[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.