Business Owner.
    Comment: There needs to be more backing behind growing more 
agriculture that is healthy for everyone, not just our 
children. The reason the least healthful calories in the 
supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the 
farm bill encourages farmers to grow.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Adam Pfeiffer, Oak Harbor, OH

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Adam Pfeiffer.
    City, State: Oak Harbor, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: State Certified Agricultural Real Estate 
Appraiser.
    Comment: This message is in regards to Section 1619 that 
restricts the use of CLU data in FSA (Farm Service Agency) 
mapping. As an agricultural appraiser in the state of Ohio, the 
information provided by FSA is integral in preparing an 
accurate appraisal for Lender's, Attorney's, and private land-
owners in our state. The majority of our work is used for 
lending purposes in the farm credit system. The lack of current 
CLU data provided to us would have a tendency to create 
inaccuracies in reports that are used in federal lending. It is 
the boundary information that the CLU data provides to us that 
is of the utmost importance in that it gives us the current 
field sizes for farms being appraised. Without this current 
information, estimates must be made for current field size, 
etc. It is my opinion that Section 1619 should be repealed and/
or removed from the current farm bill. If removal is not 
possible, an exception allowing state or federal licensed 
professionals should be included so that professionals (who 
have confidentiality to uphold) could continue to have access 
to important, current CLU data. After speaking with other state 
licensed appraisers in Ohio, it is my opinion that the majority 
of our profession feels the same way about this matter as I do.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Kathleen Phillips, Wellington, FL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Kathleen Phillips.
    City, State: Wellington, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Office Administrator.
    Comment: My husband and I don't want to ingest pesticides 
and hormones in our food. We want a healthier food system for 
ourselves and our country. We would like Congress to STOP 
supporting large factory farms in the Farm Bill, and instead 
support local, organic, plant-based farming systems.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Richard Pitchford, Waverly, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Richard Pitchford.
    City, State: Waverly, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Specialist in the Growmark System.
    Comment: I would like to see the CLU data be made public. 
As we use the data in our day to day field applications.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Janet Placke, Central City, NE

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 02, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Janet Placke.
    City, State: Central City, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Merrick County, Nebraska Assessor.
    Comment:

    Dear Congressman:

    County assessors in Nebraska have the task of assigning an 
assessed value to agricultural land for property tax purposes. 
We gather as much information as we can at the lowest cost.
    One piece of information that would aid us is a Geographic 
Information System (GIS) crop field shape layer that was 
created by each local FSA office and reviewed by each 
landowner. Unfortunately the FSA office will not release it to 
other government offices due to it being deemed confidential. 
It contains no ownership information or crop production 
information. The FSA will release a GIS layer but all details 
regard crop or non-crop designations have been purged leaving 
it virtually useless. This information could be re-created at 
great expense.
    I respectfully requests that the next farm bill require 
that the unmodified GIS field layer to available to county 
government officials thereby saving local tax dollars and a 
more accurate layer.
    I realize this a relatively insignificant request but 
making this information available to local government would 
produce more accurate assessments with no added cost.
    Thank you for considering our request.
            Sincerely,

Jan Placke,
Merrick County, Nebraska Assessor.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Nora Plank, Milford, MI

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Nora Plank.
    City, State: Milford, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: School Secretary.
    Comment: Please stop supporting factory farming, which is 
ruining our environment and human health as well. Instead 
please support local, organic plant-based farming.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of George Pliml, Cook, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: George Pliml.
    City, State: Cook, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: The focus of the new Farm Bill should be on 
strengthening local food networks and targeting money towards 
growing fruits and vegetables.
    At this time we are dependent upon very large food 
distribution companies to keep the shelves of local grocery 
stores stocked. We need to develop smaller local 
infrastructures (processing, storage and distribution 
facilities) to help supply our communities. In this way we can 
take advantage and build our local economies.
    According to the food pyramid Americans are to eat servings 
of fruit and vegetables each day. However all the subsides now 
are targeted to corn and soybeans. This must change to again 
help smaller local farmers and local economies.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Douglas R. Ploetz, Little Genesee, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Douglas R. Ploetz.
    City, State: Little Genesee, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: As a farmer and a professional Appraiser it is 
very important to me that some major changes be made in section 
1619 of the farm bill. Prior to the 2008 Farm Bill geospatial 
information, or CLU data was public information and was 
developed with public monies. The 2008 Farm Bill made this 
information private, requiring individual farmer consent to 
obtain the information. This has made obtaining accurate data 
on agricultural property sales very difficult as not all 
property owners are available, nor do they all provide access 
to this information.
    This lack of accurate data can cause appraisals to be 
potentially less accurate at a time when there is financial 
stress in much of the agricultural community as well as the 
banking community.
    I would strongly encourage the House of Representatives to 
make the following information available to appraisers to help 
ensure the safety and soundness of our financial institutions 
and the farm community.
    The information needed is:

   CLU field boundaries.

   Acres.

   Maps--aerial, soils, topography with FSA field 
        boundaries.

   FSA Yield information.

   Information on if the property is enrolled in CRP, 
        WRP, or other programs that may effect the value of the 
        property.

    Thank you for considering this information.

Douglas R. Ploetz,
VP/Sr. Regional Appraiser,
Farm Credit East, ACA.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Laura Plunkett, Marblehead, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Laura Plunkett.
    City, State: Marblehead, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Author on nutrition for children with diabetes.
    Comment: I think subsidies should be shifted from corn, 
wheat and soy into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural efforts. This would make healthy foods more 
avoidable and ensure that local school districts have the 
ability to purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and 
vegetables and meats in school nutrition programs.
    I hope you will consider this.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Steven Polkow, Owatonna, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Steven Polkow.
    City, State: Owatonna, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Business Manager.
    Comment: I as an ag business manager use the mapping 
portion to provide to the growers accurate and geophysical 
locations for crop nutrient and crop protection products in to 
exact and easily identifiable areas of their fields. These 
resources help to identify areas of concern for all concerned 
with regard to environmental concerns as well.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Brian Poppe, Falls City, NE

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Brian Poppe.
    City, State: Falls City, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: The current farm program is very confusing for 
most producers. I have been able to use the spreadsheets to 
make my decisions, so I feel more comfortable making decisions. 
I think most producers would agree to a direct payment program, 
such as the one that we currently use, along with the gross 
income protection plan that is trying to be used. The key to 
the income protection plan is it needs to be more simplified 
for the producer. The ACRE program benefits just vary to much 
between regions in a State and from State to State. A dryland 
farm in Southeast Nebraska could benefit from ACRE, whereas a 
dryland farm in Southwest Nebraska would not benefit. The 
weather conditions between these two regions are hugely 
different. The other problem is that most farmers can only see 
outside their back door. They have a difficult time thinking 
global, thus they can't correlate State yields to their own 
farm.
    I personally think the timing of the ACRE program is 
excellent and signed up for the program. We are experiencing 
records yields and records prices which can only help the two 
year price average and the five year yield average. I am 
extremely worried about the producer who can't focus on the 
future years and how a major drop in prices could put them out 
of business. I contend that all bubbles burst and agriculture 
is in a major growth bubble right now. I believe the ACRE 
program will protect my farm investment for two years if this 
bubble should break.
    Watch for increased debt in the ag sector. Most producer 
have set their sights on net income levels that I believe are 
unsustainable. The suppliers of agricultural products are 
becoming irrational as well, especially the fertilizer 
companies. Their business plan is not based on supply-demand 
factors, it is based on the gross income level of the farmer 
and how many of those dollars they can extract from the 
farmer's account. Another problem in the fertilizer sector is 
that we are importing to much product, instead of producing it 
in the USA. Anhydrous Ammonia is priced at $525 per ton 
compared to $400 last year. Natural Gas futures are only $.65 
per unit higher than last year. I don't know if this price 
increase justifies a $125 increase to the farmer, but it seems 
like a gouge. The total cost per acre to raise corn has doubled 
in the last 5 years. Any disruption on the income side of the 
equation could spell disaster.
    The current income levels are sufficient enough that 
government involvement is not necessary right now. I am worried 
that the law makers and lobbyist will use these income levels 
against the ag sector and severely reduce the income net that 
is needed. I can see that once this safety net is lowered, the 
net income side of the equation could change to cause a farm 
crisis.
    With all of this said, I don't have many issues with the 
current farm policy. It would be nice to have a shorter time 
period than a year to determine if an ACRE payment is 
generated, 5 months (Nov.-Mar.) would be acceptable. I know it 
takes a year to figure out the final yields, 2009 is a prime 
example. There is no such thing as a perfect program, only one 
better than the other. Most producers don't grasp the inner 
workings of the farm program for at least two years, by then, 
they have already missed out on the gravy.
    Just don't get carried away with the next farm bill. The 
last two have been complete over hauls and have cost the 
taxpayers millions to implement. Believe me, I have seen the 
amount of work that my local office has done on my small farm, 
way too much time and our office has excellent staff.
                                ------                                


               Comment of JoAnn Porter, Port Townsend, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:06 p.m.
    Name: JoAnn Porter.
    City, State: Port Townsend, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: Please address the Monsanto practices that effect 
our food that results in illness and obesity and what it is 
doing to the soil--also the cruelty to animals.
    What happen to wholesome and healthy food and healthy 
farming practices?
    We now have a young generation that is obese and suffering 
from diseases--these are your grandchildren and mine!
    Please address corporate farming and their unhealthy 
practices!!

JoAnn Porter/Port Townsend WA.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kathleen Powell, Fresno, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Kathleen Powell.
    City, State: Fresno, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: N/A.
    Comment: The farm bill is working well in it's current form 
and needs to continue as is. No cuts are needed unless you want 
to take non-farm items such as the school lunch program out of 
the farm bill and put it somewhere else. Farmers have been hit 
hard enough.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Scott Powell, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 21, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: Scott Powell.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please work to generate a real change in U.S. 
agricultural policy with this farm bill. Market power is way 
too consolidated in very few companies. Their practices pose 
risks to the environment, to the genetic basis for agriculture, 
to farming communities, and to consumers. U.S. policies have 
severe impacts to neighboring countries, especially the rural 
poor in Mexico. We can and must do better. The American public 
has shown a tremendous interest in environmentally sustainable 
practices in many fields. Help give them those choices in food 
policy and together we can reach real transformation. Thank you 
for your work.

S.P.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Kristen Powers, Chapel Hill, NC

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Kristen Powers.
    City, State: Chapel Hill, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: High School Student.
    Comment: Many of the issues we face today concerning 
nutrition can be traced to the fact that processed foods can be 
made cheaply because of subsidized corn and soy. Not only is 
this a social injustice, as it makes poor quality food the only 
thing affordable to the poor, it is also an environmental issue 
as the monocultures in the Midwest destroy soil quality and 
biodiversity.
    I'd love to see the Farm Bill phase out, or reduce, the 
subsidies the government gives to corn and soy farmers, and 
instead encourage them to grow a more diverse crop. We also 
need to start subsidizing organic and local farmers as family 
farms are crucial to our nation's success.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions. 
Please let me know if this type of new subsidiary program ends 
up in the Farm Bill.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Aravind Prasad, Arlington, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Aravind Prasad.
    City, State: Arlington, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Scientist.
    Comment: I suggest increased dissemination of information 
and provision of technical support for farmers following 
organic methods in farming. This will lead to an increase in 
safe and healthy organic food availability and also 
tremendously decrease environmental damage because of inorganic 
fertilizers and pesticides. This will also decrease farmers' 
dependence on corporations thus decreasing their farming costs. 
I would like to point out here that internationally several 
experiments (large and small scale) have proven that scientific 
and environmentally conscious organic farming can on the long 
term lead to higher production and better food security than 
inorganic fertilizer and pesticide dependent farming
    A second issue is that of genetically modified foods. I 
demand my right to know which foods have genetically modified 
(GM) organisms (or their derived products) in them. Like the 
``USDA Organic'' stamp, I think there is a need to identify 
clearly foods containing GM organisms (and their derived 
products). This is the only way to protect a consumer's right 
to choose foods free of GM organisms and their derived 
products.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Terrell Price, Modesto, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Terrell Price.
    City, State: Modesto, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: If, we the Citizens of California, treasure the 
ability to Produce Agriculture, and Market our Valley as a 
premier agricultural area, then why do we not protect our water 
supply with unnecessary pesticides and harmful chemicals? We 
need to balance the ability to turn a profit from our land and 
the ability to turn the profit from our land! We need to ensure 
through legislation that when their is an alternative we take a 
real look on all possibilities and use only natural remedies in 
dealing with pests and diseases. Through Education and on-going 
development of new methods and products in our Universities, 
Colleges, Future Farmers of America and 4-H Clubs, we can turn 
the direction of saline, soil, contaminated water, and 
pesticides. Don't be split by the pressures of Large Profit 
Corporations and their need of more profit, but for Healthy 
Farming that benefits the body of our Citizens and Animals.
    God wants the people to be taken care of, I want you to 
make a stand for Equality, Integrity and due Diligence and take 
action for better farming practices and processes. God Bless 
America!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Todd Probasco, Exeter, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Todd Probasco.
    City, State: Exeter, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy Manager.
    Comment: As an Agronomist it is crucial that I have up to 
date field maps and acres for my growers. I need this 
information to make accurate recommendations and spray 
applications. 90% of the farmers don't remember to bring this 
information with them, when placing an order. The AgriData 
website gives me this crucial information. Please make maps and 
acres available online again.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kimball Probst, Logan, UT

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Kimball Probst.
    City, State: Logan, UT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I use the field information from the FSA almost 
daily for appraisal work. I use the information to know what is 
being farmed and what is not. It is vital information when 
valuing farm/ranch properties. This is generally information 
that is not technically private, but because of privacy issues, 
I can only access the data with permission of the property 
owner. I agree with the following statements and would like to 
see access to this information become available again.

   USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.
            Thank you,

Kimball Probst, M.A.I.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Becky Pugh, Bethesda, MD

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Becky Pugh.
    City, State: Bethesda, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I am involved in Arkansas family farm. I want to 
see legislation that helps independent farmers and animals. I 
am sickened by factory farming.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Fisher Qua, Seattle, WA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Fisher Qua.
    City, State: Seattle, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Intern--Washington Health Foundation.
    Comment: Please reform agricultural subsidies to promote 
crop diversification and enhance the production of non-staple 
food-stuffs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Gretchen Quarterman, Hahira, GA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Gretchen Quarterman.
    City, State: Hahira, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Forestry, Vegetables.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment:

    Dear Members of the Agriculture Committee,

    Thank you for taking input from the citizens of this 
country. I am not a large business. I'm not even a large 
farmer. My husband and I live on the family farm upon which he 
was raised. We grow trees and vegetables.
    We appreciate the work the Agriculture Committee does in 
promoting programs like the Conservation Reserve Program which 
promotes re-forestation. We are a part of that program and are 
pleased to be growing Long Leaf Pine.
    I have three basic concerns.
    First, I would like it if the government would stop 
subsidizing agribusiness, like Monsanto.
    We do not need any more GMO seed, trees, cotton, corn, 
soybeans, non-native eucalyptus or the like. Round-up is either 
killing everything in sight or speeding up the natural 
modification of weeds like pigweed. Mutant pigweed is all 
around Georgia and it's directly the result of Monsanto 
spraying. Round-up is not safe and should be banned from use.
    Second, farming methods have changed drastically, from 
small family farms to giant factory farms. Factory farms for 
meat, corn, soybeans, potatoes, etc. while perhaps resulting in 
large outputs, do not produce a quality product. The way food 
tasted when I was a child in the 1960's was a vague memory 
until we started getting locally grown clean food. No-till and 
factory farming are not the best farming methods. Spraying 
everything in sight is poisoning our environment, our families, 
our livelihood. The over-use of antibiotics and hormones is 
passed through the food-chain and is dangerous.
    Third, the preservation of farmland is essential to the 
survival of our nation. Here in Lowndes County, we had a 
terrible flood last year. The loss of farmland, both row-crop 
and timber, and the subsequent paving over of the land has 
produced both erosion and additional run off. If our nation is 
going to have anything that resembles a sustainable economy, we 
must put a priority on preserving farm land by providing 
incentives to small farmers to keep their land in production 
rather than selling it off to developers to grow houses and 
vacant strip plazas.
            Thank you,

Gretchen Quarterman.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Pete Quasius, Ft. Myers, FL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: Pete Quasius.
    City, State: Ft. Myers, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: End the sugar support program.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Richard Radford, Clinton, KY

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Richard Radford.
    City, State: Clinton, KY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: As a farm appraiser for the last 30 years, 
restricting FSA maps and crop base data on farm appraisal 
assignments has reduced the accuracy and reliability of many 
farm appraisals. Since this appraisal data relates to the loan 
collateral, and many of these farm loans are government 
guaranteed, assuring the accuracy by providing this basic data 
to farm appraisers, actually protects the tax payers from 
future bail-outs from loan defaults.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of David Ragan, Effingham, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: David Ragan.
    City, State: Effingham, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As a real estate appraiser, it would be helpful if 
the CLU data (FSA acreage) would be available to appraisers 
again.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of James Rakich, Visalia, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 10, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: James Rakich.
    City, State: Visalia, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Insurance Agent for Crop Insurance.
    Comment: Crop insurance for the farmer is the only way he 
can survive in the event of a disaster. One disaster can break 
the farmers back and bankrupt him. He can't control the weather 
that happens, nor can he predict the price for his goods. He 
plants his crop and does all his good farming practices and 
looks to the sky for help. We as a nation depend on our farmers 
to provide the crops to put food on our tables. Please continue 
the crop insurance program.
            Thank you,

Jim Rakich.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of James Ramsay, Loma, CO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: James Ramsay.
    City, State: Loma, CO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: I support small sustainable farming and ranching. 
Unfortunately it is very difficult to profit on a small scale 
with-out over utilizing the land. I don't use chemicals and I 
raise only grass fed beef, that will help bring in a better 
price for my cattle in a niche market. I would however prefer 
to sale at a competitive price to folks who want to buy 
chemical free grass fed beef but can't afford to. I am not sure 
that you can help with a farm bill, but please consider it.
    Thanks.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Patricia Rathmann, Moscow, ID

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Patricia Rathmann.
    City, State: Moscow, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: Farm policy should do the following: (1) support 
efforts toward renewable energy, (2) make sure that agriculture 
programs give the greatest weight to the growth of vegetables 
which enable families to have access to healthy, nutritious 
foods, (3) provide aid to the small family farms, and (4) 
provide funds for land trusts to preserve our farm land.
                                ------                                


                  Comments of Dave Redding, Naples, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Dave Redding.
    City, State: Naples, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Director Nonprofit Healthy Food Coalition.
    Comment: Organics must be a larger part of the farm bill 
for 2012. Thank YOU!

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 25, 2010, 5:36 p.m.
    Name: Dave Redding.
    City, State: Naples, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban 
farms across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear 
benefits: cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our 
water and endangers our health, while increasing economic 
development opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:

   Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good 
        they do IN ADDITION TO paying for the amount of crops 
        they produce.

   Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more 
        kinds of crops), adding carbon in their soil, and 
        putting perennial crops (such as hay and pasture) in 
        their fields.

   Protect income for farmers who raise organic food 
        crops that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA 
        food pyramid, so that we get better food and fewer 
        junk-food ingredients.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ann Redig, Rochester, MN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Ann Redig.
    City, State: Rochester, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Religious Sister.
    Comment: Please refocus federal farm program payments upon 
farming systems and practices that produce environmental 
benefits and promote long-term food security.
    And please put a limit on who receives subsidies and try to 
close loopholes for the corporation absentee farmers who seem 
to get rich from government subsidies and don't need any 
subsidies. Promote family farms and growth of rural 
communities.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Brad Redlin, St. Anthony, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Brad Redlin.
    City, State: St. Anthony, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Owner and Director of Ag Programs for the 
Izaak Walton League of America.
    Comment: I want to thank the U.S. House Committee on 
Agriculture for providing this opportunity to submit comments 
on agricultural policy for the 2012 Farm Bill.
    Farmers understand that conservation is key to agricultural 
production, rural economies, and future well-being. To meet the 
needs of the future, the 2012 Farm Bill must recognize, 
protect, and enhance the status of conservation policy in 
federal farm policy.
    Research from USDA consistently shows that conservation 
practices and programs that support rural America's natural 
amenities also bolster the number of rural jobs and even farms. 
Furthermore, protection of our finite soil and water resources 
is essential if farms and ranches are to meet the challenge of 
feeding a growing population. Conversely, an extraction ethic 
in agriculture can at best serve only short term rewards at the 
expense of our future.
    Success in the 2012 Farm Bill can be achieved without 
inflated spending, but conservation must be at the center of 
policy considerations. As you begin the process of re-
authorizing our national farm policy, please include the 
following recommendations in your work:

    1. Enact a robust and well funded Conservation Title to 
        support easement, working lands, and all conservation 
        programs. Congress and the Administration must enact a 
        Conservation Title of the 2012 Farm Bill that provides 
        the technical assistance and financial incentives 
        necessary to ensure the long term productivity and 
        stewardship of agricultural lands.

    2. Refocus federal farm program payments upon farming 
        systems and practices that produce environmental 
        benefits and promote long-term food security, rather 
        than prioritizing paying for the historical production 
        of a few select crops.

    3. Recognize and re-prioritize the existing and logical 
        covenant between taxpayers and producers represented by 
        the conservation compliance regimen. Conservation 
        compliance is a means for ensuring that where public 
        money is invested, the public's interests are protected 
        by requiring basic levels of protections for soil, 
        water and wetlands. Further, prioritizing compliance 
        will require no additional Farm Bill investment and in 
        fact can result in saving federal dollars. Specific 
        actions that should be taken include:

      (a) All land in production, both Highly Erodible Land 
            (HEL) and non-HEL, should be required to have a 
            conservation plan to be eligible for any USDA 
            benefits. This would strongly encourage producers 
            to create and follow that plan.

      (b) Remove incentives to convert marginal lands by 
            requiring non-cropland and native sod on which an 
            agricultural commodity is planted for which a 
            policy or plan of insurance is available to be 
            ineligible for those benefits.

      (c) Re-establish compliance penalties on crop insurance 
            support provided to producers so that all existing 
            or new crop and revenue insurance or other risk 
            management programs must be subject to conservation 
            compliance provisions. This is absolutely critical, 
            particularly with respect to the recent calls for 
            making insurance a more integral component of the 
            federal farm policy ``safety net'' and proposals to 
            increase use of subsidized insurance for crops and 
            regions of the country where it is not currently 
            prominent.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these 
comments.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Anne Reeder, Salem, OR

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Anne Reeder.
    City, State: Salem, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nursing Student.
    Comment: Please support more programs to get farm-fresh 
foods into low income areas so that everyone can have access to 
nutritious foods. As a nursing student in an urban setting, I 
have seen first hand the effects of ``food deserts'' on the 
health of the urban poor. I would also like to see more support 
for farm workers attempting to ``go organic''. The more we, as 
a country, can nurture such farming practices, the more 
accessible organic food items will be.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jennifer Refici, Macedon, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Jennifer Refici.
    City, State: Macedon, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Wellness Consultant/Mom.
    Comment: Please make sustainable agriculture and chemical 
free food a priority for America. We are expected to be the 
leaders, let's do it responsibly. Please give organic farmers 
more subsidy. We would all like to be able to provide a truly 
healthy lifestyle for our families, and I am forced to make 
what I know are poor choices every day because buying organic 
costs nearly three times as much.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kevin Reilly, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Kevin Reilly.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: U.S. Citizen.
    Comment: Please consider withdrawing your subsidies to the 
major commodities like corn and soybean. This badly distorts 
markets and creates perverse incentives. Please consider 
removing your tariffs on imported sugar and sugar based 
ethanol. Again you are manipulating the market and it is not to 
the benefit of the U.S. citizens, only to the special interests 
who wish to be protected by these subsidies and tariffs. 
Remember you serve the greater interests of the American 
people, not the narrow interests of a specific lobby.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Angela Renala, Dunwoody, GA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Angela Renala.
    City, State: Dunwoody, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment:

    House Agriculture Committee,

    I would like to share with you a blog entry I wrote (below) 
entitled ``Cheap Food Nation'' which expresses my desire to see 
us return to healthy eating (and growing) practices. For my 
vote, I would like to see my family's taxes go towards helping 
American farmers convert to uncompromised organic farming. I 
understand that those who are profiting from our current 
subsidy system may stand in the way of this change. My own 
senator Saxby Chambliss has told me that a move towards organic 
practices would be crippling to Georgia farmers. I would like 
someone to prove him wrong, and quick. Until the hallmarks of 
conventional farming, (i.e., synthetic pesticides, herbicides, 
fertilizers, CAFOs, routine antibiotic use, and genetically 
engineered crops) are made illegal in this country, I certainly 
do not support subsidizing these practices. It is like paying 
to endanger the health of all our children, most notably in the 
lower socioeconomic classes.
    Thank you for your attention,

Angela Renala.


                               attachment


Saturday, October 17, 2009
Eating Well, Part Two: Cheap Food Nation
http://retracingmysteps.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

        ``I pay more for my chickens than I would for store 
        bought, mass-produced ones, but I don't pay too much. 
        The farmer charges me only what it costs him to raise 
        and dress my chickens plus a reasonable profit. He is a 
        farmer who endeavors to operate in an environmentally 
        sound, ethical way. Buying from this farmer, I support 
        a food system that embodies my values--one that 
        provides wholesome food, cares for creation, and 
        provides a living wage to family farmers.''

        Marta Cleaveland, ``You Should Pay More for Your Food 
        (http://www.coopdirectory.org/salt001.htm),'' Salt 
        Magazine.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The documents referred to are retained in Committee files.

    At first glance, it seems like quite an achievement that 
Americans today spend less than 10% of our disposable incomes 
on food (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/
CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm),* especially compared 
to 1933, when spending was at 25%.
U.S. Family and Individual Food Expenditures, As Percent of Disposable 
        Personal Income (chart)
    [Editor's Note: the comment was incomplete as submitted.]
    During the depression era, U.S. Government hatched a relief 
program to encourage farmers to produce food as cheaply and 
abundantly as possible. Oil was cheap then, as were the 
pesticides derived from it, and as the chart above shows, we 
began to feed our families for less.
    Perhaps that system fed our hunger sufficiently to allow us 
to focus on the specifics of how we have been feeding 
ourselves, and at what real cost to our long-term health and 
environment.
    For generations Americans have been offered food--and 
consumer goods
(http://retracingmysteps.blogspot.com/2009/02/story-of-
stuff.html) *--at artificially low prices. A fast food value 
meal may feed you for less than $5, but it didn't cost $5. Your 
tax dollars already paid subsidies to the agricultural 
conglomerate who produced it, allowing them to remain 
profitable while selling you that meal at a dirt cheap price.
    Even though our receipt totals don't tally the real cost of 
our food, which also includes climate change.

        ``the way we grow, process and transport food uses more 
        fossil fuel and contributes more greenhouse gas to the 
        atmosphere than any other industry (17-34%).''

and rising healthcare costs.

        ``Spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP has 
        risen from 5% in 1960 to 18% today. Of 2 trillion we 
        spend on healthcare, 1.5 trillion is going to treat 
        preventable chronic disease linked to diet.''

        Author Michael Pollan, keynote speaker, Georgia 
        Organics' 2009 Annual Conference (http://clatl.com/
        freshloaf/archives/2009/04/21/michael-pollan-at-
        georgia-organics-conference/).*

    We get what we pay for, whether it's obvious to us or not. 
In Americans' case, we pay with our tax money via farm bill 
subsidies to make processed food cheaper than real, whole 
foods.

        ``The real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 
        and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real 
        price of soft drinks (aka liquid corn--[made with high 
        fructose corn syrup]) declined by 23 percent. The 
        reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket 
        are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm 
        bill encourages farmers to grow.''

        ``Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of 
        Twinkies, to take one iconic processed food-like 
        substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-
        tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 
        ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, 
        as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. 
        So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of 
        these synthetic cream-filled pseudo-cakes for less than 
        a bunch of roots?''

        Author Michael Pollan, ``You Are What You Grow (http://
        www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/
        22wwlnlede.t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&emc=eta1),'' April 
        2007, New York Times Magazine.*

        ``Nearly 90% of all federal farm payments go to only 
        five favored crops that include corn, wheat, cotton, 
        soybeans, and rice, while fresh fruits, vegetables and 
        organic agriculture receive little.''--Environmental 
        Working Group (EWG) (http://www.ewg.org/news/obama-
        stands-firm-on-push-for-farm-program-reform.) *

    Then, many of us gravitate towards these heavily marketed 
products of industrialized agriculture, perhaps for ``great 
value'' or ``great taste.''

        ``Energy-dense foods, many of them nutrient poor, are 
        good tasting, readily available, and cheap . . . Simply 
        put, as incomes drop and food budgets shrink, food 
        choices shift toward energy-dense refined grains, added 
        sugars and fats.''

        Author Adam Drewnowski, Director of Center for Obesity 
        Research, University of Washington professor of 
        Epidemiology and Medicine, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 
        Nov. 18, 2008.

    Sometimes we pay again, to treat the health problems we 
develop (i.e., obesity/heart disease, type II diabetes, 
polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), etc., etc.) from our 
refined-grain, added-sugar, partially-hydrogenated-fat-filled 
diets (http://retracingmysteps.blogspot.com/2009/03/partially-
hydrogenated-oils-are-so-last.html).*

        ``Americans are becoming more obese while spending a 
        lower share of disposable income on food.''

        Author Adam Drewnowski, ``Fat and Sugar: An Economic 
        Analysis'', American Society for Nutritional Sciences 
        Journal of Nutrition, 2003
Good Intentions . . .
        ``While initially meant to protect farmers from the 
        vagaries of weather and the fickleness of the free 
        market system, the subsidy system now often rewards big 
        growers over small- and mid-sized producers. Moreover, 
        in recent decades it has tended to consolidate 
        government payments in the hands of a few. Between 2003 
        and 2005, for example, American taxpayers paid $34.75 
        billion in crop subsidy benefits to farmers, but only 
        the top one percent of farmers received nearly \1/5\ of 
        that amount.''

    WATCH: ``King Corn'' http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/
kingcorn/

        ``EWG data shows that the largest 10% of farms receive 
        almost 70% of total farm payments. Often, the large 
        plantation scale operations use the increased capitol 
        to outbid smaller family farmers for land.''

    WATCH: Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill, CBS I-Team, 
March 2009 
http://cbs4.com/video/[email protected]

        ``The [farm subsidy] payments are very concentrated in 
        the hands of a narrow slice of agriculture. And it's 
        important to remember that \2/3\ of the farmers in this 
        country are not on the programs at all.''--Ken Cook, 
        President, Environmental Working Group (EWG), July 2007 
        NPR Interview.

    LISTEN: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=12309276&ps=rs
Real Food Revolution
    Baby, who loves you? The owner of a huge industrialized 
farming operation, or a fourth-generation farmer who 
appreciates your patronage in helping sustain his family 
business? The system needs changing, and I'll write a future 
post about political involvement, but in the meantime, we can 
vote with our dollar, and support food systems that are good 
for our families and our future. How about.

    1. We choose to pay more for real, whole foods, grown 
        sustainably without synthetic chemicals. We frequent 
        local farmer's markets, co-ops and CSAs
        (http://retracingmysteps.blogspot.com/2009/04/eating-
        well-part-one-local-and-organic.html) * for affordable 
        alternatives to supermarket natural food chains.

    2. Whenever possible, we buy from a local provider (http://
        www.localharvest.org/) to keep responsible family farms 
        in business, to reduce cross-country transport 
        emissions and to ensure that our produce, meats and 
        dairy are truly organic, free-range (http://
        www.carltonfarmsnaturalfoods.com/
        carltonfarmsnaturalfoodscgi/coranto/
        viewnews.cgi?id=EElAZAkAAAppAMQhLf),* and grass-fed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The documents referred to are retained in Committee files.

    3. We make sure we know what is in our food. We read 
        ingredients or ask about them (``What kind of sweetener 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        is in your sweet tea?'').

    4. We make home-cooked meals a priority. We learn how to 
        make quick fix meals from scratch, as well as stretch 
        one cooking stint into several meals (check out Food 
        Network's Robin Miller's Quick Fix Meals (http://
        www.foodnetwork.com/quick-fix-meals-with-robin-miller/
        index.html)). We substitute real ingredients for the 
        processed ones in a favorite recipe.

    5. When we eat out, we pay a little more at locally-based 
        eateries that make their food from scratch with fresh, 
        whole ingredients. Look for a future post on local 
        scrumptious meals for less than $10-$15 (http://
        retracingmysteps.blogspot.com/2009/11/yummy-local-eats-
        under-10-15.html).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document referred to is retained in Committee files.

    Take inspiration from Georgia Organics' 2010 conference 
keynote speaker, Slow Food (http://www.slowfood.com/) nonprofit 
organization founder Carlo Petrini of Piedmont, Italy. Petrini 
founded Slow Food in 1989 to ``counteract fast food and fast 
life, the disappearance of local food traditions and people's 
dwindling interest in the food they eat. We consider ourselves 
co-producers, because by being informed about our food 
production and making choices in support of good, clean and 
fair food, we become a part of the process.''
    The time, energy and money we spend to eat well is worth 
our families' health and future.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Gillian Renault, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Gillian Renault.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Communications Consultant.
    Comment: For the health of all Americans, I am a supporter 
of quality, organic food and sustainable farming practices. A 
strong food bill which supports local farmers, no use of 
pesticides, subsidies for fruits and vegetables instead of 
grains, and a firm stance against GMO's and all companies 
attempting to infiltrate our precious food supply with this 
dangerous, short-sighted technology is necessary for the health 
of our country. This type of policy will also cut healthcare 
costs which are spiraling out of control.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Charlotte Resej, Lewisburg, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Charlotte Resej.
    City, State: Lewisburg, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Former Chemist, Stay At Home Mom.
    Comment: I have heard very negative things about the farm 
bill helping major ag companies a lot more than it helps the 
individual farmer. I think that farming would be a much more 
fulfilling life for future farmers if they weren't just slaves 
to ADM or ConAgra growing what they are told and blindly using 
their chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Could we not give 
incentives for people to run their farms in sustainable manners 
which would be better for the people they are providing food to 
and the environment that surrounds them. SMALL FARMERS should 
get the same concern that SMALL Businesses get with 
politicians.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ben Rettele, Fairview, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Ben Rettele.
    City, State: Fairview, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: We use the mapping service daily, and really could 
use the farm numbers, because farmers know them and communicate 
easily with them.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Linda Rex, Boynton Beach, FL

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Linda Rex.
    City, State: Boynton Beach, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Grandmother who eats.
    Comment: I hope and pray that you will finally take our tax 
dollars away from the industrial farmers who are ruining our 
food supply and our environment with their INDUSTRIAL 
PRACTICES. Please do not subsidize these giant greedy 
INDUSTRIAL ``farmers''. Please give your assistance to the 
smaller, True Farmers, who care for our FOOD SUPPLY and OUR 
ENVIRONMENT. The industrial companies are promoting corn and 
sugar and meat, all things that we know give us fat, diabetic 
and sick citizens. Enough of the processed and dead food. 
Please help the people who want to give us live, nutritious 
vegetables and fruit!!! Our big fat country is counting on you 
to return our food supply to real food. Thank you!

Linda Rex, 
Boynton Beach, FL.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Julie Reynolds, Leasburg, NC

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Julie Reynolds.
    City, State: Leasburg, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small Business Owner.
    Comment: It is imperative that the 2012 Farm Bill invest in 
organic farming in a huge way. Organic farming is one of the 
fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture due to Americans 
lost faith and trust in big corporate agriculture as it is 
tainted with pesticides, GMO's and as we have found out in the 
past few years is subject to any number of bacteria from run-
off of factory animal farming as well. By investing in organic 
farms through research and extension programs that expand the 
knowledge of organic farming we will help conserve water, 
improve air quality, and build soil quality while providing 
high quality food for our people here as well as abroad. 
Transition programs are needed as well to provide technical 
support to farmers who want to move into the organic sector but 
do not know how. Crop Insurance programs that work for organic 
farmers and reimburse them for any losses are needed as well 
that are based on organic value not conventional. New research 
that has come out from prestigious Universities like Duke, 
Princeton, and Berkeley all point to the benefits of eating 
organic food for our health as well as environmental benefits. 
It is most urgent that you incorporate into the new farm bill 
all of these programs to keep American agriculture strong, 
vibrant and healthy.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Melanie Richards, Gainesville, FL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Melanie Richards.
    City, State: Gainesville, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graphic Designer.
    Comment: It is my hope that the Committee would focus on 
subsidies to a diverse range of crops, including vegetables and 
fruits that would be integral in supplying a healthy, 
affordable diet to our families and schools. Thank you for 
serving the American people, and I hope that you create better 
access to fresh produce for all our citizens.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Mark Richey, Eagle, ID

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Mark Richey.
    City, State: Eagle, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Appraisers and other professionals need full 
access to the NRCS information. Access varies substantially 
within our state from County to County as some of the agents 
feel their information is proprietary. I have enjoyed using 
your service so I didn't ever have to go in to a County office 
again and beg for an aerial photograph because I didn't have 
the proper request form.
                                ------                                


               Comments of Nessa Richman, Takoma Park, MD

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Nessa Richman.
    City, State: Takoma Park, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consultant.
    Comment:

Ref: 2012 Farm Bill

    Please find below six recommendations for the 2011-2012 
Farm Bill.

    (1) USDA/FNS--Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program. 
        Restore funding to the initial $25 million annually in 
        mandatory funding that the House of Representatives 
        passed in the 2008 Farm Bill and the Senate cut back to 
        $20 million. This very popular program is currently 
        benefiting 18,000 farmers and 840,000 low income 
        seniors. With restoration of funding to the 2008 
        initial House level of $25 million for vulnerable 
        seniors, nearly 1 million seniors and 20,000 small 
        farmers would benefit.

    (2) USDA/Rural Development. Community Facilities Grants--
        Provide authority under the Community Facilities Grant 
        program for consistent and easy online access to pre-
        applications to State Rural Development Offices for an 
        early assessment and if qualified under simplified 
        criteria, indicate that applicants can submit a full 
        package. This early assessment would save considerable 
        time and effort by hard pressed rural non profits in 
        submitting the extensive paperwork required for these 
        grants.

    (3) USDA/AMS--Federal State Market Improvement Program 
        (FSMIP). The upcoming Farm Bill could explore 
        revitalizing the ongoing State implemented FSMIP 
        program by allocating 30% of the funding authorization 
        for projects within applicant states that connect new 
        markets with local low-income population food access 
        and affordability.

    (4) USDA/NIFA--Increase the mandatory authorization for the 
        very popular Community Food Projects to $10 million 
        annually.

    (5) USDA/FNS--EBT Wireless Capability at Farmers Markets. 
        Provide cost free access (machines and transaction 
        costs) for farmers markets to utilize wireless EBT 
        technology at farmers markets similar to the cost free 
        access that hard wired retail stores currently have 
        under the statues.

    (6) USDA/AFRI Re-direct a portion of AFRI funds to social 
        research projects addressing intersection of issues 
        related to: food deserts, obesity, low income 
        populations and local and regional food systems. This 
        research would examine the impact of development of 
        local/regional food systems on low income populations.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Nessa Richman.
    City, State: Takoma Park, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consultant.
    Comment:

    Dear Committee Members:

Ref: Farm Bill 2011/2012 Options--Farmers Markets as Healthy 
Food Hubs

    Please find below a recommendation for the 2011-2012 Farm 
Bill.
    Through investing in the Specialty Crops Block Grant 
Program and the SNAP program, the 40,000 farmers selling at 
farmers markets, roadside stands and CSA's could further expand 
their revenue and also provide healthy, local fresh fruits and 
vegetables to SNAP and WIC clients. These farmers would be 
recognized as ``healthy food hubs'' in rural and urban 
underserved neighborhoods.
    Currently, a few pilot programs are underway in several 
states (California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) 
fostered by foundations and health care groups to provide 
``nutrition incentives'' to SNAP clients to shop at farmers 
markets. Some very modest funding from their state's 
``specialty crop'' programs are allocated to encourage SNAP 
clients to use their EBT cards at farmers markets for local 
fruits and vegetables. Foundations in a few cases are providing 
funding for double vouchers to provide ``nutrition incentives'' 
to further encourage SNAP clients.
    An increase of Specialty Crop Funding from $55 million to 
$150 million annually, with $50 million annually allocated to 
the states to promote use of SNAP and WIC at farmers markets, 
roadside stands and CSA's could leverage an estimated $500 
million annually in additional specialty crop producers revenue 
while improving diets and reducing health care costs for SNAP 
and WIC clients.
    With ongoing pilot programs in several states to measure 
the impact of additional fruit and vegetable consumption on 
SNAP and WIC clients, reduction in blood pressure, weight and 
improved cholesterol and BMI's will likely reduce health care 
costs for the 30% of the population with weight caused health 
issues. These savings will receive a CBO score and a portion of 
those savings allocated to the $95 million increase in 
specialty crop funding, bringing the total to $150 million, 
with $100 million for state specialty crop programs and $50 
million for promoting nutrition incentives at farmers markets, 
roadside stands and CSA's.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Lynn E. Rickard, Bakersfield, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Lynn E. Rickard.
    City, State: Bakersfield, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment:

    Dear Chairman Peterson and Committee Members:

    I am a real estate appraiser based in Bakersfield, 
California who specializes in valuing farm and ranch 
properties. I am writing to express concerns with Section 1619 
of the current Farm Bill in the hopes that if a solution to the 
issues presented by this Section cannot be worked out within 
the framework of the current Farm Bill a resolution can be 
reached in the upcoming Farm Bill.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill contains language that 
restricts access to geospatial data known as Common Land Units 
(CLU) that prior to this were available from the Farm Service 
Agency. As appraisers of rural properties, we have found this 
to be a cause for concern and time delays since its inception 
as well as a threat to the overall accuracy of appraised values 
due to the lack of access to this information in many cases.
    We as rural appraisers understand that Section 1619 allows 
for release of the information that we need to complete 
accurate appraisals given the consent of owners or operators 
through a release of information form. This requires the 
operator and owner to physically travel to the county office to 
obtain this information. It can then be shared with others. 
When we are working directly with the owner or operator, this 
is not overly cumbersome, but is a cause for time delays if the 
operator cannot immediately obtain this information. However, 
for the most part on a subject property, we have a cooperative 
customer whom we are working with. The major concerns, delays 
and lack of information typically involve the collection of 
comparable sales data.
    Farm specific geospatial information is widely used by 
professional appraisers. We know this is required information 
sought after by prospective buyers. These factors all have 
impact on value. Boundaries, yields, soils, topographic 
information, and details of any enrolled government program on 
the property are necessary for the proper analysis of not just 
the subject of the appraisal but all comparable sales used 
within the appraisal. In order to provide accurate comparable 
sales information farm specific data is needed for all recent 
transactions in order to provide an accurate reflection of 
market value.
    For proper analysis, the appraiser must be able to collect 
information on comparable farm sales from the area. It is not 
realistic for appraisers to go to recent buyers and sellers and 
expect to get access to their farm information via a consent 
for release form. Most typically the buyer and seller are not 
clients or acquaintances of the appraiser and therefore 
obtaining permission for access to this information is 
difficult, if not impossible, to say nothing of the time 
constraints. However, this information is market based evidence 
of comparable values for the area. If we cannot gain access to 
this information, or only limited information, our analysis 
could be faulty and impact another, buyer, seller and financial 
institution. Farmland appraisals for real estate transactions 
will suffer in accuracy if this information cannot be obtained. 
We note that the information that we seek is specific to the 
land and not operator specific information.
    The USDA-FSA recognizes the importance of this information 
to complete reliable farm appraisals. If we complete contract 
appraisal work for the USDA they allow us access to all of this 
information as they know it needs to be considered in both the 
subject property as well as the comparable sales. This is an 
exclusion that was written into Section 1619 but is only 
allowed for USDA contract work. We feel that the fact that the 
USDA recognizes this information as critical to proper analysis 
and appraisal technique offers strong support to the need for 
this information for the other users of our appraisal services. 
As currently interpreted, 1619 does not allow this. We believe 
that the information that we need for analysis is not personal 
information but information that is critical to proper analysis 
of sales and value conclusions.
    Appraisal Data Needed:
    The information that is needed includes:

   CLU field boundaries.

   Acres.

   Maps (aerial, soils, topographic) tied to FSA 
        boundaries.

   FSA yield information on the property.

   Whether the property is enrolled in CRP, WRP or 
        another easement or rental agreement or federal program 
        and the specifics of the program on the property.

    This information is not available anywhere else. We cannot 
seek this out in county courthouses when we are searching deed 
transactions. It is information that is only available from 
FSA.
    We are aware of the confidential nature of the information 
contained in the CLU data. We respect the confidentiality and 
only need access to the limited information listed above. We 
are professionals that serve the public, and we are bound by 
strict confidentiality requirements contained in the Uniform 
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which is the law 
in all 50 states. We have a need to know this information for 
the proper analysis and valuation of rural property in order to 
carry out our professional duties, and we would only be using 
this information to carry out our professional duties. We are 
not asking that this information be made available to the 
public, but rather be made available only to professional, 
certified real estate appraisers.
    As professional appraisers we would be using this 
information to carry out our profession while providing a 
service to prospective buyers, sellers, lenders and investors. 
Our accuracy is vital to the safety and soundness of all 
parties involved. We specifically note that the operator's name 
is not in our list of necessary information.
    In a time when the safety and soundness of lending 
institutions is of critical concern to all we are very 
concerned that, without access to the key attributes that 
affect value, analysis and resulting values could be faulty and 
lead to a safety and soundness dilemma for agricultural lending 
and agriculture as a whole. In this case we believe safety and 
soundness far outweighs any minor privacy intrusion.
    Our recommendation: Allow professional real estate 
appraisers (only State Certified General Real Estate 
Appraisers) access to this FSA data without the cumbersome and 
time consuming requirements of the consent for release request. 
We, the members of the American Society of Farm Managers and 
Rural Appraisers (ASFMRA), have previously asked for a 
technical correction to the current Farm Bill in order to 
rectify this problem. If this is not possible, we strongly urge 
that this be corrected for the upcoming Farm Bill.
    I thank you for your time and consideration with respect to 
this issue.
            Yours truly,

Lynn E. Rickard, A.R.A., M.R.I.C.S.
Bakersfield, CA.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Pam Rickard, Pismo Beach, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 25, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Pam Rickard.
    City, State: Pismo Beach, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban 
farms across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear 
benefits: CUTTING PESTICIDE AND FERTILIZER USE that fouls our 
water and endangers our health, DESTROYS SOIL PRODUCTIVITY, 
while increasing economic development opportunities. For the 
2012 Farm Bill, please:

   Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good 
        they do rather than for the amount of crops they 
        produce.

    (Instead of subsidizing the beef/meat and corn industries . 
. . I don't eat these things and don't want to pay for them.)

   Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more 
        kinds of crops), adding carbon in their soil, and 
        putting perennial crops (such as hay and pasture) in 
        their fields.

   Protect income for farmers who raise organic food 
        crops that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA 
        food pyramid, so that we get better food and fewer 
        junk-food ingredients.

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT WORK!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Karen Rida, Worthington, MA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Karen Rida.
    City, State: Worthington, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: We as a country need to do something for the 
American Farmer who is making less money than was made 30 years 
ago. I don't care what the size of the farm is, farmers are 
farmers because it is in their blood. The long hours, and seven 
days a week doesn't matter, but they should at least be able to 
supply a decent income to raise their families. We do 
appreciate all the grants and other incentives you have given, 
I am sure some farmers have not taken advantage of some 
incentives, sometimes pride and their own self worth is more 
important than taking money from different opportunities. I 
hope we can turn this around like we have done for other issues 
in this country during the recession. Please treat farmers who 
supply food like a bank. It sorts, they don't supply money but 
food is just as important. Thank you for your time and 
consideration in helping the agriculture of our country.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jessica Ridgeway, Aptos, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Jessica Ridgeway.
    City, State: Aptos, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Organic Farm Education Director.
    Comment: Organic, local, sustainable and family farming 
need to be priorities on the 2012 Farm Bill. We must strengthen 
the health and wealth of our communities, by improving our 
local, environmentally friendly food systems.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Francis Riedell, Wall Lake, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Francis Riedell.
    City, State: Wall Lake, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Fertilizer, Chemical & Seed Salesman.
    Comment: We use the FSA Field maps everyday in our 
operation, for our operators it is to the upmost importance to 
make sure that our operators are in the right field and also 
for documentation, and for our farmer it makes them feel a lot 
more at ease knowing that can map out the fields and be correct 
on the acres and for our aerial operators it is a must for them 
with there Satloc systems we can not afford to be in the wrong 
field. We cover a 40 mile radius so it is very important that 
we be able to use the FSA Field Maps in all aspect of our 
operation.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Derrick Riley, Lee's Summit, MO

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Derrick Riley.
    City, State: Lee's Summit, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Architecture Student.
    Comment: We need a complete overhaul of our food subsidy 
system if we want to have healthy future generations.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Chad Ringenberg, Grand Forks, ND

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Chad Ringenberg.
    City, State: Grand Forks, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Web Application Developer.
    Comment: CLU data has been publicly available via FOIA 
since 2004 at the following USDA website http://
datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov. The 2008 Farm Bill included section 
1619 which removed public access to CLU data. The CLU data made 
available on the Data Gateway contained only the field boundary 
and acres. No personally identifiable information or other 
information like CRP, wetlands, highly erodible, etc was in the 
CLU data. It clearly fit within the FOIA guidelines. Our 
business uses the CLU data regularly to help farmers 
communicate with aerial applicators, ground applicators, rural 
appraisers, farm managers, real estate, crop insurance and 
others allowing them to be more efficient and accurate and to 
help meet compliance requirements.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Anne Ritchings, Placitas, NM

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Anne Ritchings.
    City, State: Placitas, NM.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Clergy.
    Comment:

   We must make sure that farmers and ranchers have a 
        full suite of conservation programs with adequate 
        funding so that they can be the best stewards of our 
        nation's natural resources. Federal farm policy should 
        also support homegrown renewable energy like wind, 
        solar, and biomass.

   A strategic base of our agricultural land is 
        absolutely essential to our long-term ability to 
        produce and supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber 
        and energy with the fewest inputs. Federal farm policy 
        must enhance farm and ranch land protection to 
        adequately address the threat to our strategic 
        agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
        and fragmentation.

   It's critical to increase the production of, and 
        access to local and healthy food while helping farmers 
        remain profitable. Farm and food policy should be 
        linked more strongly with national health and nutrition 
        goals. Federal government programs should promote 
        healthier diets and meet increased demand for specialty 
        crops and fresh, locally grown food by expanding 
        access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
        supporting farmers markets.

   We need to build upon the success of the 2008 Farm 
        Bill in creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Robert Rizzuto, Brooklyn, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Robert Rizzuto.
    City, State: Brooklyn, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Social Work.
    Comment: As someone on a fixed income I am presented with 
this decision when buying grocery's: to buy the ingredients for 
two salads it will cost $7.66, that's just for the salad. I try 
and buy healthy foods, and my weekly grocery bill is between 
$120-$150, but if I ate every meal at McDonalds my weekly 
expense for food would be $60. I am single, and for some I 
suppose my income is middle-class I make $40,000 annually, but 
I am still living pay check to pay check with virtually no 
savings. I wonder how a single mother could possibly feed her 
children healthy food? I know from experience that my own 
single mother was faced with paying the electric bill or buying 
groceries. I grew up eating a lot of cold cuts in the dark!
    Please consider the health of this nation, the children of 
this nation, and the cost of health care when crafting the next 
farm bill.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ed Roach, Plainfield, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Ed Roach.
    City, State: Plainfield, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: I recognize that we are in a period where budget 
constraints dictate policy. I would rather forgo direct 
payments and subsidize revenue assurance with the funding. Most 
of the time it would reduce costs to the government. I am also 
an appraiser. The lack of information concerning government 
payments and programs is leading to less effective appraisals. 
This is important as federally insured institutions are lending 
on less than the best information. I would also like online 
data such as aerial photos updated. I think that I understand 
the reasons for 1619 being enacted. I think it is only a plus 
for a limited number of producers. It is a negative for 
appraisers, most producers and the public.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Patti Robinson, Thomaston, GA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Patti Robinson.
    City, State: Thomaston, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farmers Market and Multiple Georgia Farm CSA.
    Comment: We are a dependant society if we must ship a 
tomato across the country or state to serve sliced tomatoes at 
the family dinner table or in lunch boxes.
    Small Family Farms that provide local produce for local 
residents increase independence in our State and County.
    Our local farmers market has a Multiple Farm CSA program 
and we are experiencing growing demand for affordable locally 
grown produce with a limited supply of small family farmers.
    Please put local family farmers and the systems that 
support their efforts as top priority for a healthy and strong 
society.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Harmony Rode, LaMoure, ND

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Harmony Rode.
    City, State: LaMoure, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: County Tax Assessor.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access of the Common Land 
Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway. It would make my job 
(as a County Tax Assessor) a lot easier. Thanks!
                                ------                                


              Comment of Parthena Rodriguez, Sebastian, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Parthena Rodriguez.
    City, State: Sebastian, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: No genetically modified foods and more organic.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Lori Rogers, Ossian, IN

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Lori Rogers.
    City, State: Ossian, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Occupation: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

    Honorable Members of the House Committee on Agriculture,

    I have grave concerns about the movement of the Animal 
Rights groups lobbying for increased laws pertaining to the 
rearing of Livestock. I am fully aware that there are items of 
concern and room for improvements. The solution is not more 
government regulation, but the enforcement of already existing 
laws. With the economy the way it is and grocery prices on the 
increase. I believe that enacting laws impose changes that will 
increase production costs will only result in increased costs 
for consumers and federal food programs. As an example, the 
proposal that all government provided food stuffs must come 
from farms that raise animals humanely. At the moment there are 
not enough farms to provide this, and the cost of 
implementation may drive some producers out of Ag all together. 
I also oppose the fact that most those who are behind this have 
no working knowledge of livestock. For instance, I know what an 
Auto Mechanic does, but there is no way I could begin to tell 
him what tools to use or the best way to make a repair. I do 
not know how many of the Members are aware of the situation in 
Ohio. Last year the State of Ohio voted to elect a Livestock 
Advisory Board. It was done to try and circumvent the attempts 
of The Humane Society of the United States from succeeding in 
their attempts to railroad the state laws. Now, HSUS has formed 
Ohioans for Humane Farms and is gathering signatures on 
petitions to make an amendment to the state constitution for 
those same laws. When is enough, enough. They HSUS, and other 
groups are currently going state by state and lobbying for 
legislation. They are suppose to be a nonprofit, whose lobbying 
practices are limited by law. Yet they have paid Lobbyist in 
every state. I and many others, believe their end goals are not 
for humane practices, but to force American consumers into 
Veganism. It is a simple strategy, drive the production cost so 
high, only the very rich can afford to buy it or produce it.
    Which will phase out Animal Agriculture a little at a time. 
The CEO of the Wayne Pacelle, has made the following 
statements:

        ``One generation and out. We have no problem with the 
        extinction of domestic animals.''

        Wayne Pacelle, quoted in Animal People, May, 1993.

        ``We would be foolish and silly not to unite with 
        people in the public health sector, the environmental 
        community, [and] unions, to try to challenge corporate 
        agriculture.''

        Wayne Pacelle, at the Animal Rights 2002 Convention, 
        July 1, 2002.

        http://placeropolis.com/detail/110832.html

    Thank you for your time,
            Respectfully,

Lori Rogers.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Sheilah Rogers, Redwood Valley, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Sheilah Rogers.
    City, State: Redwood Valley, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Business Consultant.
    Comment: Invest in rural economies by providing capital and 
technical assistance to rebuild local and regional food 
systems. This is a strategy that will increase economic 
prosperity and improve public health in rural communities.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Amanda Roggenbuck, Unionville, MI

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Amanda Roggenbuck.
    City, State: Unionville, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Attorney and County Commissioner.
    Comment: Please strengthen your commitment to USDA Rural 
Development programs in the next farm bill, especially key 
infrastructure and business development programs that support 
the agricultural sector and the retention and attraction of new 
businesses. USDA Rural Development's programs for water/
wastewater infrastructure, community facilities, broadband and 
business development are key ingredients for county economic 
development efforts.
    Please recognize that youth are the future of agriculture 
and farm programs must recognize that they play a vital role in 
sustaining American agriculture and rural communities. New 
programs and updates to old programs are needed so that it is 
possible for young and beginning farmers to survive and thrive 
in the modern agricultural economy.
    Coming from and representing a rural community allows me to 
see both the established generations of farmers and new 
farmers, all of which are working to preserve their way of life 
but also support their families and our communities.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Daniel Rohrer, Verdigre, NE

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Daniel Rohrer.
    City, State: Verdigre, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager & RE Broker.
    Comment: Access to the CLU information regarding field 
boundaries is vital to my business. I use the information on a 
daily basis during visits with producers assisting them with 
crop insurance, farm management, and real estate marketing. 
Public access to this data needs to be restored in the next 
farm bill.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Leslie Roos, Grand Forks, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Leslie Roos.
    City, State: Grand Forks, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I respectfully, but strongly, encourage 
reinstatement of public access to CLU data and `rescinding' 
Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill. As a former producer, a 
current farm land owner, and with 23 years of service to ag 
producers and their families and lenders as a certified real 
estate appraiser, I observe on an almost-daily basis the 
inefficiencies and corresponding negative impacts this section 
of the current farm bill has created, resulting in greater 
costs for businesses supporting agriculture, and ultimately, 
for farm families and taxpayers. Prior to the 2008 Farm Bill, 
this information had been available to the public for years, to 
no one's objection. As it is paid for by the taxpaying public, 
relied on regularly by same, and involves no private 
information, it needs to be readily available to the public. 
Thank you.
                                ------                                


                Comment of John Rosengren, Sterling, IL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: John Rosengren.
    City, State: Sterling, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Broker (Land).
    Comment: Please reinstate public access of the Common Land 
Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway because CLU data is 
used by producers and their wide range of support businesses 
including: appraisers, crop insurers, financial service 
providers, farm managers, irrigation and tiling installers, and 
aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure applicators for 
accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Not providing this vital information creates unnecessary 
inefficiencies and negatively impacts agricultural 
professionals, producers, landowners, and others who utilize 
that data in their professions on a regular basis.
    Thank you for your consideration.

John Rosengren,
Broker/Owner,
RE/MAX Sauk Valley,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Debbie Rose-Walter, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Debbie Rose-Walter.
    State: NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: It should be made easier for organic farmers to 
receive grants and financial aid that they may need. It should 
also be easier for farmers that want to start an organic farm 
or at least start farming the land with the idea of becoming 
organic or at least taking all the steps that an organic farmer 
would take. The United States is a very ill country. People 
need and want healthy food. Giant CAFO's are taking away the 
land and polluting the earth. The United Nations has a report 
that states that methane gas from these factory farms is adding 
more to climate change than cars are. Isn't it time for people 
to revamp their ideas and become productive in a way that 
benefits everyone so we all can live healthy and comfortable 
ways? Change may seem hard, but if it benefits everyone, isn't 
that a good thing?
                                ------                                


                     Comment of Rose Ross, Almo, KY

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Rose Ross.
    City, State: Almo, KY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill creates 
unnecessary inefficiencies and negatively impacts agricultural 
professionals, producers, landowners, and others who utilize 
that data in their professions on a regular basis. My role as a 
Farm Appraiser is vital to the lending process, and the 
unavailability of CLU data hinders the development of accurate 
farm appraisal reports, which can negatively impact the 
borrower (land owner), the lending institutions, and even the 
federal government (as guarantor of federally backed loans).
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate. Please consider repeal of Section 
1619 to allow access to vital information concerning many in 
the sector of the agricultural production industry in this 
country.
            Sincerely,

Rose Ann Radford Ross,
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser,
Kentucky, Tennessee.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jerry Rossiter, Atwater, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Jerry Rossiter.
    City, State: Atwater, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist & Irrigation Engineer.
    Comment: I believe with over 52 percent of California's 
agriculture water being used for gravity flow surface flood 
systems is no longer sustainable, since over 50% of the water 
is wasted. Therefore California's farmers and ranchers must 
CHANGE ASAP to Mechanized Overhead Irrigation and Micro/drip 
sub-surface irrigation systems which provide proven 90% to 95% 
uniformity and efficient water applications, while effectively 
conserving California's valuable waters similar to the rest of 
America and the World. Today there are over 3,000,000 overhead 
irrigation systems working worldwide on 30 million acres of 
irrigated land (over 60,000 in Nebraska alone) and only a few 
hundred working in California. For Proof read the amazing 
Publication Rainmakers, ``A Photographic Story of Center 
Pivots, from The Groundwater Foundation,'' Lincoln Nebraska 
2005. Dr. William E. Splinter, former chair of the University 
of Nebraska Department of Agriculture Engineering, said it well 
when he described center pivots as the ``most significant 
mechanical innovation since the replacement of draft animals by 
the TRACTOR''.
    Jerry Rossiter, (73 years of age) Controlled Irrigation 
Systems Company, founded in 1981.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Russ Rossman, Jr., State College, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 28, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Russ Rossman, Jr.
    City, State: State College, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: Delete subsidies to corporations. Corporations 
have sufficient sources of capital to rely upon. Individual 
farmers do not.
                                ------                                


                   Comments of Todd Roth, Holcomb, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 9:36 p.m.
    Name: Todd Roth.
    City, State: Holcomb, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: 2012 Farm Bill. Change the name. Agriculture makes 
up only 20% of The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. 
Anti-farming sentiment from activist organizations would 
subside with a simple name change. Grow the economy out of the 
recession with agriculture. Policing the world with food no 
longer works.

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Todd Roth.
    City, State: Holcomb, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Consider a set-aside program again like in the 
previous food bills. With the huge global stocks and CRP coming 
back into production prices will continue to tank. (By the way 
who's idea was it to put CRP back to production?). The banking 
crisis wont compare to the farm crisis if prices continue to 
fall. Price per bushel has once again fallen below cost of 
production. Everyone we do business with that control our 
inputs are doing very well, and I can't afford to take my kids 
on vacation. Kind of ironic when I control the food supply.

Todd Roth,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Julie Roy, Laingsburg, MI

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Julie Roy.
    City, State: Laingsburg, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: As teacher, parent and consumer, I am deeply 
concerned about the upcoming ag bill. It is imperative that we 
tighten the use of organic standards, restrict the funding of 
GMO foods and clean up our food supply. I am especially 
concerned that the standards required of school districts are 
completely off base nutritionally. We need a system that no 
longer relies on fossil fuels, pesticides and processed foods.
    I would especially like to see programs like The Center for 
Economic Security out of Muskegon, Michigan be a model for farm 
to school food programs. Most states can provide much of the 
food for schools and other institutions. The subsides should be 
given to farms that promote responsible, diverse, farming. Not 
monocultures that are depleting and poisoning our food supply.
    In Michigan especially, we have many farmers that are 
becoming active in food policy that promotes healthy fresh, 
affordable food for all. It is unacceptable that we find candy 
machines and processed chicken substitute foods fed to the 
future of this country. We must get behind these farm to school 
programs as well as community gardens, land trusts and so many 
great programs sprouting up and flourishing in Michigan and 
across the country.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jarad Royer, Industry, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Jarad Royer.
    City, State: Industry, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: I am a producer as well as an agriculture real 
estate appraiser and would look to comment on the availability 
of FSA field boundaries being public. As a producer I see 
nothing wrong with having my field boundaries available as they 
could be manually calculated and be within a few acres anyway. 
As an ag appraiser I need these FSA boundaries for accurate 
appraisals. I can manually calculate what I see for field 
boundaries any ways through other programs, but it would be 
much easier to have the data available. This information is not 
giving any program payments or giving anything that would be 
detrimental to producers, but makes information easier for 
custom applicators, crop insurance salesmen and real estate 
appraisers. I can understand why producers would not want 
payments as public record, but there is no reason not to have 
this info available as it would be beneficial to appraisers and 
custom applicators, which are the people behind the scenes. In 
the end it helps producers with quality appraisals and accurate 
custom application.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Nana Royer, St. Augustine, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Nana Royer.
    City, State: St. Augustine, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Registered Nurse.
    Comment: We need to end the subsidies to crops like corn. 
Current subsidies are borne by the taxpayers to finance an 
overabundance of cheap foods which contribute to the obesity 
epidemic. It costs less to buy a big Mac, fries, and a coke 
(mostly corn), than to buy a large head of broccoli. I prefer 
to subsidize the farmers that grow sustainable vegetable and 
nut crops, and fruits. Present subsides do more harm than good.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Greg Ruddell, Meridian, ID

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Greg Ruddell.
    City, State: Meridian, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: To accurately value agricultural property for 
almost any purpose, as an appraiser we need to have available 
accurate acreages, field sizes, CRP, wet land and any other 
acreage defined. Without FSA acreages, it is impossible to 
arrive at accurate value conclusions. For comparable sale 
verification, it is a burden and greatly increases the cost to 
client to obtain information from each seller and/or buyer. 
Appraiser need the basic information to complete the appraisal 
assignment and to be in compliance with the Uniform Standards 
of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), federally mandated 
rules for licensed appraisers and required for all federally 
related transactions.
            Thanks,

Greg Ruddell,
Certified General Appraiser,
Idaho/Oregon.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Peter Ruddock, Palo Alto, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Peter Ruddock.
    City, State: Palo Alto, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Software Engineer/Food Advocate.
    Comment: It is time to consider the Farm Bill as a Food 
Bill, one which impacts the health of citizens (consumers) 
throughout our nation, steering their choices by setting the 
prices and availability of food stuffs. We need to think FIRST 
about the food that our citizens need, THEN about how best to 
get them what they need at affordable prices. Yes! we need to 
be concerned about keeping our farmers and producers in 
business, but only through the mechanism of supporting a 
healthy populace, not for its own sake. Producing low quality 
or bad food actually costs the country MORE in secondary costs 
to our health and the environment. When creating the new Farm 
Bill, think about the ENTIRE food system in this great country 
of ours and how to make it stronger and more resilient.

Peter Ruddock,
Slow Food South Bay--Chapter Chair.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Russell Ruderman, Keaau, HI

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Russell Ruderman.
    City, State: Keaau, HI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please support organic agriculture in the Farm 
Bill. Organic is the fastest growing agriculture segment, and 
organic farmers are the future in terms of sustainability and 
diversified ag.
    Mahalo.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kevin Rugaard, Creston, IA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Kevin Rugaard.
    City, State: Creston, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: I am writing about the CLU data on the FSA field 
information. This data is very useful in making farm plans with 
our producers. The more current the data the more accurate the 
plans and applications. These aerial maps are crucial in 
helping our applicators get to the correct field and having the 
most current acreages helps greatly in batching the correct 
amount of products.
    Thank you for your consideration.

Kevin Rugaard, C.C.A.,
Agronomy Department Manager,
United Farmers Mercantile Cooperative,
Red Oak IA.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Joseph Rutkowski, Dallas, TX

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Joseph Rutkowski.
    City, State: Dallas, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Post-Doctoral Fellow.
    Comment: I would like to see the subsidization of bulk 
crops, notably corn and soybeans, reduced in favor of 
encouraging greater crop diversity. Subsidies for bulk crops 
only provide for cheap raw materials for food manufacturers who 
are by no means obligated to pass those savings on the 
consumer. If subsidies were more equivalently rewarded for 
greater crop diversity, there is at least potential for a 
greater variety of nutritious vegetables, fruits, and staple 
crops to be more affordable for lower class individuals whom 
need them most. The goals should be low cost, nutritious food, 
not just cheap anything, if there is a goal at all to 
subsidies. Or eliminate them altogether.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Darren Ryals, Palmyra, MO

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Darren Ryals.
    City, State: Palmyra, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As an appraiser, limiting access to the CLU data 
limits the accuracy of the data available to perform my job. 
Considering what has happened the past few years, I think that 
more rather than less information should be available.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Roger Ryals, Unionville, MO

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Roger Ryals.
    City, State: Unionville, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: New farm bill; Information needs to be available 
to appraisers as to aerial photographs, field borders, field 
acres to assist in completing an appraisal for lending for a 
government agency, or other federally regulated lender. This 
information is needed not only for the property being 
appraised, but also for the comparable sales. I understand that 
other private information should not be available, except with 
written authorization from the land owner. The bill could 
provide that an appraiser provide a copy of his/her Appraiser 
Certification. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Darcy Ryan, Nipomo, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 25, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Darcy Ryan.
    City, State: Nipomo, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother/Business Owner.
    Comment: I am highly against GMO food and have joined a 
group against Monsanto. We already have high levels of wheat 
allergies, etc. I'd be afraid to find out what happens next! 
This was the best comment on the subject I could find:

        ``Considering that wheat is one of the primary crops 
        which is reserved for human consumption I have strong 
        resistance to the notion of having Monsanto have their 
        grimy hands in the operation of seed selection and 
        research at State Universities.

        This company has shown time and again that their 
        promises never bear fruit. And in fact, much of their 
        miracle science has created short-term gains and long-
        term complications.

        Let's rethink the use of GMOs in particular. More needs 
        to be done in regards to long term testing of effects 
        on human and animal health before we give over the 
        reigns completely to these soulless corporations who do 
        anything to turn a dime.''

    Please do not allow GMO crops!! Thank you for your time!
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Hope Ryan, Boise, ID

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 31, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Hope Ryan.
    City, State: Boise, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Homemaker.
    Comment: Please include support for small farms and organic 
agriculture in this farm bill. Please remove subsidies for 
farming to encourage farmers to grow food or non-food (feed) 
crops that the country needs--not what they are paid to grow/
not grow. Thank you for caring about America's food and 
America's children.
    We, like many Americans, grow an extensive garden and have 
eliminated a lot of our water-thirsty sod in lieu of food 
plants (berries, herbs) and garden crops. We use zero 
pesticides and our food is delicious! Of course, we garden, not 
farm, but the absence of chemistry from GMO's and pesticides/
herbicides AND the inclusion of plant diversity makes not just 
my family healthy, but my neighborhood and the neighboring 
school & park.

H.W.R.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Wendy Ryan, Silver Spring, MD

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 3:36 p.m.
    Name: Wendy Ryan.
    City, State: Silver Spring, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Project Manager--Consultant.
    Comment: I would like to see more transparency in our food 
system. Although the ability to purchase strawberries year-
round might be a technological marvel, the flavor and nutrition 
of most produce and butchered meats is in question. I believe 
that programs such as the USDA's ``Know Your Farmer'' are well-
meaning and intend to re-teach consumers via farmer's markets 
and their purchasing relationships about the seasonality of 
local agriculture. I would hope that the next farm bill would 
focus on sustainable farming practices and bringing consumers 
closer to the source of their daily nutrition and the 
corresponding impacts on the environment.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ryon Rypkema, Caputa, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Ryon Rypkema.
    City, State: Caputa, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser and Livestock Producer.
    Comment: I am a real estate appraiser as well as a 
livestock producer so I am very familiar with both sides of the 
coin. However, I strongly feel that Section 1619 was not 
property represented when it was added to the Farm Bill. As do 
many of the original supports of the Farm Bill. I feel that 
this is very typical of the actions that occur in government. 
To do a lot of things right and screw it up in the end with a 
unrepresented rider added after gaining the support of many for 
such a bill. I strongly feel that this information should be 
public information. The CLU in no way violates any of the 
privacy issues that the oppositions are claiming. This is a 
very vital source of information within the appraisal process; 
by taking this information away from appraisers it is becoming 
difficult to perform a credible and reliable appraisal report. 
As the many changes to the lending laws have been implemented, 
I feel this is a counterproductive step in the direction that 
the lending regulations are headed. Also at a state level (SD) 
with the taxation and assessment module changing this 
information would provided a credible platform for the state to 
rely on for the production indications. As it stands know the 
state has very little ground to stand on to support their new 
module in land use and production and I feel would be easily 
protested by an experience appraiser in the support of the land 
owner. I feel that the impact of this information was not 
property assessed be for the change was implemented.
                                ------                                


                     Comment of Ray S., Modesto, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Ray S.
    City, State: Modesto, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Spend no tax moneys for nothing until the dept is 
paid off!!!!
                                ------                                


             Comments of JoAnn Saccato, Clearlake Oaks, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: JoAnn Saccato.
    City, State: Clearlake Oaks, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consumer Food Co-op; Farmers' Market; Community 
Gardens; Education.
    Comment: The growing demand for locally grown and organic 
produce is swelling. A shift in priorities for the Farm Bill is 
called for. Opportunities that provide access to fresh, 
affordable, organic produce is a must in Farm Bill efforts. 
Supporting transitioning farmers, small diverse production 
intended for local markets and providing gap funding for 
farmers in this sector is vital, as are efforts to create 
sustainable agriculture models that do not include synthetic 
pesticides and genetically engineered crops.

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: JoAnn Saccato.
    City, State: Clearlake Oaks, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator, Food co-op.
    Comment: I urge you to continue to shift your funding away 
from the top three commodity production into small, 
sustainable, synthetic and GE-free food production! The reasons 
are obvious.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jesse Sadowsky, Dickinson, ND

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: Jesse Sadowsky.
    City, State: Dickinson, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: Please consider increasing the funding level for 
organic farmers and organic agriculture researchers. 
Understanding organic food production systems is just in its 
infancy. Organic agriculture is ecological agriculture; it 
relies on ecology and biology to sustain crops, rather than 
fighting natural patterns of biology and ecology as in 
synthetic farming systems. Investment by the federal government 
in organic agriculture will provide a return now and for future 
generations of Americans. In contrast, short-term gains of 
conventional, synthetic-input agriculture will compromise the 
long-term health stability of our people. We don't need multi-
national corporations controlling our food supply. We can do 
better. We can support community-based agriculture again. We've 
made strides in organic production, let's use the 2012 Farm 
Bill as a stimulus to bring organic to the mainstream.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Timothy Saeter, Fosston, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Timothy Saeter.
    City, State: Fosston, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Spraying/Owner.
    Comment: This mapping is a very good source of precise 
information that saves time, money, and headaches for all that 
have use for it. It would be very inconsiderate to not provide 
anymore updated information to all those businesses that use 
mapping software. Please continue the use of the updates and 
the service, it is very useful for anyone that has anything to 
do with agriculture, farming, etc. 
            Thanks,

Tim Saeter.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Glayol Sahba, M.D., Sacramento, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Glayol Sahba, M.D.
    City, State: Sacramento, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Family Physician, Mother Nutrition Educator.
    Comment: Please STOP subsidizing the ``staple Crops'' which 
are contributing to the Obesity Epidemic: Corn, Wheat and 
genetically Modified Soy!! High Fructose Corn Syrup, used in 
sodas, sweetened cookies, crackers, and just about any food you 
name is killing our population through causing enormous weight 
gain with foods that are so high in their glycemic index. Also, 
wheat, especially processed, with the fiber, germ and all of 
the vitamins removed directly contributes to the obesity 
epidemic due to being very high in the glycemic index. Even 
whole wheat bread is very high in this number which is 
correlated with bringing about increased insulin leading to 
excess fat storage leading to insulin resistance and an endless 
cycle of progressive obesity. Please INSTEAD subsidize locally 
grown fruits and vegetables, preferably organic. If we don't 
take this action, we as a nation will have such huge costs in 
caring for all of the diabetics that these subsidized 
commodities and the corn-fed meats are causing.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Charlotte Sahnow, Eugene, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Charlotte Sahnow.
    City, State: Eugene, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Professor.
    Comment: I strongly urge the House Committee on Agriculture 
to break up Factory Farms that continue to heavily pollute air, 
land & water, to torture farm animals, and destroy riparian 
areas and public lands with impunity.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Rania Salman, Plano, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:06 p.m.
    Name: Rania Salman.
    City, State: Plano, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graduate Student.
    Comment: Another very important opportunity to effect 
positive change in the child nutrition legislative process is 
through ensuring that changes to the Farm Bill that support 
child nutrition are made in 2012. Until June 14, 2010 the U.S. 
House Committee on Agriculture is accepting public suggestions 
as to how to improve the Farm Bill. If Congress were to change 
even a small amount of the World War II era subsidy funding 
which is currently given to large commodity crops such as corn, 
wheat and soy and instead put that funding into smaller scale, 
organic and local agricultural endeavors, the positive effect 
on child nutrition would be enormous. While these subsidies of 
so called ``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they 
were first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Christine Sander, Fairfield, CT

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
    Name: Christine Sander.
    City, State: Fairfield, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher/Mother.
    Comment: As a country fighting soaring obesity rates you 
really need to take a long hard look at the kind of food your 
are subsidizing! It is not rocket science that with grains, 
soybeans and the like being the cheapest foods and the backbone 
of the processed food industry that we place so many Americans 
in harms way. Gone are the days of blaming the weak and 
understanding that making food from scratch in ones kitchen no 
longer fits in the American way of life. I know Agribusiness 
benefits in a huge way and the little farmers are not protected 
under our current farm legislation not to mention how we crush 
other small farmers in third world countries pumping in our 
cheap grains and making these countries unsustainable leaving 
us with permanent outlets for our cheap food. We need change 
and I thought that why I worked so hard in the last election to 
make that happen. Lets see some real bravery in the House and 
lets bring down the farm bill and start supporting the things 
that will make us all healthier and happier Organic VEGGIES and 
FRUIT grown by small local farmers!!!!!
            Sincerely,

Christine Sander.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kirien Sangle, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Kirien Sangle.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Fair prices, fair treatment of farmers! Better 
food quality needed! Consider the health of America's poor!
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Gene Schaaf, Neligh, NE

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 03, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Gene Schaaf.
    City, State: Neligh, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: County Assessor.
    Comment:

    Chairman Peterson,

    The Northeast Nebraska Assessor's Association is requesting 
the ability to use the FSA GIS crop field layer as part of our 
assessment process, therefore, we would need to have access to 
the crop field layer to do this. Thank you for taking our 
request into consideration.

Gene Schaaf,
NE Nebraska Assessor's Association President.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Leah Schaefer, Blue Ash, OH

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Leah Schaefer.
    City, State: Blue Ash, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Supervisor.
    Comment: It's critical to increase the production of, and 
access to local and healthy food while helping farmers remain 
profitable. Farm and food policy should be linked more strongly 
with national health and nutrition goals. Federal government 
programs should promote healthier diets and meet increased 
demand for specialty crops and fresh, locally grown food by 
expanding access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
supporting farmers markets. Locally grown and healthy foods 
don't need to be more expensive than fast and processed foods, 
and consumers need to be educated about the long term effects 
of the junk they eat on a daily basis.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jason Schickedanz, Perryton, TX

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Jason Schickedanz.
    City, State: Perryton, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Bioenergy, Field Crops, Livestock, Specialty Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: When considering the farm bill, there are two 
aspects that are greatly needed--more crop insurance support 
(this is much better than direct payments and disaster 
payments) and CLU information. As a producer and owner of a 
company that works closely with producers (crop dusting), this 
data is vital to efficient and effective agricultural 
production.
    Specifically:

   USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.

            Thank you,

Jason Schickedanz.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Bob Schmitz, Grandin, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Bob Schmitz.
    City, State: Grandin, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock, Other.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Lets support the crop insurance industry. They 
already have a sound mechanism to provide support to the farms 
both small and large. We should quit the ad hoc disaster 
programs and use those millions to fund and improve the crop 
insurance program. Crop insurance is already their to provide a 
safety net during disasters and do it fairly and without all 
the extra red tape and expense that is used to run a disaster 
program. Disaster programs are slow to react with excessive 
costs. The concept of taking money away from the crop insurance 
industry does not make sense. The agents spend a lot of time 
working with the farmers and a lot of it is to help us fill out 
paper work that we need to take to the FSA to complete to get 
disaster payments. These programs typically create more work 
for them without reimbursement. Therefore, lets put additional 
monies into the crop insurance programs to expand the number of 
crops insured, increase coverage levels at an affordable 
premium, and so we can keep the level of service from our local 
agents.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Adam Schneider, Waverly, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Adam Schneider.
    City, State: Waverly, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I use these maps on a daily basis. I am able to 
make very nice and accurate maps if the acres and the aerial 
photos are current. The accuracy of these maps has an affect on 
our business and our customers!
                                ------                                


               Comment of Dwight Scholl, Garden City, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Dwight Scholl.
    City, State: Garden City, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Commercial Applicator, Fertilizer/Ag. Chem. 
Retailer.
    Comment: CLU data needs to be available to the public 
again!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Mark Schonbeck, Floyd, VA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Mark Schonbeck.
    City, State: Floyd, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consultant in Sustainable Agriculture.
    Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments 
on the development and content of the 2012 Farm Bill. I am a 
consultant in sustainable agriculture, and I work with organic 
and sustainable family farmers in Virginia and neighboring 
states. I urge the House Agriculture Committee to consider the 
following points in drafting this important bill.
    First, the 2012 Farm Bill should continue to expand 
emphasis on organic and sustainable farming systems. The 
reasons for prioritizing organic farming in the upcoming Farm 
Bill are many. Consumer demand for organic and locally 
produced, high quality food continues to increase; in fact this 
is one of the few areas of our economy that did not contract 
during the severe recession of 2008-2009, maintaining an annual 
growth rate of 8-10%. Organic farming offers many conservation 
and environmental benefits, including soil, water, and wildlife 
conservation; reduced nutrient and pesticide pollution; 
improved soil quality; greater potential for carbon 
sequestration and reduced greenhouse gas emissions (carbon 
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide); and reduced fossil fuel 
consumed in production. In addition, the higher level of 
diversification inherent to organic production systems can 
promote the economic well being of the farms themselves and 
their surrounding communities, and improve nutrition, community 
food security, and public health. Specific recommendations 
include:

   Increase the proportion of funding for research and 
        extension programs devoted to organic systems to be at 
        least commensurate with the market share of organic 
        foods (about 5% in 2010). Funding should be targeted at 
        priority research needs of organic producers, and at 
        delivering practical information to organic and 
        transitioning farmers.

   Conservation programs should fully recognize and 
        reward organic farmers and ranchers for the resource 
        conservation and quality benefits they deliver, and 
        address the specific needs of organic producers.

   Organic transitions programs under the Conservation, 
        Research and other Titles should deliver effective 
        technical assistance to organic and transitioning 
        growers, as well as financial assistance.

   Crop insurance programs should be reformed to 
        eliminate all discrimination against organically 
        produced crops, and to reimburse crop losses for 
        certified organic farms at the organic market value for 
        the crop.

    Second, the 2012 Farm Bill should provide incentives, and 
technical and financial support for the reintegration of crop 
and livestock agriculture. Over the past 50 years, crop and 
livestock production have become increasingly separated and 
specialized, so that much of our food today is produced either 
on crop farms without any livestock, or in concentrated animal 
feeding operations (CAFOs). This has resulted in multiple 
environmental, economic, and public health problems, including:

   Pollution of waterways with nutrients, and pathogens 
        of humans and wildlife from CAFO manure lagoons and 
        stockpiles.

   An increased need for energy-intensive and 
        potentially polluting synthetic fertilizers for crop 
        production.

   Soil erosion and degradation on farms growing only 
        one or two agronomic crops.

   Increased pest, disease, and weed problems in both 
        crop and livestock production.

   Increased fossil fuel consumption and carbon 
        emissions related to transportation of agricultural 
        inputs, grains, livestock, and consumer-ready food 
        products.

   Reduced profit margins and net returns for both crop 
        and livestock farmers, forcing producers to take on 
        management of large acreages or herds just to support 
        one family; and often resulting in farm bankruptcies.

   Public health costs resulting from reduced 
        nutritional quality of both animal and plant based 
        foods, as well as an increase in virulent foodborne 
        illness pathogens.

    Decentralizing livestock production and reintegrating crop 
and livestock production, with emphasis on appropriate stocking 
rates and management-intensive pasture-based production of 
meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products, can address most 
of the above problems in our current food and agricultural 
system, and offer the following benefits:

   Improved soil fertility and soil quality, resulting 
        from appropriate nutrient recycling via manure.

   Improved soil conservation through permanent or 
        rotational pasture.

   Reduced fertilizer inputs and costs, and reduced 
        nutrient pollution of ground and surface waters.

   Increased carbon sequestration in soil organic 
        matter.

   Greatly reduced health and environmental hazards 
        when manure is recycled to the land at environmentally 
        sound rates, rather than concentrated in tremendous 
        excess as occurs in today's CAFOs.

   Improved food quality and food safety.

   Improved animal health, reduced need for antibiotics 
        and other medications.

   Enhances farm and rural prosperity through 
        diversification of farm enterprises.

    Integrated farming systems include both those that market 
both animal (meat, milk, eggs, etc.) and crop based products 
(vegetables, fruits, grains, pulses, etc.), and those in which 
the cropland mainly provides pasture, hay and other fodder for 
livestock. The 2012 Farm Bill can promote and support this 
necessary reintegration in several ways. Research, education, 
and extension programs in the Agriculture and Food Research 
Initiative (AFRI) and throughout programs administered through 
the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) should 
prioritize integrated, diversified crop-livestock systems, and 
reduce emphasis on more narrowly defined specialized systems 
such as ``grain production'' or ``poultry production.'' 
Research and outreach efforts should address practical problems 
and information needs of farmers seeking to diversify, as well 
as documenting the benefits of such integration. The 
Conservation Title should mandate increased incentives and 
technical and financial support for adoption of and transition 
toward integrated crop-livestock systems, especially within 
working lands programs such as the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program 
(CSP). Third, rural development programs such as the Value 
Added Producer Grants should include specific priorities and 
funding for development, implementation, production, and 
marketing for crop-livestock integrated farms. Finally, the 
Commodity, Conservation, and other Titles of the new Farm Bill 
should not create incentives for continued separation and 
concentration of livestock and crop production, and especially 
must not subsidize the expansion of the CAFO system of 
livestock and poultry production in any way. Current subsidies 
for CAFOs should be phased out gradually over time, giving 
those whose living depends on such enterprises adequate time, 
technical and financial assistance to make a successful 
transition into more sustainable and healthful forms of 
agriculture and animal husbandry.
    Third, the 2012 Farm Bill should attend to the needs of 
mid-scale family farms. While large corporate farms have 
continued to grow in per-farm size and share of the nation's 
food production; and small scale, direct-market farming has 
undergone a renaissance thanks to rising consumer demand; 
midsize family farms have found themselves in a terrible bind, 
being too large to direct market their products and too small 
to make a living even for one family in today's commodity 
markets. The ongoing loss of farms to bankruptcy continues to 
hit the mid-scale family farms disproportionately hard. These 
``farms of the middle'' need commodity title reforms that 
maintain adequate support in the event of depressed commodity 
prices, yet close loopholes that have allowed large corporate 
farms to garner huge subsidies and use them to squeeze moderate 
size family farms out of production. The market and contract 
agriculture reforms initiated under the new Livestock Title in 
the 2008 Farm bill must be continued and greatly expanded to 
protect farm families' ability to remain on the land. Most 
important, alternative marketing strategies, such as value 
chains and cooperative markets, should be supported through the 
Rural Development Title and other parts of the new Farm Bill. 
As public demand for higher quality, local or regional, 
sustainably produced foods continues to grow, we are going to 
need a vibrant constituency of mid-scale family farms to supply 
regional institutional markets such as farm-to-school programs 
that can improve nutrition for the nation's schoolchildren.
    Fourth, the 2012 Farm Bill must include substantive reforms 
to the Commodity Title to end incentives for overproduction and 
for further concentration in agricultural production. Effective 
payment limitations and a tightened and clarified definition of 
``actively engaged in farming'' must be adopted to close 
loopholes for corporate farms while maintaining needed support 
for mid-scale farms. Commodity programs should emphasize true 
price supports designed to be activated only when market prices 
fall too low for family farmers to make a living, and phase out 
production payments that are based on how much is produced, 
regardless of market price. Also, the Commodity Title should 
increase flexibility, and provide incentives, not penalties, 
for diversification into fruits, vegetables, and other 
currently non-commodity crops.
    Fifth, the 2012 Farm Bill must include a strong 
Conservation Title that provides both technical and financial 
support for the adoption and improvement of sustainable and 
organic production systems. Mandatory funding for the 
Conservation Stewardship Program should be expanded to permit 
enrollment of 230 million acres in the CSP by the year 2017. 
Expansion of the CSP, concomitant with Commodity Title reform, 
will gradually shift tax dollars away from commodity production 
subsidies to paying farmers to optimize their conservation 
practices, and thereby protect the long term fertility of our 
soils and sustainability of our nation's agriculture.
    Sixth, on-farm renewable energy programs should emphasize 
conservation, solar, wind, and sustainable bioenergy production 
for local use; de-emphasize large scale biofuel production; and 
exclude corn ethanol and cellulosic biofuel based on removal of 
annual crop residues from the land. The adverse impacts on soil 
quality and soil erosion rates of the removal of crop biomass 
from the land on a widespread scale are potentially severe, and 
have not been adequately researched to merit a large scale 
implementation of biofuel production. In particular, diversion 
of corn grain crops to ethanol production can effectively take 
land out of food and fodder production; and conversion of the 
entire aboveground biomass of corn, wheat, or other grains into 
biofuel will severely draw down soil organic matter reserves 
and aggravate erosion.
    Seventh, the 2012 Farm Bill should provide mandatory 
funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 
(SARE) program, at least at the current statutory level of $60 
million per year. Among USDA programs, SARE has been uniquely 
effective in supporting practical research and education into 
sustainable systems, resulting in numerous research outcomes 
and several excellent manuals on sustainable soil, crop, and 
pest management, that both organic and conventional farmers use 
every day to improve the economic and environmental 
sustainability of their farms.
    Finally, I want to respond to an exchange in this spring's 
hearings on the 2012 Farm Bill, which bears on the importance 
of developing local and regional food systems alongside 
national and global commodity agriculture. Professor Neil 
Hamilton of Drake University urged the Committee to continue 
federal programs that promote the development of these local 
and regional farming and food systems, in line with the Know 
Your Food, Know Your Farmer program launched by the Obama 
Administration and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. I 
disagree entirely with comments by Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS) to 
the effect that these programs represent an emphasis on 
``lifestyle'' over ``production'' agriculture to the detriment 
of Main Street. As Professor Hamilton pointed out, local and 
regional production on diversified family farms keeps more 
dollars circulating within rural communities, strengthens the 
economic viability of family farms, and improves the quality of 
our food supply. Lest anyone on the Agriculture Committee 
doubts the power of smaller scale, diversified, sustainable 
farming to protect the environment, feed the people better, 
promote farm and rural prosperity, and build social capital, I 
would refer you to the 2008 report from the United Nations 
Environment Programme, entitled Organic Agriculture and Food 
Security in Africa, (http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/
ditcted200715_en.pdf) * by Rachel Hine, Jules Pretty, and 
Sophia Twarog. In a study of 114 projects in 24 African 
countries involving 1.9 million smallholder farmers working 5 
million acres, adoption of basic organic and conservation 
practices, and farm diversification, doubled yields and vastly 
increased food security in the farmers' communities, 
representing a major key to the solution to global hunger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document referred to is retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for taking these comments and recommendations 
into account in developing the 2012 Farm Bill.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Bonnie Schoneberg, Pahala, HI

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Bonnie Schoneberg.
    City, State: Pahala, HI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Forestry, Greenhouse/nursery, Specialty 
Crops, Vegetables, Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Aloha from Hawaii. I come from the poorest area of 
the Big Island, the district of Ka`u. Since the sugar cane 
plantations closed down years ago, this area has been extremely 
impoverished. There are very few jobs, and many unemployed 
people who have given up finding work in the area. The area has 
many potential cash industries, but help only reaches a select 
few to jumpstart operations. Because few farms have enough 
money to hire workers, jobs aren't being created for those who 
need them. I believe the farm bill should have a section 
devoted to creating farm jobs in Ka`u. These can be in the form 
of creating a farm research center in Ka`u which favors job 
creation for Ka`u residents (this could be to test new crops in 
Hawaii, vog test these crops, and so forth). Another idea for 
aid to these residents is making monies to subsidize small 
business ventures more accessible to people in these 
impoverished areas. Many people in Ka`u are undereducated and 
lack the capabilities and know how to write grant proposals to 
help them get started. A lot of the grants I have researched 
also seem to favor businesses that are already running and have 
money, when most people in Ka`u lack the money to get a 
business started, have bad credit, and don't have the means to 
get loans or grants, and don't have the power to lobby for 
money like industrial agribusinesses do. The farm bill should 
address these hard luck farmers by bringing the money to them. 
This could be in the form of government subsidies that go to 
the area, where the Representatives of Ka`u can take proposals 
from residents (of all ages, races, and sexes), and hold a vote 
(for all Ka`u residents) for which proposals should receive the 
funding. This would allow a fair distribution of funds. This 
would allow a fair distribution of money that favors the merit 
of ideas rather than solely the education and connections that 
usually win only the lucky few federal grants to fund their 
agribusinesses. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Gwen Schroder, Powell, MO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Gwen Schroder.
    City, State: Powell, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Greenhouse/nursery, Vegetables.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: We are a struggling to be organic farm in the SW 
corner of Missouri. We have a lot to learn and want to make a 
contribution to providing healthy local food to our surrounding 
communities. We are investing heavily in the process of 
extending our growing season to provide fresh produce year 
round. We need all the help we can get in terms of legislative 
action and financial incentives to continue this development on 
a broader scale. Please support initiatives to improve this 
growing segment of the agriculture in this state. We are 
woefully behind other states in the country in organic 
production.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Eric Schroeder, Austin, TX

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 5:36 p.m.
    Name: Eric Schroeder.
    City, State: Austin, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student, Family Farmer.
    Comment: The older generations don't understand the need 
for organics, we need more informative things to turn them onto 
the ideas and help them realize it is better in the long run 
versus short term production.
                                ------                                


              Comments of Gus Schumacher, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Gus Schumacher.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Non Profit Organization.
    Comment:

    Dear Sirs:

Ref: 2012 Farm Bill

    (1) USDA/FNS--Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program. 
        Restore funding to the initial $25 million annually in 
        mandatory funding that the House of Representatives 
        passed in the 2008 Farm Bill and the Senate cut back to 
        $20 million. This very popular program is currently 
        benefiting 18,000 farmers and 840,000 low income 
        seniors. With restoration of funding to the 2008 
        initial House level of $25 million for vulnerable 
        seniors, nearly 1 million seniors and 20,000 small 
        farmers would benefit.

    (2) USDA/Rural Development. Community Facilities Grants--
        Provide authority under the Community Facilities Grant 
        program for pre-applications to State Rural Development 
        Offices for an early assessment and if qualified under 
        simplified criteria, indicate that applicants can 
        submit a full package. This early assessment would save 
        considerable time and effort by hard pressed rural non 
        profits in submitting the extensive paperwork required 
        for these grants.

    (3) USDA/AMS--Federal State Market Improvement Program 
        (FSMIP). The upcoming Farm Bill could explore 
        revitalizing the ongoing State implemented FSMIP 
        program by allocating 30% of the funding authorization 
        for projects within applicant states that connect new 
        markets with local low-income population food access 
        and affordability.

    (4) USDA/NIFA--Increase the mandatory authorization for the 
        very popular Community Food Projects to $10 million 
        annually.

    (5) USDA/FNS--EBT Wireless Capability at Farmers Markets. 
        Provide cost free access (machines and transaction 
        costs) for farmers markets to utilize wireless EBT 
        technology at farmers markets similar to the cost free 
        access that hard wired retail stores currently have 
        under the statues.

    (6) USDA./AFRI Re-direct a portion of AFRI funds to social 
        research projects addressing intersection of issues 
        related to: food deserts, obesity, low income 
        populations and local and regional food systems. This 
        research would examine the impact of development of 
        local/regional food systems on low income populations.

            Sincerely,

Gus Schumacher.

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Gus Schumacher.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Non Profit Organization.
    Comment:

    Dear Sirs:

Ref: Farm Bill 2011/2012 Options--Farmers as Healthy Food Hubs

    With a modest investment in the Specialty Crop Program and 
the SNAP program, the 40,000 farmers selling at farmers 
markets, roadside stands and CSA's could further expand their 
revenue and also provide healthy, local fresh fruits and 
vegetables to SNAP and WIC clients. These farmers would be 
recognized as ``healthy food hubs'' in rural and urban 
underserved neighborhoods.
    Currently, a few pilot programs are underway in several 
states (California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) 
fostered by foundations and health care groups to provide 
``nutrition incentives'' to SNAP clients to shop at farmers 
markets. Some very modest funding from their state's 
``specialty crop'' programs are allocated to encourage SNAP 
clients to use their EBT cards at farmers markets for local 
fruits and vegetables. Foundations in a few cases are providing 
funding for double vouchers to provide ``nutrition incentives'' 
to further encourage SNAP clients.
    Given the leverage impact from using existing SNAP and WIC 
funding and the leverage shown by interested health care 
foundations and health care insurance firms to reduce health 
care costs, an increase of Specialty Crop Funding from $55 
million to $150 million annually, with $50 million annually 
allocated to the states to promote use of SNAP and WIC at 
farmers markets, roadside stands and CSA's would leverage an 
estimated $500 million annually in additional specialty crop 
producers revenue while improving diets and reducing health 
care costs for SNAP and WIC clients.
    With ongoing pilot programs in several states to measure 
the impact of additional fruit and vegetable consumption on 
SNAP and WIC clients, reduction in blood pressure, weight and 
improved cholesterol and BMI's will likely reduce health care 
costs for the 30 % of the population with weight caused health 
issues. These savings will receive a CBO score and a portion of 
those savings allocated to the $95 million increase in 
specialty crop funding, bringing the total to $150 million, 
with $100 million for state specialty crop programs and $50 
million for promoting nutrition incentives at farmers markets, 
roadside stands and CSA's.
            Sincerely,

Gus Schumacher,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Chad Scott, West Point, MS

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 17, 2010, 9:36 p.m.
    Name: Chad Scott.
    City, State: West Point, MS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: Unfortunately, there is a shortage of sensible 
policy in Washington. From the federal budget and pork-barrel 
spending to unfair trade policy, the federal government, as 
noted earlier, has been promoting shortsighted policies that 
produce prosperity for a few at the expense of the rest of us.
    In the depths of the Depression, President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt and Congress were concerned that many farmers were 
being driven into bankruptcy by plummeting crop prices. So 
lawmakers passed the New Deal's Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
1933.
    Today, that offer still stands, but to whose benefits? 
Here's a sampling of the folks who prospered from farm 
subsidies in recent years:

   David Rockefeller, former chairmen and chief 
        executive officer of Chase Manhattan Bank and an heir 
        to the vast Rockefeller fortune, has received $518,122 
        in farm subsidies from Washington.

   Scottie Pippen, the onetime Chicago Bulls basketball 
        star who was Michael Jordan's sidekick and one of the 
        highest paid players of all time, has been paid 
        $210,520.

   Ted Turner, Cable News Network founder, media mogul, 
        and number twenty-five on Forbes magazine's list of the 
        five hundred wealthiest people in the United States, 
        has been paid $206,948.

    Need we ask any American whether these people need help 
from their government? Of course they don't. The prosperity 
they enjoy from this policy comes at the expense of everyone 
else; the tax money spent to make them even wealthier is 
clearly a waste of resources and a burden on all of us 
taxpayers and on the entire economy. And to the extent that the 
giveaway actually produces the original objective--higher 
prices--it is even a greater economic load, since consumers who 
must pay them can't spend the money on something else.
    Yet federal giveaways to pseudo-farmers who don't need them 
are just minor signs of how truly counterproductive laws, 
policies, and programs that successive Congresses and 
administrations of both parties have imposed on us, the people.
    For example, as Heritage's Brian Riedl has noted, the 
budget-busting $180 billion dollar farm bill passed before the 
2002 elections actually encourages overproduction, pushing down 
prices and eroding farm income-reversing the goals of the 
original subsidies. It also undermines overseas trade and 
encourages other nations to put up barriers to U.S. exports. 
But if it harms the economy in general, it does bring 
prosperity to a favored few: huge corporate farms, a handful of 
lawmakers sitting on Agriculture Committees, and celebrities--
David Rockefeller et. al--with tax shelters camouflaged as 
farms.
    How did farm subsidies become corporate welfare? Easy: The 
subsidies have nothing to do with a recipient's income or 
financial need; they are determined by the crop you choose to 
raise and its size. Growers of the big-five favored crops--
corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat--receive more than 90 
percent of all farm subsidies. Growers of nearly four hundred 
other domestic crops, Riedl has pointed out, are completely 
shut out. The more acres you plant of the five preferred crops, 
the more government subsidies you receive. Size trumps 
everything else: In 2002, the most recent year for which 
figures are available, nearly \2/3\ of all farm subsidies went 
to a mere 10 percent of all recipients.
    Big farms keep on buying up small ones, and the subsidies 
have fueled the consolidation process. In 2002, corporate 
farmers received a huge, extra, and irrational bonus. They 
browbeat Congress into tripling the subsidy giveaways--now $30 
billion a year--on the grounds that crop prices had fallen 
(``dipped a bit'' would be a better term), and they needed 
``emergency'' help.
    Enhancing the prosperity of corporate farms that don't need 
taxpayers' money clearly imposes a burden on everyone else in 
the country. The big winners are often giant companies that 
practice agriculture at beast as a subsidiary or minor 
division-corporations like John Hancock, which most people 
would call an insurance company but which, in 2002 alone, got 
$2,289,364 as a sometime ``farm'' operator. Other eyebrow-
raising beneficiaries that year included nine Members of 
Congress, five of them sitting on Committees overseeing U.S. 
agriculture. They received subsidies averaging forty-six times 
those given to the country's typical farmer.
    This information came from the book Getting American Right 
The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today by Edwin J. 
Feulner and Doug Wilson pg. 129-133.
    I don't agree with this book on trade policy, but this make 
my point apparent. I would like to get rid of farm subsidies, 
or slash them by 70% to 80%.


                               attachment


The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty
Just Say No to Farm Subsidies
September 1995  Volume: 45  Issue: 9  
Print This Post  0 comments

    Congress is busy tying itself in knots of anguish over the 
future of federal farm subsidies. Many lawmakers are unwilling 
to stand up to the farm lobby and do what's right. But exactly 
100 years ago, one Secretary of Agriculture had the courage to 
do just that. His name was J. Sterling Morton, and he served in 
the second Administration of President Grover Cleveland.
    With the encouragement of his grandfather and uncle, young 
Morton devoured the writings of economist Adam Smith and 
statesman Thomas Jefferson. He became a staunch proponent of 
their ideas of free markets and limited government by the time 
he went to college in his home state of Michigan. The notion 
that no free society could survive if government started 
redistributing the people's wealth became a life-long guiding 
principle for Morton. A strong advocate of voluntarism, not 
more centralized political power, he was the man who originated 
Arbor Day in 1872 to encourage private citizens to plant trees.
    In the late 1890s, when the Democrats were the party of 
free trade, Morton was three times the Democratic candidate for 
Governor of Nebraska. In 1892, when Grover Cleveland recaptured 
the White House for the Democrats, he chose J. Sterling Morton 
to be his Secretary of Agriculture and gave him a free hand to 
liberate farming from the federal dole.
    Noted economic historian Burton Folsom has written that 
Morton proved to be as principled a free market advocate as the 
President who appointed him. ``In his four years as 
Secretary,'' Folsom observes, ``he chopped almost 20 percent 
from his department's budget. He fired unproductive 
bureaucrats, starting with a man who held the job of federal 
`rainmaker.' '' Then he slashed the travel budget: if farmers 
wanted to hear a spokesman from Washington, they would have to 
pay the bill to send him.
    ``If the Department of Agriculture is to be conducted in 
the spirit of paternalism, the sooner it is abolished the 
better for the United States,'' Morton declared. Accordingly, 
he cut farm subsidies wherever the law gave him the authority. 
He reduced the government's role in beet sugar production with 
these words: ``Those who raise corn should not be taxed to 
encourage those who desire to raise beets. The power to tax was 
never vested in a Government for the purpose of building up one 
class at the expense of other classes.''
    In 1895, Morton ended the free seed program. For 60 years, 
the government had sent free seed to farmers. But many farmers 
didn't even use the seeds; in fact, fewer than one person per 
thousand even acknowledged receiving them. ``Is it a function 
of government to make gratuitous distribution of any material 
thing?'' Morton asked. He called free seeds a ``gratuity, paid 
for by money raised from all the people, and bestowed upon a 
few people.''
    In a biography of Morton, historian James C. Olson writes:

        Every bill to appropriate money for special purposes 
        was looked upon suspiciously by the Secretary. If it 
        could not run the gamut of rigid laissez faire, if 
        there was the slightest danger that it would extend the 
        functions of the government, if it was paternal in any 
        aspect, the Secretary of Agriculture was against it. 
        When, for example, J.Z. George, Chairman of the Senate 
        Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, asked his 
        opinion on a bill to appropriate money for the 
        extermination of the Russian thistle in the states of 
        the Northwest, Morton asked in return whether it was 
        ``the business of the Government of the United States 
        to make appropriations out of which men, women, and 
        boys are to be hired, at wages fixed by law, to 
        exterminate weeds, called Russian thistles, any more 
        than it is the business of that Government to prescribe 
        the manner of plowing, planting, and cultivating 
        cereals, cotton, and tobacco, and to limit the wages to 
        be paid cultivators?'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ James C. Olson, J. Sterling Morton: Pioneer Statesman, Founder 
of Arbor Day (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1942), 
pp. 358-9.

    Those who favored subsidies and business as usual were 
aghast at Morton. They wrote him vitriolic letters and filled 
newspapers with their attacks on him. Many urged President 
Cleveland to fire Morton, but the President was elated with the 
cost savings his Agriculture Secretary was achieving. This was 
the President who had once vetoed a $10,000 appropriation for 
drought-stricken farmers in Texas by declaring, ``. . . though 
the people support the government, the government should not 
support the people.''
    Morton himself challenged his critics. He called the pro-
subsidy Granger Society a ``bunko establishment.'' He urged a 
farmer in Iowa to quit ``plowing with preambles, planting with 
resolutions, and gathering by legislative enactment'' and get 
on with the business of an honest day's work. His battles with 
lobbyists and the millions of dollars he saved became almost 
legendary in Washington.
    When Morton left the nation's capital in 1897, the subsidy 
crowd slowly returned. Free seeds were again distributed. By 
the 1930s, the federal government was paying some farmers not 
to produce at all. By the 1950s, even mohair producers were 
getting federal handouts. Today billions are doled out to 
subsidize a wide range of farm commodities, and it seems 
farmers sometimes produce as much for the government as they do 
for the market. Many agricultural economists believe that farm 
subsidy programs actually increase instability in the industry 
because the rules governing them change so often.
    The experience of New Zealand is instructive: after that 
country abolished all farm subsidies in 1986 with a mere eight 
months' notice, the farm economy improved and output rose. The 
awful predictions of the subsidy-seekers that disaster would 
ensue never materialized.
    Author Osha Gray Davidson, writing in the January 4, 1993, 
New York Times, termed the U.S. farm subsidy program 
``hopelessly outdated, exorbitantly expensive and 
environmentally and socially devastating.'' Far from ``saving 
the family farmer,'' they price American produce out of world 
markets, hurt low income families, and swamp the farmer with 
endless regulations. ``A whopping 73 cents of every farm 
program dollar,'' Davidson noted, ``ends up in the pockets of 
15 percent of the nation's superfarms.'' In other words, the 
large and well-off get the biggest checks, while their smaller 
competitors get a pittance in cash for the strangling controls 
subsidy brings. Because of these realities, there may be 
considerably more support for the abolition of subsidies among 
farmers themselves than is generally believed.
    As Congress tries to muster the courage to challenge the 
government's destructive role in agriculture, its members ought 
to look to J. Sterling Morton for inspiration. One hundred 
years ago, he didn't waffle on the issue; he knew what had to 
be done, and to the extent the law allowed him, he did it with 
a flourish.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Scott, Memphis, TN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: David Scott.
    City, State: Memphis, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: As a small producer, I'm VERY concerned that the 
following are addressed in the upcoming farm bill in a way that 
helps encourage small farming:

    (1) Overburdening small farmers with regulation.

    (2) Create programs that allow new/young farmers to 
        purchase land to start new farms, especially close to 
        urban centers where land convenience is essential to 
        providing locally grown food economically.

    (3) Strict regulation of what is considered ``organic'', 
        since it seems the idea of what is organic is being 
        loosened (such as human waste products considered 
        organic mulch in some circles)

    (4) Subsidies for low-income citizens that allow them to 
        buy healthy, locally grown food.

    (5) Extending research by the USDA and land-grant 
        universities for sustainable and organic farming 
        practices.

    And on a larger front, strict regulations on genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs) as food sources. GMO alfalfa and it's 
potential to infiltrate the alfalfa supply at large DIRECTLY 
affects my production as a producer of natural food products, 
and gives Monsanto even more control over the American and 
world food supply (to the detriment of small independent 
farmers).
                                ------                                


                Comment of Sarah Scully, Alexandria, VA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Sarah Scully.
    City, State: Alexandria, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: I would really like to see more efforts in the 
Farm Bill to support organic and decentralized food systems. 
Grain subsidies should be redirected into healthy food that 
nourishes people and the environment. I do not want to 
subsidize unhealthy food and then pay growing healthcare bills 
for obesity-related diseases later. Moving towards organics 
would decrease fossil fuel dependency and ensure that our 
ecosystems will be able to continue to produce food. Organic 
growing is more productive than conventional agriculture 
anyway. Concerns over antibiotic resistance should start with 
the agriculture industry too. That our livestock consumer over 
70% of pharmaceuticals in America is a major problem, 
especially since antibiotic consumption only keeps animals 
alive. We're still eating infected animals. That cannot be 
healthy. Genetically modified foods will probably do more harm 
in the long-run. I would like to see them banned, but at least 
labeled so I know what I am eating. Please change the Farm 
Bill!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Rick Seamer, Goose Lake, IA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Rick Seamer.
    City, State: Goose Lake, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: Please make FSA maps open to public.
            Thank you,

Rick Seamer.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Claudia Secrest, Robstown, TX

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Claudia Secrest.
    City, State: Robstown, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: I strongly object to the undermining of the crop 
insurance program with cutbacks to the farmers and their 
agents. For whatever reason, testimonies have been inaccurate 
and paint a false picture of what an agent has to do to service 
a policy. Only yesterday I spent an entire day on only one 
aspect of servicing only one producer's policy. Multiply this 
time my 900 policies and you will see my need to hire competent 
help. It has become a bureaucratic nightmare over the years. 
Any cutbacks will prevent my ability to pay help and expenses 
required to manage all the paperwork now required by RMA rules 
and regulations. Producers and their lenders have come to 
depend upon and respect the knowledge of their agents. The 
private sector has worked hard for many years to build a strong 
crop insurance program, one the government failed in doing many 
years ago. To undermine the results would be a travesty.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Ahmed Seliman, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Ahmed Seliman.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: I support a farm bill that has a focus on 
nutrition, not cheap calories. The farm bill should support the 
family farmer and the small local farmer, not corporate 
farmers. The farm bill should support organic farming, fruits 
and vegetables.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Loretta Seppanen, Olympia, WA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Loretta Seppanen.
    City, State: Olympia, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired from Post-Secondary Education.
    Comment: The 2012 bill needs to provide more support for 
environmental issues in farming. Agriculture that uses the land 
without regard to soil health in the future is not sustainable.
    Current farm subsidies are too narrowly focused on corn and 
soybeans which has resulted in much too much production of 
those two crops by large farms. We need subsides that (1) help 
small farmers that serve a local market, (2) help smaller 
farmers transition to organic (and perhaps also larger 
farmers).
                                ------                                


                Comment of Daniel Serda, Kansas City, KS

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:36 p.m.
    Name: Daniel Serda.
    City, State: Kansas City, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Historic Preservationist.
    Comment: Increasingly, rural communities are seeking 
support from USDA Rural Development for a range of historic 
preservation initiatives, including Main Street revitalization, 
heritage tourism, and historic building rehabilitation 
projects.
    I am writing to support an enhanced commitment to USDA 
Rural Development programs in the next Farm Bill, especially 
programs that support downtown revitalization with a focus on 
business development and retention, rehabilitation of community 
facilities, heritage tourism, and housing.
    These programs foster sustainable rural development and job 
creation.
    I am also writing to support the Obama Administration's 
proposed Rural Innovation Initiative (RII) or similar rural 
development strategies which focus on making USDA's investments 
more efficient and effective by rewarding strategic regional 
approaches to rural development that allow regions to build on 
their unique assets, including their heritage and culture.
    Rural development strategies such as (RII) could be a 
source of support for regional, ``heritage-based'' projects 
that incorporate initiatives such as Main Street 
revitalization, heritage tourism, farm building preservation, 
and agricultural conservation.
    Finally, I support funding for the Historic Barn 
Preservation Program. Barns are not only important historic 
structures of rural America, they are also practical, 
functional buildings that can be rehabilitated to meet modern 
agricultural needs. This program is designed to help document 
and rehabilitate them for productive use.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Carol Severson, Gem, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:06 a.m.
    Name: Carol Severson.
    City, State: Gem, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Sprayer Secretary/Former FSA Employee.
    Comment: Having flown these photos in the past and working 
daily with farmers, I know this information is important to 
have AT HAND. Photographers can claim ``public domain'' if they 
see a good photo by the roadside. In the air, I would think 
aerial photos are ``public domain''. Also, we have NEVER had a 
farmer be anything but delighted that we can verify his fields, 
and what he wants sprayed. Access to this information is a boon 
to agriculture. Crippling that access is only stifling progress 
for everyone concerned.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Joshua Sewell, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Joshua Sewell.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Analyst.
    Comment: We need to reform agriculture in a manner that 
removes taxpayer funded subsidies that are effectively 
corporate welfare.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Gail Robin Seydel, Albuquerque, NM

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Gail Robin Seydel.
    City, State: Albuquerque, NM.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: The 2012 Farm Bill is very important in supporting 
the growing local and regional foods movement. Please support 
it with funds for specialty crops, and organic production, 
especially given the information in the Presidents Panel on 
Cancer report. Also help protect conventional and organic 
farmers from contamination by GMO crops with a liability fund 
to reimburse us when we get contaminated with GMO pollen and 
loose our markets. This is very important both nationally and 
in relation to our international sales.
    Thanks.
            Most sincerely,

Gail Robin Seydel.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of James Shaffer, Hilmar, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: James Shaffer.
    City, State: Hilmar, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Truck Driver, Seasonal Ag.
    Comment: The only reasonable, rational, and Constitutional 
thing you can do in this matter is, cut the subsidies entirely. 
Aside from having no authority to subsidize anything 
whatsoever, it is completely senseless to use taxpayer's money 
to pay for subsidies that artificially inflate the costs of 
goods and services--it amounts to a double tax on the consumer.
    Quit it. Now.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Tim Shamblin, Burley, ID

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Tim Shamblin.
    City, State: Burley, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Duster.
    Comment: USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis
                                ------                                


              Comment of Garth Shaneyfelt, Greenfield, MA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 05, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Garth Shaneyfelt.
    City, State: Greenfield, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mead Maker.
    Comment: As we move forward and think about how to feed 
ourselves in a sustainable manner, I encourage you to support 
SMALL family farms and not commodity crops (those subsidies 
just helps the food processors not the farmers). As in so much, 
our DIVERSITY is our strength! Diversified small farms grow 
more on a per-acre basis large monocrops (in addition to being 
much better for the soil, water, land, & people) and are more 
likely to use sustainable practices.
    Subsidizing corn to fatten feed-lot cattle so everyone can 
have hamburgers 2/day (and all the associated health problems) 
is bad for our economy, health, and communities.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Dennis Shannon, Auburn, AL

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 03, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Dennis Shannon.
    City, State: Auburn, AL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professor of Agronomy.
    Comment: Subsidies distort markets and create winners and 
losers. Among the losers are small family farms that do not 
produce crops that are subsidized and poor farmers in 
developing countries who must compete against artificially 
cheap prices on the world market because of subsidies. We need 
to start weaning farmers off of subsidies, starting with large 
mega-farms by lowering the ceiling on how much then can earn.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jerad Sharp, Indianola, IA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:06 a.m.
    Name: Jerad Sharp.
    City, State: Indianola, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Application Operator.
    Comment: Having up to date FSA boundaries available to our 
business helps our operation run more efficiently and safely.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Randy Shaw, Big Springs, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Randy Shaw.
    City, State: Big Springs, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy Sales and Service.
    Comment: We need this tool to help our farmers. It is 
important to know the exact legals that we are applying 
products to. With the mapping system in place. We can be 
assured that we are in the correct fields. We need and use this 
tool on a daily basis. Our growers have come to count on us for 
this information. Please do not take this service away from us!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Karen Shea, Scituate, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Karen Shea.
    City, State: Scituate, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Marketing.
    Comment: If Congress were to change even a small amount of 
the World War II era subsidy funding which is currently given 
to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and 
instead put that funding into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition 
would be enormous. While these subsidies of so called 
``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they were 
first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
    For any parent out there, this of vital importance (even if 
they don't know or understand that yet). It's time to take back 
our food and our health. This affects not just agriculture, but 
national health care as well.
    If the economic impact to the farmers of ``staple'' crops 
is overwhelming, then I would ask that you consider funding 
retraining programs which could teach these farmers how to move 
toward organic farming and production.
            Thank you,

Karen Shea,
Marketing Professional and Mom.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Katherine Shelly, Thompson, PA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 7:05 a.m.
    Name: Katherine Shelly.
    City, State: Thompson, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Forestry.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: Forestry is important to watersheds as well as for 
forest products. But I'm writing about my neighbors in dairy. 
So many of them have sold their herds recently because the farm 
gate price of milk doesn't begin to cover their feed, energy 
and maintenance costs. Please work to close that gap before we 
lose them and our farms altogether. We'll need this land in 
farming as our population grows, in the U.S. and the world. 
Thank you for considering my comments.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ron Shepard, Mazeppa, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Ron Shepard.
    City, State: Mazeppa, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I raise 100 head and direct market my meat. It 
bothers me that the Honorable Congressman Colin Peterson seems 
to have such disdain for small or medium farmers, not sure 
which category I would be in. I have to compete for land with 
farmers that get a lot of govt. money, not very fair. I want to 
expand my operation but land prices make it impossible. How 
about every farmer gets the same amount of govt. money and let 
the best farmers win. His idea that small farms and maybe 
medium farms are almost useless is both outdated and selective 
thinking on his part.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jill Shepherd, Bloomington, MN

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Jill Shepherd.
    City, State: Bloomington, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Holistic Health Practitioner.
    Comment: It is time to change the Farm Bill! Stop making 
our children obese by feeding them government subsidized food 
like genetically and hormonally altered wheat, corn and dairy 
products. These foods have gotten so far away from their 
original form that they are turning against our bodies and 
brains. They are junk with very little nutritional value left 
in them. Children and adults need real food! The need organic, 
clean, food that packs more nutritional punch! Food that is 
grown in nutrient-dense soil managed by small, community 
farmers who have a connection to the land and the very people 
they feed. Our children deserve they same high-quality food as 
the children of Europe and South America. Food is a body's fuel 
and you only get out of it what you put into it. We are organic 
living beings not petri dishes.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Tracey Sheppard, Fort Wayne, IN

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Tracey Sheppard.
    City, State: Fort Wayne, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Registered Nurse.
    Comment: There should be positive incentives for our local 
farmers to produce fresh fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy 
products for the local school districts. The schools should 
only be feeding the children with food grown locally. The 
schools should help with the cost of transporting the produce 
from the farms to the schools. The schools should be eating 
seasonal foods instead of getting produce from other countries. 
Our farms in the U.S. should be able to sustain the people of 
the U.S.; instead of getting things from other countries.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Morgan Sheridan, Albuquerque, NM

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Morgan Sheridan.
    City, State: Albuquerque, NM.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Home Care Worker.
    Comment: My hope is the 2012 bill will encourage more 
options in farming, particularly for local and regional organic 
farms. I am deeply concerned that mega-scale agribusiness's 
interests in and desire to implement large scale use GMO 
products will contribute to reducing overall nutrition quality 
in the food put on America's tables and lead to further 
diminishing seed stock of heritage foods. This would be a farm 
scale disaster of the kind the BP's Deepwater Horizon spill is 
to the Gulf.
    I would also like to see a larger urban movement where 
unused urban land can be used in lower income areas for growing 
food--both vegetables and small animals (chicken, lamb, goats, 
rabbit) for area residents, and those eligible for food stamps, 
WIC, Senior food programs, etc.
    Think small--think local, support our small farmer--they 
deserve it.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Katie Sherman, Minneapolis, MN

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Katie Sherman.
    City, State: Minneapolis, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: Please stop the subsidization of corn and soy, 
along with vast federal regulations that affect small, local 
farmers negatively. Big business farms and small organic 
farmers are two completely different entities. United States 
citizens deserve to have more say over what goes into our soil 
and food, and small organic farmers have the right to sell 
quality products for a fair price, not having to compete with 
cheap, government funded, chemically-laden products.
    Big agribusiness is contributing both to obesity and a 
myriad of other health issues that stem from synthetic 
fertilizers that get into our waters and air. Please open your 
eyes to what real food is, and help support the people who grow 
it.
    Thank you for your time.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Mary Sherman, Cincinnati, OH

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Mary Sherman.
    City, State: Cincinnati, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Attorney.
    Comment: To paraphrase Michael Pollan, I want a bill that 
aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and 
environmental values, one with incentives to produce food 
cleanly, sustainably and humanely. I want a bill that makes the 
most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the 
least healthful ones. I want a bill that feeds schoolchildren 
fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus 
commodities from far away. I want a bill that guarantees the 
people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices.
    Right now, I buy most of my produce and meat at local farms 
and rarely travel to the grocery store. Unfortunately, these 
small farms are in danger of being wiped out by companies like 
Cargill and Monsanto, and even the heavy restrictions by the 
government. I want the freedom to shop locally and to buy from 
someone who farms 5 miles from my house. I want to stop the 
subsidization and mass production of soy, corn and wheat, which 
would in turn (hopefully) stop the mass production of junk 
food, which is killing this country.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Valerie Sherman, Palatine, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Valerie Sherman.
    City, State: Palatine, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Attorney.
    Comment: Although I realize corn and soybeans are an 
important part of Midwest agriculture, and Illinois agriculture 
especially, I would like to see less subsidies for these crops 
and more support for farms who diversify their crops and are 
more friendly to the environment. Diversified farms are better 
for the environment and better for consumers because the farms 
need to use fewer pesticides, and the diversified crops support 
each other symbiotically and protect against disease. Regarding 
pesticides, I think there should be subsidies for farms who 
DON'T use pesticides rather than those who DO. It seems to me 
that the government subsidizes and encourages farmers to grow 
crops in monoculture and with the heavy use of pesticides, and 
I would like to see that change. I always buy my meat grass-
fed, and I always avoid the ``dirty dozen'' produce items that 
are saturated with pesticides. These items are currently more 
expensive than their industrially produced counter-parts--
fueled by corn, pesticides, oil, and subsidies--and if the 
government supported more sustainable practices instead of less 
sustainable ones, the sustainable produce would be more 
affordable for purchasers like me. I'm already voting with my 
supermarket dollar, but the consumers need the support of the 
legislature, who does not support small, organic, diversified 
farms. For more sources about organic produce, grass-fed meats, 
and diversified farms, read ``The Omnivore's Dilemma'' and ``In 
Defense of Food'' by Michael Pollan, and ``To Buy or Not To Buy 
Organic'' by Cindy Burke.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Scott Sherrets, Independence, IA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Scott Sherrets.
    City, State: Independence, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Carpenter.
    Comment: Please help farmers willing to invest in renewable 
energy.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Ray J. Shinn, Seneca, K

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Ray J. Shinn.
    City, State: Seneca, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment:

July 28, 2010

    Dear Agriculture Committee:

    My comments are on Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill. I 
would like to address not only the restrictions that Section 
1619 has on verification of classification and composition of 
land for collection of data on sales being used by agricultural 
appraisers, but the ramification the closure of information 
will effect on the Use Value system the state governments are 
using to arrive at valuations for taxation.
    The economy in rural America over the past 50 years has 
seen highs and lows in the market of agricultural land. We have 
been on a steady uptrend since the lows of the mid 1980's where 
inflation and high interest rates with low commodity prices 
placed pressure on the markets. As we all know, these trends 
have a tendency to correct themselves. With the uncertainty in 
the U.S. economy as well as the world economy, the chance or 
likelihood of a correction in the agricultural sector is 
eminent. When pressure is placed on the agricultural economy, 
farmers and businesses in agriculture will need to rely on 
clear and accurate valuations to determine their solvency and 
viability. The need for good clear information will be of 
upmost importance from all sectors that have a hand in 
supplying data to support values. With the restrictions of 
Section 1619, that data and information available to certified 
appraisers is cut, and thus accuracy and possibly the 
credibility of good appraisals for valuations is flawed. This 
will have an effect not only on the farmer and businesses to 
borrow money, but could have a domino effect on the economy of 
entire regions and states on how they conduct business in the 
future.
    The State of Kansas adopted the Use Value method of valuing 
agricultural land in the 1980's. There are forty-three states 
that employ some version of Use Value to determine agricultural 
land value for property tax purposes. Kansas State University 
is currently compiling the data and doing the research in 
collecting yields, cash rental rates, rainfall and water usage 
to determine the proper value for each land capability class 
and land types. It is imperative that they also have access to 
data and records to complete their task in a professional 
manner. The releasing of information to certified appraisers 
and professionals is vital in forming clear values for the 
future of agriculture and the state's fiscal well being.

Ray J. Shinn,
President,
Kansas Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and 
Rural Appraisers.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jean Shiraki, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Jean Shiraki.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Daniel K. Inouye Fellow--JACL Policy Fellow.
    Comment: As an organization dedicated to improving the 
health and well-being of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and 
Pacific Islanders, the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) 
seeks to ensure that the reauthorization of the Food, 
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill of 2012) removes 
barriers to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program 
(SNAP) that prevent lawfully-residing immigrants and their 
family members from enrolling in this vital anti-hunger 
program. We believe that the Farm Bill of 2012 must include the 
following provisions to mitigate these harmful barriers.

    1. Fairness for legal immigrants. Eliminate the five year 
        waiting period imposed on immigrant adults under 
        current law. Hunger does not wait five years, nor 
        should lawfully-residing families have to wait before 
        gaining access to SNAP. Households headed by immigrants 
        work at the same rate as U.S. citizens, but are twice 
        as likely to be poor. Approximately 12% of Asian 
        Americans and 16% of Native Hawaiians and Pacific 
        Islanders live in poverty, and almost 2-in-3 Asian 
        Americans is foreign-born. In these challenging 
        economic times, no U.S. household should have to suffer 
        from food insecurity due to arbitrary waiting periods.

    2. Clarify eligibility for immigrant families with 
        children. Eliminate sponsor deeming rules for SNAP 
        households that include children. Over half of young, 
        low-income children of immigrants live in households 
        that experience hunger or other food-related problems. 
        Most of these children (80%) are U.S. citizens. The 
        existing eligibility rules are confusing and complex. 
        Although lawfully-residing immigrant children are 
        exempt from waiting periods and deeming rules, many 
        households with mixed-immigration status individuals do 
        not participate in the program even though they are 
        eligible. In fact, U.S. citizen children in noncitizen 
        households experienced the greatest drop in 
        participation rates in SNAP/food stamps from 1994-2004 
        among all eligible participants.

    3. Simplify administrative reporting. The Department of 
        Homeland Security's requirement that SNAP agencies 
        collect data on sponsored immigrants who would go 
        hungry or homeless without assistance (the 
        ``indigence'' exemption from deeming) should take the 
        form of an aggregate report that omits individual 
        names. This alternative would meet federal statistical 
        needs while ensuring that eligible hungry families are 
        able to secure assistance without fear.

    We urge Congress to reauthorize the Farm Bill and 
strengthen the SNAP program to meet the needs of hungry 
families and promote program participation.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Wendy Shoemaker, Lawrence, KS

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Wendy Shoemaker.
    City, State: Lawrence, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Career Counselor.
    Comment: Please encourage small farms (and farmers) who 
provide food to local markets with less energy expenditure. 
There is a need for more farmers--Growing Growers is an example 
in this area that could be studied and reproduced elsewhere. 
Also, the subsidies to large corporate animal facilities should 
be reconsidered in light of our nation's growing obesity 
epidemic.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
                                ------                                


           Comment of Brittany Shoots-Reinhard, Columbus, OH

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 7:05 a.m.
    Name: Brittany Shoots-Reinhard.
    City, State: Columbus, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graduate Student.
    Comment: It is disturbing that subsidies go predominately 
to humongous agribusinesses, or to the family farms that are 
already wildly profitable. It is disturbing that we pay for 
junk food twice, once in these subsidies that are paid out, 
particularly for feed corn, that is made into processed foods, 
soda, and feedlot beef. Then we get to pay for it again, in the 
public health sphere because of obesity-related illnesses. The 
corn and livestock lobbies are destroying the health of this 
country.
    First, smaller family farms on the poverty line should get 
more subsidies than giant operations, after all, this is who 
the subsidies were initially meant for, before we let lobbyists 
rather than common decency make our decisions. Second, priority 
should be given to farms that are raising fresh fruits and 
vegetables: this will make food that is actually healthy 
cheaper for the people that need to eat it most, and offset the 
costs of growing food that are more perishable. Finally, 
wouldn't it be good to invest more in organic practices, which 
don't result in increased dependence on oil, undrinkable water, 
harm to local wildlife, or pesticide-resistant pests?
    What's more American than family farms? Shouldn't we be 
trying to help them rather than help giant corporations at the 
expense of family farms' and the health of the American public 
at large?
                                ------                                


            Comment of Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Auburn, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 7:05 p.m.
    Name: Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
    City, State: Auburn, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: State Government Agency.
    Comment: Our agency initiates, encourages, and supports 
efforts that improve the environmental, economic, and social 
well-being of the Sierra Nevada region, its communities, and 
the citizens of California. We currently have two comments on 
the next Farm Bill.

    (1) We understand that there are at least five different 
        definitions of ``rural area'' in the 2008 Farm Bill. 
        There are many small, isolated communities in the 
        Sierra, and we believe they would be best served by a 
        Farm Bill definition that does not deem them ineligible 
        for rural programs simply because they are within a 
        certain distance of a large metropolitan area.

    (2) Additionally, we suggest including the following 
        definitions used by various California state agencies: 
        (a) ``Disadvantaged community'' means a community with 
        an annual median household income that is less than 80 
        percent of the statewide annual median household 
        income; and (b) ``Economically distressed area'' means 
        a municipality with a population of 20,000 persons or 
        less, a rural county, or a reasonably isolated and 
        divisible segment of a larger municipality where the 
        assessment of the population is 20,000 persons or less, 
        with an annual median household income that is less 
        than 85 percent of the statewide median household 
        income, and with one or more of the following 
        conditions: (1) Financial hardship, (2) Unemployment 
        rate at least 2 percent higher than the statewide 
        average, (3) Low population density.

    Thank you for considering our comments.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Rochelle Sihm, Grant, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Rochelle Sihm.
    City, State: Grant, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial & Ground Application.
    Comment: We would like to see the FSA field maps be made 
public again. They are a great tool for the applicators in 
making sure that they are on the correct fields and obstacles 
around the fields. Also very useful when the grower can draw on 
the map precisely where they need something sprayed. In the age 
of GPS it is great to have the coordinates, especially when you 
are flying in a new territory.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Margaret Silver, Atlantic Beach, FL

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Margaret Silver.
    City, State: Atlantic Beach, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: We must make sure that farmers and ranchers have a 
full suite of conservation programs with adequate funding so 
that they can be the best stewards of our nation's natural 
resources. Federal farm policy should also support homegrown 
renewable energy like wind, solar, and biomass.

   A strategic base of our agricultural land is 
        absolutely essential to our long-term ability to 
        produce and supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber 
        and energy with the fewest inputs. Federal farm policy 
        must enhance farm and ranch land protection to 
        adequately address the threat to our strategic 
        agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
        and fragmentation.

   It's critical to increase the production of, and 
        access to local and healthy food while helping farmers 
        remain profitable. Farm and food policy should be 
        linked more strongly with national health and nutrition 
        goals. Federal government programs should promote 
        healthier diets and meet increased demand for specialty 
        crops and fresh, locally grown food by expanding 
        access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
        supporting farmers markets.

   We need to build upon the success of the 2008 Farm 
        Bill in creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Ronald Silver, Atlantic Beach, FL

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Ronald Silver.
    City, State: Atlantic Beach, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: We must make sure that farmers and ranchers have a 
full suite of conservation programs with adequate funding so 
that they can be the best stewards of our nation's natural 
resources. Federal farm policy should also support homegrown 
renewable energy like wind, solar, and biomass.

   A strategic base of our agricultural land is 
        absolutely essential to our long-term ability to 
        produce and supply fresh healthy sources of food, fiber 
        and energy with the fewest inputs. Federal farm policy 
        must enhance farm and ranch land protection to 
        adequately address the threat to our strategic 
        agricultural land resources from non-farm development 
        and fragmentation.

   It's critical to increase the production of, and 
        access to local and healthy food while helping farmers 
        remain profitable. Farm and food policy should be 
        linked more strongly with national health and nutrition 
        goals. Federal government programs should promote 
        healthier diets and meet increased demand for specialty 
        crops and fresh, locally grown food by expanding 
        access, facilitating institutional purchases and 
        supporting farmers markets.

   We need to build upon the success of the 2008 Farm 
        Bill in creating the ACRE program, a new safety net for 
        farmers. I believe ACRE better serves farmers by 
        providing help when producers suffer real revenue 
        losses, helps address the inequities and distortion of 
        our current programs, and is a better investment of 
        public tax dollars into agriculture.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Greg Singleton, Springfield, VA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Greg Singleton.
    City, State: Springfield, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired U.S. Army Officer/Defense Contractor.
    Comment: I want to thank the U.S. House Committee on 
Agriculture for providing this opportunity to submit comments 
on agricultural policy for the 2012 Farm Bill.
    Farmers understand that conservation is key to agricultural 
production, rural economies, and future well-being. To meet the 
needs of the future, the 2012 Farm Bill must recognize, 
protect, and enhance the status of conservation policy in 
federal farm policy.
    Research from USDA consistently shows that conservation 
practices and programs that support rural America's natural 
amenities also bolster the number of rural jobs and even farms. 
Furthermore, protection of our finite soil and water resources 
is essential if farms and ranches are to meet the challenge of 
feeding a growing population. Conversely, an extraction ethic 
in agriculture can at best serve only short term rewards at the 
expense of our future.
    Success in the 2012 Farm Bill can be achieved without 
inflated spending, but conservation must be at the center of 
policy considerations. As you begin the process of re-
authorizing our national farm policy, please include the 
following recommendations in your work:

    1. Enact a robust and well-funded Conservation Title to 
        support all conservation programs. Congress and the 
        administration must enact a 2012 Farm Bill that 
        provides the assistance and incentives necessary to 
        ensure stewardship of agricultural lands.

    2. Enact a federal Farm Bill that promotes payments for 
        farming systems and practices that produce 
        environmental benefits rather than emphasizing payments 
        for historical crop production.

    3. Re-prioritize the existing conservation compliance 
        regimen. Conservation compliance is a means for 
        ensuring that where public money is invested, the 
        public's interests are protected by requiring basic 
        levels of protections for soil, water and wetlands. 
        Prioritizing conservation compliance will require no 
        additional Farm Bill investment and, in fact, can 
        result in saving federal dollars by withholding 
        subsidies. Specific actions that should be taken 
        include:

     Require all crop land to have a conservation plan 
            in order to be eligible for any USDA benefits. This 
            would strongly encourage producers to create and 
            follow that plan.

     To remove the incentive to convert remaining 
            grasslands to crops, make native sod and all land 
            without a cropping history ineligible for federal 
            crop insurance.

     Require all existing or new crop and revenue 
            insurance or other risk management programs to be 
            subject to conservation compliance provisions. This 
            is absolutely critical, particularly with respect 
            to recent calls for making insurance a major 
            component of the federal farm support system.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these 
comments.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Michael Sitzman, Surprise, AZ

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 2:05 a.m.
    Name: Michael Sitzman.
    City, State: Surprise, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Not Employed.
    Comment: Farmers need strong federal protections against 
lawsuits from owners of patents on genetically altered foods. 
For instance, a soybean grower whose land is passively invaded 
by patented seeds from neighboring fields (via wind, bird-
transport, or runoff) should not be liable for the cross-
contamination that he cannot control. Under the existing 
circumstances, innocent farmers have been reduced to bankruptcy 
attempting to defend themselves against aggressively litigious 
multinational seed patent-holding corporations such as 
Monsanto. This is fundamentally unfair to growers; it reduces 
choices for the American consumer; and it compromises the 
biodiversity in the crop supply so vital to the world's long-
term environmental sustainability. Please support the rights of 
the independent American food producer.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Ruth Ann Skaggs, Fredericktown, MO

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Ruth Ann Skaggs.
    City, State: Fredericktown, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small Business Owner--Food Service.
    Comment: Make it easier for restaurants to sell LOCAL 
meats--we do not have a USDA inspection site nearby.
    Promote AG education and more technical/vocational 
education opportunities for farm kids to stay rural.
    Make more advantages for small farmers as opposed to 
corporate farms.
    More encouragement for Farmers Markets in each community.
    Promote biofuels, more markets for their use.
    School gardens and farms to teach kids where their food 
comes from and how to eat fresh & local.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Bethany Slater, East Syracuse, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Bethany Slater.
    City, State: East Syracuse, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Director of Member Programs at Local Food Bank.
    Comment:

    To Whom It May Concern:

    The Food Bank of Central New York believes that having a 
strong nutrition title in the 2012 Farm Bill is important to 
address hunger and achieve President Obama's goal to eliminate 
U.S. childhood hunger by 2015. Too many people in our community 
are living with hunger or are at risk of hunger. The USDA 
Economic Research Service estimates that 14.6% of households 
experienced food insecurity in 2008. 49.1 million Americans 
make up these households lacking access to nutritionally 
adequate foods--a 36% increase from the 36.2 million in 2007. 
Many attribute this large increase to our recent economic 
downturn. However we believe that the expanded eligibility, 
higher benefits and increased funding for the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), coupled with additional 
funding for TEFAP commodities passed from the 2008 Farm Bill 
and the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had an 
enormous impact in helping low-income families during this 
difficult time.
    The Food Bank of Central New York serves eleven counties in 
New York State. We provide food, technical assistance, and 
nutrition education to 277 emergency food programs: food 
pantries, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters. We distribute 
over 11 million pounds of food each year, resulting in 
approximately 8.5 million meals each year or 30,000 meals every 
day. The Food Bank is also the local distributor of government 
commodities through The Emergency Food Assistance Program 
(TEFAP). In addition to supplying food, we also works to 
transition clients from the emergency food network to self-
sufficiency, whether through our programs or referrals to 
government programs like SNAP. Our Food Stamp outreach workers 
work in Cortland, Oneida, and Onondaga counties to connect 
eligible people with the entitlement benefits that SNAP 
provides.
    TEFAP commodities are a lifeline to our emergency food 
network and the people they serve. They help prevent empty 
shelves and ensure no one is ever turned away due to a lack of 
food. In addition, SNAP is the ultimate solution to hunger. 
Currently SNAP is effective but its reach is undermined by gaps 
in access and adequacy of benefits as well as by administrative 
burdens. We recommend the following changes to improve SNAP and 
TEFAP:

   Improve benefit adequacy by replacing the Thrifty 
        Food Plan with the Low Cost Food plan as the basis for 
        SNAP benefits.

   Increase the minimum benefit.

   Restore eligibility to legal immigrants.

   Permanently suspend time limits on able-bodied 
        adults without dependents.

   Provide greater support for states, including for 
        SNAP administration and outreach.

   Increase funding for TEFAP commodities and 
        administration support.

    Therefore we urge the 2012 Farm Bill to invest resources to 
make food stamp benefit allotments more adequate, to open 
eligibility to reach more vulnerable people, and to connect 
more eligible people with benefits. We appreciate your 
consideration of this matter.

Bethany Slater,
Director of Member Programs,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                     Comment of Rad Slough, Rad, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Rad Slough.
    City, State: Rad, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Fitness Center Owner.
    Comment: STRICT and clear definitions of farming methods is 
HUGE for me. Organic farming has become a large part of my life 
as a consumer. I have found the produce and meats to be more 
flavorful and very nutritious. Please do nothing in any bill 
but support sustainable farming and labeling.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Helen Smiley, Houston, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Helen Smiley.
    City, State: Houston, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock, Poultry/poultry products, 
Specialty Crops, Vegetables.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: I began organic farming 30 years ago because my 
children had a sensitivity to chemicals and preservatives, 
etc., added to foods being produced, they were effected by 
hyperactivity, allergenic effects to their nervous system 
associated to ADD and ADHD. Children function better in life 
skills and scholastically with organic meats and foods. Please 
support and include funding for organic food production so that 
producers can make the production more affordable. And also 
create a work force and job creation in rural development.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Charles Smith, Houston, TX

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Charles Smith.
    City, State: Houston, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Comment: Please keep in mind proximity and funding for 
urban farming. Is there any reason why we cannot encourage 
agriculture in the neighborhood. Think of the benefits. 
Decrease transportation increased freshness and nutrition 
increased education.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Cheryl Smith, Gorman, TX

    Date Submitted: Monday, August 16, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Cheryl Smith.
    City, State: Gorman, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I am writing to you concerning the Estate Tax. 
Because of rising land prices in this country, this tax is 
going to affect more and more farms and ranches. Farming and 
ranching is hard work, full of financial risk. Young people can 
no longer afford to buy land and make a living farming and 
raising cattle. My family has worked hard, and over four 
generations have accrued enough land to enable us to make 
enough to keep the ranch going. With rising land prices, even a 
small farm or ranch will be affected by these unfair estate 
taxes. Our children have worked all their lives on the ranch, 
yet won't be given a chance to keep it. Our children would have 
to sell half the ranch to pay these taxes. There would not be 
left with enough to be a profit making enterprise. Agriculture 
in this country is already in dire straits. I have seen in our 
area many vegetable producers stop raising vegetables this year 
because it costs so much to comply with the food safety act, 
that they can't make any money. When they take their vegetables 
to market, they are told that Mexico can sell them vegetables 
much cheaper because labor is so cheap there. I have seen 
productive land being sold to hunters and taken out of 
production. I am seeing more and more corn grown for ethanol 
and our cattle feed and food prices going through the roof. The 
price of fertilizer is completely ridiculous.
    Is it the intention of our government and the EPA to put 
all American farmers and ranchers out of business? How high do 
you think food will be if it's all imported?
    Do we really want all our producers moving their operations 
to Mexico where there are no environmental laws? Many have 
already moved and won't be coming back. Is the EPA really going 
to be allowed to do something as stupid as regulate dust and 
cow methane?
    Much needs to be done to encourage our young people to stay 
in agriculture so we will have safe food produced in this 
country. Fixing the Estate Tax will be a good beginning so they 
feel like there is a future for them on the family farm or 
ranch. There needs to be a Family Farm and Ranch Estate Tax 
Exemption so these farms and ranches can stay in production. 
Land that is sold in estate sales these days is not staying in 
the production of food.
    If this unfair Estate Tax is not fixed where our children 
will be able to keep the ranch and continue in agriculture, 
then we too will be looking for a country that has more 
favorable tax laws.
    The United States Government must get the runaway spending 
stopped. We cannot afford the war we are in. Taxing farms and 
ranches out of existence is not the answer. It is my 
understanding that homes sold for more than they originally 
were bought for, don't have to pay capital gains tax. This 
should be changed. Much government revenue could be raised in 
this way if it's really needed so badly.
    Also it is my observation that farm license plates are 
being put on vehicles that are not used for farm use. Go to any 
rodeo and look at the very expensive aluminum trailers, many 
which cost over $100,000.00. Most of these trailers have farm 
tags on them and do not pay tax. I wonder how many millions, or 
maybe billions, of tax dollars are not paid on these trucks and 
trailers that are not farm use vehicles. Also supplies are 
bought by individuals that are not for farm use and do not pay 
sales tax. There is a simple solution to this problem. If a 
person does not file a Schedule F on their federal income tax, 
then they can't buy Farm license plates or get a farm use sales 
tax exemption. Farmers and ranchers need these programs, but 
they are being greatly abused. Make everyone show the Schedule 
F Income tax returns as proof before purchasing farm license 
plates or farm supplies.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Christine Smith, Boise, ID

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Christine Smith.
    City, State: Boise, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nonprofit Social Service Agency Staff.
    Comment:

    Dear Congressman on the House Committee on Agriculture,

    In order to address hunger in Idaho and the U.S., it is 
imperative that there be a strong representation of nutrition 
programs in the 2012 Farm Bill. In a state as abundant as 
Idaho, and a nation as affluent as the United States, there 
should be no one who is food insecure. Idaho hosted one of the 
first field hearings for the 2012 Farm Bill on May 1 in Nampa, 
Idaho. Nutrition programs were not discussed and we want to 
make sure that their continued importance is not 
underestimated.
    The 2012 Farm Bill is an important asset to achieving 
President Obama's goal to eliminate childhood hunger by 2015. 
In order to achieve the President's goal, the Farm Bill must 
concentrate on:

   strengthening nutrition programs, such as the 
        Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, known 
        as the Food Stamp Program in Idaho),

   strengthening child nutrition programs, and

   guaranteeing convenient access to nutritional 
        programs and affordable food for all Americans.

    Hunger and food insecurity are serious issues in Idaho. In 
2009 Idaho was ranked as the 29th most food insecure state in 
the nation. Idaho's first Congressional district, represented 
by Congressman Walt Minnick, had a food insecurity rate of 
15.3% between 2008 and 2009. Idaho's second Congressional 
district, represented by Congressman Mike Simpson, had a food 
insecurity rate of 18% in the same time period. These numbers 
show that a noticeable population of Idaho residents is not 
able to purchase the food that they or their families needed.
    Much of the hunger and food insecurity in Idaho can be 
attributed to a shaky economy. According to the Idaho 
Department of Labor, the state had a 9% unemployment rate in 
May 2010. And according to the United States Department of 
Labor, total unemployed, marginally attached workers, and total 
people employed part time for economic reasons is represented 
by 16.9% of Idaho's workforce.
    Nutrition programs such as SNAP, The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program (TEFAP), and the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program (CSFP) are the keystone programs needed to ensure 
support for the thousands of people struggling with food 
insecurity. There are more than 200,000 Idaho residents 
accepting food stamp (SNAP) benefits in Idaho. But the latest 
numbers we have for food stamp participation show that only 50% 
of those eligible are applying. This means there are another 
200,000 who need assistance from Food Stamps/SNAP but are not 
accessing it.
    SNAP is also an important sector of Idaho's economy. For 
each dollar of SNAP benefits spent in Idaho, $1.84 is generated 
in economic activity. The 2008 Farm Bill helped boost SNAP 
benefits for clients, helping to bolster economic improvement 
in Idaho. Future action is needed to ensure that food inflation 
does not hinder these extra benefits to SNAP clients and the 
local and national economy.
    SNAP works well for those who use it, but there are gaps in 
access. Also, administrative regulations make it burdensome to 
apply and to verify eligibility. Recommendations for changes 
include:

   improve benefit adequacy by replacing the Thrifty 
        Food Plan with the Low Cost Food plan as the basis for 
        SNAP benefits;

   increase the minimum benefit (especially to help 
        elderly, many of whom now only receive $16 a month);

   restore eligibility to legal immigrants;

   permanently suspend time limits on able-bodied 
        adults (18-50) without dependents; and

   provide greater supports for states, including for 
        SNAP administration and outreach.

    SNAP is an important part of an anti-hunger and health 
agenda. SNAP allotments need to be raised to allow families to 
afford a nutritious diet on a regular basis. SNAP Nutrition 
Education as well as access to supermarkets and farmers' 
markets EBT contribute to good health outcomes.
             With gratitude,

Christine Smith.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Grace Smith, Adamsville, AL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Grace Smith.
    City, State: Adamsville, AL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: We need a farm bill that supports sustainable 
agriculture and small farms and that promotes and insures a 
healthy food supply that is not so reliant on fossil fuels, 
pesticides, insecticides and genetic modification. We need to 
make sure that agribusiness does not write all the rules and 
that giant agricultural conglomerates are not allowed to flood 
the market with cheap, genetically modified crops and value 
added products derived from those crops that threaten our 
health and the health and welfare of our children. And we need 
to rethink farm subsidies that may have made sense in the 1970s 
but that have led to the obscene rise of giant agribusinesses 
that are concerned more with developing, growing, then flooding 
the market with cheap, unhealthy but very profitable products 
than with the health and welfare of the nation and the world.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Kim Smith, Vancouver, WA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 7:35 p.m.
    Name: Kim Smith.
    City, State: Vancouver, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: Please outlaw GMO's.
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming: by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Stop subsidizing corn and soybeans; instead focus help on 
local, organic farmers.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Larry Smith, La Porte, IN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Larry Smith.
    City, State: La Porte, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager and Appraiser.
    Comment: I am requesting that FSA maps remain public in 
your next farm bill. FSA soil and aerial maps contain 
information that is vital to farmers, appraisers, and 
prospective buyers. This information really enhances the 
quality and accuracy of appraisals, which benefits the land 
owner, mortgager, and state and federal tax agencies, as well. 
The information is already public on soil maps and has been for 
40 years, and keeping it public cuts down on the staffing and 
copying costs required to have it only available in FSA, 
assessors, and recorders offices.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Marietta Smith, Mount Prospect, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 10:06 p.m.
    Name: Marietta Smith.
    City, State: Mount Prospect, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Full-Time Student.
    Comment: Based on what I have learned not only from my 
classes at Dartmouth, but also from recent agricultural and 
scientific literature, I would advocate for modifying the 
incentive structure of the Farm Bill. We should not subsidize 
the production of corn, soy, and other cash crops as the push 
for high yields of these products has led to monocropping and 
subsequent destruction of soil, reliance on pesticides, and 
loss of genetic variation. By overproducing corn, we have been 
forced to find new markets in livestock feed and developing 
countries. For example, Farm Bill subsidies harm cows who 
subsist better on grass-fed diets and undercut local producers 
in countries like Jamaica.
    Instead, the Farm Bill should support local agriculture 
that produces fruits and vegetables. This modification could 
ultimately decrease the agricultural carbon footprint by 
reducing the distance food travels from farm to plate, improve 
American diets by making produce affordable, and replenish 
nitrogen stores in the soil by supporting crop rotation.
    I understand that agricultural powerhouses like Cargill and 
Tyson have a bunch of lobbyists working for them, but if you 
truly care about the well-being of the American public, you 
should, at a minimum, reduce corn subsidies. Because corn is so 
cheap, high-fructose corn syrup ends up in a variety of foods 
and in American stomachs. Although lobbyists may tell you that 
high-fructose corn syrup is safe, please consider recent 
scientific articles that have shown how high-fructose corn 
syrup can lead to weight gain (http://www.sciencedirect.com . . 
.) [Editor's Note: the URL submitted contained personally 
identifiable information and has been redacted. An alternate 
link to the article is: http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/
uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf.].* If you can't access that article, 
you can read a summary here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The documents referred to are retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    High-fructose corn syrup is not solely responsible for the 
rise of obesity and heart disease in this country, but it 
certainly does not help the situation. Many Americans cannot 
afford healthier options because of the current subsidies. 
Their poor diets have unfortunate health consequences. By 
changing the Farm Bill, we can shift consumption patterns and 
hopefully reduce one factor in rising health care costs.
    It's truly amazing how interconnected our agricultural 
system is with many of problems facing our country. Please 
consider these connections as you review the Farm Bill!
    Feel free to contact me with any further questions.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Mark Smith, Marietta, GA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Mark Smith.
    City, State: Marietta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag./Env. Student.
    Comment: Thank you for taking public commentary on the next 
Farm Bill. I appreciate this opportunity.
    I support the continued funding of programs which aid bio-
diesel and cellulose-derived ethanol producers. I believe 
biofuels and bioplastics are a step in the right direction to 
create a viable domestic fuel and product supply to decrease 
our dependence on petroleum and fossil fuels.
    I would also like to see a program which would help younger 
generations in gaining education and interest in agriculture as 
well as programs which may help decrease the cost or risk 
associated with those who would like to start their own 
agricultural operations.
    I would like to see some kind of food safety and monitoring 
program in order to digitally track meat, seafood, and other 
products using barcode or RFID technologies. This would allow 
consumer to be more aware of where their food comes from as 
well as aid in containing outbreaks of E. coli, other bacteria, 
or a terrorist attack on the food supply should it occur.
    I am conflicted in regard to organic versus biotechnology 
food. I believe that both should be encouraged yet both should 
not interfere with the production of the other (IE GE products 
should be contained in a better manner without being able to 
spread across neighboring fields). I support the decreased use 
of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers and increase in 
harvest yield using any technique available.
    I also support having food of higher nutritional quality 
and thus foods which are picked at proper times and shipped 
nearby in order to preserve nutrients. Encouraging locally 
produced foods would be beneficial in all of these regards as 
imported fruits and vegetables from South America and other 
countries are more likely to contain high level of pesticides, 
even pesticides banned for use in the United States and are 
often picked before ripeness in order to endure the long 
voyage. Obviously there are some products which cannot or are 
not grown in the U.S. and these should be excluded from my 
opinion on buying locally.
    I also believe it is vitally important to continue 
substantial funding of the food stamp and school lunch 
programs. If possible, I believe there should be a campaign in 
educating the public about the Farm Bill and its role in 
feeding much of the American population. With the public 
support of the Farm Bill, public awareness of agriculture and 
its vital role in America would be heightened.
    Thank you again for allowing me to leave my comments on the 
upcoming Farm Bill.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Robert Smith, Boise, ID

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Robert Smith.
    City, State: Boise, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment: I am a real estate appraiser who has been in the 
business in excess of 45 years working with farm and ranch 
clients in Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Montana. I have relied 
on information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm 
Services to get aerial copies of agriculture land and tillable 
acreages. This is not only on my clients property, but also the 
farms and ranches that have recently sold that I use as 
comparables. The sales comparison approach is one of our main 
valuation tools and the recognized tillable acreage by the 
Service is all important when valuing agriculture property. 
Access to these aerials and acreages have been an off and on 
again situation which needs to be resolved for us to better 
service our agricultural clients. Please do every you can to 
anyway allow Certified Real Estate Appraisers, like it was at 
one time, access to this all important information. In all my 
years in the appraisal profession, I have never seen access to 
this information abused. By the way this should be public 
information since it is collected and maintained with tax 
dollars.
    Thank you for hearing me out.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Timothy Smith, Harper, OR

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Timothy Smith.
    City, State: Harper, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: As both a cattle rancher and a farm/ranch real 
estate appraiser (State Certified General Appraiser--
[Redacted]) I strongly ask that there be public access to 
Common Land Units (CLUs) from the Farm Service Agency. As an 
appraiser this information this information is vital to 
providing accurate appraisals to my clients. As a rancher I do 
not feel this information would infringe on my privacy if 
available to the public. It would, however, improve service 
from my fertilizer supplier and lender.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Angela Smith-Dieng, Burlington, VT

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Angela Smith-Dieng.
    City, State: Burlington, VT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Nutrition Specialist at Vermont Campaign to End 
Childhood Hunger.
    Comment: According to a recent Gallop Poll on Food 
Hardship, 1 in 5 Vermont families with children struggle with 
hunger. The long-term health and well-being consequences of 
hunger are very real and well documented, affecting both 
individuals and our society. SNAP benefits are critical to 
preventing hunger and they bring essential economic stimulus to 
our small state--over $10.5 million a month for Vermont's 
grocery stores, farmers and markets. The Farm Bill is an 
opportunity to strengthen SNAP's ability to respond to hunger 
in our communities and provide a strong safety net that 
improves quality of life for everyone.
    Thank you for taking these comments into consideration and 
for your hard work on behalf of all Americans.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Arvind Solanki, Laurel, MD

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:06 p.m.
    Name: Arvind Solanki.
    City, State: Laurel, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Information Technology.
    Comment: Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban 
farms across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear 
benefits: cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our 
water and endangers our health, while increasing economic 
development opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:
    Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good they do 
rather than for the amount of crops they produce.
    Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more kinds of 
crops), adding carbon in their soil, and putting perennial 
crops (such as hay and pasture) in their fields.
    Protect income for farmers who raise organic food crops 
that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA food pyramid, so 
that we get better food and fewer junk-food ingredients.
                                ------                                


               Comments of Norbert Soltwedel, Shumway, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 7:05 a.m.
    Name: Norbert Soltwedel.
    City, State: Shumway, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Direct payments can be used to fund agriculture 
research such as assisting state experiment stations that do 
practical research demonstrations that benefit the farmers that 
feed the world. Use these funds to increase assistance to 
beginning farmers. Decrease funds spent on organic and 
sustainable agriculture as these are nothing more than 
subsidies of inefficient producers. In general programs like 
ACRE and improved crop insurance provide a safety net that is 
needed in light of the huge volatility in prices. Programs that 
save our soil and encourage conservation are of great value. 
Simplify the paperwork associated with Farm Service Agency and 
Federal Crop Insurance. (use information already available by 
IRS, satellite, eliminate duplication by Crop Insurance or Farm 
Service, and stop overlap among agencies) Conduct a buyout 
program to eliminate all FSA producers whose payments are under 
$2,500/year so as to cut administrative costs. Payment 
limitations are a good thing but they need to be kept high 
enough to cover farms where families provide a majority of the 
labor and management themselves. Place limits on Food stamp 
eligibility so that a family is weaned off of the program and 
require recipients to pay some share of the stamps cost. 
Redirect food subsidies to school and day care providers and 
decrease the amount of processed foods eligible for stamps. 
(Basically encourage raw vegetables, fruits, flour, shortening, 
milk, eggs, sugar, salt over prepared foods) Stop patronizing 
those who complain and start using common sense to cut out the 
frivolous and non essential. Reward those who work, invest, and 
take good care of our land. Allow those who are unproductive to 
suffer a little pain (no pain-no gain).

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Norbert Soltwedel.
    City, State: Shumway, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As an appraiser, Section 1619 of the current farm 
bill creates very significant problems. This restriction on 
obtaining aerial photos from FSA and getting essential 
information such as crop acres, CRP acres, and field boundaries 
is making my job more difficult, less accurate, and more 
expensive to the client. Beneficiaries of my work and the one 
paying the price for this restriction is normally farmers 
seeking loans to purchase farmland. I fail to see how allowing 
FSA to provide this information creates a hardship on any 
landowner. Section 1619 certainly is creating a hardship for 
appraisers and hence sellers and buyers of farmland, that grows 
more difficult with each year that the rule remains in place. 
Please return to the method of disclosing this information that 
existed prior to the current farm bill.

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Norbert Soltwedel.
    City, State: Shumway, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: As an appraiser we must have the ability to obtain 
USDA aerial photos with CLU data as a minimum (boundaries & 
crop acres) It would be very helpful if the information could 
also include wetlands and CRP use designations. The current 
farm bill took this information away from us and it has been a 
severe restriction on our ability to provide farm owners with 
accurate estimates of value needed to obtain loans, file estate 
taxes, and assist in sale/purchase of farms. I am referencing 
section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill that is causing a hardship 
as currently drafted.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Denise Sorensen, Kannapolis, NC

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Denise Sorensen.
    City, State: Kannapolis, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Food Blogger.
    Comment: As a writer and friend of many small farmers and 
producers, I would like to see subsidies and assistance 
providing to them, as well as subsidies for polyculture. Our 
current program is too friendly with the large corporations, 
even if some are ``family-owned''. The Farm Bill should benefit 
those producers who are on the edge of being able to support 
their families, not those who have the most money to spend on 
lobbying. Our country will not be able to sustain our current 
agricultural/agribusiness system. If the government is 
determined to help farmers, it should be helping the farmers, 
not Big Business. Please stop subsidizing large industries that 
bring in millions or billions of dollars each year and create a 
bill that will provide assistance to those who actually need it 
and who will create a sustainable system for our country.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Tony Souza, Tulare, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Tony Souza.
    City, State: Tulare, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: The dairy section should include:

    1. Milk should be priced on the national average cost of 
        producing milk on all dairies in the U.S.

    2. There should be only two classes of milk. Milk used for 
        manufacturing (Class II) and milk used for fluid (Class 
        I). Class I price will be determined by adding the 
        existing Class I differentials to the class II price. 
        Class II price will be determined by using the national 
        average cost of producing milk.

    3. Get the CME out of the setting price for milk.

    4. All federal and state orders should stay intact.

    5. Have an inventory management program funded by dairymen, 
        not the government.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Audrey Spindle, Checotah, OK

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Audrey Spindle.
    City, State: Checotah, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Greenhouse/nursery, Livestock, Vegetables.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: I would like for the Members of the Committee to 
seriously consider the needs of small family-owned farms who 
are attempting to ``go organic'' in order to survive. The 
current regulatory climate for organic production unfairly 
favors larger industrial operations. The costs in fees and 
legwork labor to obtain and maintain organic certification are 
out of reach for most farms our size. The benefits, however, 
could be literally life-saving. Please consider reducing the 
fees and paperwork requirements for small organic farms. Thank 
you!
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Nathan Staab, Hays, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Nathan Staab.
    City, State: Hays, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: We need to reinstate public access to CLU data. In 
the job that I am in we are in need of this information, and 
can be very helpful to us.
            Thanks,

Nathan Staab.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ellen Stadler, Dalton, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Ellen Stadler.
    City, State: Dalton, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mail Processing.
    Comment: Keep small business' alive and the land 
undeveloped. We need home grown, locally grown food, and dairy 
products. Subsidize small farm business not just the big agras.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Deb Stanbro, Tipton, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Deb Stanbro.
    City, State: Tipton, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraisal.
    Comment:

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Terri Stangl, Flint, MI

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Terri Stangl.
    City, State: Flint, MI.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Executive Director, Center for Civil Justice.
    Comment: The Center for Civil Justice is a 501(c)(3) 
nonprofit organization which advocates for and with low-income 
persons and their allies. Last year alone, CCJ's Food and 
Nutrition Help Line fielded over 12,000 calls from people all 
over Michigan who are facing barriers in accessing SNAP 
benefits. The Help Line provides advocacy services to these 
individuals and their families, who depend on the SNAP program 
to buy groceries.
    The assistance that the SNAP program provides is essential 
to thousands of families in our community. 21.2% of residents 
of the 5th Congressional district reported that there had been 
times in the past 12 months when they did not have enough money 
to buy food that they or their family needed. In Michigan, the 
number of people receiving SNAP benefits increased by 27% from 
October 2008 to April 2010. This evidences the increasing 
reliance of needy families on this program.
    Unemployment and underemployment are also serious problems, 
further contributing to the need for SNAP. Michigan's rate of 
under- and unemployment is 21.7%, sharing the top spot for the 
highest rate in the country. Many of our callers in the last 
year were referred by Michigan's Unemployment insurance 
offices.
    SNAP is important to our clients and the Michigan economy. 
Each dollar in federal SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in 
economic activity. We applaud steps Congress took in the 2008 
Farm Bill, the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and 
the FY 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to boost 
SNAP benefits for clients and administrative supports to 
states. Future action is needed to ensure that the value of the 
ARRA benefit boosts do not erode with food inflation.
    SNAP is effective but its reach is undermined by gaps in 
access and adequacy of benefits as well as by administrative 
burdens. We recommend several changes. These include: update 
and improve benefit adequacy by replacing the Thrifty Food Plan 
with the Low Cost Food plan as the basis for SNAP benefits; 
increase the minimum benefit (especially to help elderly many 
of whom now only receive $16 a month); permanently suspend time 
limits on able-bodied adults (18-50) without dependents; and 
provide greater support for states, including funding for SNAP 
administration and outreach.
    Additionally, the Center for Civil Justice recommends the 
elimination of the 5 year waiting period for SNAP eligibility 
for adult permanent residents. The Food and Nutrition Help Line 
receives numerous calls from immigrants who need to know if 
they are eligible for SNAP benefits. Unfortunately many of them 
do not qualify to receive benefits because they have not been 
green card holders for 5 years. This policy prevents immigrant 
households without permanent resident children from receiving 
any food benefits, despite the adults being lawful residents. 
It is especially sad when we have to tell elderly immigrants 
they do not qualify for the program, knowing that otherwise 
they could be receiving the benefits that they greatly need. 
Families with eligible children are also negatively affected by 
this policy, because they have to stretch a SNAP allotment that 
is not enough to feed the whole family. CCJ recommends the 
elimination of the 5 year waiting period for lawful permanent 
residents to give more equitable and fair treatment to those 
legal immigrants.
    CCJ understands that SNAP is an important part of an anti-
hunger and health agenda, and therefore allotments need to be 
raised and barriers to SNAP removed to allow low-income 
families to afford food on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Edh Stanley, Sacramento, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Edh Stanley.
    City, State: Sacramento, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Postal Worker.
    Comment: We need to strengthen the small, independent 
family owned farms.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Natasha Stark, College Park, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Natasha Stark.
    City, State: College Park, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Government.
    Comment:

    Gentlemen,

    As the parent of a growing child, I would like to express 
my support for changes to the 2012 Farm Bill that supports and 
promotes healthy food choices such as fruits and vegetables, 
that provides incentives for local food systems, and that 
encourages grass-fed rather than grain-fed livestock. I am 
particularly concerned that the current construct of the 
existing farm bill promotes an unhealthy focus on providing 
subsidies for commodities such as corn and soybeans that are 
being used by big agribusiness firms to overproduce sugars and 
fats that are contributing to the current obesity epidemic. As 
a parent, I strive everyday to provide my child with a 
selection of healthy food choices, and I have become 
increasingly dismayed at the difficulty I am having in finding 
products that do not have extra sugars and fats added, and/or 
that have not been genetically engineered in some way. As you 
consider changes to the farm bill, I would appreciate it 
greatly if you would consider changes that favor the average 
farmer and consumer, and do less to promote the interests of 
big business. Thank you.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Helen Starr, Easton, MD

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Helen Starr.
    City, State: Easton, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Attorney and Graduate Student in 
Gastronomy.
    Comment: I am in the process of writing a paper on the 
ethics of the production of Prosciutto di Parma and came across 
the following in a speech given by Tufts professoro Will 
Masters.
    Now after decades of study, it turns out that government 
interventions such as crop insurance, renewable fuel mandates, 
the conservation reserve program, land conversion restrictions 
and many others are not necessarily what they seem. Modern 
economics can explain them pretty well, but only as rent-
seeking devices. These interventions are ways for farmers and 
landowners to obtain income transfers from the public in a way 
that is obscured from public view, hidden partly by their sheer 
complexity and partly by the claim that they exist to solve 
market failures such as credit constraints or environmental 
problems.
    It is long past the appropriate time to stop giving 
Congressional favors and taxpayers hard earned dollars to a 
rich farming industry and rich individuals who pretend they are 
farmers (A.J. Clark of Clark Construction comes to mind, as 
does Sam Donaldson, both receiving subsidies while they make 
millions in their real jobs). Get some backbone and just say 
no. People won't accept this forever.

Helen Starr.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kim Stearman, Cookeville, TN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Kim Stearman.
    City, State: Cookeville, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: College Professor.
    Comment: Please support Organic Farming in the Farm Bill 
for 2012 for the following reasons: (1) Organic Farming is the 
fastest growing area in agriculture approximately 20% per year 
(2) Consumers are demanding organic/local food (3) Organic 
farming is more environmental sustainable with less toxins 
entering are soils, water and foods (4) Organic farming 
conserves water by increasing soil organic matter and reduces 
greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon (5) Organic farming is 
now an established farming practice, but research dollars have 
not supported it based on it percentage of farm revenues. 
Thanks for your consideration
                                ------                                


            Comment of Lindsay Steedman, North Bethesda, MD

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:36 p.m.
    Name: Lindsay Steedman.
    City, State: North Bethesda, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Financial Analyst.
    Comment: The subsidy on corn should be removed, and free 
markets should resume.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Jeffrey A. Stein, Hankinson, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 6:06 p.m.
    Name: Jeffrey A. Stein.
    City, State: Hankinson, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Lender/Agent.
    Comment: I am writing you this message to urge you to 
carefully consider any cuts to the crop insurance program 
during the debates on the new Farm Bill. I am both a lender and 
licensed crop insurance agent. I see firsthand how crop 
insurance has become a vital risk management tool for our farm 
customers. The crop insurance program has evolved over the 
years into a product that provides real risk protection.
    In my opinion, the crop insurance program is working and 
farmers are using it. Instead of looking for ways to cut the 
program, I suggest that the Committee consider ways to continue 
to improve it. Much has been made about the ACRE and SURE 
programs. These have proven to be very slow to get money into 
the hands of the producers, whereas crop insurance claims 
checks are normally mailed within a matter of weeks. I fail to 
see much benefit in receiving a disaster payment 12-18 months 
after it has occurred. I might even suggest that you use cuts 
in the ACRE & SURE programs to help avoid making ANY cuts in 
the subsidy levels of crop insurance.
    Thank you for taking my views into consideration.
            Sincerely,

Jeffrey A. Stein,
Senior Vice President,
Lincoln State Bank,
[Redacted],
Hankinson, ND.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Leora Stein, Port Townsend, WA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Leora Stein.
    City, State: Port Townsend, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: AmeriCorps VISTA.
    Comment: There must be a focus on organic agriculture and 
the strengthening of local food systems in the 2012 Farm Bill. 
Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. 
agricultural production and organic food is one of the fastest 
growing sectors of the U.S. food retail market. Sales of food 
sold through direct marketing is also increasing at a high 
rate.
    Organic farming systems also have the potential to conserve 
water, improve air quality, and build soil quality while 
providing high quality food and fiber for consumers here and 
abroad.
    If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue to grow 
and thrive, we need to invest in programs that support organic 
farmers, including:
    Research and Extension Programs that expand the breadth of 
knowledge about organic farming systems and provide that 
knowledge to organic farmers.
    Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers for the 
conservation benefits of organic farming systems and provide 
technical support for organic farmers who want to improve on-
farm conservation.
    Transition Programs that provide technical support to 
farmers who want to transition to organic farming practices but 
don't know how.
    Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic farmers and 
reimburse them for any losses based on the organic market value 
of the crop, not average conventional prices.
    We also need to invest in programs that help build 
community food security, with a emphasis on providing fresh, 
local, and healthy foods for low-income areas.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

Leora Stein,
Local Food Resource Development,
Olympic Community Action Programs/Jefferson County WSU 
Extension Food and Farm Program,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
Port Townsend, WA,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


               Comment of Todd Steinacher, Litchfield, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Todd Steinacher.
    City, State: Litchfield, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: If is was not for the FSA mapping tool it would be 
a lot harder to service my customers. I am able to import field 
information to request fields for spraying with Aerial 
application. I also use this maps to build Record keeping 
books. This is a very good tool for farmers and the agriculture 
industry.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Stu Stenseth, Bismarck, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: Stu Stenseth.
    City, State: Bismarck, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser for Producers.
    Comment: The CLU should at a minimum show the field 
boundaries and the correct acreage.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Brian Stepanek, Fresno, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 10:06 p.m.
    Name: Brian Stepanek.
    City, State: Fresno, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Airline Pilot.
    Comment: I am, like many Americans, concerned about the 
quality of the food being produced and consumed in this 
country. I am also concerned with the health and financial 
stability of the American family farm. I attended the Farm Bill 
hearing that took place in Fresno, CA. After listening to what 
was said and doing much research and fact-finding of my own, I 
have come up with some suggestions that I would like to see 
taken into consideration for the next farm bill. I believe that 
the next farm bill should:

    (1) Support small family farms. Family farms should, at the 
        very least, be on an equal footing with large 
        conglomerate farms in the new farm bill.

    (2) Promote sustainable price structures, especially for 
        corn, soybeans, and wheat. Lawmakers should take a hard 
        look at altering the current crop subsidy system, 
        especially for these three commodity crops. Future 
        subsidies should promote fair compensation for farmers 
        and end artificially low prices for these commodities.

    (3) Discourage the production of industrialized, high 
        calorie, low nutrition ``food'' that is a major 
        contributor to the obesity epidemic, diabetes, and the 
        overall decline in the health of our nation.

    (4) Promote wholesome foods such as sustainably, naturally 
        grown fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, poultry, 
        fish, and dairy.

    Thank you for taking my comments and concerns into account 
for the next farm bill. I appreciate all the time and hard work 
that has and will be put into the new farm bill.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jessica Stern, Arlington, VA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 18, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Jessica Stern.
    City, State: Arlington, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Human Resources Manager.
    Comment: I am a supporter of quality, organic food and 
sustainable farming practices. A strong food bill which 
supports local farmers, no use of pesticides, subsidies for 
fruits and vegetables instead of grains, and a firm stance 
against GMO's and all companies attempting to infiltrate our 
precious food supply with this dangerous, short-sighted 
technology is necessary for the health of the people, our 
nation, and the world as a whole.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Stefanie Stevenson, Cincinnati, OH

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Stefanie Stevenson.
    City, State: Cincinnati, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Family Practice Physician.
    Comment: Please consider our country's children's health 
and lives when making a decision how to support agriculture. 
PLEASE stop subsidizing products like corn and soy and begin to 
instead subsidize organic farmers! I see what is happening to 
children first hand in my office. More and more children that I 
take care of are eating diets full of high fructose corn syrup 
and processed foods with soybean oil. These are some of the key 
ingredients to why our children are more obese and more 
chronically ill than ever before.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Travis A. Stewart, Mankato, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Travis A. Stewart.
    City, State: Mankato, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: GIS Mapper for Crop Insurance Co.
    Comment: In regards to the new rules that are being enacted 
that limit the access to the CLU'S will be inhibiting to our 
primary service to our clients. We as a independent mapping 
Insurance firm depend on the access to the CLU's to properly 
represent our Farmers land. I am so confused on why when RMA is 
increasing the accuracy in which the fields have to be reported 
to farm #, tract #, and field #, why would you restrict our 
access to this information. I understand the CIMS reporting is 
suppose to resolve this but when it comes to the belief that 
personalized maps most accurately represent our farmers along 
with the farmers of many of our Mappins Software Clients we are 
rendered with yet another free resource to our farmers.
    I as a professional mapper spend year round using CLU data 
to map and compare our farmers actual acreage to reported 
acreage to ensure accuracy and often depending on FSA's mapping 
proves numerous inaccurate reported acreage. We as an 
independent mapping agency can accurately map our clients 
eliminating the excessive acreage that is often found with the 
CLU's and have to fortunate ability to use the CLU's to locate 
our farmers fields through a search for the Farm #. Without it 
we lose this timely ability to build our maps! Also being an 
independent mapping agent we can give our farmers the detailed 
mapping they deserve by being able to KNOW their land and 
accurately mapping it via GPS and GIS Mapping systems. Often 
due to the ability to provide more in depth attention to our 
farmers I can often eliminate the excessive acreage found in 
the CLU's (which fail to provide in depth detail because of the 
lack of individual attention that only independent mapping 
agents can provide)
    I hope that these thoughts can be reflected upon and that 
the RMA can realize that we as the agencies due not pry for 
this data to exploit our farmers and other agencies farmer but 
to properly portray and accurately represent what would be in 
our farmer best interest by providing accurate maps.
    But to do so the CLU's provide a useful tool and starting 
point for this and without will lead to numerous misreported 
acres and ultimately hinder the farmer and RMA by higher 
premiums loss payments due to over reported acreage, and 
excessive expenses.
    My job and livelihood depend on my ability to map at our 
agency, without the access to CLU's my position is no longer a 
need or an above and beyond service we can provide to our 
farmers!
    Please realize that there is more critical information that 
can be obtained through plat books, county offices, FSA, and 
elsewhere the what can be found in the CLU's!
            Sincerely,

Travis A. Stewart.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Trevor Stieg, Hazel, SD

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 5:36 p.m.
    Name: Trevor Stieg.
    City, State: Hazel, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Sales Manager.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access of the Common Land 
Unit data to the NRCS data Gateway.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Mary Stock, Phoenix, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Mary Stock.
    City, State: Phoenix, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Pharmacist.
    Comment: I truly believe that it is time to give back to 
the small farmer. They work so hard for so little. Organics 
must be supported more if we are to get back to a healthy 
economy and healthy body. Please, no GMO, and if Monsanto still 
insists, I want to know what products it is in. More info is 
coming out about how unsafe it really is.
    Subsidies must be given to the small farmer. The factory 
and big farmer does not need it any more. Why should we pay 
someone to NOT GROW something. We need to be paying farmers to 
grow something, especially that which is local and fresh and 
healthy.
    We also need to be supporting the school lunch program with 
much healthier choices. No more lunch out of a can or box. They 
need to incorporate more fresh fruits and vegetables. In order 
to do this they need more money. Please support this truly 
needed program. This kids all ready get too many bad carbs in 
their diet. We don't need to be doing the same at school. For a 
lot of children, this would be their only decent meal of the 
day.
            Best regard,

Mary.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Neil Stoller, Toulon, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Neil Stoller.
    City, State: Toulon, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment:

    Members of the House Agriculture Committee,

    Your website was recently brought to my attention, and I 
appreciate the information presented there. It looks like a 
good source for staying informed on national ag legislation and 
deliberations.
    I am writing in regards to considerations for the upcoming 
Farm Bill. I am an agronomist and GPS specialist for a private 
soil testing laboratory in rural central Illinois, serving 
producers/farmers in their soil fertility needs. I am concerned 
with an added provision of the 2008 Farm Bill (Section 1619) 
that has DEFINITELY negatively affected the job that I perform. 
I am writing today to request that the new Farm Bill reinstate 
to public access the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS 
Data Gateway.
    From 2004 until 2008, the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) 
CLU data was publicly available and easily accessible. It was 
relied upon by many agribusinesses and ag professionals (myself 
included) who used the CLU data to perform valid, productive 
jobs at reasonable rates for the producer. Today we must go to 
the farmers' fields and run GPS-boundaries for each field, 
SIGNIFICANTLY increasing time and cost to our jobs. The CLU 
data already contains that field boundary information, if only 
it were available for us to use.
    I think the idea behind Section 1619 was that ag 
professionals could just retrieve the data from the producer or 
landowner. But the reality is that many producers do not 
maintain that information themselves, and many are not even 
capable of understanding the technical aspects of their farming 
operations. Much of it is outsourced to professionals like 
myself who are proficient at the technical side of modern 
agriculture. Besides this, the broad range of agribusiness that 
a typical producer works with might all benefit from the CLU 
data. The typical producer does not have the patience to 
provide all that information to each of his providers. He calls 
his fertilizer dealer, for example, and orders a fertilizer 
application to his field. The general expectation of the 
producer is that the dealer already has all the information he 
needs to perform the job accurately and efficiently.
    If the intent of Section 1619 in the 2008 Farm Bill was to 
protect farmer information, I do not believe that the CLU data 
compromises in any way producer information. The CLU data only 
contains GPS field boundaries, and the associated reference 
information for the field (county, township, section, lat./
long., etc.). It does not contain any compliance information, 
wetland, CRP, ownership, or any other private production 
information.
    I would appreciate it if the House Agriculture Committee 
would consider an amendment to the 2008 Farm Bill Section 1619 
that would allow for CLU data to be made available for public 
use. I am requesting that you restore the CLU data with the 
following attributes included: Field Boundary, Acres, Tract 
Number, Farm Number, Field Number, Primary Classification of 
Land Unit Type, and the Administrating County and State office.
    Thank you for your time and consideration to this issue.
            Sincerely,

Neil Stoller,
Agronomist, Certified Crop Advisor (CCA).
                                ------                                


               Comment of Rebecca Stone, Cooperstown, NY

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Rebecca Stone.
    City, State: Cooperstown, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Please allow the CLU data to be public, this 
information is very important in valuing farms and does not 
contain any personal information. The CLU data gives field 
boundaries and acreage--nothing else. Please put this 
information back in as public information.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of David Story, Woodward, OK

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: David Story.
    City, State: Woodward, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: Please reinstate the CLU information into section 
1619. I see harm to this information being released.
            Thanks,

David.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Phil Stotesbery, Pelican Rapids, MN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, July 08, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Phil Stotesbery.
    City, State: Pelican Rapids, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Grocery Store Owner, Larrys Super Market.
    Comment: I am a huge believer in the use of ethanol. I've 
used E20 for several years with no loss in mileage or 
performance . . . in non E85 vehicles.
    Today, I walked up to a guy filling his car with E85. His 
dad is a retired mechanic-inventor, who uses E85 in non E85 
cars. He claims the older cars' computers are able to adjust 
fuel mixture to burn E85.
    He said everyone should be burning no less than E20. 
Ethanol has less of an impact on our environment. Is produced 
in rural America by small businesses . . . farmers. And keeps 
grain prices at a profitable level for our farmers without 
government aid . . . saving our govt. money and at the same 
time generating tax revenue.
    The rise in food prices caused by higher grain prices was 
in part an excuse for food processors to raise prices. The 
``hype'' seems to have gone away and prices stabilized.
    As a side thought, I'm sure we would be willing to pay more 
for clothing if it were all made in the U.S.
    Lets do what we can to lessen our dependence on foreign 
oil, and build back our economy.
    Give gas station owners an incentive to install blender 
pumps, and mandate E20. We have to increase our use of ethanol 
so our Ethanol plants don't go ``belly Up''.
    Keep up the good work!!!!!!
            Thanks,

Phil Stotesbery.
                                ------                                


                Comment of John Strand, Minneapolis, MN

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 12:06 a.m.
    Name: John Strand.
    City, State: Minneapolis, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: High School English Teacher.
    Comment:

    Dear People's Representatives:

    Please consider organic, local, and (truly) sustainable 
agriculture in your deliberations on this very important bill, 
which (as has been said) probably should be called the food 
bill, rather than the farm bill, since it is so much bigger 
than just farming. Food and farming affects all of us--people, 
plants, animals, the earth itself. My wife Katie and I value 
small, sustainable family farmers greatly and want a bill that 
truly helps them. In fact my wife and I just took a year long 
course called Farm Beginnings offered by The Land Stewardship 
Project and are actively pursuing becoming farmers ourselves. 
We are paying close attention.

John Strand.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Reno Strand, Bottineau, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Reno Strand.
    City, State: Bottineau, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraisal Service & Tax Work.
    Comment: I am requesting that Farm Bill section 1619 would 
relook at Making all FSA Data available to all again. If this 
is not possible then at least make the Data available to 
Appraiser personal.
    Thanks for your reconsideration.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Rebecca Striepe, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Rebecca Striepe.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Freelancer.
    Comment: Thanks to farm subsidies, the unhealthiest foods 
are also the cheapest to produce. Let's encourage our nation's 
farmers to diversify their crops by offering insurance for 
growing healthy food. Crop diversification is better for the 
land and the people . . . it's a win all around!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Vickie Suarez, Sayre, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 16, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Vickie Suarez.
    City, State: Sayre, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Poultry/poultry products.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I am opposed to any government regulation/
subsidizing/interference in the agricultural industry. I am 
opposed to any Farm Bill. Government regulation/subsidizing/
control has made the management of farms more difficult and 
less prosperous. Quoting phrases from the letter I received 
from Congressman Carney regarding the Farm Bill, I am opposed 
to `special funding for farmers,' `legislation to eliminate 
milk hauling charges,' `increased funding for purchases of 
surplus dairy products,' basically any government interference 
in farming. It amazes me that government bureaucrats would 
presume to know better than farmers how to manage farms! Leave 
the farmers free to use their money as they see fit. Lower 
taxes and repeal/oppose legislation which limits the farmer's 
freedom to manage his property the way he feels is best.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Byron Sunderman, Villisca, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Byron Sunderman.
    City, State: Villisca, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomy Sales, Certified Crop Advisor.
    Comment: We urge you to support reinstatement of CLU data 
in section 1619, I work closely with many producers and rely on 
this information for timely and cost effective services. It 
also allows our operators to be in the right fields and has 
reduced our mis-applications of wrong field areas.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Alan J. Svoboda, Burwell, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Alan J. Svoboda.
    City, State: Burwell, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: In the upcoming farm bill, please allow CLU data 
(FSA Fields) to be made public. I am a certified general 
appraiser in the state of Nebraska with 17 years of ag 
appraisal experience. In previous years, I had to go to the 
county FSA office and have them print off FSA aerial photos of 
the property I was appraising and the possible comparable 
sales. This cost me only $1.00 per map, but it cost the FSA 
office several hours of time (to pull of the property I was 
appraising plus 50+ potential comparable sales as I need the 
most recent maps). This takes time and cost me and FSA expense. 
Prior to AgriData providing me with a service for providing 
current FSA maps at a cost of $400 per year, I was spending 
$2,000 to $3,000 per year simply for a current FSA aerial photo 
of the property which I am appraising plus the potential 
comparable sales, which is public information to an appraiser 
from the county FSA office for $1.00 per map.
    This information is available to any American citizen who 
walks into an FSA office, lays down $1.00, however, it cost me 
time as an appraiser and it cost me (and anyone else who pays 
taxes) while the staff of the FSA office spends time pulling 
off the maps that I need to develop a credible appraisal 
report.
    I understand the privacy issue. All I want or need to know, 
is what the property in question looks like on the last FSA 
aerial. Cropland acres (site, dry cropland, irrigated, 
grassland, waste, and road) is available to me and anyone else 
from the county assessor. All I and my clients (the people 
writing a loan on the farm I am appraising) need is a current 
aerial view of the property and comparable sales. It's not a 
secret. I can get a close approximation from Google Maps. That 
takes me more time, which I will bill the client for and the 
landowner will pay, and it will not be as accurate.
    In my opinion, it is a disservice to your constituents to 
deny a convenient source of this information to agricultural 
real estate appraisers. To deny this information to the general 
public through a resource as valuable to my business as 
AgriData cost me money, my clients money, and ultimately the 
landowner money.
    If this information is not available to me through 
AgriData, I charge (and have in the last year) added $500 to 
$1,000 onto my appraisal fee. When 2009 FSA aerial photos 
became available, I precluded my fee correspondingly.
    I can log onto Google Earth and look at a recent satellite 
photo of Afghanistan, Iran, and Russia. Why can't I get a FSA 
recent aerial photo of the farm I am supposed to appraise so 
the landowner can get a loan to plant a crop? Which is where 
the wealth of this great nation (or at least it was a couple of 
years ago).
    Please, please, pretty please allow CLU data (FSA Fields) 
to be made public to me through AgriData.com. I also own a 
farm. I really don't give a damn who looks at a current aerial 
photo of my farm. And if Osama Bin Laden (who you haven't been 
able to bring to justice) or any other terrorist SOB steps foot 
on my place because he had access to CLU data, may God have 
mercy on his soul.
            Sincerely yours,

Alan J. Svoboda,
Certified General Appraiser [Redacted],
[Redacted],
Burwell, NE,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
[Redacted].

    P.S.: I call the seller, the buyer, the broker, the buyer, 
or the attorney to verify the information on each and every 
comparable sale I use in an appraisal. In 17 years of appraisal 
experience I have had two, (2) people tell me it was none of my 
business. In both of those cases I quickly responded I said, 
``I was just wondering why you would pay too much for this 
property.'' In both cases, both, we then spent almost an hour 
talking about the property they bought, plus their neighbors 
property, and every auction they had attended in the last year. 
There are no secrets in the real estate sales business. You 
just have to dig deeper and dig deeper. If CLU data is not 
available to me as a real estate appraiser, I have a new tactic 
to get the information I need to write a credible and reliable 
report. I'll simply say, ''You're public Representative (insert 
your name here) thinks I should work in the dark and eat used 
bull feed. So, I have to charge you an additional $500 to 
$1,000 to do my work. Sorry, call (insert your name here)!''
            Sincerly yours,

Alan J. Svoboda,
Certified General Appraiser [Redacted],
[Redacted],
Burwell, NE,
[Redacted],
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


               Comment of Aaron Swanson, Lake Norden, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Aaron Swanson.
    City, State: Lake Norden, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the 
farm bill and have three areas I would like to address.

    (1.) The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) is the best 
        program I've ever seen in a farm bill. This is exactly 
        the kind of thing we need to support and expand. In 
        this country we will always have the resources to 
        produce an abundant food supply provided we take care 
        of our land with a long term view in mind. This is 
        exactly what CSP promotes. The payment cap is 
        appropriate as well keeping the benefits with small and 
        midsize producers.

    (2.) Crop insurance needs to have similar caps with limits 
        on how much risk it will underwrite for individual 
        producers. Crop insurance presently favors large 
        producers getting larger and depopulating rural areas 
        by offering unlimited risk protection. This needs to be 
        scaled back dramatically. No one is going to starve 
        because the govt. won't take the risk of someone trying 
        to farm half the county.

    (3.) Finally, while I don't presently participate in local 
        farmer markets I am very encouraged to see how they've 
        grown in the last few years. This is a low capital 
        method to get more people involved in agriculture and 
        foster greater interaction with the public. Modern 
        agriculture has always relied on public support. It is 
        important we recognize this and work to get numbers on 
        our side. Thank you very much.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Greg Swartz, Starbuck, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:06 a.m.
    Name: Greg Swartz.
    City, State: Starbuck, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Broker/Farm Manager.
    Comment: Please allow the FSA fields data to be available 
to the public.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jennifer Sweckard, Dallas, TX

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Jennifer Sweckard.
    City, State: Dallas, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Home-Maker.
    Comment: Please allocate more subsidy funding to organic, 
plant-based, and small, family farms to improve overall health, 
reduce pollution, and combat childhood obesity.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kristina Sweet, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Kristina Sweet.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Support small farmers and sustainability, not 
corporate agribusiness and petrochemical/GMO farming!
                                ------                                


                Comments of Bobbie Swires, Danville, IL

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 01, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Bobbie Swires.
    City, State: Danville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser of Farmland.
    Comment: I ask that you consider changing Section 1619 to 
allow access to CLU Common Land Units) from the Farm Service 
Agency. It is critical to have accurate information to perform 
an accurate appraisal. Specifically on ``comparable sales'' it 
is had to get the detail needed on a voluntary basis from a 
buyer or seller. Since they have no vested interest in the 
appraisal, it is highly unlikely they will sign a release. If 
there are several appraisals in the area they could be asked by 
several appraisers--what do you think their response would be! 
NO!!
    Field boundaries, acres, aerial maps, and information on 
enrollment in CRP WRP or other programs is critical to 
developing an accurate appraisal. Names and address are not 
relevant. PLEASE CONSIDER allowing that information to be 
available. Thank you for the time.

Bob.

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Bobbie Swires.
    City, State: Danville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Mgr./Appraiser.
    Comment: The CLU information is invaluable in my work. It 
provides accurate information, that results in a better work 
product!!!! Section 1619 took that away. There is NO personal 
information tied to the CLU's, it does provide an indication of 
land use, size of fields, all of which makes my work more 
accurate and less cost to my client. Please do away with 
Section 1619 as unnecessary rules that increase cost to users 
of this information--but DOES NOT reveal any private 
information!! THANKS.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Trent Tarvestad, Devils Lake, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Trent Tarvestad.
    City, State: Devils Lake, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Banker.
    Comment: I would like to see the reinstatement of the CLU 
data into section 1619.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Kindra Tatarsky, Montauk, NY

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
    Name: Kindra Tatarsky.
    City, State: Montauk, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Angel Investor.
    Comment: In my line of work I see the multitude of benefits 
(job creation and innovation as highest on the list) of small 
business enterprises. The same effect should be thought through 
with the farm bill. Enough subsidies: they are outdated, making 
our country fat and big food companies rich. We should shift 
those subsidies to encourage local farmers to produce a full 
range of crops that can support their local community. Organic 
would be nice too but I would start with creating a structure 
that would encourage more sustainability at the local level 
which encourages more ``whole'' foods . . . fruits, vegetables, 
etc., of a variety in people's diets. The farm bill is 
pathetically weak not at all reflective of the intelligence and 
forward thinking our nation was once known for. In general, I 
am not a fan of subsidies but if that is what is required in 
early days to make this shift, perhaps a PARTIAL subsidy would 
be okay as farmers get set up, with a gradual shift to self 
sustainability. The difference could be put towards the child 
nutrition act, OR farms that support local schools with 
healthy, nutritious food would get a larger subsidy portion. 
ENOUGH ALREADY!! Our children cannot speak for themselves and 
the people in Washington have been irresponsible with respect 
to both of these issues for long enough. Please act NOW.
            Respectfully,

Kindra Tatarsky,
[Redacted],
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Robin Tate, Antioch, TN

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:36 p.m.
    Name: Robin Tate.
    City, State: Antioch, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mortgage Banker, Caterer.
    Comment: Please keep our food safe and healthy!
    Please protect our rights as consumers!
    Please stop Monsanto!!!
    Please outlaw GMO's, protect the sanctity of the standard 
for Organic Food.
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides, and please address the terrible Animal Cruelty!
    Please promote Natural Healthy Foods and Products.
    Please help Local Organic Farmers compete and thrive.
    Please invest in Permaculture, the best hope for our 
future.
    Please take care of the Land as our lives depend on it.
            Regards,

Robin Tate.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of James R. Taylor, Jr., NC

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: James R. Taylor, Jr.
    State: NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits, Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: We need to invest in small local organic farms to 
help create jobs and better the environment. Me personally I 
would love to have the money to expand and reach people in my 
community as far as bettering health, creating jobs, and 
finding better newer ways, more sustainable ways to grow my 
community fresh USDA organic produce. This is going to be the 
way things are going fresh, local produce straight from the 
farmer.
            Thanks,

James R. Taylor, Jr.,
Taylor Family Organics.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Anna Tellez, Arcata, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Anna Tellez.
    City, State: Arcata, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Student.
    Comment: I think that sustainable farming should be 
subsidized. I am not sure if livestock is considered as 
`agriculture' but there should be better rules for factory farm 
practices, like . . . a farm must only feed an animal what it 
would naturally eat. Also, it is very important not to 
encourage overproduction of any kind. Think if it is necessary 
to slaughter the number of animals we do: should we be 
consuming that much meat anyway? Subsidize food in a way that 
mirrors what are dietary makeup should be.
    And please do not listen to the pleas of groups that wish 
to keep the current unsustainable practices alive. If their job 
is to sell massive quantities of pesticides or growth hormones, 
they should find new ones.
                                ------                                


               Comment of C.M. ``Cy'' Thoene, Ansley, NE

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: C.M. ``Cy'' Thoene.
    City, State: Ansley, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Real Estate Appraiser & 
Consultant.
    Comment: Request that CLU data (FSA Fields) be made public 
again. USDA's FSA removed the CLU data from the public website 
in order to comply with Section 1619 which prohibits public 
disclosure of USDA geospatial information with producer-
provided information about ag land. We need this information in 
our profession and feel that this section of the Farm Bill 
needs to be relaxed. In simple words, aerial photo data can and 
should be available to the public, because it does not really 
have any confidential information. I have been in the business 
for over 30 years and have never encountered an instance where 
an ag producer felt that disclosure of field boundaries as well 
as CropBase information was any invasion of privacy. This is an 
extreme interpretation of the FOIA act and requires unnecessary 
administrative procedures to obtain basic information 
pertaining to agricultural lands.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Elizabeth Thomas, Trumansburg, NY

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Elizabeth Thomas.
    City, State: Trumansburg, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Former Crop Consultant, Town Board Member--
Ulysses.
    Comment: Every 5 years we have one more opportunity to 
encourage local and smaller farms of dairy and specialty crops 
to flourish through providing thoughtful incentives in the Farm 
Bill. Please consider adding environmental incentives for 
growers who show their abilities to be excellent stewards of 
the land, who practice integrated pest management and 
sustainable agriculture. Chemically intensive and concentrated 
agriculture has taken its toll on our water quality, diversity 
of food, and the makeup of our rural landscapes where small 
towns, which once were focused on agriculture, can no longer 
prosper without their main means of income. Much more effort 
should be put into encouraging farms to grow food for their 
surrounding communities to reduce the huge distances food 
travels from field to plate.
    Finally it is essential to limit the size of animal 
production operations. Concentrating animals and their waste in 
small areas has shown this practice to be highly detrimental to 
the surrounding communities in regard to water quality, flies, 
odor, and land management. It's time to turn our animal 
production practices into more humane, environmentally logical 
systems that produces meat, eggs, and dairy products in a 
manner free of disease causing microbes often caused by 
overcrowding.
    Be brave. Let's see a real change in our food production 
systems.
            Best regards,

Liz Thomas.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Rod Thomas, Gooding, ID

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Rod Thomas.
    City, State: Gooding, ID.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Applicator.
    Comment:

    To Whom it may concern;

    Please allow us the use of USDA FSA CLU data for maps. This 
is an invaluable product for precision application by air. I 
can't possibly see how any ownership or other information would 
be given out using the available data. It would just be a waste 
to not have this information available to us in the private 
sector so we can do our jobs with more accuracy.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Rod Thomas.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Patina Thompson, Willcox, AZ

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 07, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Patina Thompson.
    City, State: Willcox, AZ.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Crop insurance works! I depend on crop insurance 
to support my family. I encourage you to leave crop insurance 
status quo, as per the 2008 Farm Bill and review for the 
upcoming 2012 Farm Bill.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Monty Thornbrough, Altus, OK

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Monty Thornbrough.
    City, State: Altus, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: I am in STRONG support of reinstatement to public 
access of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data. 
This information is essential to TIMELY and ACCURATE data 
collection within my rural appraisal practice. CLU data only 
contains field boundary information and not personal 
information!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jim Thorpe, Aberdeen, SD

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 p.m.
    Name: Jim Thorpe.
    City, State: Aberdeen, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Your support is needed to reinstate public access 
of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway, 
especially due to the following circumstances:

    1. The USDA, Farm Service Agency, CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the summer of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

    2. The USDA, Farm Service Agency, CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the summer of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

    3. CLU data only contains field boundary information and 
        does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

    4. CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
        support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation, tilling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

    5. Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


            Comment of William Tibbitts, Salt Lake City, UT

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: William Tibbitts.
    City, State: Salt Lake City, UT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Anti-Hunger Project Director.
    Comment: Please use this bill to permanently eliminate the 
time limits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 
These time limits were temporarily repealed in the stimulus 
bill. They disproportionately impact homeless people and place 
a heavy administrative burden on the states.
                                ------                                


             Comments of James Tibbles, Council Bluffs, IA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 02, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: James Tibbles.
    City, State: Council Bluffs, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: We MUST have access to the FSA crop maps to 
maintain credibility in our farm appraisals. We have to analyze 
our subject property AND the comparable properties for crop 
ground acres, pasture and non-crop acres. As time goes on, 
there are many things that can change farms. Such as: convert 
pasture to crop ground, remove trees and convert non-crop into 
usable ground, convert dryland into irrigation and sell off 
building sites and acreages.
    The following is a standard sentence that I put in my 
appraisal reports: ``Because of Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm 
Bill, current year data for the comparable properties was not 
available for analysis. Only 2008 data was analyzed and used in 
this report.''

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: James Tibbles.
    City, State: Council Bluffs, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Appraiser.
    Comment: The integrity and accuracy of farm appraisals IS 
dependent on access to information that will allow us to 
complete the assignment correctly. You MUST allow appraisers 
access to FSA data. Allow access to FSA data to all licensed 
certified appraisers.
    Appraisals in the future will not have reliable information 
because we do not have access to current data. Consequently, 
mistakes will be made in the analysis. Since we don't have 
access to current data, that is not OUR fault.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Rodger Tinjum, Detroit Lakes, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Rodger Tinjum.
    City, State: Detroit Lakes, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: As a professional real estate appraiser who 
completes appraisals for financial institutions, multiple 
governmental agencies, attorneys and private parties, the 
information which Section 1619 excludes from my accessibility 
hinders my work and increases cost to my clients. I 
respectfully encourage Section 1619 to be revisited in the 
future farm bill.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Russel Todd, Cleghorn, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Russel Todd.
    City, State: Cleghorn, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Business.
    Comment: Having up to date maps in Ag Business helps 
dramatically in making Fertilizer and Chemical custom 
application maps for farmers. The updated yearly maps help in 
identifying new field boundaries that may change year to year.
    Farmers are liking the maps that AgriData is providing and 
are happy that we can generate maps so they don't have to go 
find them.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Matt Toll, Lindsborg, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Matt Toll.
    City, State: Lindsborg, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 301-500 acres.
    Comment: I think that direct payments should be eliminated 
and more time and energy should be directed towards crop 
insurance subsidies. The direct payment program draws a lot of 
negative attention to agriculture and keeps guys in business 
that do a poor job, or that are old and need to retire. I still 
go sign up my acres and take my check, but if it went away life 
would go on.
    The food stamp/food aid program should be separated from 
the ``farm'' bill.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Wayne Tomlinson, Rushville, IL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Wayne Tomlinson.
    City, State: Rushville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: I am an appraiser specializing if farm appraisals. 
Since the 2008 Farm Bill made impossible to access USDA FSA 
aerial photos and other data, the job of appraising is more 
difficult and more prone to mistakes due to lack of 
information. This has resulted in taking much longer to 
complete the task, and leaves some data needed in question.
    Please do your best to remedy the situation. It will 
benefit our clients in addition to the appraisers.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Holly Toney, Fleetwood, PA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 03, 2010, 10:05 p.m.
    Name: Holly Toney.
    City, State: Fleetwood, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired/Admin.
    Comment: Please support organic farming.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Keith Torgerson, Wahpeton, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Keith Torgerson.
    City, State: Wahpeton, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Management Instructor.
    Comment: As a Farm Management Instructor I find that 
farmers look at Crop Insurance Program as the ``best risk 
management program in town!'' Ag loan lenders like it and 
enables them to maybe take a little more risk in the lending 
practices.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Jennifer Tracy, San Diego, CA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 01, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Jennifer Tracy.
    City, State: San Diego, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Anti-Hunger Advocate.
    Comment: Please strengthen the SNAP program by making it 
available for people at 185%-200% the federal poverty level 
(FPL). The USDA's own data shows that people below 185% are 
likely to experience hunger, yet only those below 130% of the 
FPL are eligible for SNAP, leaving many hardworking poor people 
in the lurch and unable to afford sufficient healthy food! 
Please correct this so the SNAP program can fully meet the 
needs of the working poor!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Jill Travis, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Jill Travis.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Attorney.
    Comment: I am a supporter of quality, organic food and 
sustainable farming practices. A strong food bill which 
supports local farmers, no use of pesticides, subsidies for 
fruits and vegetables instead of grains, and a firm stance 
against GMO's and all companies attempting to infiltrate our 
precious food supply with this dangerous, short-sighted 
technology is necessary for the health of the people, our 
nation, and the world as a whole.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Stanislav Treger, Vernon Hills, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Stanislav Treger.
    City, State: Vernon Hills, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graduate Student.
    Comment: The United States Government needs to stop 
providing subsidies for growing grains, especially genetically 
modified grains developed by the large food processing and 
genetics corporations. The new Farm Bill should rather focus on 
supporting smaller farmers, rewarding organically grown 
producers. Furthermore, the bill should promote raising meat 
without the use of grain feed and antibiotics. Cattle should 
not be raised and fed soy and corn, as the diet is very 
unnatural and leads to disease which in turn leads to food 
poisoning. The Farm Bill could be a significant step in 
reducing the obesity epidemic facing the nation. The epidemic 
is a product of our reliance on processed vegetable oils, 
grains, and poorly raised meat.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Erain Trenado, Livingston, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 10:06 p.m.
    Name: Erain Trenado.
    City, State: Livingston, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Quality Inspector.
    Comment: I am a 31 year old man, grew up and spent most of 
my life in California's central valley; I grew up proud that 
our agricultural production in California was the major force 
compelling us to a GDP sufficient for a country, even larger 
than Mexico, Brazil, or even Spain. How can you ruin something 
like that. We need to go back to what works, and what works is 
the proactive avocation and implementing of agriculture 
promoting decree. REALLY, who in their right mind finds a 
better solution to cut water to farmers in preference of a 
fish. If you were looking for a real solution to saving the 
fish how about a fish farm, relocate the fish and once 
conditions become more favorable place the fish back in its 
natural habitat. If we are to survive as a state we need to get 
back to the tip of the spear.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Kenny Tucker, Lyons, KS

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Kenny Tucker.
    City, State: Lyons, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Poultry/poultry products.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Make FSA maps free to the public.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Lori Tucker, Baldwyn, MS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Lori Tucker.
    City, State: Baldwyn, MS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Main Street Director.
    Comment: Born and raised on a third generation Mississippi 
farm, I know the importance of our agriculture in the South. I 
also, know that it is an occupation that is fading fast. With 
this being said, I feel that we should bring our agriculture to 
our Main Streets communities. Farmers Markets are great in that 
they allow our community to enjoy fresh grown, American Made 
produce from local producers. Growing and purchasing locally 
are great for Main Street Communities and the local economy. As 
a daughter of a third generation farmer, I am proud of my roots 
and want to continue to share them with other people. Let's 
give incentivizes to local communities that can promote and 
produce a life style of goodness.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Mike Twombly, Brooklyn, NY

    Date Submitted: Saturday, May 29, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Mike Twombly.
    City, State: Brooklyn, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retail Inventory Controller.
    Comment: Please think about how subsidies can help ALL 
people in the U.S., as well as the environment! Less money for 
meat and corn production, and more for vegetable farms that 
feed more people per acre of land!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Liz Tymkiw, Rosemont, PA

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Liz Tymkiw.
    City, State: Rosemont, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Graduate Student in Wildlife Ecology.
    Comment: As someone who studies and cares about wildlife I 
have some suggestions:

    1. Enact a robust and well funded Conservation Title to 
        support working lands conservation programs, 
        conservation easement programs, and sustainable and 
        organic transition assistance.

    2. Refocus federal farm program payments upon farming 
        systems and practices that produce environmental 
        benefits and promote long-term food security.

    3. Increase resources for research that fosters sustainable 
        agriculture systems.

    4. Fully recognize the inherent value of sustainable and 
        organic farming systems in addressing climate change.

    Thank you for your time.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Douglas Ueckert, Dickinson, ND

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Douglas Ueckert.
    City, State: Dickinson, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Commercial Pesticide Applicator.
    Comment: As an owner/operator of a pesticide application 
business the ability to access current field border maps is 
essential. These maps ensure that pesticides are applied to the 
correct field and give us the ability to easily and accurately 
keep our records.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Martha Valado, Bethesda, MD

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 4:06 p.m.
    Name: Martha Valado.
    City, State: Bethesda, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Research Manager.
    Comment:

    Mr. Van Hollen,

    Please consider changes to the Farm Bill that would support 
small scale, organic and local agricultural endeavors. This 
would have a positive effect on child nutrition by increasing 
the ability of local school districts to purchase and use 
healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats in 
school nutrition programs.
            Thank you for you time and consideration,

Martha Valado.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Jacobus Van Der Merwe, Berkeley, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, September 06, 2010, 1:35 a.m.
    Name: Jacobus Van Der Merwe.
    City, State: Berkeley, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Relief Worker/Graduate Student.
    Comment: Having worked in food assistance programming 
(USAID/WFP) over the last 3 years I have seen the devastating 
results of U.S. commodity overproduction coupled with 
subsidies. These two factors have led to disaster results for 
local farmers in the developing world who are the most 
vulnerable. In Haiti for example U.S. rice sells for cheaper 
than Haitian rice. This is a complete disincentive for Haitian 
farmers to produce. My request is that major commodity 
subsidies are lowered to the point where production is 
competitive on the developing world market and not undercutting 
it. This should also reduce the rampant overproduction the U.S. 
Ag market experiences. U.S. Farmers should not be dumping 
produce on the world market purely because their costs have 
been covered through subsidies. This change would have a major 
effect on development of local small scale farmers in the 
global south. thanks for your time and willingness to listen.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Kraig Van Hulzen, Oskaloosa, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Kraig Van Hulzen.
    City, State: Oskaloosa, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: I am writing to express my displeasure of the 
handling of the last farm bill. At the last hour, a section was 
added to the bill not allowing information to appraisers. What 
happened to the Freedom of Information Act? I do believe that 
the FSA is a government agency. Without current information 
from the FSA, it makes my job more difficult and not as 
reliable. In a time where appraisals are needed to reflect the 
market, current information is essential. I have written to you 
on this issue before but nothing ever happened. This is the 
time to revisit this issue.
            Thank you,

Kraig Van Hulzen,
Van Hulzen Appraisal Services.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Cheri Van Ness, Newark, DE

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Cheri Van Ness.
    City, State: Newark, DE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Homemaker.
    Comment: Please increase federal spending support for 
local, organic diversified agriculture to ensure that local 
school districts have the ability to purchase and use healthier 
organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats in school 
nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


             Comment of James VanDerWerff, Plattsmouth, NE

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: James VanDerWerff.
    City, State: Plattsmouth, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Comment:

    Dear Mr. Jeff Fortenberry.

    I am an agriculture real estate appraiser. It is imperative 
to doing my job to have access to the CURRENT USDA/Farm Service 
agency information on the farms I appraise and the comparable 
sales used to support the appraisal. This information in the 
past (prior to the 2008 Farm Bill) was readily available to 
State General Certified Appraisers. Since that time we have 
access to the maps only through AgriData Inc. and the 
information available is ONLY prior to the 2008 Farm Bill. On 
many farms this has change since that time and will continue to 
change. We do not have access to what farms are in the CRP 
program and the payments and expiration dates. This can have a 
significant effect on the value of the subject farm being 
appraised and the comparable sales used to support the 
appraisal.
    I have been an agricultural real estate appraiser since 
1972 and now are a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in 
NE, IA, SD, MN, KS. The attitude is the same in all. The Farm 
Service Agency staff have gone from being very helpful to 
releasing nothing since the 2008 Farm Bill. They say its the 
law. Please change it. Thank you [Redacted].
                                ------                                


            Comment of Sharon Vandevender, Ormond Beach, MS

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 11:05 p.m.
    Name: Sharon Vandevender.
    City, State: Ormond Beach, MS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerobics Instructor.
    Comment: If Congress were to change even a small amount of 
the World War II era subsidy funding which is currently given 
to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and 
instead put that funding into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition 
would be enormous. While these subsidies of so called 
``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they were 
first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Marsha VanLaere, Northwood, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Marsha VanLaere.
    City, State: Northwood, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: Please leave in the reinstate the CLU data into 
Section 1619 of the proposed farm bill. As an agronomist this 
data is invaluable in my ability to scout fields for pest and 
disease. I am able to use a photo and mark sections in the 
field where I find issues. Without the CLU data my farmers will 
not understand where the problems are.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Peter Vaughan, Reedley, CA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 07, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Peter Vaughan.
    City, State: Reedley, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Hydrologist.
    Comment: Before starting my comments I should make some 
clarifications regarding my background. I was formerly an 
employee of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Research Service and I was employed at the U.S. Salinity 
Laboratory in Riverside, CA as well as the San Joaquin Valley 
Agricultural Sciences Center in Parlier, CA. My term 
appointment at SJVASC ended in June, 2009. When I worked at 
SJVASC I was involved in quantification of water use by plants 
using weighing lysimeters. I also have participated in the U.S. 
State Dept. Fulbright Scholar program from September, 2009 
through early March, 2010. As a Fulbright Scholar I worked at 
the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry 
Areas (ICARDA) located in Aleppo, Syria. I attended the 
Committee's field hearing in Fresno, CA on May 3.
    During the hearing I was impressed by the testimony of all 
the stakeholders and the questioning by members of the 
Committee. In particular, I thought John Teixeira's testimony 
regarding organic agriculture was important as it relates to 
agricultural research. He noted that only 2% of budgeted 
research funds are dedicated to organic systems. I think this 
needs to be expanded and included as part of the specialty 
crops research program. One of the most important issues, in 
general, here in California is the provision of water to 
agricultural producers. The reason for this is simply that 
agriculture is still the largest water consumer. To the extent 
that greater efficiencies in the use of water can be obtained 
then the supplies of water can be better preserved to handle 
crop maintenance during drought years. Thus research into 
efficient use of water by agriculture is highly desirable. The 
specialty crops tend to be high-value crops so these producers 
will have greater resources available for investment in 
technology for implementing more water-efficient management 
practices. Therefore, in terms of the payback, it seems to me 
that a good investment in agricultural research in California 
would be in research aimed at improving water-use efficiency in 
production systems for organic and specialty crops.
    During my term at ICARDA I cooperated with several other 
researchers around the world on analysis of computer models for 
crop production using lower-quality irrigation water. Such 
water might be produced by groundwater pumping or by blending 
agricultural drainage water with surface water of higher 
quality. The computer models can offer much more rapid methods 
for evaluation of contrasting management strategies as compared 
to actual experimentation. Of course, the model results should 
bear continued comparison with experimental results to improve 
predictive capability. I think that a comprehensive evaluation 
of all the crop models, and there are quite a lot, that have 
been produced by the Agricultural Research Service should be 
undertaken. From the point of view of an irrigation consultant 
or an agricultural producer these computer models are 
intimidating to say the least. I can only guess, but I would 
suspect that such models have very little usage by people 
concerned with actual production and, therefore, have rather 
minimal impact on decision-making that might actually conserve 
water. A systematic analysis of the crop modeling efforts and 
the use of crop models by stakeholders could provide a basis 
for the creation of a set of guidelines for crop model 
usability that would make the models more viable as management 
tools.
    The ICARDA program for assisting agricultural producers was 
broader in scope as compared to the program of the ARS. For 
example, specific programs existed to assist very low income or 
subsistence producers by providing information on improving and 
sustaining production at this level. This was important in the 
Middle East where low income producers are common. One feature 
of the ICARDA program that I thought was especially interesting 
was the formalization of studies of the impact of research 
results. Statistical studies were undertaken to determine the 
depth of penetration of specific findings in the stakeholder 
community and to evaluate the effectiveness of the responses of 
stakeholders to the information provided. This kind of analysis 
could provide important clues as to the effectiveness of 
particular research programs as well as the methods being used 
to disseminate research findings. I think the Committee might 
consider evaluating how appropriate studies of this type could 
be in evaluating the effectiveness of the various agricultural 
research programs.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Eugene Ver Steeg, Inwood, IA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Eugene Ver Steeg.
    City, State: Inwood, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops, Livestock.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: We need to put a more realistic cap on large mega 
corporation farm payments. If we fail to do that and also 
enforce it the anti-farm media will eventually win out and 
destroy our total farm program. Conservation must be the main 
concern in drafting a farm program.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Owen Viker, Mankato, MN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Owen Viker.
    City, State: Mankato, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: The cost of preparing a farm appraisal will 
increase significantly if data is restricted. The quality and 
reliability of comparable data will diminish because most 
buyers will rely only on their memory to provide data and this 
is not always reliable. Providing tillable acreage as well as 
conservation easement will benefit the appraiser as well as the 
client who is the farmer or their estate.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Ron Vikre, Harmony, MN

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Ron Vikre.
    City, State: Harmony, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser for County Assessor.
    Comment: I am an appraiser for a county assessor's office. 
The CLU data availability is very important for my work as an 
appraiser in order to accurately and fairly value agricultural 
property for taxation purposes in our county. When the change 
to the 2008 Farm Bill was made I contacted my Representatives 
and the most common response was that the data was available 
because one could contact the land owner who then could sign a 
form allowing the data from his/her agricultural property to be 
released by the FSA office.
    In our profession this is virtually impossible as in our 
county we have approximately 8,500 agricultural properties.
    The CLU data does not include any compliance, CRP, wetlands 
or other personal information.
    I urge the Committee to reinstate public access to the CLU 
that was taken away in Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Samuel Vitello, Roslyn Heights, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:06 p.m.
    Name: Samuel Vitello.
    City, State: Roslyn Heights, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: People only eat what they can afford. Don't make 
good nutrition too expensive for the average American. Support 
fruits and vegetables and tax HFCS to bring it to the same 
price as sugar (and so reduce its use).
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Hugh Vogel, Joplin, MO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Hugh Vogel.
    City, State: Joplin, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Poultry/poultry products.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: Your support is needed to reinstate public access 
of the Common Land Unit (CLU) data to the NRCS Data Gateway, 
especially due to the following circumstances:

   USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
        available and easily accessible to the public on the 
        NRCS Data Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when 
        the 2008 Farm Bill was signed.

   Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of 
        the bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. 
        Senate and was inserted during the Conference Committee 
        process without public hearings or debate.

   CLU data only contains field boundary information 
        and does not contain compliance information, wetland, 
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership 
        information.

   CLU data is used by producers and their wide range 
        of support businesses including: appraisers, crop 
        insurers, financial service providers, farm managers, 
        irrigation and tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, 
        fertilizer and manure applicators for accurate and 
        timely records and procedures.

   Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
        negatively impacts agricultural professionals, 
        producers, landowners, and others who utilize that data 
        in their professions on a regular basis
                                ------                                


        Comment of Severine von Tscharner Fleming, Cambridge, MA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 9:06 p.m.
    Name: Severine von Tscharner Fleming.
    City, State: Cambridge, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: I wanted to write in and re-state the critical 
importance of recruiting more young bright Americans into 
farming.
    By all means possible, in ways you are not yet thinking 
of--look to the international examples if needed, set 
incentives, think broadly and RECRUIT!
    This need for more brains, bodies and businesses in 
American farming is a national security issue and has a huge 
impact on the shape of our democracy in the coming century.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Paul Vorachek, Park River, ND

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Paul Vorachek.
    City, State: Park River, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: State Certified Rural Appraiser.
    Comment:

    Dear Members of the House Committee on Agriculture,

    Prior to Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill, rural 
appraisers had access to geospatial information, tillable 
acres, aerial maps, and FSA yield information by simply calling 
or writing FSA. Now we must obtain consent from the owner 
before receiving this information. This makes rural appraisal 
more difficult.
    Accurate CLU field boundaries (tillable acres) are 
absolutely necessary when completing rural appraisals for 
buyers, sellers, and especially financial institutions in this 
country.
    Please revise this part of the New Farm Bill to make this 
information more readily available to all State Certified 
Appraisers.
            Thank You,

Paul Vorachek,
President,
North Dakota Chapter of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Tom Vrbka, Plattsmouth, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 8:05 a.m.
    Name: Tom Vrbka.
    City, State: Plattsmouth, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist.
    Comment: Please make FSA fields available again for public 
use via surety data mapping systems as well as others.
    Up to date info is invaluable in applying pesticides where 
they need to go without mistakes.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Raymond Wagester, Batavia, NY

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Raymond Wagester.
    City, State: Batavia, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: As a Full time agricultural service provider and a 
part-time farmer I support the reinstatement of public access 
to Common Land Unit data on the NRCS data gateway. This data is 
important to providing accurate and cost-effective services to 
local Western New York producers.
    As a service provider I use this data regularly to assist 
farmers and land owners with decision making, as a producer I 
do not feel that the field data supplied is confidential or 
disclosing critical farm data.
    The following series of points helps to further explain the 
issue.
            Thank you,

Raymond Wagester.

    USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Malynda Walker, Norfolk, VA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 10:06 a.m.
    Name: Malynda Walker.
    City, State: Norfolk, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned, Informed Citizen.
    Comment: I would love to have fresh produce that doesn't 
cost an arm and a leg and isn't swimming in pesticides and 
isn't genetically modified. Corn subsidies are ridiculous and 
laughable. Agriculture is the heart of America and always has 
been. Somehow we got away from, or were pushed away from, 
eating well. We don't even know what's in our food let alone 
where it comes from. Children don't know the names of 
vegetables and have no clue that french fries come from 
potatoes. This is sad and insane. Please, please, please, help 
to provide fresh, clean, organic, healthy, non-GMO produce. 
Help the farmers to be able to grow this food in a healthy, 
safe way. Help farmers to be able to grow all produce and not 
flood every single market with corn products and soy products. 
Corn used to be one of my favorite foods and now I scan every 
label for any trace of it in its various forms and refuse to 
buy anything with corn. Agriculture has been ruined. America's 
heart has been ripped out. We need healthy food. We are 
supposed to be a world leader but we eat like we are poverty 
stricken third world citizens. And finally, get rid of 
Monsanto. Remove Monsanto from every aspect of our food supply. 
They are poisoners. Monsanto must go.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of John Wall, Minier, IL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: John Wall.
    City, State: Minier, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I depend on Surety Maps, AgriData to accurately 
complete farmland valuations. We need this information for 
comparable sales analysis. Please allow them to access FSA maps 
for field sizes from current maps.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Edward Wallace, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:36 p.m.
    Name: Edward Wallace.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Designer.
    Comment: As an endurance sports athlete I need quality 
sources of clean natural and organic food and hope to see more 
sustainable farming moving in that direction. As a capitalist I 
would support no subsidies for farmer. If what they are 
producing is not profitable they need to be producing something 
else.
    And I would also like to see any GMO's (Genetically 
modified organism) labeled as such, so that I my protect my own 
health from this dangerous and short-sighted technology.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Ira Wallace, Mineral, VA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Ira Wallace.
    City, State: Mineral, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Specialty Crops, Vegetables, Other.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic food is 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. food retail 
market. As producers of organic seed we have experienced growth 
in our seed sales of 15-35% each of the last 3 years.

   Organic farming systems have the potential to 
        conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil 
        quality while providing high quality food and fiber for 
        consumers here and abroad. As part of a cooperative 
        seed business we have helped farmers to transition to 
        organic systems and make productive farms on land 
        previously considered marginal. USDA programs for 
        organic agriculture have helped to make this possible.

   If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue 
        to grow and thrive, we need to invest in programs that 
        support organic farmers, including:

     Research and Extension Programs that expand 
            the breadth of knowledge about organic farming 
            systems and provide that knowledge to organic 
            farmers. There is a real and pressing need for more 
            research on organic seed production and 
            conditioning.

     Conservation Programs that reward organic 
            farmers for the conservation benefits of organic 
            farming systems and provide technical support for 
            organic farmers who want to improve on-farm 
            conservation. Programs like the high Tunnel program 
            really allow help.

     Transition Programs that provide technical 
            support to farmers who want to transition to 
            organic farming practices but don't know how.

     More Educational programs such as the organic 
            no till demonstrations held by Dr. Ron Morse at 
            Virginia Tech and Virginia State are needed.

     Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic 
            farmers and reimburse them for any losses based on 
            the organic market value of the crop, not average 
            conventional prices.

     Programs that support research and 
            implementation of best practices for organic cover 
            crops and other techniques for weed suppression and 
            on farm fertility building that build soil support 
            the growth of small organic farms and the 
            contribution they make to the local economy and 
            regional food security.

    I hope that the new Farm bill will continue to support 
these and other aspects of Organic agriculture.
    Thank you for your attention.

Ira Wallace,
Southern Exposure Seed Exchange,
``Saving the Past for the Future.''
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lori Wallace, Gulf Breeze, FL

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Lori Wallace.
    City, State: Gulf Breeze, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Office Manager.
    Comment: No more GMO foods. No more Monsanto. No more corn 
syrup or soy in every thing we are sold as a nutritious food 
source. No more. We, as a nation, are obese and ill. Diabetes 
is on the rise in our children and climbing in the adult 
population. No more. Stop poisoning us so that big ag can 
profit.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Rosemary Walrod, Olympia, WA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 21, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Rosemary Walrod.
    City, State: Olympia, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: I am concerned that our system is concerned with 
money-making as a prime concern instead of human and animal 
health and preservation of land for sustainable production. I 
think the Department of Health should be a main player in 
decisions related to farming.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Ginger Wanko, Catonsville, MD

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 12:05 a.m.
    Name: Ginger Wanko.
    City, State: Catonsville, MD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Transportation Industry.
    Comment: The food we serve our children in the school 
cafeterias cannot be called ``food.'' It is instead ultra 
processed, preserved ``products.'' Baltimore County should be 
ASHAMED of what it chooses to try to pass off as food in our 
lunchrooms. My children refuse to buy lunch at school (which 
thrills me)--although I would much prefer to support a lunch 
room that offered FRESHLY prepared fruits, vegetable that are 
as close to their natural state as possible.
                                ------                                


                 Comments of Larry Watts, Winterset, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Larry Watts.
    City, State: Winterset, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Please make available FSA data to Surety as I use 
this date in my real estate business. Thanks.

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Larry Watts.
    City, State: Winterset, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Broker/Investor.
    Comment:

    Tom Lathum

    Please make the FSA maps and information available to the 
public. This information has been of great value to me. Thank 
you.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Kathryn Weber, Huntington Beach, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 12:35 a.m.
    Name: Kathryn Weber.
    City, State: Huntington Beach, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Stay at Home Mom.
    Comment:

    Dear Sirs,

    Please consider increasing federal funding to support 
local, organic diversified agricultural. This would ensure that 
local school districts would have the ability to purchase and 
use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables and meats in 
school nutrition programs.
            Thank you,

Kathryn Weber,
Concerned Mother of two young school children.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Matt Weber, Bruning, NE

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Matt Weber.
    City, State: Bruning, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Retail Location Manager.
    Comment: Please consider reinstating the CLU data into 
Section 1619. My business works closely with producers and the 
CLU data is extremely important for our operations. The data 
allows for quick and convenient service which benefits our 
business and producers. Please remember a change to Section 
1619 will not contain compliance, CRP, wetlands or other 
personal information in the CLU data. Thank you for your 
consideration.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Martha Webster, Lubbock, TX

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 02, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Martha Webster.
    City, State: Lubbock, TX.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Teacher.
    Comment: I have not read the farm bill. I am interested in 
the future of Africa which, I believe, has been held down by 
the good willed aid from churches and governments. Making large 
support payments to farmers to produce excess to send to Africa 
to suppress African production does not seem efficient for the 
U.S. taxpayer or the African farmer or, even the U.S. farmer 
who may need to pursue another idea. China is apparently more 
respected for its involvement in Africa than the U.S. (Dead Aid 
Dambisa Moyo).
    Thanks.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Steven Webster, Devils Lake, ND

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Steven Webster.
    City, State: Devils Lake, ND.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: USDA Farm Service Agency CLU data had been readily 
available and easily accessible to the public on the NRCS Data 
Gateway from 2004 to the spring of 2008 when the 2008 Farm Bill 
was signed.
    Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill was not part of the 
bills passed by either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate and 
was inserted during the Conference Committee process without 
public hearings or debate.
    CLU data only contains field boundary information and does 
not contain compliance information, wetland, Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or ownership information.
    CLU data is used by producers and their wide range of 
support businesses including: appraisers, crop insurers, 
financial service providers, farm managers, irrigation and 
tiling installers, and aerial, chemical, fertilizer and manure 
applicators for accurate and timely records and procedures.
    Section 1619 creates unnecessary inefficiencies and 
negatively impacts agricultural professionals, producers, 
landowners, and others who utilize that data in their 
professions on a regular basis.
                                ------                                


            Comment of Heather Weisenborn, Watkinsville, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 7:06 p.m.
    Name: Heather Weisenborn.
    City, State: Watkinsville, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Educator.
    Comment: Our food sources need to be pure. Stop genetically 
modifying foods. Organically grown fruits, vegetables, and meat 
and dairy products is the responsible way to farm. It allows 
the soil to rest and to reinvigorate. Organically farmed 
animals are treated humanely which makes them healthier for 
consumption. Our subsidies need to be spent on fruits and 
vegetables instead of grains. Our bodies need more veggies 
instead of grains, which is shown in the health of poorer 
people who cannot afford to buy fresh fruits and veggies. Be 
responsible.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Arnie Welber, Sunrise, FL

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Arnie Welber.
    City, State: Sunrise, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired.
    Comment: Withdraw support for factory Farming practices. 
For the Earth, the animals, and your own health too.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of John Welch, Santa Cruz, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: John Welch.
    City, State: Santa Cruz, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: Organic agriculture should become a priority in 
the next farm bill. With the country trying to move in the 
direction of energy independence, healthier food, and a greener 
economy, organic agriculture is the right thing to invest in.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Robert Wert, Malvern, PA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Robert Wert.
    City, State: Malvern, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Business/Executive/Attorney.
    Comment: I am very concerned about the future of farming in 
the U.S., particularly the small Family Farms. Farmers must be 
able to make a living at farming. We have too many small farms 
that have been lost. It is important for the economies in small 
communities and also to reduce energy usage (cost of 
transporting food long distances to market) as well as for 
national security that we not become totally dependent on large 
Agribusinesses. Please provide strong support for prices for 
milk and produce that comes from local farms so we can stop the 
loss of small local family farms in the USA.
            Thank you,

Bob Wert.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Francis Wesely, Kansas City, MO

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Francis Wesely.
    City, State: Kansas City, MO.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Truck Driver.
    Comment: Honorable Mr. Cleaver, Please support a strong 
Anti Factory Farm Bill. Modest improvements in the Life of Farm 
animals mean a lot. Room to turn around, spread their wings, 
Even though these animals are destined for the slaughter house, 
They are still Sentient beings deserving of Respect. Thank you 
for the Wonderful Job you are doing. Especially on the health 
Reform.
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Paul West, Wichita, KS

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Paul West.
    City, State: Wichita, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Ag Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: I am both a producer and non-producer as I own a 
farm and do ag real estate appraisals. As a producer I am not 
concerned with my farm number and field acreages being public 
knowledge, after all I have trouble remembering my farm number 
from one visit to my FSA office to another. I do some appraisal 
work for FSA and also do work as a fee appraiser for 
individuals, it is ridiculous that information that is 
available to me when I do an appraisal for FSA is not available 
to me in nearly all cases when I do an appraisal for an 
individual even if I have a signed consent form, i.e., I can 
get field acreages for comparable sales from some FSA offices 
when doing an appraisal for FSA but in no circumstances can I 
get such info when doing it for an individual unless I also 
have a consent form signed by the buyer of the sale I am using 
as a comparable, which in most cases is not possible. Also the 
inconsistency from FSA county office to office is unbelievable, 
again i.e., I have to pay for aerials in some office while 
others say ``I am not required to pay anything if I provide 
them with a signed consent form''.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Van West, Murfreesboro, TN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 03, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Van West.
    City, State: Murfreesboro, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 50-150 acres.
    Comment: As an owner of a Tennessee Century Farm, I 
strongly urge the Committee to enhance support for the USDA's 
rural development programs, including the R, C&D program. These 
have helped agri-tourism and heritage tourism in our region, 
which are important parts of our vision for the future, and 
important complements to farm income.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Tim Westrum, Albert Lea, MN

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Tim Westrum.
    City, State: Albert Lea, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I am requesting that CLU Data (FSA fields) be made 
public again in the next farm bill.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Julie Westwood, Centerville, OH

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Julie Westwood.
    City, State: Centerville, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Homemaker.
    Comment: In America, a $1.00 buys more calories in the junk 
food isle than in the fresh produce aisle . . . This is why 
America is obese! The way agriculture is subsidized in this 
country must be changed. We don't need health care reform we 
need agriculture reform . . .
    I ask you to please consider the following:
    Please keep our food safe and healthy!--Ban GMOs
    Please protect our rights as consumers! . . . If you can't 
ban GMO's then please require consumer labeling to indicate if 
products contain GMO foods. I WANT A CHOICE and I CHOOSE NO GMO
    Please get out of Monsanto's back pocket.
    Please offer higher subsidies to protect the sanctity of 
the standard for Organic Food . . .
    No more corn subsidies!!!
    Please make important changes to Factory Farming, by 
banning Steroids and Antibiotics and GMO feed raised with 
Pesticides.
    Why the heck is tobacco subsidized????
    No subsidies for giants like ConAgra!
    Please pass laws that take care of the Land, the Soil, the 
Water, and our Bodies! Again, This takes us back to Monsanto 
and GMOs . . . Round-Up ready crops are destroying the land, 
soil, water AND our bodies!
    Thank you for your efforts . . .
                                ------                                


             Comment of Christopher Wheeler, San Pedro, CA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Christopher Wheeler.
    City, State: San Pedro, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Accountant.
    Comment: Stop subsidies on corn. It creates a paradox for 
producers and an overabundance of food that leads to over-
consumption by the population. Farmers rely on the corn 
subsidies and they feel they need to make more and more of a 
singular staple. This forces the price down, which then make 
them produce more, further pushing the price down . . . you can 
see where I am going. I realize that this cheap corn is needed 
for the production of pseudo-foods at the supermarket. But at 
that point it's no longer food. The consumption pseudo food has 
increased the girth and waist line of the American population 
and the medical expenses associated with it.
    Start labeling genetically modified produce. People have a 
right to know what they are eating. Start labeling farms of 
origin. Again, people have a right to know where their food 
originates. Give FDA power to regulate on the consumer's 
behalf. It is now too much of a department used for the growth 
of the food industry which has a message of eat more, 
regardless of what it is.
    Sorry to be rambling in this note.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Donnette Wheelock, Mankato, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Donnette Wheelock.
    City, State: Mankato, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Business Owner.
    Comment: Please reinstate public access to CLU information. 
This allows us to provide individualized maps for our farm 
clients and make their crop insurance policy more accurate. 
There is no invasion of privacy by allowing access to CLU data. 
Thanks you.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Greg Wheelock, Mankato, MN

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:36 p.m.
    Name: Greg Wheelock.
    City, State: Mankato, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Crop Insurance Agent.
    Comment: We have been using CLUs since their release by 
FSA. They are invaluable to ensuring we have the correct land 
insured for a client, and that the clients unit structure is 
appropriate for their risk tolerance.
    Also, RMA now requires we report back to them CLU data, yet 
we are restricted from access to current CLU access. In the 
CLUs that were available prior to May 2008, there were no 
attributes included that would even come close to violating a 
producer's privacy. In fact, a plat book published by various 
companies, or a trip to the county court house would reveal 
more info about a land owner or operator of land than I have 
ever seen in a CLU data set.
    We have been mapping for our insurance clients since 1998, 
and CLU files help us provide our clients with the service they 
deserve, and that RMA requires.
    Please give us back access to CLU data!
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Cody White, Chickasha, OK

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Cody White.
    City, State: Chickasha, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Rural Appraiser.
    Comment: Please reinstate the CLU data into Section 1619. 
As a rural appraiser, this non-personal data is very important 
in analyzing farms and comparable sales for appraisals.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Cynthia White, Duxbury, MA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:35 p.m.
    Name: Cynthia White.
    City, State: Duxbury, MA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Small Business Owner.
    Comment: I support a farm bill that provides taxpayer 
subsidies for organic farming and for humane treatment of farm 
animals, including an end to battery cages, confinement of 
animals in gestation crates, confinement of cows in crowded 
pens, and all the other inherently cruel practices that farmers 
continue to follow in this country. Americans are becoming 
better informed all the time about food issues, and we will 
fail economically if we do not reform our practices. And 
frankly, some folks will have to lose their subsidies to get 
the message.
    Please put anti-cruelty practices front and center in the 
farm bill and don't fall for the ``healthy school lunches'' 
line--if farmers cared about that, they would have gone organic 
a long time ago. Thanks!
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Derrel White, Woodward, OK

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Derrel White.
    City, State: Woodward, OK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Livestock.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: There is substantial efforts among many who are 
generally anti-agriculture to frame this debate to once again 
make the farm bill a social justice type of issue. While I am 
in the minority of producers who feel like the subsidy program 
does not help producers but rather just promotes an inexpensive 
food supply, much of the input that you have been given by 
animal rights supporters and radical environmental groups is 
not only misinformation but those policies could seriously 
jeopardize our country's food security. We must look at methods 
to make our farm program continues to encourage choice of 
production and ability to shift towards opportunities new 
markets and methods of production that are both sustainable and 
meet the primary goal of food security for our country. 
Specifically, I believe we should reduce the level of subsidies 
for all products, not expand those to niche products and 
markets. We should have a continued emphasis on programs that 
decrease long term impact on the land like the EQIP program and 
CRP. Less emphasis should be put into the farm bill on social 
programs like WIC, Food stamps and obesity issues. While those 
causes may be good, this is the farm bill and should address 
only issues directly related to agriculture production, not 
expansive progressive redistribution causes. Starting in the 
1970's, the primary intent of the farm program has not been to 
sustain farming activities but rather to reduce the cost of 
food for our taxpayers. If that was the primary goal of the 
farm program it has been wildly successful and the return on 
investment from the subsidy programs has been very high. 
Currently we spend only about 11% of disposable income on our 
food while most other developed countries spend closer to 20% 
and many undeveloped countries spend closer to 50%. The current 
structure of farm programs has allowed Americans to live a much 
greater standard of living than they would have if agriculture 
had been totally market driven but this enjoyment has come at 
great expense to the agriculture producers and rural 
communities. The current subsidy program does not allow 
producers to maintain reasonable levels of profitability, in 
fact it keeps them from having long term economic profitability 
because it encourages production at levels below the economic 
break-even. I support a gradual elimination of all subsidies 
including the elimination of price supports for ethanol and 
biofuel production. The free market can work if it is allowed 
to and while food prices would substantially increase over 
time, each product would have to stand on its own or not be 
raised.
    A primary focus of this farm bill should be to encourage 
more market access for all sizes of producers. Grants and low 
interest loans should be made available for start up operations 
and for businesses that can fill voids in the marketplace where 
access is difficult if not impossible due to lack of investment 
in infrastructure. There is a considerable market for smaller 
producers to sell directly to the consumer but often that 
market access is limited because of our inability to process 
our product. As a sideline business, we often feed our cattle 
for slaughter and direct sell to consumers in our area. This 
product is a high end product that has plenty of demand. 
However, our ability to increase the scope of this operation is 
limited by a severe shortage of slaughter facilities in our 
area. Recently we had to get a kill slot more than 90 days in 
advance to slaughter one of our farm raised animals. We have 
sold all of the product from that animal and have a waiting 
list for more of the same product but due to our inability to 
get a kill slot it will take another four months to have 
additional product ready to sell. This lack of market access 
creates a market barrier for smaller producers and gives a 
competitive advantage for the ultra-large processors. We need 
the large processors to continue to keep food costs reasonable 
but we also need choices for the consumer. The best method of 
promoting choice for the consumer is by encouraging additional 
investment in market access.
    Our government has to get back to the idea that it must 
live within its means. Our current system of massive deficits 
is not sustainable over the long term and we must seriously 
consider what the role of government should be in many 
different areas. Agriculture is not excepted from this nor are 
consumers that have gotten used to an inexpensive but abundant 
food supply that has been largely due to a farm program that 
has placed a high priority on inexpensive food supply rather 
than cultivating a marketplace where that producers who can 
react to changes in consumer tastes and preferences are 
rewarded financially and can continue to grow their operation. 
Most other countries are having to significantly reduce the 
level of subsidies paid to producers and I feel we are in the 
same boat as them. We should completely decouple all 
agriculture producer payments from production. In order to 
provide a necessary transitional period of adjustment, 
decoupled payments should be made based on acres rather than 
historical yields or crop bases. Additional funds should be 
allocated to EQIP particularly for operations that have found 
methods of production that address not only high production 
methods but also incorporate holistic methods to address issues 
including biodiversity, water quality, soil erosion, etc. We 
should not consider expanding the role of subsidies to include 
other crops including vegetables and fruits. Decouple 
everything, encourage increased market access and let the 
market and the consumer determine what the proper mix of 
products should be.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Cody Whitman, Venice, CA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Cody Whitman.
    City, State: Venice, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Media/Nonprofit.
    Comment: Please subsidize sustainable agriculture. No more 
corn and soy subsidies, this is why we have an obesity problem 
in the United States.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Mark Whitney, Social Circle, GA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Mark Whitney.
    City, State: Social Circle, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Game Management Section Chief, GA Department of 
Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division.
    Comment: Farm Bill Conservation Programs and Practices 
should be developed and implemented to maximize natural 
resource (including fish and wildlife resources) and taxpayer 
benefits. More specifically I recommend that fish and wildlife 
resources be designated as co-equal with Soil, Water, Air, and 
Forests in all Farm Bill Conservation Programs and legislation. 
I further recommend that adequate funding be provided to fully 
ensure effective program and practice delivery, including 
outreach, technical guidance and practice compliance.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Lisa Wickersham, Caledonia, OH

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 2:36 p.m.
    Name: Lisa Wickersham.
    City, State: Caledonia, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Rural Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill limited public 
access to the Common Land Unit (CLU) data. As a farm appraiser, 
this data is vital to ensure accurate land valuations. Without 
CLU data, appraisers will have less accurate information to 
know the tillable acres, which is the main factor in land 
values. The CLU data does not include compliance information, 
wetland, Conservation Reserve Program, or ownership 
information. Many agricultural fields use this land data to 
benefit farmers, including: appraisers, farm managers, 
financial service providers, and chemical and fertilizer 
applicators. Please consider revising the 2008 Farm Bill to 
allow CLU data to be public once again.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Tim Wiebe, McCook, NE

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Tim Wiebe.
    City, State: McCook, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agricultural Lender.
    Comment: I am writing to request the reinstatement of the 
CLU data in the next farm bill. This information provides very 
useful data when working with our farm customers, and at the 
same time does not disclose any personal information. We are 
currently forced to work from outdated maps which can 
contribute to errors and confusion. Thank you for your 
consideration.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Tom Wietbrock, Lowell, IN

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 8:35 p.m.
    Name: Tom Wietbrock.
    City, State: Lowell, IN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment: I am hoping that in the new farm bill you would 
please include the ability to have the base acres reinstated. 
We rent a farm with no base acres and no payments and are in 
the process of purchasing one with none. The people before said 
they didn't known you had to do anything so they did no 
certification. Now there is no base and no payments. Please 
consider this for the new farm bill.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Cassidy Wilber, Fullerton, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Cassidy Wilber.
    City, State: Fullerton, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Strategic Planner.
    Comment: The amount of Americans who are hungry, 
undernourished and obese is appalling. We are one of the 
richest nations in the world and we have not made it a priority 
to provide fresh WHOLESOME food for our children and families. 
We need to STOP subsidizing crops like corn and wheat and 
encourage food diverse farms. We need to feed out children REAL 
food, not processed frozen pizza and nuggets that barely 
resemble something that should be eaten. As Americans, we need 
to tell Agribusiness that we are tired of factory farmed meats 
and E. coli ridden run off that poisons our waters.
    I have no faith that my words will sway men with pockets 
lined green by the soy and corn industry, but we will be heard. 
Consumers will choose with their dollars, the only voice you or 
your corporate cronies every hear.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Dinah Wiley, Washington, D.C.

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:36 a.m.
    Name: Dinah Wiley.
    City, State: Washington, D.C.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Public Benefits Policy Attorney, National 
Immigration Law Center.
    Comment: The National Immigration Law Center, with 
headquarters in Los Angeles, California (www.nilc.org), is very 
concerned about barriers to SNAP that prevent lawfully residing 
immigrants and their family members from obtaining this vital 
work support. We recommend that the following provisions be 
included into Farm Bill 2012 to eliminate some of these harmful 
barriers.

    1. Fairness for legal immigrants. Eliminate the five year 
        waiting period imposed on immigrant adults under 
        current law. Hunger does not wait five years, nor 
        should lawfully residing families have to wait before 
        gaining access to the Supplemental Nutritional 
        Assistance Program.

    Under such a provision, lawfully residing immigrants who 
        meet the general program requirements would have their 
        food stamps eligibility considered in the same manner 
        as citizens, eliminating the five year waiting period 
        imposed under current law. It's important to remember 
        that undocumented immigrants have never been eligible 
        for food stamps or SNAP, and this proposal would not 
        provide eligibility to undocumented immigrants.

    2. Clarify eligibility for immigrant families with 
        children. Eliminate sponsor deeming rules for SNAP 
        households that include children. Exempting only 
        immigrant children from deeming does not go far enough 
        to remove barriers that prevent U.S. citizen and 
        lawfully residing immigrant children from obtaining 
        assistance or that reduce the amount of food available 
        to these families.

    In the 2002 Farm bill, Congress recognized the need to 
        restore food stamp eligibility to qualified immigrant 
        children, without a five year waiting period. In doing 
        so, Congress also attempted to remove a barrier that 
        prevents children from obtaining assistance, by 
        exempting children from immigrant sponsor deeming 
        rules, which can render low-income families ineligible, 
        and can deter immigrant families from seeking 
        assistance. However, by failing to address the deeming 
        rules for parents or other household members, the new 
        rules continued to prevent U.S. citizen and lawfully 
        residing immigrant children from receiving assistance. 
        This Farm Bill 2012 proposal would eliminate deeming 
        rules for SNAP households that include children.

    3. Simplify administrative reporting. Adjust the DHS 
        reporting requirement regarding sponsored immigrants 
        who would go hungry or homeless without assistance (the 
        ``indigence'' exemption from deeming), by allowing SNAP 
        agencies to provide an aggregate report that omits 
        individual names. This would meet federal statistical 
        needs while ensuring that eligible hungry families are 
        able to secure assistance without fear.

    Are damaging access barrier for immigrants who need SNAP is 
        the requirement that agencies report immigrants who 
        qualify for the indigence exemption to the Attorney 
        General's office, now under the Department of Homeland 
        Security, USCIS. This requirement serves no clear 
        policy purpose and significantly deters participation 
        in SNAP for eligible immigrant families. The 
        requirement is confusing to applicants, and upon 
        learning of it, most eligible families decline to 
        invoke the indigence exemption and are unable to secure 
        nutrition assistance. Allowing SNAP agencies to provide 
        an aggregate report instead of an individual report 
        would address this problem by reporting only numbers of 
        applicants and omitting individual names and contact 
        information. Aggregate reporting could meet federal 
        statistical needs and would be more effective in 
        evaluating the impact of the exemption because the 
        exemption would be used by the families for whom it was 
        intended.

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. For more 
information, please contact Dinah Wiley, Public Benefits Policy 
Attorney, National Immigration Law Center, [Redacted], 
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                  Comment of William Wilkins, Troy, OH

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: William Wilkins.
    City, State: Troy, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: I farm part time and do farm appraisal on a full 
time basis. Information and data provided by CLU is critical 
for both my farm operation and for the appraisal business.
    I/we urge you to reinstate provisions that allow CLU data 
into Section 1619.
            Thanks,

Bill Wilkins.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Brad Wilkinson, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Brad Wilkinson.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Management Consultant & Trainer.
    Comment: I urge you to support sustainable farming 
practices, organic foods and the elimination of understudied 
genetically modified organisms in the nation's food supply. 
Please work to STOP companies who are peddling this dangerous 
technology. This is a national security issue and I beg you to 
stand up to the big money pushing it.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Earl P. Williams, Fresno, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Earl P. Williams.
    City, State: Fresno, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: President/CEO, California Cotton Growers 
Association.
    Comment:

Comments on Behalf of California Cotton Growers Association to 
House Agriculture Committee

June 2010

By:

Earl P. Williams,
President/CEO,
California Cotton Growers Association.

    Chairman Peterson and members of the Committee, thank you 
for the opportunity to submit comments on the writing of the 
next Farm Bill on behalf of the cotton growers of California.
    The California Cotton Growers Association is a nonprofit 
corporation whose membership represents 100% of California's 
total cotton production, both upland and pima, and is supported 
by voluntary dues.
    Let me begin by complimenting you and the Committee for the 
hard work and reasonable thinking that went into crafting the 
2008 Farm Bill. For the most part, we think the general 
structure has severed our industry well. It is our hope that 
much of the current farm bill can and will move forward into 
the next farm bill.
    Components of current farm bill that we would advocate 
continuing include marketing loans, direct payments and 
countercyclical payments, the so-called three legged stool 
concept. The marketing loan for upland cotton serves as a 
foundation of global competitiveness as well as a production 
financing tool.
    Direct Payments continue to provide an important level of 
certainty and security in today's volatile market conditions. 
The countercyclical support based on pre-determined target 
prices adjust as designed to change up and down relative to 
changes in market conditions. Again, the three legged stool 
with all three legs important to the structure.
    For pima cotton, the nonrecourse loan provides important 
cash flow for the extra long staple cotton producers. The fact 
that pima cotton has no futures market further exemplifies the 
importance of this provision. Especially important to 
California where over 90% of the total U.S. production of pima 
cotton is produced.
    The current farm bill also provides another vital provision 
to U.S. pima production and that is the competitiveness 
provisions. Almost 100% of the U.S. pima or extra long staple 
cotton production is exported so the competitiveness provisions 
are critical to remaining competitive in the world markets.
    The cost of doing business in California is especially high 
in comparison to other areas of the country and certainly the 
world. To remain competitive, growers typically farm on a 
somewhat larger scale than other areas seeking economies of 
scale to lower costs of production. We are also blessed with 
good growing conditions normally and typically produce more per 
acre than other growing areas in the country. We must have high 
production to survive and compete.
    The current program contains good planting flexibility that 
addresses our growers diversity and allows them to make 
cropping decisions based on economic signals and agronomic 
considerations. Believe me this works and when cotton prices 
have been depressed our growers have turned away from cotton. 
When water supplies are tight, permanent plantings get first 
preference, high priced contracted crops get second and if 
enough water is left maybe cotton gets planted, if not, no 
cotton!
    We had 600,000 acres of cotton in California in 2004 and in 
2009 190,000 acres. No one can convince me that cotton farmers 
in California are planting for the program!
    The scale of farming in California and the average per acre 
production needed to help offset the high costs should not be 
discriminated against by payment limits. Such restrictions or 
limits deny benefits and promote inefficiencies in farm 
structure and size.
    The cotton industry is not sustainable and not practical on 
a ``mom and pop'' sized operation especially in California. A 
cotton harvest machine today alone costs $300,000 today! Hardly 
an investment for small farms.
    In California today there is no such thing as a cotton 
grower. Cotton is just one of many crops that a grower chooses 
from each year. Cotton fits well in many growers rotation 
programs and as stated earlier, acres planted to cotton versus 
other crops depend on economics and other agronomic 
circumstances such as water supply! So, eligibility 
restrictions on our size farms and the diversity of these farms 
seems to neutralize good farm policy for California producers 
with overly restrictive limits and eligibility requirements.
    The basic principles that we would strongly support and 
advocate in new farm bill legislation would begin with an 
effective safety net. Full planting flexibility, full 
production allowance, and eligibility provisions structured to 
encourage maximum participation without regard to size or 
structure--are vitally important. Provisions must promote and 
insure cotton prices are competitive to domestic and 
international mills.
    Finally, farm programs should not become the whipping boy 
for this country's financial woes. The trade policies of this 
country has sold the American farmers down the river for the 
past many years. Our domestic markets have been raided by lax 
import policies into this country forcing us to export to 
remain competitive yet we face higher export tariffs entering 
other countries. Couple all this with foreign currency 
manipulation, lower costs of production, non transparent 
support (subsides), fewer if any costly rules and regulations 
and our growers are struggling to survive.
    The WTO further compounds this imbalance by asking the U.S. 
and other highly developed countries to level the trade field 
with developing and undeveloped countries. Can't be done 
without U.S. lowering our standards.
    The recent WTO cotton case is just the beginning of the 
U.S. against the WTO. The case against U.S. cotton used flawed 
data and was ruled on by a kangaroo court. Outright extortion 
and it's just the beginning in my opinion and will continue as 
long as we stand for it.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments on the 
upcoming Farm Bill discussions and development. We appreciate 
the Chairman's and the Committee's efforts in the past and look 
forward to the process ahead.
            Respectfully submitted,

Earl P. Williams,
President/CEO,
California Cotton Growers Association.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Everett Williams, Madison, GA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Everett Williams.
    City, State: Madison, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 1,000+ acres.
    Comment:

United States House of Representatives,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Feedback for Farm Bill 2012 Hearing.

Georgia Milk Producers, Inc.

June 14, 2010

    Chairman Peterson and distinguished members of the House 
Agriculture Committee, Georgia Milk Producers, Inc. would like 
to thank you for your recent series of Farm Bill hearings 
across the United States and applauds your efforts of 
thoroughly investigating the needs and necessary changes that 
should be addressed in the 2012 Farm Bill legislation.
    We are sure that the House Agriculture Committee is fully 
aware of the current crisis the U.S. dairy industry is 
experiencing and with recent market reports, it looks like 
there may be little relief in sight. Georgia dairymen operate 
in an area where population growth is one of the fastest in the 
U.S. The milk deficit for our area grows greater each year with 
Georgia now importing up to 68 million pounds of milk per 
month. The Federal Milk Market Administrator's office in 
Atlanta predicts that within the next decade no dairies will 
exist within the Southeast. One reason for this is the current 
dairy pricing system.
    We appreciate this Committee's efforts to review the 
current economic situation and to investigate all short-term 
and long-term possibilities that would improve our industry. 
Here are some suggestions that we believe would help our region 
and the nation as a whole:
USDA Dairy Product Price Support Program
    The USDA Dairy Product Price Support Program helps support 
prices and farm income. The price paid for Nonfat Dry Milk 
(NFDM), butter and cheese is too low to help dairy producers 
remain profitable, especially considering the dramatic rise in 
input costs over the past three years. Even though raising the 
support price appears to help producers now, however it is not 
a good long-term solution. Dairymen would be producing milk for 
the government to purchase instead of the market place. If 
these government purchased products are used in the U.S., such 
as for the school lunch program, they still depress market 
prices causing the government to buy more product. If large 
amounts of product were given or sold to foreign countries that 
would depress prices and cause harm to relationships between 
the U.S. and trading partners.
    The government should encourage dairy product usage in the 
school lunch program to improve our children's diet and 
nutrition, but using surplus inventories displaces normal 
market sales.
    The USDA Dairy Product Price Support Program is an example 
of good intentions by the government to help dairymen but now 
causes more harm than good. Buying products at a price below 
the cost of production does not support dairymen, but creates 
inventories that depress prices for months or years, only 
prolonging the low prices for dairymen. When the dairy industry 
has excess production processors make NFDM to sell to the 
government, instead we should be making whole milk powder for 
the world market. Most foreign countries want whole milk powder 
not NFDM. In addition, the global market would welcome dropping 
the support program because they will see the U.S. as a more 
reliable and consistent dairy exporter.
    Without the Dairy Product Price Support Program milk prices 
might drop to lower prices than with the current system but 
prices would rebound faster because the market would use more 
dairy products and there would be no government inventories to 
depress future prices. Dairymen would get a better, clearer 
signal to cut production and to produce products for the 
market, not the government.
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME)/Cheese Trading
    Producers need a true dairy market for its price signals 
and income. Farm milk price correlates very closely with the 
Block Cheddar price on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). 
We are concerned with the small amount of cheese (less than 1%) 
traded with the small number of buyers and sellers for cheese 
on the CME. The price could be easily manipulated to the 
detriment of dairy producers.
    We know from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report (GAO-07-707) released in July 2007, that the opportunity 
for price manipulation exists. GAO stated, ``Because the CME 
spot cheese market remains a market in which few daily trades 
occur and a small number of traders account for the majority of 
trades, questions exist about this market's susceptibility to 
potential price manipulation.''
    Cheese plants report prices to the National Agricultural 
Statistics Service (NASS). These prices are the CME cheddar 
cheese price of ten days earlier including basis. Therefore the 
cheese price on the CME sets the NASS survey price which sets 
the Class I Mover.
    We want the government to follow up on this GAO report with 
an investigation to find improvements or a more equitable dairy 
pricing system.
Supply Management Programs
    We support H.R. 5288, the Dairy Price Stabilization Act, 
introduced in May by Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno, California. 
Dairy markets continue to have ever increasing price volatility 
which hurts producers, processors and consumers. Low prices 
benefit processors and consumers, but help to force dairymen 
out of business causing a severe drop in production and the 
next round of high prices for consumers. These high prices are 
needed by dairymen to repay equity lost in the low part of the 
price cycle, but hurt processors and consumers causing a 
decrease in milk consumption which makes the next round of low 
prices even worse.
    H.R. 5288, the Dairy Price Stabilization Act, is designed 
to match supply with demand, including exports. Federal 
legislation would be needed to implement this plan. An advisory 
board would be appointed which would set the amount of milk 
needed and the market access fee per hundredweight. This fee 
would be paid by those producers who produce more than their 
assigned market amount. The fees would be collected and paid 
proportionally to those producers who do not expand. This 
advisory board would react to market conditions by increasing 
supply when milk was short or decreasing supply when there is 
too much milk. This plan allows for expansion of production and 
new producers and its goal would be to control milk price 
volatility while not setting milk prices.
Daily Dairy Electronic Price Reporting
    In the 2007 Farm Bill, section 1510 of the dairy title, 
Congress authorized daily electronic NASS price reporting (with 
auditing) for dairy. This very important piece of the current 
Farm Bill was never funded or implemented. Daily dairy 
electronic price reporting of cheese, butter, whey and powder 
would reduce the influence of ``thinly'' traded Chicago 
Mercantile Exchange spot market for these commodities.
Restructure Pricing of Class I Milk
    The present system of using a formula that locks Class I 
pricing to manufactured pricing is adversely affecting markets 
that are primarily Class I. The expansion of milk production in 
the West over the last decade has negatively impacted dairymen 
producing for fluid markets. A system needs to be developed 
that would price fluid milk independently.
Southeast Milk Marketing Conditions
    Our dairy cooperatives have done a very poor job of 
matching milk production with demand. We have allowed 
tremendous production declines in the Southeast while 
encouraging large milk production increases in the Southwest.
    In the Southeast, milk production has decreased 23 percent 
from 12.0 billion pounds to 9.2 billion pounds since 2000. 
Meanwhile in the Southwest, production has increased 44 percent 
from 11.9 billion pounds to 17.1 billion pounds since 2000. The 
end result is that we have a fluid market in the Southeast that 
is short of fluid milk. The money that processors pay for milk 
is being spent to pay for milk hauling from the Southwest to 
the Southeast instead of going to pay local dairymen. 
Transportation credits of 30 cents per hundredweight of milk 
are paid by Class I processors to a Federal Order fund to 
supply milk from outside a marketing area during periods of 
deficit milk production. These transportation credits are being 
used to subsidize milk hauling from the Southwest to the 
Southeast even as some milk is being hauled out of the 
Southeast to manufacturing plants in the North. This is another 
example of good intentions by the government to help dairymen 
that has proven harmful. Transportation credits harm local 
dairy producers because they provide a subsidy for distance 
milk to replace local milk. This action hurts all dairy 
producers in the Southeast for the benefit of a few haulers
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit our plea for help 
and a call for a drastic change both for the good of Georgia's 
dairy industry, the Southeast as well as for the U.S.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Kim Williams, Paicines, CA

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 18, 2010, 6:05 p.m.
    Name: Kim Williams.
    City, State: Paicines, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Poultry/poultry products.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: My husband, neighbors and I produce beyond-organic 
pastured eggs, chicken, pork, beef and dairy. We are graziers 
who work in harmony with the sensitive habitat we live in, a 
valley that is a last refuge for many Threatened and Endangered 
Species whose range used to include the California Central 
Valley. Not only do we sell our food throughout the entire San 
Francisco and Monterey Bay Area, we run a farm-stay with our 
neighbors and promote the eco and agri-tourism of our area.
    We are under serious threat from a proposed industrial 
solar development that will cover over 1.3 of the valley we 
farm in, 4,717 acres to be exact. A start-up company created by 
venture capitalist involved with oil drilling and ethanol 
production, and who have zero experience in solar, would like 
permitting approved so they can qualify for $360 million in 
ARRA funds, to be spent primarily on the purchase of 1.8 
million solar panels from China. This project will lead to a 
reduction in jobs for our county, a reduction in tax revenue, 
and added debt because roads leading into the valley will need 
to be repaired before construction equipment can move in.
    We are in an area zoned as Agricultural Rangeland--this 
company, Solargen, want the zoning changed. The majority of the 
valley is protected under the Williamson Act--Solargen wants 
the contracts cancelled on the grounds it's in the public's 
best interest.
    There is a Species Recovery Plan specifying the need for 
traditional grazing activities to continue and 90% of the 
valley floor protected from development--Solargen wants the 
federal government to step in and override this protection 
measure.
    If built, this project would wipe out the agriculture in 
the valley, eliminating this important local source of food. It 
just doesn't make sense to talk about reducing our dependence 
on foreign oil while increasing our dependence on foreign food.
    It also doesn't make sense to decimate valuable ag land, 
(the valley is rated as Prime Ag land with Class 1 soil using 
federal criteria) and pristine open space in the name of 
``saving the environment''. Grasslands sequester an enormous 
amount of carbon and this project will lead to desertification 
and zero carbon will be sequestered.
    I and my neighbors respectfully urge you to work on 
protecting prime farm land and pristine open space from the 
onslaught of industrial development. Solar is a wonderful thing 
but it should be placed close to point of use, in urban areas--
over land fills, in free-way right of ways, on every rooftop, 
etc. There are millions of acres of suitable space if 
government will make the right choice and refuse to support big 
energy special interests masquerading as the knights of clean 
energy production so they can maintain their monopoly over 
energy production in this country.
    The old paradigm of producing energy far from point of use 
and transmitting over long distances is outdated, inefficient, 
and should be phased out. The future is distributed power and a 
great start towards achieving this goal is to stop the 
subsidies to big energy and fund a feed-in tariff program 
similar to the one that has allowed Germany and Spain to become 
world leaders in renewable energy production.
    Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
                                ------                                


             Comment of Lindsey Williams, Bowling Green, VA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Lindsey Williams.
    City, State: Bowling Green, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Vegetables.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: First and foremost, I appreciate that the House 
Committee is looking to hear the voices of the people you seek 
to serve and represent. I am a Virginia nonprofit worker who 
grows fresh produce to add a more balanced element to offerings 
in food pantries and to those who often are not able to afford 
fresh produce in the store. I hope to some day have a larger 
farm that serves people on ALL economic levels. There are a few 
things that I would like to see in this ``industry'' as we look 
to the future of Agriculture. First, I think it is important 
that the nation be encouraged to look to fresh, local 
solutions. In order to do that, there needs to be encouragement 
to those who grow fresh, local produce, rather than be hindered 
in their efforts.
    It is important to have incentives for small farms who seek 
to support local communities, especially 'Buy Fresh, Buy 
Local'; To offer incentives to farmers who help the local 
communities they live and work in, especially for those who 
grow edible and nutritious foods; To encourage farmers, 
possibly through incentives, to move towards more organic means 
of growing, putting caps on the amount of chemicals that are 
allowed to be used on crops.
    I seek to use organic methods in my growing and I realize 
it is not always feasible for larger scale growers. In those 
cases, I would like to know (through labeling, etc) what kinds 
of chemicals ARE being used, so that I have the choice of what 
to purchase. However, this is not meant to hinder farmers from 
growing, but rather protect the long term effects for consumer 
and grower.
    There needs to be continued support to local communities 
seeking to grow food together to meet the needs of the 
community and ALL families in the community.
    As well as continued support of the Cooperative Extensions 
in our states. With this, also encouraging support of non-
traditional growing methods.
    Additional support of and for Community Supported 
Agriculture and those who participate and produce.
    I would also like to see continued and broader support of 
adding fresh and nutritious foods to SNAP programs and to the 
school cafeteria offerings. There are wonderful programs that 
have been offered, a broadening of these to reach more people 
would be wonderful. Incentives to families who seek to add more 
fresh and nutritious foods into their lives.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of these ideas. 
Should you have any questions, I would be willing to answer 
them at any point.
             Sincerely,
Lindsey Williams.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Nikki Williams, Atlanta, GA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 a.m.
    Name: Nikki Williams.
    City, State: Atlanta, GA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Consumer.
    Comment: I'm hearing from farmers that the rules in Georgia 
for slaughtering chickens are archaic. There is a high demand 
in Georgia for unadulterated, pasture raised, free range 
chickens that are free from inhuman pens, chemicals, and toxic 
hormones. The problem with growing these chickens is that 
farmers are not allowed to slaughter on their own farms, and 
the available slaughtering houses are 100s of miles away, and 
are often already booked up for weeks. This must change now. It 
wastes fuel and is a waste of time. Allow for more poultry (and 
cattle) slaughtering facilities to accommodate the growing 
demand for pollutant free poultry and other meats. Nobody wants 
disgusting Tyson, Perdue, and the other toxic chicken/meat 
provided by CAFOs Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. The 
future is in sustainable wholesome food and not in animal 
confinement at high stocking density. There must be 
infrastructure in place to accommodate the demand for wholesome 
nutritious food. The future is not CAFOs Concentrated Animal 
Feeding Operations (CAFOs), so stop subsidizing such toxic, 
disgusting, filthy, immoral operations with tax payer money.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Ross Williams, Raleigh, NC

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 9:05 a.m.
    Name: Ross Williams.
    City, State: Raleigh, NC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Commodity Association.
    Comment: I serve as executive director for the North 
Carolina Nursery and Landscape Association. Our association 
represents nursery crop producers in NC. A major issue that our 
growers have been concerned and frustrated with for several 
years is crop insurance. A very small number of growers 
currently have crop insurance although they know it should be 
an important risk management tool for them. The cost-benefit 
ratio for nursery growers does not work for the potential 
benefits in protecting their crops. The current crop insurance 
plan is extremely expensive and when there is a claim, it is 
very difficult to qualify for any payment. This is true for 
nurseries all across the country. The next farm bill should 
include funds to do a new actuarial study for nursery crops and 
completely revise the current program.
                                ------                                


          Comment of Ted and Louise Williams, Lake Charles, LA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 5:05 p.m.
    Name: Ted and Louise Williams.
    City, State: Lake Charles, LA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: We are organically farming 10 ac. fruit, vegetable 
and specialty crops and without the assistance of the NRCS we 
would not be able to do so.
    Please keep helping the small organic farmer.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Susan Willlard, Peekskill, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Susan Willlard.
    City, State: Peekskill, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Scientist.
    Comment: Please pass a farm bill that curbs factory farms 
and large food corporations. The children of the U.S. deserve 
fresh, wholesome food in our nation's public schools. Insist on 
a Farm Bill that allows farms to make a transition to organic, 
sustainable growing methods for the sake of a cleaner 
environment for our children and grandchildren.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Karen Wilson, Evans Mills, NY

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Karen Wilson.
    City, State: Evans Mills, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Dental Hygienist.
    Comment: Hello. Please make sure you are supporting organic 
and small, local farming in the 2012 Farm Bill. Organic farming 
is one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agricultural 
production and organic food is one of the fastest growing 
sectors of the U.S. food retail market. Organic farming systems 
have repeatedly been shown to conserve water, improve air 
quality, and build soil quality while providing high quality 
food and fiber for consumers here and abroad. If we want to see 
the U.S. organic sector continue to grow and thrive, we need to 
invest in programs that support organic farmers, including:

   Research and Extension Programs that expand the 
        breadth of knowledge about organic farming systems and 
        provide that knowledge to organic farmers.

   Conservation Programs that reward organic farmers 
        for the conservation benefits of organic farming 
        systems and provide technical support for organic 
        farmers who want to improve on-farm conservation.

   Transition Programs that provide technical support 
        to farmers who want to transition to organic farming 
        practices but don't know how.

   Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic 
        farmers and reimburse them for any losses based on the 
        organic market value of the crop, not average 
        conventional prices.

    Thank you for your time and for helping America's farmers 
and not big corporations.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Lorne E. Wilson, Arapahoe, NE

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Lorne E. Wilson.
    City, State: Arapahoe, NE.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agronomist in the Fertilizer Industry.
    Comment: The CLU data is helpful to get the correct 
producer field treated when you are taking an order over the 
phone. At least you can both be looking at the map with acres 
on them. Many producers provide maps but some we are working on 
maps as old as 1993 and guessing where the pivot goes and how 
fields have changed. The CLU data is helpful and I do not see 
the down side to making it public.
            Cooperatively,

Lorne E. Wilson,
Agronomist,
Ag Valley Coop,
Arapahoe, NE.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Deb Windecker, Frankfort, NY

    Date Submitted: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
    Name: Deb Windecker.
    City, State: Frankfort, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Dairy.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: Dairy farmers deserve a fair pricing structure 
with more transparency than the CME's 1% surplus cheese sales 
that derive the class III milk price from the NASS survey done 
on a honor system by dishonorable people. We deserve a price 
that factors in our cost of production as any other free market 
business would. Dairy farmer's deserve a piece of the pie from 
the market place. We are tired of seeing all the profits being 
reaped by the processor/retailer off the back of the dairy 
farmer and MILC payments of the taxpayers. This is corporate 
welfare!!! We need to preserve local food systems and bring 
back more processing plants. Forcing farmer's to buy revenue 
loss insurance is another subsidized program that the farmer 
can not afford to buy and again provides for insurance 
companies to generate off the back of taxpayers for double 
digit returns . . . We also need to do away with BLOC Voting . 
. . The farmer's voices are no longer heard because of block 
voting controlled by a few large Co-ops.
                                ------                                


              Comment of Tammy L. Winfield, Corvallis, OR

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 25, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Tammy L. Winfield.
    City, State: Corvallis, OR.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: University Research Assistant.
    Comment: Dear Committee members, as a person who is deeply 
concerned about our environment, our economy, and our access to 
chemical free fresh local produce, I implore you to consider 
organic farming a top priority in the 2012 Farm Bill and all 
future agriculture policy.

   Organic farming is one of the fastest growing 
        segments of U.S. agricultural production and organic 
        food is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. 
        food retail market.

   Organic farming systems have the potential to 
        conserve water, improve air quality, and build soil 
        quality while providing high quality food and fiber for 
        consumers here and abroad.

   If we want to see the U.S. organic sector continue 
        to grow and thrive, we need to invest in programs that 
        support organic farmers, including:

     Research and Extension Programs that expand 
            the breadth of knowledge about organic farming 
            systems and provide that knowledge to organic 
            farmers.

     Conservation Programs that reward organic 
            farmers for the conservation benefits of organic 
            farming systems and provide technical support for 
            organic farmers who want to improve on-farm 
            conservation.

     Transition Programs that provide technical 
            support to farmers who want to transition to 
            organic farming practices but don't know how.

     Crop Insurance Programs that work for organic 
            farmers and reimburse them for any losses based on 
            the organic market value of the crop, not average 
            conventional prices.

    Please consider these important points while crafting the 
next farm bill.
            Sincerely,

Tammy L. Winfield.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Robert Winslow, New York, NY

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:05 p.m.
    Name: Robert Winslow.
    City, State: New York, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Concerned Citizen.
    Comment: Regardless of lobbyist efforts, the very first 
requirement of any food policy must be to decrease hunger. I 
demand that farm subsidies be reformed towards this goal; that 
U.S. subsidies do not put farmers in other countries under 
financial distress; and that health and nutrition for children 
be made a priority.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Bette Winter, Locust Grove, VA

    Date Submitted: Monday, June 14, 2010, 3:35 p.m.
    Name: Bette Winter.
    City, State: Locust Grove, VA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Entrepreneur.
    Comment:

    Dear Mr. Cantor et al.,

    Two important child nutrition advocacy initiatives that I 
ask you to support are currently in progress. The first of 
these would improve the current proposed legislation. The 
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is calling 
on citizens to support inclusion of The Healthy School Meals 
Act, H.R. 4870 into The Improving Nutrition for America's 
Children Act. The Healthy School Meals Act would bring forward 
the introduction of more plant-based meal options in accordance 
with recommendations made by the American Medical Association 
and the American Public Health Association. According to the 
PCRM . . . ``The bill, in its current form, does little to 
encourage the substitution of high fat content foods (such as 
meat and cheese) with low-fat fruit and vegetables. Such 
substitutions are crucial in fighting childhood obesity.''
    Another very important opportunity to effect positive 
change in the child nutrition legislative process is through 
ensuring that changes to the Farm Bill that support child 
nutrition are made in 2012. I hope you are still accepting 
public suggestions as to how to improve the Farm Bill. If 
Congress were to change even a small amount of the World War II 
era subsidy funding which is currently given to large commodity 
crops such as corn, wheat and soy and instead put that funding 
into smaller scale, organic and local agricultural endeavors, 
the positive effect on child nutrition would be enormous. While 
these subsidies of so called ``staple'' crops may have made 
sense at the time they were first suggested in the early 20th 
century, the Farm Bill subsidy program as it is currently 
carried out actually contribute to declining child health due 
to its support for agribusiness such as the corn syrup 
producers and industrial meat and dairy production. Increased 
federal support for local, organic diversified agricultural 
would go a long way to ensuring that the local school districts 
have the ability to purchase and use healthier, organic fresh 
fruits and vegetables and meats in school nutrition programs.
    You want to bring jobs to Virginia. Supporting our own 
economy by buying locally and providing fresh local food for 
Virginia schools will show big business you care about the 
education Virginia children receive. Thank you for your time 
sir.

Bette Winter,
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


               Comment of Velma Wollschlager, Revillo, SD

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 4:05 p.m.
    Name: Velma Wollschlager.
    City, State: Revillo, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: 151-300 acres.
    Comment: We feel that you must include Payment Limits in 
the Farm Bill. It should be up to $250,000 or Less for all 
farms, even those that have Multiple producers. It is very hard 
for Family farms to compete with those Large/Multiple ones and 
that is NOT FAIR, for them to get more government help; as they 
then, Bid up cash rent, get discounts on seed, feeds, equipment 
etc. . . . How can smaller family farms compete with that?? You 
tell me . . . THAT is why so many family farms are going out of 
business. PLEASE consider this, if you want to continue with 
family operations. Really, it should be even less; instead work 
on the commodity prices, which is WHAT should sustain Farmers/
Ranchers. Thank you, for any help you might . . . give.

Velma Wollschlager,
Grant County, SD.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Jason Woods, Sioux City, IA

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Jason Woods.
    City, State: Sioux City, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified General Real Property Appraiser.
    Comment: I ask that you support the reinstatement of the 
CLU data into Section 1619. Your support will reinforce the 
huge benefits that CLU data provides for businesses who work 
closely with producers, such as giving producers more timely, 
accurate and cost-effective services. There is no compliance, 
CRP, wetlands or other personal information in the CLU data.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Edward Woolsey, Prole, IA

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 03, 2010, 2:35 p.m.
    Name: Edward Woolsey.
    City, State: Prole, IA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Other.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment:

House Agriculture Committee Hearing,
Des Moines Iowa.

April 30, 2010

Ed Woolsey,
Iowa Wind Farmer,
[Redacted].

    I would like to speak to the Energy Title of the coming 
Farm Bill, and thank you for supporting this effort in the 
past.
    In 2001 I testified in front of the Senate Ag Committee on 
the vast potential that renewable energy offered rural America.
    In 2007 I testified in front of the House Small Business 
Committee on the incredible number of jobs available from 
renewable energy.
    Please reauthorize and fully fund the renewable energy 
Title of the Farm Bill. They are very successful and badly 
needed.
    Now, I would like for you to give consideration to giving 
some very direct instructions to the Rural Electric 
Cooperatives related to renewable energy.
    America can not capture the jobs, rural economic 
development or energy security benefits of renewable energy 
without the REC's support. Current support is sporadic, non-
existent or completely negative. Your attention is critical.
    I urge you to look at the wildly successful public policy 
used in the majority of Countries currently leading the 
international renewable energy revolution.
    The public policy has the unfortunate name of FEED-IN-
TARIFF.
    Lots of information is available on how the FEED-IN-TARIFF 
works.
    If you are interested I can provide you or your staff with 
a bibliography.
    Thank you for your time.

Edward Woolsey,
President,
Green Prairie Wind Inc.
[Redacted].
                                ------                                


                   Comment of Scott Wooton, Alden, NY

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 9:35 a.m.
    Name: Scott Wooton.
    City, State: Alden, NY.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Certified Public Accountant.
    Comment: Organic agriculture, practiced in rural and urban 
farms across the nation, can give U.S. taxpayers clear 
benefits: cutting pesticide and fertilizer use that fouls our 
water and endangers our health, while increasing economic 
development opportunities. For the 2012 Farm Bill, please:

   Pay farmers for the amount of environmental good 
        they do rather than for the amount of crops they 
        produce.

   Reward farmers for increasing biodiversity (more 
        kinds of crops), adding carbon in their soil, and 
        putting perennial crops (such as hay and pasture) in 
        their fields.

   Protect income for farmers who raise organic food 
        crops that fit the most nutritious parts of the USDA 
        food pyramid, so that we get better food and fewer 
        junk-food ingredients.

   Decrease dependency on foreign energy by supporting 
        organic farmers that market locally.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Don Worley, Kettle Falls, WA

    Date Submitted: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 1:05 a.m.
    Name: Don Worley.
    City, State: Kettle Falls, WA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Fruits.
    Size: Less than 50 acres.
    Comment: Big AG is not doing America any favors; they lobby 
for rules and laws that effectively deny small growers a chance 
at a fair playing field. They have all the money and they have 
agendas that they have been able to sell to Congress. The 
thinking they sell is that ``this won't hurt, and it will 
benefit consumers'' is misleading at best. Organic farming is a 
small part of the Farm Bill; however Organic produce is now 
available all across America--it is good for our Country. 
Please do not pander to the wishes of Big AG as they continue 
to lobby for looser regulations in the Organic section of the 
Farm Bill . . . and, PLEASE do keep or increase the 
availability of government money for Organic purposes in the 
Farm Bill. This will be good for the health and welfare of 
America.
            Regards,

Don Worley.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Allan Worrell, Jacksonville, IL

    Date Submitted: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Allan Worrell.
    City, State: Jacksonville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Professional Farm Manager.
    Comment: I strongly urge the reinstatement of CLU data in 
the next farm bill. This is critical information for those of 
us in the professional farm management, farm appraisal and real 
estate brokerage business. We rely on accurate data to provide 
management and valuation services for clients. It is important 
to note that the CLU data does not include any data for CRP 
payments, direct program payments, etc. Anyone can go to the 
local courthouse and get much more detailed and personal 
information than what is contained in the CLU data. Please 
reinstate this important information.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Luke Worrell, Springfield, IL

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 3:05 p.m.
    Name: Luke Worrell.
    City, State: Springfield, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Farm Manager.
    Comment: I would like to express my desire that USDA aerial 
maps be made public again. I understand that some information 
should remain private but a simple aerial map allows several 
sectors of Ag-Business to be more efficient. Whether it is a 
manager, seed supplier, FS employee, hired hand, etc., etc.
    The current law only bogs down businesses and allows us to 
cover less ground during a business day. The more we can do, 
the more they can do, and it goes on and on.
    Thanks for your time.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Dana Wright, Knoxville, TN

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, June 08, 2010, 10:35 a.m.
    Name: Dana Wright.
    City, State: Knoxville, TN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Policy Director--TN Clean Water Network.
    Comment:
Conservation Compliance
    This is our first priority. We support the following policy 
changes:

   Reopen all legacy HEL soil conservation plans (plans 
        approved, applied, and maintained before 3 July 1996) 
        and revise them to at least meet current planning 
        standards on highly erodible cropland.

   Require a setback of row crop planting of 20 feet 
        from waterways--producers who want to plant a buffer 
        that meets technical standards can enroll in CRP or 
        CREP and receive payment for those additional acres.

   Funding for the technical assistance needed to 
        complete plans and conduct status reviews should be 
        provided from funds otherwise made available for 
        covered programs.
Voluntary Program Reform
    In regard to voluntary programs, we support policy changes 
designed to enhance performance, including:

   Increase the scope of the Cooperative Conservation 
        Partnership Initiative:

     Include CRP in programs affected by CCPI.

     60 percent of EQIP funds running through CCPI 
            by 2017.

     Allow CCPI funding to support planning, 
            outreach, and monitoring costs of the partner 
            organization.
Transparency
   Strike provisions that restrict access to geospatial 
        information regarding voluntary conservation program 
        funding.

   Mandate at least 1 percent of funding for voluntary 
        programs get set aside for monitoring and evaluation of 
        the effectiveness of those programs.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Melissa Wright, Redding, CT

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:05 p.m.
    Name: Melissa Wright.
    City, State: Redding, CT.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mom.
    Comment: We feel increased federal support for local, 
organic, diversified agriculture would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Johnnie Wright, Sr., Vance, SC

    Date Submitted: Monday, May 24, 2010, 6:35 p.m.
    Name: Johnnie Wright, Sr.
    City, State: Vance, SC.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Civil Service/County Council Member.
    Comment: Please support the Administration's proposed Rural 
Innovation Initiative Programs of USDA which includes water/
waste water Infrastructure, Broadband, Renewable Energy and 
others that will help transform and grow our Rural communities 
for the future.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Russell Wyatt, Hot Springs, SD

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:06 p.m.
    Name: Russell Wyatt.
    City, State: Hot Springs, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: I, as a State Certified General Land Appraiser, 
have been restricted in my ability to write an accurate report 
because of the lack of information available to me at the FSA 
Office.
    The aerial photos of cropland are very helpful in writing 
an accurate report.
    Please help appraisers to get needed information on 
cropland.
    Please give this your consideration.
            Sincerly,

Russell Wyatt,
State Certified General Appraiser.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Dee Yezbak, Strongsville, OH

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 11:06 p.m.
    Name: Dee Yezbak.
    City, State: Strongsville, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Financial Advisor.
    Comment: If Congress were to change even a small amount of 
the World War II era subsidy funding which is currently given 
to large commodity crops such as corn, wheat and soy and 
instead put that funding into smaller scale, organic and local 
agricultural endeavors, the positive effect on child nutrition 
would be enormous. While these subsidies of so called 
``staple'' crops may have made sense at the time they were 
first suggested in the early 20th century, the Farm Bill 
subsidy program as it is currently carried out actually 
contribute to declining child health due to its support for 
agribusiness such as the corn syrup producers and industrial 
meat and dairy production. Increased federal support for local, 
organic diversified agricultural would go a long way to 
ensuring that the local school districts have the ability to 
purchase and use healthier, organic fresh fruits and vegetables 
and meats in school nutrition programs.
                                ------                                


                     Comment of Joy Yost, Hayes, SD

    Date Submitted: Monday, July 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
    Name: Joy Yost.
    City, State: Hayes, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Agriculture-Aerial Crop Sprayer.
    Comment: My husband is an aerial crop sprayer. These maps 
are essential for me to have the maps ready for my husband to 
spray. The farmer can call with their legal descriptions, I can 
go on Surety Maps, print them & have them ready for my husband. 
It is a must to continue these maps so we know exactly what 
fields are to be sprayed. Please we must continue these maps!
            Thank you,

Joy Yost.
                                ------                                


                    Comment of Randy Yost, Hayes, SD

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:35 p.m.
    Name: Randy Yost.
    City, State: Hayes, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Aerial Applicator.
    Comment: These maps are vital to our aerial application 
business, to assist in locating & identifying customers fields.
    We would be greatly handicapped without access to these 
maps.
            Thank you,

Randy Yost.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Joshua Young, Carlinville, IL

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 1:35 p.m.
    Name: Joshua Young.
    City, State: Carlinville, IL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Producer.
    Type: Field Crops.
    Size: 500-999 acres.
    Comment: PLEASE change Section 1619 to reinstate CLU 
(common land unit) data to the NRCS Data Gateway. This 
information does not include any private or personal data and 
is important to me as a farmer and as a certified general 
appraiser.
            Thank you,

Josh Young.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Nathan Young, Los Angeles, CA

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Nathan Young.
    City, State: Los Angeles, CA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: TV Producer.
    Comment: Please take this moment to support locally grown 
fruits and vegetables, farmers markets, and FOOD, rather than 
commodity crops that support large agricultural corporations. 
Bio-diversity, food sovereignty and sustainability should be 
priorities, including erasing the unfair tilting of support 
towards large scale farmers. In addition, facing down and 
revising the bureaucracy around small scale meat processing, in 
order to support small scale ranchers. Locally supported 
abattoirs should be another focus. Nutrition, nutrition, 
nutrition, rather than supporting those crops used for the 
building blocks of processed foods and sweeteners. Please 
consider school lunch revisions as well. A Big job, but one 
would hope to simultaneously lower the entire size of the Bill 
and rejigger the support from large to small. Good luck!!!!
                                ------                                


                Comment of Thomas Young, Rapid City, SD

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:36 p.m.
    Name: Thomas Young.
    City, State: Rapid City, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Real Estate Appraiser.
    Comment: It is critical for the real estate appraisal 
industry to have access to the CLU data as it enables the 
appraisers to understand the physical composition of properties 
and provide a more accurate estimate of value to producers and 
lenders.
    The information provided in the CLU data (field size and 
use) is not covered by the Privacy Act and does not infringe 
upon producer's right to privacy.
    As tax payers, we have the right to know where every tax 
dollar is being spent and that includes farm subsidies.
    Please lift the ban on CLU data release.
            Thanks,

Thomas Young.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Curtis Yount, New Madison, OH

    Date Submitted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 4:35 p.m.
    Name: Curtis Yount.
    City, State: New Madison, OH.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: General Appraiser/Agriculture.
    Comment: A large percentage of my work is FSA guaranteed 
self contained work. I pay taxes just like the next person and 
my taxes support the USDA. The fact that I don't have access to 
field maps (I don't care how much money the operator is making) 
showing REPORTED ACRES lowers the credibility of my reports. I 
turn in reports that are used to loan large amounts of money 
but do not have access to the data to help support my numbers. 
I am obligated to the lending institution to maintain 
confidentiality. The bill needs to give certified general 
appraisers access, we can show you a license and normally I 
work in the same area all the time. I know your employees by 
name, but the pile of paper work must be filled out every time 
I request a map. Is that a waste?

Curtis Yount.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Keith Zanter, Beresford, SD

    Date Submitted: Friday, May 28, 2010, 11:05 a.m.
    Name: Keith Zanter.
    City, State: Beresford, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: FSA.
    Comment: I support the ACRE program which limits the direct 
payment to 80% and provides a very good production and 
marketing safety net. I support eliminating the DCP program 
which provides 100% of the direct payment and provides a poor 
safety net. Also this would simplify the program. Actually the 
two programs are not that difficult to understand, but by 
providing two program choices to the farmer creates confusion. 
I believe the producer would continue to sign up for ACRE--
which still provides (a smaller) direct payment and provides a 
great production and marketing safety net when program benefits 
are needed to farmers. Also I support going to a county wide 
trigger versus a state trigger would benefit the program.
    SURE: Simplify the SURE program to require a 15% production 
losses on all crops versus a 10% loss on a single crop for a 
producer who has land in an eligible county or contiguous 
county would benefit the program and would be more feasible 
(savings) to the Government. This would still create a good 
safety net to the producer and would be fairer to all 
producers. Also eliminate the requirement that the producer has 
to be in an eligible county or contiguous county to be eligible 
for assistance without having an overall loss greater than 50% 
on all crops. Just simply go to a 15% loss on all crops.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Paul Zeeb, Sioux Falls, SD

    Date Submitted: Friday, July 23, 2010, 5:36 p.m.
    Name: Paul Zeeb.
    City, State: Sioux Falls, SD.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Appraiser.
    Comment: Please include the CLU information on our maps. 
Thank you.
                                ------                                


                  Comment of Dave Zentner, Duluth, MN

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Dave Zentner.
    City, State: Duluth, MN.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Retired Financial Services Professional.
    Comment: Our agriculture bills have a long history of both 
good and bad. The dominance of major agribusiness groups must 
become more balanced with policies that better insure long term 
productive food production versus an extractive production 
approach that utilizes marginal soils and generates more soil 
erosion, a bigger carbon foot print, heavy use of herbicides 
and pesticides, in short, is unsustainable.
    In order to do create a health and sustainable farming 
future we need to have a robust and well funded conservation 
title as part of the Farm Bill. I recognize the tight budgets 
we face. We must not, as we have in the past; cut farm 
conservation programs as the first order of financial priority. 
Doing that is very costly in the long and, the short run 
financial, and terms of sustainability.
    Emphasis must be on env. benefits versus payments over 
historical crop production. And, high priority should be placed 
on conservation compliance. The compliance portions of Farm 
bills has been unfortunately, very weak, this must be changed.
                                ------                                


                 Comment of Connie Ziegler, Oakley, KS

    Date Submitted: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 10:05 a.m.
    Name: Connie Ziegler.
    City, State: Oakley, KS.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Secretary for Aerial Ag Applicators.
    Comment: I am a former FSA employee. Providing current 
field borders, on FSA aerial photos to the public, does not 
compromise the farmers right of privacy in any way. Our aerial 
applicators use the FSA maps to guide them to the field or 
fields that the farmer wants sprayed. We have a computer 
program that pulls up legals of FSA maps that allows us to 
find, verify acres, (using the field borders) and outline the 
field the farmer wants sprayed. Without field borders on these 
maps they would be pointless. The farmer would have to bring 
maps to us.
                                ------                                


                Comment of Diane Ziegner, Talkeetna, AK

    Date Submitted: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 9:35 p.m.
    Name: Diane Ziegner.
    City, State: Talkeetna, AK.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Mother.
    Comment: Please support diversified funding by providing 
incentives to small and organic farms. It's time for us to 
start eating local and healthy foods both in our homes and 
schools.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


               Comments of Caryl Zook, Pembroke Pines, FL

    Date Submitted: Wednesday, June 02, 2010, 2:05 p.m.
    Name: Caryl Zook.
    City, State: Pembroke Pines, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Organic Certification Inspector and Private 
Chef.
    Comment: Please support assistance for transitioning to 
organic agriculture. Please support assistance for beginning 
farmers.
    Please support research into drought tolerance INSTEAD of 
chemical and genetic engineering of our vital crops.
    I was born on a conventional family farm. I raised my sons 
on a small organic farm. Now I work as an independent organic 
certification inspector. I support organic agriculture for my 
grandchildren's sake.
            Sincerely,

Caryl Zook.

    Date Submitted: Friday, June 11, 2010, 8:35 a.m.
    Name: Caryl Zook.
    City, State: Pembroke Pines, FL.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Organic Certification Inspector.
    Comment: Please support conversion from chemical 
agriculture to organic production.
                                ------                                


               Comment of Pamela Zuchowski, Wellsboro, PA

    Date Submitted: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 5:35 p.m.
    Name: Pamela Zuchowski.
    City, State: Wellsboro, PA.
    Producer/Non-producer: Non-producer.
    Occupation: Teacher.
    Comment: A few comments:
    I would like to see an end to subsidizing corn--Cargill and 
Monsanto have all the money they need. What they seem to be 
after is world domination of the food system. They have a 
monopoly on the U.S. seed supply. MONOPOLY! Don't we have laws 
in place to prevent just such an occurrence? Why is happening? 
If you are going to subsidize anything it should be organics. 
Bringing the price down to match non-organics would put 
Monsanto and their Frankenfood out of business. NO GMOs! I 
don't want them and you can't make me eat them.
    Let's do better by our school children. I work in a school 
and I see the daily garbage we are giving our kids. Most kids 
at my elementary school eat chicken nuggets five days a week 
with no vegetables or fruit on their trays. Kids are the future 
of this country and I've seen dogs who eat better, more 
nutritious food. It's disgusting.
    To sum up: No GMOs, start subsidizing organic practices, do 
not subsidize corn (Monsanto, Cargill et. al) institute school 
lunch reform.
    Thank you for your time.

                                  
