S P E C I A L R E P O R T

‘Key Votes’
A summary and tally of im-
portant votes in Congress | 4

April 5, 2010 Vol. 89 No. 7 fbnews.org

‘Health Care’ Senate climate change bill possible by June

How will the
With a promise from Senate
health care Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-
reform plan af- Nev.) to allow energy and climate
change legislation to be brought
fect farmers and to the floor in the coming months,
ranchers | 6 Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lind-
sey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lie-
berman (I-Conn.) are intensifying
‘Animal Care’ their efforts to build a consensus
among fellow lawmakers, as well
Farmers, as the industries that would be af-
fected by the greenhouse gas emis-
ranchers take sions caps and other proposals the
the lead | 7 trio is making.
Among those with a seat at the
discussion table are farmers and
ranchers.
“We appreciate the outreach and
the opportunity to again lay out
our concerns,” said Rick Krause,
American Farm Bureau Federation
climate change specialist. “It’s a
dialogue we plan on keeping up.”
However, Krause cautioned, re-
gardless of the provisions benefit-
ing agriculture that may be in-
cluded in the Kerry-Graham-Lie-
berman climate change bill, fees
on motor fuels and emissions caps
on the utility and manufacturing
sectors—all of which are being
considered —will put a squeeze on
farmers and ranchers by driving
up fuel, fertilizer and energy costs.
In addition, Kerry, Graham and
Lieberman are proposing making
carbon a commodity, one that
could be more profitable than
crops or livestock.
“Legislation that puts a price
on carbon so it can be bought
and sold will likely compel some
landowners to turn their crop
fields and grazing lands into
forests,” Krause explained.
To broaden support for their
bill, the senators are considering
tempering the climate change
provisions with provisions dedi-
Climate Continued on Page 8

EPA taps into public

opinion to shape Immigration in line for Congress’ attention
upcoming water
conference
In the run-up to its
“Coming Together
for Clean Water”
conference this
month, the Envi-
ronmental Protec-
tion Agency re-
cently hosted a
two-week Web
discussion forum
through which
the public could
comment on various water-related
topics such as stormwater pollution
and watersheds. Agency officials intend
to use the feedback to help shape the
discussion at the conference, and that
does not necessarily bode well for
farmers and ranchers, cautioned Don
Parrish, American Farm Bureau Federa-
tion water quality specialist.

Continued on Page 6

IMMIGRATION REFORM and improving the temporary agricultural worker program have been on farmers’ and ranchers’ agenda
for years. Now, as immigrants increase the volume of their calls for action and as two senators prepare a new reform plan, the issue
could be back on Congress’ agenda, as well.

As members of Congress held
a rare Sunday session of voting
on March 21 to pass the health
care reform bill, thousands of
immigrants and their families
rallied on the national mall to
urge Congress to make immigra-
tion reform its next big priority.
Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in
a March 19 op-ed article printed
in the Washington Post, released
the first glimpse of a framework
for comprehensive immigration
n e w s p a p e r
a struggle for many farmers and
ranchers to find people who are
willing to work in agriculture.
Schumer and Graham said their
plan had four pillars: requiring
biometric Social Security cards to
ensure that illegal workers can’t
get jobs; fulfilling and strength-
ening the commitment to border
security and interior enforce-
ment; creating a process for ad-
mitting temporary workers; and
implementing a tough but fair
path to legalization for those al-
A rancher in Cochise County,
Ariz., Rob Krentz, 58, was found
shot to death, March 27, a few
hours after riding out to check
fences and losing radio contact
with his brother. No one has
been arrested, but news reports
cite evidence pointing to an ille-
gal alien. Krentz’s ranch is about
20 miles from the border and
the area is a known smuggling
corridor.
Arizona Farm Bureau Presi-
dent Kevin Rogers issued a news

reform that could be a starting
point for a new reform effort.
The American Farm Bureau
Federation has, for years, called
for “comprehensive” immigra-
tion reform, meaning that the
reform measure should address
both border security and agricul-
tural labor needs. Even with the
current high unemployment, it’s
ready here.
Ahead of the health care vote
Graham expressed doubt that
Congress could pass immigration
reform if the controversial health
care bill passed. However, a re-
cent tragedy along the border be-
tween the U.S. and Mexico could
bring more urgency to the immi-
gration debate.
release expressing sympathy for
the Krentz family and pointing
out that “the farming and ranch-
ing community along the border
have been asking for a secure
border for many years.”
“Fixing the worker visa pro-
gram becomes part of securing
Immigration Continued on Page 3
 fbnews.org April 5, 2010
Viewpoint 2|

In rural America, ‘Access’ is the name of the game

Job creation and community renewal
present major challenges for rural citizens.
Maintaining and improving infrastructure
to keep communities competitive and prof-
itable is a daily struggle. Many rural Amer-
icans are grappling to participate in the
new global economy but are being left be-
hind in the digital revolution.
In rural America, having “access” to
basic services is the name of the game. If
rural citizens are going to play, they need
to be connected.
The motherboard
Retaining professionals in rural America
is tough work. Much-needed teachers and
doctors aren’t going to stay in rural areas
without access to services, such as the avail-
ability of broadband Internet access, health
care and education, that most of their
counterparts in urban and suburban areas
easily take for granted.
Broadband access at an affordable rate is
a real concern for rural citizens who need
this technology to improve their personal
and professional lives. High-speed Internet
not only makes businesses more efficient
and provides a means for connecting to the
rest of the world, it expands educational
and health care opportunities.
Broadband access will help communities
survive and grow by providing health care
improvements through telemedicine cen-
ters connecting small-town patients with
big-city hospitals and entrepreneurial and
business development opportunities fo-
cused on access to the global economy.
Broadband access also means jobs. Ac-
cording to a Department of Agriculture Eco- advancements happening throughout the
nomic Research Service report, Broadband rest of the country. It’s time we make the
Internet’s Value for Rural America, total em- connection.
ployment grew faster between 2000 and 2006
in rural counties with high broadband avail- The
ability than in similarly situated counties
without broadband. Further, wage and salary
jobs, as well as the number of proprietors,
grew faster in counties with early broadband
Internet access.
A mouse, a port, a Zune Bob Stallman
President
While broadband is essential for rural pro- American Farm Bureau Federation
fessionals, it also is critical for rural schools.
Let’s face it: many rural children spend hours
every day being bused to and from school.
Couple that with dial-up Internet, and it is a
huge chunk of educational time lost in com-
parison to students in urban areas.
Expanded education through distance
learning labs, along with other innovative
technologies, can put rural students on par
with their urban counterparts.
Such a solution can be seen in a recent pilot
project in Fort Sumner, N.M., where long-dis-
tance travel is a way of life for students. With
the help of Microsoft and a state grant, the
school district was able to outfit students with
individual multimedia “Zune” players, allow-
ing them to download videos, lectures and
assignments from school computers and
study during their long rides home.
While such innovations are slowly coming
online, access to basic services continues to be
essential for rural America and the competi-
tiveness of our nation. Rural residents
shouldn’t be kept at a disadvantage and iso-
lated from health, educational and economic

American agriculture—Abundant, Affordable, Amazing

By Christine Vanek field in preparation for planting, is thanks to the abundance of way I hadn’t while I was walk-
folding the old cornstalks from American agriculture—from the ing. I have experienced a no
As we drive west with the set- last year’s crop into the dirt. I corn, soybean and wheat fields of more perfect moment in my life
ting sun through the last miles remember going along with him the Great Plains to the expansive than standing there with the sun
of Iowa, I stare out my window one fall in the combine, fasci- fruit orchards in the South—that warming my back, looking out
in awe. The fields stretch unin- nated at the machine’s ability to I, along with the rest of the coun- at that vast, intensely blue sky
terrupted get the ears try, have access to a wide variety with the deep green corn plants
to the ho- off the stalk of affordable, safe, nutritious stretching for miles beneath it.
rizon, and and the foods.
the sky is corn off I am thankful as well for the
a beautiful the ears, affordability of agriculture in
abundance shooting America. My ancestors came to
of fading the ker- America less than 200 years ago
blue. I know nels into to escape forced service in the
I am almost the storage Czechoslovakian army. They did
home. space and not have a large amount of
Although spitting wealth, but due to the afforda-
my family out the bility of American agriculture,
lives in unusable they were able to build a small
Ann Arbor, remainder. house and begin their own mod-
Michigan, At the age est farm. Living frugally and
our roots of seven, working the land with dedica-
Christine Vanek is in the 12th
are an- my mind tion, they built up a life and
chored could not livelihood for themselves in grade at Greenhills School in Ann
deep in the grasp the America. Arbor, Mich. This is her winning
Nebraska abundance I am a product of American essay in the 2010 National Ag Day
soil. My ap- that is agriculture, and I can testify to Essay Contest, sponsored by the
preciation for the importance of American agriculture. I could not its greatness. This spring, I was Agriculture Council of America.
American agriculture comes from comprehend the space of even walking to the pivot in the field
Vanek was named the winner dur-
my experiences at my grand- one field, which itself was grant- on my grandparents’ farm, when
parents’ farm. I remember as a ed my awe. At 17, I have come to I stopped to tie my shoe. As I ing the Ag Day event held at the
small child riding in the tractor admire the work my grandfather stood up, I looked at the scene Agriculture Department, March
with my grandpa as he disked a and all American farmers do. It around me, taking it in, in a 11, in Washington, D.C.

FBNews
Don Lipton, Director, Public Relations
Lynne Finnerty, Editor
Erin Anthony, Assistant Editor
Phyllis Brown, Assistant Editor
April 5, 2010 Vol. 89 No. 7
Published semimonthly, except monthly in August and December, by the
American Farm B ­ ureau Federation, 600 Maryland Ave., SW, Suite 1000W, Washington, DC 20024.
Phone: 202-406-3600. E-mail: fbnews@fb.org. Web site: http://www.fb.org.
Periodical postage paid at Washington, D.C., and additional mailing offices. Subscription rate for officers
and board members of county and state Farm Bureaus—$6, which is deducted from dues.
For other subscribers—$10.
Postmaster: Send address changes to FBNews,
600 Maryland Ave., SW, Suite 1000W, Washington, DC 20024. (ISSN 0197-5617)
April 5, 2010
Bond market actions could be a dire warning
By Bob Young
Has the dreaded escalation in
interest rates begun?
You may not have been paying
attention, with all the brouhaha
surrounding health care in the
last few weeks, but some poten-
tially major shifts started to peak
out during the week of March 20.
On Tuesday of that week, the
U.S. Treasury Department auc-
tioned off $44 billion of two-year
debt notes as the government
stepped up the pace of borrow-
ing. It moved $42 billion of five-
year paper on Wednesday and
$32 billion of seven-year notes on
Thursday.
In reality, bond markets are not
all that different from corn or hog
markets. When supply is greater
than demand, bond prices fall.
When the situation is reversed,
prices rise.
For the rest of us in the real
world, the price investors have
been willing to pay for this fed-
eral debt has a direct impact. As
prices for bonds fall, the underly-
ing interest rate supporting those
bonds rises, and vice versa if the
price of the bond were to rise.
When the Treasury Department
issued bonds the week of March
20, demand was at a trickle. This
was particularly true of interna-
tional investors. As other coun-
Sweetened beverage tax proposals leave sour taste
New York Gov. David Paterson
has revived his call for a penny-
per-ounce tax on sweetened bev-
erages, including soft drinks,
sports drinks, iced tea and fruit
and vegetable drinks that con-
tain less than 70 percent natural
juice. Packaged by Paterson and
other supporters, including New
York City Mayor Michael Bloom-
berg, as a way to help residents
slim down, proposed taxes on
sweetened beverages are being
derided by critics as a means to
fatten the government’s wallet
that will have little-to-no impact
on obesity.
While soda con-
sumption has been
associated with
weight gain, the
link between so-
called “soda taxes”
and smaller waist-
lines is far more
tenuous. In fact, as
Trevor Butterworth
pointed out in a
September 2009
Forbes.com column,
the five most obese
states—Mississippi,
Alabama, West Vir-
ginia, Tennessee
and Oklahoma—all
have soda taxes.
Three of the least obese—the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Massachusetts
and Colorado—do not.
Jason Fletcher, Yale University
assistant professor of health poli-
cy, said a study he published last
year, “Can soft drink taxes reduce
population weight?,” showed
states with soda taxes did not
have lower obesity levels because
people tend to replace soda with
other high-calorie beverages.
fbnews.org
tries have watched the debt crisis
in Greece and Portugal, as well as
the passage of the health care bill
in the U.S. and the massive in-
crease in government spending
that it implies, foreign investors
are not as bullish on U.S. bonds
or notes as they have been in the
past.
How do you increase demand
for a product when the supply is
too great? You have to lower the
price. A lower price on these bonds
translates directly into higher
interest rates for you and me.
Ten-year notes that started the
week at 3.7 percent interest rates
ended the week at 3.9 percent.
Seven-year notes were up almost
a full 0.3 percent. If you think
this doesn’t affect you directly,
you should know the Wall Street
Journal reported that 30-year
mortgages that were 4.875 per-
cent early in the week of the 20th
were already at 5.125 percent by
the 24th.
A couple of tenths of a percent
may well be a market blip. Cer-
tainly, we can move agricultural
commodity prices through broad
ranges with virtually no real
explanation as to why the shift
occurred. However, there have
been a number of economists
looking at our markets and our
government debt load for some
time who have suggested that
“We found reductions in soda
consumption, but that children
substitute for other high-calorie
beverages so that there is no
change in weight,” Fletcher said.
Nearly two-thirds of all states
tax soft drinks using excise taxes,
sales taxes or special exceptions
to food exemptions from sales
taxes. Many states and localities
without such taxes are currently
or have recently considered put-
ting them in place.
Along with New York, Califor-
nia, Kansas and Colorado are also
reportedly considering or are en-
acting such taxes. And last year,
congressional lawmakers consid-
ered a proposal to help pay for
health care reform with a federal
tax on sweetened beverages.
Kelly Brownell, director of Yale
University’s Rudd Center for Food
Policy and Obesity, which is call-
ing for a penny-per-ounce tax to
reduce soft drink consumption
and help pay for health programs,
said he expects the soda tax issue
to resurface on the national level.
|3
the day will come when inves-
tors here and elsewhere will say,
“Enough!” When they do, the
only way the Treasury can lure
them into buying our debt is to
lower the price of those bonds—
raising interest rates for all of us.
Which brings us back to the
fundamental question: Is this the
indicator that investors finally
have decided to view our federal
debt as a more risky proposition?
Is it the indicator that Japan,
China, the Organization of Pe-
troleum Exporting Countries and
others need to get a better return
to finance our deficit spending?
One week does not a trend
make. However, this bears watch-
ing closely over the next month
or so.
Bob Young is the American
Farm Bureau Federation’s chief
economist.
“We’re getting contacted almost
every day by some new city, state
or county that wants to do a soda
tax,” Brownell said. “I would be
shocked if this doesn’t reappear
in the federal discussion.”
A tax like this is an over-sim-
plified attempt to address a prob-
lem that goes far beyond con-
sumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages, said Tara Smith, Amer-
ican Farm Bureau Federation
farm policy specialist.
“The obesity problem in this
country is rooted in many fac-
tors, including a lack of exercise
and poor nutrition education,”
Smith pointed out.
“Singling out spe-
cific food ingredi-
ents for taxation
is not going to en-
courage Americans
to become more ac-
tive or teach them
how to make better
food choices.”
Opponents of
Paterson’s soda tax
proposal, which
he says will gener-
ate $1 billion an-
nually when fully
implemented, are
not limited to
food and drink
producers, processors or sellers.
A few weeks ago union mem-
bers rallied in Albany to urge
state lawmakers to vote against
the tax, warning that it would
destroy New York’s beverage in-
dustry, which provides 160,000
jobs and $6.7 billion in wages.
The New York Senate has re-
jected Paterson’s soda tax pro-
posal. The Assembly has yet to
vote on it.
Capitol View
Immigration
Continued from page 1
the border,” Rogers added.
Farmers and ranchers have
also been asking, for years, for
Congress to ensure a reliable,
legal work force for agricul-
ture. A bill already introduced
in Congress, the AgJobs Op-
portunity, Benefits and Secu-
rity Act (S. 1038, H.R. 2414),
known simply as AgJobs,
would give those illegal immi-
grants working on U.S. farms
and innocent of any crimes
an avenue to earn legal sta-
tus—citizenship or “blue card”
temporary residency—by pay-
ing a one-time fine and con-
tinuing to work on farms for
five more years. The bill was
introduced last year by Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
and Rep. Howard Berman (D-
Calif.).
The bill would also make
changes to the agricultural
guest worker or H-2A visa
program, which in its current
form satisfies neither employ-
ers nor workers. However,
AFBF has not endorsed AgJobs
because it says the bill would
not do enough to make H-2A
work for farmers and ranchers.
“There would need to be sev-
eral changes for us to support
AgJobs,” explained Ron Gas-
kill, AFBF immigration and
labor specialist, because cur-
rently H-2A is not useful for a
lot of farmers and ranchers.”
AFBF says the H-2A pro-
gram’s Adverse Effect Wage
Rate overinflates farm worker
wages, the H-2A visa period is
too short and the “50 percent
rule” that requires farmers to
continue hiring U.S. workers
until half of the usual 10
month work period under
H-2A is completed means the
program fails to get work-
ers to farms when they are
most needed—when weather
conditions are ideal or when
crops are ripe for harvest.
AFBF also says the program
should provide portability so
that workers who aren’t need-
ed for the entire work period
on one farm can be shared
with other farms. In addition,
a requirement for employers to
pay three-fourths of the wages
for the full work period, even
if a worker is let go, is onerous
and needs to be scrapped.
It’s not clear whether the
Schumer-Graham framework
would make these changes, ei-
ther, so Gaskill says that Farm
Bureau will need to see the de-
tails before deciding whether
to get behind that proposal.
It is, however, positive that
members of Congress are try-
ing to tackle the issue, he said.
“We’re pleased and grateful
that several people in Con-
gress are putting ideas on the
table and moving the debate
forward,” he said. “AgJobs
must be modified to make
any meaningful difference for
farmers and ranchers. We are
ready to work with these and
other members of Congress to
ensure that they have the in-
formation they need to make
the necessary improvements.”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Key Votes — 1
Health, taxes were top issues in Senate cludes $1.5 billion in agricultural disaster aid. Also includ-
ed is an extension of tax incentives for rural communities
millions of acres coming out o
and into planting trees. The Se
(1) Health care—Dec. 24, 2009—The Senate approved, and increased Medicare payments to rural hospitals and measure. AFBF favored a “nay
60-39, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act physicians. AFBF favored a “yea” (Y) vote on H.R. 4213.
(2) Chemical facility securit
(H.R. 3590). The bill requires that all Americans have
health insurance, increases eligibility for Medicaid, Climate, health led House’s 2009 agenda approved, 230-193, the Chemi
Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868). The bi
bans insurance companies from denying coverage for
(1) Climate bill—June 26, 2009—The House approved, land Security Department (DH
pre-existing conditions and other provisions. AFBF op-
219-212, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. the use of “inherently safer tec
posed the bill, saying that it could not support the
2454), better known as the climate bill. The bill would known in the engineering pro
bill’s new taxes, mandates and overall cost, as well as
place a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- requirement could jeopardize t
the growth in government programs. The bill has since
sions, limiting those emissions to 17 percent below 2005 agricultural chemicals and fert
been signed into law. AFBF favored a “nay” (N) vote.
levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. allow states to adopt more stri
(2) Taxes—March 10, 2010—The Senate approved, 62-36, Industry could buy emission allowances from the federal strictions than those in the fed
the American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of government and other regulated and non-regulated enti- would weaken protections aga
2010 (H.R. 4213). The bill extends through 2010 several ties through a “cap-and-trade” program. AFBF opposed the companies’ and farmers’ secur
tax provisions that expired at the end of 2009, including bill, which it said would place U.S. farmers and ranchers vate citizens and activist group
the $1 per gallon blenders tax credit for biodiesel, the at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign pro- that the chemical facility stand
small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents per gallon, ducers who would not face the resulting higher produc- The Senate has not voted on a
the $1 per gallon production tax credit for diesel fuel cre- tion costs. AFBF also said that provisions that would allow measure. Meanwhile, the Obam
ated from biomass, the tax credit for electricity from bio- farmers and ranchers to sell credits for carbon sequestra- it could propose a new bill this
mass, the five-year depreciation for farm business machin- tion would not generate enough income to make up for facility standards expired last O
ery and equipment, and enhanced tax deductions for do- the decline in farm income due to the higher produc- for one year in the 2010 Home
nated food and conservation easements. The bill also in- tion costs. Higher prices on carbon would also result in tions bill. AFBF favored a “nay

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
Alabama
Shelby (R) N n
Sessions (R) N n
1 Bonner (R) N N N n
2 Bright (D) N N N Y
3 Rogers (R) N N N n
4 Aderholt (R) N ? N n
5 Griffith (D) N N N Y
6 Bachus (R) N N N n
7 Davis (D) N y N Y
Alaska
Begich (D) y Y
Murkowski (R) N Y
AL Young (R) N N N n
Arizona
McCain (R) N n
Kyl (R) N n
1 Kirkpatrick (D) N y y Y
2 Franks (R) N N N n
3 Shadegg (R) N N N n
4 Pastor (D) y y y Y
5 Mitchell (D) N y y n
6 Flake (R) ? N N n
7 Grijalva (D) y y y Y
8 Giffords (D) y y y Y
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) y Y
Pryor (D) y Y
1 Berry (D) N N y Y
2 Snyder (D) y y y Y
3 Boozman (R) N N N n
4 Ross (D) N N N Y
California
Feinstein (D) y Y
Boxer (D) y Y
1 Thompson (D) y y y Y
2 Herger (R) N N N n
3 Lungren (R) N N N n
4 McClintock (R) N N N n
5 Matsui (D) y y y Y
6 Woolsey (D) y y y Y
7 Miller, George (D) y y y Y
8 Pelosi (D) y S y S
9 Lee (D) y y y Y
10 Tauscher (D) y
10 Garamendi (D) y y Y
11 McNerney (D) y y y Y
12 Speier (D) y y y Y
13 Stark (D) N y y Y
14 Eshoo (D) y y y Y
15 Honda (D) y y y Y
16 Lofgren (D) y y y Y
17 Farr (D) y y y Y
18 Cardoza (D) y N y Y
19 Radanovich (R) N N N ?
20 Costa (D) N N y Y
21 Nunes (R) N N N n
22 McCarthy (R) N N N n
23 Capps (D) y y y Y
24 Gallegly (R) N N N n
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
25 McKeon (R) N N N n
26 Dreier (R) N N N n
27 Sherman (D) y y y Y
28 Berman (D) y y y Y
29 Schiff (D) y y y Y
30 Waxman (D) y y y Y
31 Becerra (D) y y y Y
32 Chu (D) * y y Y
33 Watson (D) y y y Y
34 Roybal-Allard (D) y y y Y
35 Waters (D) y ? y Y
36 Harman (D) y y y Y
37 Richardson (D) y y y Y
38 Napolitano (D) y y y Y
39 Sanchez, Linda (D) y ? y Y
40 Royce (R) N N N n
41 Lewis (R) N N N n
42 Miller, Gary (R) N N N n
43 Baca (D) y y y Y
44 Calvert (R) N N N n
45 Bono (R) y N N n
46 Rohrabacher (R) N N N n
47 Sanchez, Loretta (D) y y y ?
48 Campbell (R) N N N n
49 Issa (R) N N N n
50 Bilbray (R) N N N n
51 Filner (D) y y y Y
52 Hunter (R) N N N n
53 Davis (D) y y y Y
Colorado
Udall (D) y Y
Bennet (D) y Y
1 DeGette (D) y y y Y
2 Polis (D) y y y n
3 Salazar (D) N y y Y
4 Markey (D) y N N Y
5 Lamborn (R) N N N n
6 Coffman (R) N N N n
7 Perlmutter (D) y y y Y
Connecticut
Dodd (D) y Y
Lieberman (I) y Y
1 Larson (D) y y y Y
2 Courtney (D) y y y Y
3 DeLauro (D) y y y Y
4 Himes (D) y y y n
5 Murphy (D) y y y Y
Delaware
Carper (D) y Y
Kaufman (D) y Y
AL Castle (R) y N N n
Florida
Nelson (D) y Y
LeMieux (R) N n
1 Miller (R) N N N n
2 Boyd (D) y y N Y
3 Brown (D) y y y Y
4 Crenshaw (R) N N N n
5 Brown-Waite (R) N N N n
6 Stearns (R) N N N n
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Mica (R) N N N n
8 Grayson (D) y y y Y
9 Bilirakis (R) N N N n
10 Young (R) N N N n
11 Castor (D) y y y Y
12 Putnam (R) N N N n
13 Buchanan (R) N N N n
14 Mack (R) N N N n
15 Posey (R) N N N n
16 Rooney (R) N N N n
17 Meek (D) y y y Y
18 Ros-Lehtinen (R) N N N n
19 Wexler (D) y y y n
20 Wasserman
   Schultz (D) y y y Y
21 Diaz-Balart, L. (R) N N N n
22 Klein (D) y y y n
23 Hastings (D) ? y y Y
24 Kosmas (D) y y N Y
25 Diaz-Balart, M. (R) N N N n
Georgia
Chambliss (R) N n
Isakson (R) N n
1 Kingston (R) N N N n
2 Bishop (D) y y y Y
3 Westmoreland (R) N N N n
4 Johnson (D) y y y Y
5 Lewis (D) y y y ?
6 Price (R) N N N n
7 Linder (R) N N N n
8 Marshall (D) N N N Y
9 Deal (R) N N N n
10 Broun (R) N N N n
11 Gingrey (R) N N N n
12 Barrow (D) N y N Y
13 Scott (D) y y y Y
Hawaii
Inouye (D) y Y
Akaka (D) y Y
1 Abercrombie y y y Y
2 Hirono (D) y y y Y
Idaho
Crapo (R) N n
Risch (R) N n
1 Minnick (D) N N N Y
2 Simpson (R) N N N n
Illinois
Durbin (D) y Y
Burris (D) y Y
1 Rush (D) y y y Y
2 Jackson (D) y y y Y
3 Lipinski (D) y y y Y
4 Gutierrez (D) y y y Y
5 Quigley (D) y y y Y
6 Roskam (R) N N N n
7 Davis (D) y y y Y
8 Bean (D) y y y n
9 Schakowsky (D) y y y Y
10 Kirk (R) y N N n
11 Halvorson (D) y N y Y
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
12 Costello (D) N y y Y
13 Biggert (R) N N N n
14 Foster (D) N y y Y
15 Johnson (R) N N N n
16 Manzullo (R) N N N n
17 Hare (D) y N y Y
18 Schock (R) N N N n
19 Shimkus (R) N N N n
Indiana
Lugar (R) N n
Bayh (D) y Y
1 Visclosky (D) N y y Y
2 Donnelly (D) N y y Y
3 Souder (R) N N N n
4 Buyer (R) N N N n
5 Burton (R) N N N n
6 Pence (R) N N N n
7 Carson (D) y y y Y
8 Ellsworth (D) N y y Y
9 Hill (D) y y y Y
Iowa
Grassley (R) N n
Harkin (D) y Y
1 Braley (D) y y y Y
2 Loebsack (D) y y y Y
3 Boswell (D) y y y Y
4 Latham (R) N N N n
5 King (R) N N N n
Kansas
Brownback (R) N n
Roberts (R) N n
1 Moran (R) N N N n
2 Jenkins (R) N N N n
3 Moore (D) y y y Y
4 Tiahrt (R) N N N n
Kentucky
McConnell (R) N n
Bunning (R) ? n
1 Whitfield (R) N N N n
2 Guthrie (R) N N N n
3 Yarmuth (D) y y y Y
4 Davis (R) N N N n
5 Rogers (R) N N N n
6 Chandler (D) y ? N Y
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) y Y
Vitter (R) N Y
1 Scalise (R) N N N n
2 Cao (R) N N y Y
3 Melancon (D) N y N Y
4 Fleming (R) N N N n
5 Alexander (R) N N N n
6 Cassidy (R) N N N n
7 Boustany (R) N N N n
Maine
Snowe (R) N Y
Collins (R) N Y
1 Pingree (D) y y y Y
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 Michaud (D) y y y Y
Maryland
Mikulski (D) y Y
Cardin (D) y Y
1 Kratovil (D) y y N Y
2 Ruppersberger (D) y y y Y
3 Sarbanes (D) y y y Y
4 Edwards (D) y y y Y
5 Hoyer (D) y y y Y
6 Bartlett (R) N N N n
7 Cummings (D) y y y Y
8 Van Hollen (D) y y y Y
Massachusetts
Kirk (D) y
Brown (R) n
Kerry (D) y Y
1 Olver (D) y y y Y
2 Neal (D) y y y Y
3 McGovern (D) y y y Y
4 Frank (D) y y y Y
5 Tsongas (D) y y y Y
6 Tierney (D) y y y Y
7 Markey (D) y y y Y
8 Capuano (D) y y y Y
9 Lynch (D) y y y Y
10 Delahunt (D) y y y Y
Michigan
Levin (D) y Y
Stabenow (D) y Y
1 Stupak (D) y y y Y
2 Hoekstra (R) N N N n
3 Ehlers (R) N ? N n
4 Camp (R) N N N n
5 Kildee (D) y y y Y
6 Upton (R) N N N n
7 Schauer (D) y y y Y
8 Rogers (R) N ? N n
9 Peters (D) y y y Y
10 Miller (R) N N N n
11 McCotter (R) N N N n
12 Levin (D) y y y Y
13 Kilpatrick (D) y y y Y
14 Conyers (D) y y y Y
15 Dingell (D) y y y Y
Minnesota
Franken (D) y Y
Klobuchar (D) y Y
1 Walz (D) y y y Y
2 Kline (R) N N N n
3 Paulsen (R) N N N n
4 McCollum (D) y y y Y
5 Ellison (D) y y y Y
6 Bachmann (R) N N N n
7 Peterson (D) y y N Y
8 Oberstar (D) y y y Y
Mississippi
Cochran (R) N n
Wicker (R) N n
1 Childers (D) N y N Y
 April 5, 2010
HHHHHHHHHH S P E C I A L R E P O R T

111th Congress
of production agriculture
enate has not voted on the
y” (N) vote on H.R. 2454.
ty—Nov. 6, 2009—The House
ical Facility Anti-Terrorism
ill would give the Home-
HS) the authority to mandate
chnology” or IST, as it’s
ofession. AFBF says the IST
the availability of effective
tilizers. The bill also would
ingent chemical security re-
deral law. Finally, the law
ainst public disclosure of
rity plans by allowing pri-
ps to sue in order to ensure
dards are being enforced.
chemical facility security
ma administration has said
is year. Previous chemical
October but were extended
eland Security appropria-
y” (N) vote on H.R. 2868.
(3) Health care—Nov. 7, 2009—The House approved,
220-215, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R.
3962). The bill would have created a new government-
run insurance plan, also known as “the public option,” to
compete with private insurance companies, require that
all Americans have health insurance, require employers to
provide their employees an opportunity to enroll in an
employer-sponsored health insurance plan or make con-
tributions to a Health Insurance Exchange to contract
with private insurers, ban insurance companies from
denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, impose a
surtax on individuals with incomes above $500,000, pro-
hibit insurance companies from setting an aggregate dol-
lar lifetime limit on benefits under an insurance plan, and
other provisions. Farm Bureau opposed the bill due to its
employer mandate, saying that it only worsened the situ-
ation for people who were unable to afford coverage.
AFBF also opposed the creation of a government-operated
health insurance program. This is not to be confused with
the bill more recently passed by the House and signed
by the president. The House later (on March 21, 2010)
approved a Senate-passed version of the health care bill,
along with a reconciliation measure that included chang-
es favored by the House. That version has been signed
into law. The enacted version does not include the “pub-
lic option” or a Farm Bureau-opposed requirement to pro-
vide insurance for seasonal workers. However, AFBF later
opposed the reconciliation measure, as well, saying that
the underlying health care bill (H.R. 3590) would raise
taxes, impose mandates and increase the size and cost of
government. AFBF favored a “nay” (N) vote on H.R. 3962.
(4) Taxes—Dec. 9, 2009—The House approved, 241-181, the
Tax Extenders Act of 2009 (H.R. 4213). The bill extends for
one year several tax provisions that were beneficial to farm-
ers and ranchers and were due to expire at the end of 2009,
including the $1 per gallon blenders tax credit for biodie-
sel, the small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents per
gallon, the $1 per gallon production tax credit for diesel
fuel created from biomass, the tax credit for electricity from
biomass, the five-year depreciation for farm business ma-
chinery and equipment, and enhanced tax deductions for
donated food and conservation easements. AFBF favored
a “yea” (Y) vote on H.R. 4213.
LEGEND:
Y,y—yea  N,n—nay  ?—not voting  S—Speaker  *—Vacant

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 Thompson (D) y y y Y
3 Harper (R) N N N n
4 Taylor (D) N N N n
Missouri
Bond (R) N Y
McCaskill (D) y ?
1 Clay (D) y y y Y
2 Akin (R) N N N n
3 Carnahan (D) y y y Y
4 Skelton (D) y N N Y
5 Cleaver (D) y ? y Y
6 Graves (R) N N N n
7 Blunt (R) N N N n
8 Emerson (R) N N N n
9 Luetkemeyer (R) N N N n
Montana
Baucus (D) y Y
Tester (D) y Y
AL Rehberg (R) N N N n
Nebraska
Johanns (R) N n
Nelson (D) y n
1 Fortenberry (R) N N N n
2 Terry (R) N N N n
3 Smith (R) N N N n
Nevada
Reid (D) y Y
Ensign (R) N n
1 Berkley (D) y y y Y
2 Heller (R) N N N n
3 Titus (D) y y y Y
New Hampshire
Gregg (R) N n
Shaheen (D) y Y
1 Shea-Porter (D) y y y Y
2 Hodes (D) y y y Y
New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) y Y
Menendez (D) y Y
1 Andrews (D) y y y Y
2 LoBiondo (R) y N N n
3 Adler (D) y y N Y
4 Smith (R) y N N n
5 Garrett (R) N N N n
6 Pallone (D) y y y Y
7 Lance (R) y N N n
8 Pascrell (D) y y y Y
9 Rothman (D) y y y Y
10 Payne (D) y y y Y
11 Frelinghuysen (R) N N N n
12 Holt (D) y y y Y
13 Sires (D) y y y Y
New Mexico
Udall (D) y Y
Bingaman (D) y Y
1 Heinrich (D) y y y Y
2 Teague (D) y N N Y
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 Lujan (D) y y y Y
New York
Schumer (D) y Y
Gillibrand (D) y Y
1 Bishop (D) y y y Y
2 Israel (D) y y y Y
3 King (R) N N N n
4 McCarthy (D) y y y Y
5 Ackerman (D) y y y Y
6 Meeks (D) y y y Y
7 Crowley (D) y y y Y
8 Nadler (D) y y y Y
9 Weiner (D) y y y Y
10 Towns (D) y y y Y
11 Clarke (D) y y y Y
12 Velazquez (D) y y y Y
13 McMahon (D) y y N Y
14 Maloney (D) y y y Y
15 Rangel (D) y y y Y
16 Serrano (D) y y y Y
17 Engel (D) y y y Y
18 Lowey (D) y y y Y
19 Hall (D) y y y Y
20 Murphy (D) y y N Y
21 Tonko (D) y y y Y
22 Hinchey (D) y y y ?
23 McHugh (R) y
23 Owens (D) y y Y
24 Arcuri (D) N y y Y
25 Maffei (D) y y y n
26 Lee (R) N N N n
27 Higgins (D) y y y Y
28 Slaughter (D) y y y Y
29 Massa (D) N y N Y
North Carolina
Burr (R) N n
Hagan (D) y Y
1 Butterfield (D) y y y Y
2 Etheridge (D) y y y Y
3 Jones (R) N N N Y
4 Price (D) y y y Y
5 Foxx (R) N N N n
6 Coble (R) N N N n
7 McIntyre (D) N y N Y
8 Kissell (D) N y N Y
9 Myrick (R) N N N n
10 McHenry (R) N N N n
11 Shuler (D) y y N Y
12 Watt (D) y y y Y
13 Miller (D) y y y Y
North Dakota
Conrad (D) y Y
Dorgan (D) y Y
AL Pomeroy (D) N y y Y
Ohio
Voinovich (R) N Y
Brown (D) y Y
1 Driehaus (D) y y y Y
2 Schmidt (R) N N N n
3 Turner (R) N N N n
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 Jordan (R) N N N n
5 Latta (R) N N N n
6 Wilson (D) N y y Y
7 Austria (R) N N N n
8 Boehner (R) N N N n
9 Kaptur (D) y y y ?
10 Kucinich (D) N y N Y
11 Fudge (D) y y y ?
12 Tiberi (R) N N N n
13 Sutton (D) y y y Y
14 LaTourette (R) N N N n
15 Kilroy (D) y y y Y
16 Boccieri (D) y N N Y
17 Ryan (D) y y y Y
18 Space (D) y N y Y
Oklahoma
Inhofe (R) N n
Coburn (R) N n
1 Sullivan (R) ? N N n
2 Boren (D) N N N Y
3 Lucas (R) N N N n
4 Cole (R) N N N n
5 Fallin (R) N N N n
Oregon
Wyden (D) y Y
Merkley (D) y Y
1 Wu (D) y y y Y
2 Walden (R) N N N n
3 Blumenauer (D) y y y Y
4 DeFazio (D) N y y Y
5 Schrader (D) y y y n
Pennsylvania
Specter (D) y Y
Casey (D) y Y
1 Brady (D) y y y Y
2 Fattah (D) y y y Y
3 Dahlkemper (D) N y y Y
4 Altmire (D) N y N Y
5 Thompson (R) N N N n
6 Gerlach (R) N N N n
7 Sestak (D) y y y Y
8 Murphy, P. (D) y ? y Y
9 Shuster (R) N N N n
10 Carney (D) N y y Y
11 Kanjorski (D) y y y Y
12 Murtha (D) y y y ?
13 Schwartz (D) y y y Y
14 Doyle (D) y y y Y
15 Dent (R) N N N n
16 Pitts (R) N N N n
17 Holden (D) N y N Y
18 Murphy, T. (R) N N N n
19 Platts (R) N N N n
Rhode Island
Reed (D) y Y
Whitehouse (D) y Y
1 Kennedy (D) y y y Y
2 Langevin (D) y y y Y
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
South Carolina
Graham (R) N n
DeMint (R) N n
1 Brown (R) N N N n
2 Wilson (R) N N N n
3 Barrett (R) N N N ?
4 Inglis (R) N N N n
5 Spratt (D) y y y Y
6 Clyburn (D) y y y Y
South Dakota
Johnson (D) y Y
Thune (R) N n
AL Herseth
   Sandlin (D) N N N Y
Tennessee
Alexander (R) N n
Corker (R) N n
1 Roe (R) N N N n
2 Duncan (R) N N N n
3 Wamp (R) N N N n
4 Davis (D) N N N Y
5 Cooper (D) y y y Y
6 Gordon (D) y y N Y
7 Blackburn (R) N N N n
8 Tanner (D) N y N Y
9 Cohen (D) y y y Y
Texas
Hutchison (R) N n
Cornyn (R) N n
1 Gohmert (R) N N N n
2 Poe (R) N N N n
3 Johnson (R) N N N n
4 Hall (R) N N N n
5 Hensarling (R) N N N n
6 Barton (R) N N N n
7 Culberson (R) N N N n
8 Brady (R) N N N n
9 Green, A. (D) y y y Y
10 McCaul (R) N N N n
11 Conaway (R) N ? N n
12 Granger (R) N N N ?
13 Thornberry (R) N N N n
14 Paul (R) N N N n
15 Hinojosa (D) y y y Y
16 Reyes (D) y y y Y
17 Edwards (D) N y N Y
18 Jackson-Lee (D) y y y Y
19 Neugebauer (R) N N N n
20 Gonzalez (D) y y y Y
21 Smith (R) N N N n
22 Olson (R) N N N n
23 Rodriguez (D) N y y Y
24 Marchant (R) N N N n
25 Doggett (D) y y y Y
26 Burgess (R) N N N n
27 Ortiz (D) N y y Y
28 Cuellar (D) y y y Y
29 Green, G. (D) y y y Y
30 Johnson, E. (D) y y y Y
31 Carter (R) N ? N ?
32 Sessions (R) N N N n
Name/Party Vote 1 2 3 4 5 6
Utah
Hatch (R) N n
Bennett (R) N n
1 Bishop (R) N N N n
2 Matheson (D) N y N Y
3 Chaffetz (R) N N N n
Vermont
Leahy (D) y Y
Sanders (I) y Y
AL Welch (D) y y y Y
Virginia
Warner (D) y Y
Webb (D) y Y
1 Wittman (R) N N N n
2 Nye (D) N y N Y
3 Scott (D) y y y Y
4 Forbes (R) N N N n
5 Perriello (D) y N y Y
6 Goodlatte (R) N N N n
7 Cantor (R) N N N n
8 Moran (D) y y y ?
9 Boucher (D) y y N Y
10 Wolf (R) N N N n
11 Connolly (D) y y y Y
Washington
Murray (D) y Y
Cantwell (D) y Y
1 Inslee (D) y y y Y
2 Larsen (D) y y y Y
3 Baird (D) y N N Y
4 Hastings (R) N N N n
5 McMorris
   Rodgers (R) N N N n
6 Dicks (D) y y y Y
7 McDermott (D) y ? y Y
8 Reichert (R) y N N n
9 Smith (D) y y y n
West Virginia
Byrd (D) y ?
Rockefeller (D) y Y
1 Mollohan (D) N y y Y
2 Capito (R) N N N n
3 Rahall (D) N y y Y
Wisconsin
Kohl (D) y Y
Feingold (D) y Y
1 Ryan (R) N N N n
2 Baldwin (D) y y y ?
3 Kind (D) y y y Y
4 Moore (D) y y y Y
5 Sensenbrenner (R) N N N n
6 Petri (R) N N N n
7 Obey (D) y y y Y
8 Kagen (D) y y y Y
Wyoming
Barrasso (R) N n
Enzi (R) N n
AL Lummis (R) N N N n

Capitol View
How will health care reform affect farmers and ranchers?
By now most everyone
knows that the big health care
reform plan has been passed
by Congress and signed into
law, but do you know what’s
in the plan?
The plan does not include
what had once been the most
significant, and perhaps the
most controversial, reform pro-
posed by the Obama adminis-
tration and Democratic leaders
in Congress. The so-called pub-
lic option, a government-run
health insurance plan that
would compete with private
insurers, raised the ire of con-
servatives opposed to single-
payer, government health care.
Also, it does not require farm-
ers and ranchers to offer health
insurance to seasonal work-
ers—those who work on the op-
eration for less than 120 days.
Both provisions were in-
cluded in earlier versions of
health care legislation, but
were left out of the more mod-
est plan passed by the House
on Sunday, March 21, and ap-
proved by the Senate last year,
on Christmas Eve.
However, starting in 2014, the
plan does require all U.S. citi-
zens to get covered under health
insurance plans or else pay a
tax penalty. The penalty will
range from $695 per year up to
a maximum of $2,085 per fam-
ily or 2.5 percent of household
income, whichever is greater.
Low-income households will
be eligible for premium credits
and cost-sharing subsidies to
help them buy insurance. The
bill also expands access to
Medicaid.
American Farm Bureau Fed-
eration President Bob Stall-
man, ahead of the vote, wrote
all House members to express
opposition to the health insur-
ance mandate.
EPA taps into public opinion to shape water conference
Continued from page 1
“EPA is very upfront about its
contention that agriculture is
the largest contributor of non-
point source pollution and that
farms and ranches are the largest
‘unregulated’ source of pollu-
tion,” Parrish explained. “If the
online conversation is very anti-
agriculture, that could flow into
the conference and ultimately
result in the agency using it to
justify an attempt to tighten its
regulatory grip on farms and
ranches.”
Parrish stressed that farmers
and ranchers had as much of an
opportunity to comment on
EPA’s discussion forum as any-
one, but the discussion threads
were at times dominated by peo-
ple who had an obvious bias
against agriculture.
For example, responding to
EPA’s questions about managing
pollutants from nutrients, nu-
merous people pointed the finger
at agricultural producers and
called for more government con-
trol over “feed lots,” concen-
trated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) and agriculture in
fbnews.org
6|
“Farm Bureau believes that
health care is primarily the re-
sponsibility of individuals and
we are opposed to mandates that
require individuals to have
health insurance or mandates
that require employers to provide
it for their workers,” Stallman
wrote.
The mandate to get insurance
just doesn’t sit right with many
farmers and ranchers, explains
Pat Wolff, who handles health
care and tax issues for AFBF.
“Farmers and ranchers don’t
like the idea that the government
is telling them that they have
to have insurance,” Wolff said.
“Insurance is expensive. If farm-
ers and ranchers could afford it
now, they probably would cover
themselves and their families.
There’s no way to ensure that
prices won’t go up. So if the gov-
ernment tells you, ‘You have to
buy something you can’t afford,’
and you’re on a tight profit mar-
gin like a farmer or a rancher,
then you feel a big pinch.”
Stallman said that farmers and
ranchers need market-based re-
forms, not costly government
mandates. He said reforms should
lower costs and increase choices
of private health insurance.
There are provisions that will
help farmers and ranchers, either
as individuals or as employers.
One is the creation of health ben-
efit exchanges through which in-
dividuals and small businesses
with no more than 100 workers
can buy health coverage. Premi-
um and cost-sharing subsidies
will be provided to people and
families with incomes between
133 percent and 400 percent of
the poverty level.
“An exchange is like an eBay
for insurance,” Wolff explained.
“There will be one exchange in
each state. The bill defines four
levels of insurance coverage: a
Comments in EPA’s clean water forum showed that many people do not realize farm-
ers and ranchers already are subject to strict water protection rules.
general.
“Any nutrient pollution policy
must address nonpoint source
pollution—agriculture,” forum
participant “Aaron” said. “It is
time to stop giving crop and live-
stock operations a pass. Volun-
tary measures haven’t worked.”
Far from a pass, thousands of
basic plan, a high-end plan and
two in between, and a person
who wants to buy insurance on
the exchange will go online, look
at the four options, be able to tell
what insurance companies are
selling those plans in their state
and how much each one is
charging.”
AFBF says the exchanges may
help address insurance costs and
the concept is similar to associa-
tion health plans, which Farm
Bureau has supported for years.
The exchanges will give indi-
viduals and small businesses
the benefits enjoyed by larger or-
ganizations that, due to their
size, can enroll their employees
or members in less expensive
group coverage.
The bill did not require em-
ployers to provide health insur-
ance, but those with more than
50 employees will be assessed
fees if more than 30 of their em-
ployees receive premium credits
to buy insurance through an
exchange.
The health care bill also pro-
vides a tax credit in tax years 2010
through 2013 to small employers
who provide health insurance and
have fewer than 25 employees and
less than $40,000 a year in paid
wages. For those with 10 or fewer
employees and average wages of
less than $25,000 a year, the tax
credit is 35 percent of the employ-
er’s contribution toward the em-
ployee’s health insurance pre-
mium. The tax credit phases
down as the number of employees
and amount of wages goes up.
Stallman said in his letter that
the tax incentives are “inad-
equate and temporary and their
limited application will not ad-
equately compensate employers
for higher health care expenses.”
Wolff says the bill also should
have done more to bring
down the costs of health in-
farms and ranches are subject to
strict water-related regulations is-
sued by the federal government,
as well as states and counties,
Parrish pointed out. In addition,
voluntary water protection and
conservation measures, such as
riparian buffers, are widely used
and very successful.
April 5, 2010
surance and health care.
“One of the big concerns is
what will happen to health in-
surance costs, because the bill
is long on mandates and short
on things that will guarantee
that prices will be contained,”
she said. “One thing that’s
missing from the bill is tort
reform.”
Lawsuits are believed to hike
the cost of health care by mo-
tivating doctors and hospitals
to do extra procedures and
tests to avoid being sued.
President Obama signed the
health care bill into law on
March 23. A reconciliation bill,
which included changes to the
Senate-passed bill that House
leaders promised members of
Congress in exchange for their
votes, also passed in the House
on March 21. The Senate on
March 25 passed the reconcili-
ation measure, and then the
House that same day voted
on it again due to changes
made in the Senate to address
“pay-go,” the budget balanc-
ing requirement that new
spending be offset by revenue
increases or spending cuts.
“Farmers and ranchers have a
vested interest in protecting their
environment,” Parrish said.
“Maintaining and improving soil
and water quality isn’t only the
right thing to do, it’s critical to
the future of the farming or
ranching operation.”
Coming strictly from a finan-
cial point of view, it’s best for
farmers’ and ranchers’ bottom
lines to use only the amount of
nutrients and any other products
that they need. “Fertilizer and
other inputs aren’t cheap, and
farmers and ranchers don’t pass
those costs onto consumers, so
they use them conservatively,”
Parrish said.
The Coming Together for Clean
Water meeting will be hosted by
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
and Peter Silva, assistant admin-
istrator for the Office of Water.
Jackson and Silva have invited
100 leaders in water issues for
the one-day event. According to
Silva, much of the discussion
will focus on what can be done
to address the most significant
pollution problems facing U.S.
waters.
April 5, 2010
Farmers, ranchers take the lead on animal care issues
More than 80 percent of young
farmers and ranchers recently
surveyed by the American Farm
Bureau Federation said they are
concerned about the impact ac-
tivist groups could have on their
farm and ranch operations. The
well-funded Humane Society of
the United States (HSUS), for one,
has put a big target on animal
agriculture across the country,
but producers have no intention
of being caught in the crosshairs.
In Kentucky, farmers and
ranchers are rallying behind a
legislative proposal that would
create a commission to set rules
for how animals are treated on
farms. The measures, one passed
in the Senate and another work-
ing its way through the House,
are aimed at pre-empting efforts
by animal rights groups to pass
treatment standards.
The Kentucky Farm Bureau-
supported Livestock Care Com-
mission would address not only
livestock care and herd health,
but also providing safe and af-
fordable food for consumers.
The most recent version of the
bill would require the industry-
based commission to recommend
care standards to the existing
Board of Agriculture. If the
board, which is appointed by the
governor, rejects the recommen-
dations, it would have to explain
why, thus providing a starting
point for compromise.
Kentucky’s proposed commis-
sion is similar to the Ohio Live-
stock Care Standards Board. In
November 2009, Ohio voters
State Focus
Idaho Farm Bureau joins
state in ESA listing fight
Idaho Farm Bureau President Frank
Priestley presented Idaho Gov. Butch
Otter a $5,000 check to help the state
pay legal fees in a slickspot pepper-
grass listing lawsuit with the federal
government. Slickspot peppergrass is a
plant that ranges from 4 to 12 inches in
height and has many tiny, white flow-
ers. “We support the state’s efforts in
challenging this lawsuit,” Priestley said.
“In these dire economic times our farm
and ranch families need to be allowed
to make a living and endangered plants
should not be a higher priority than
those farm families.” Priestley added
that the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
is in dire need of reform to make land-
owners partners in the process. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife biologists wrote in the ESA
listing document that slickspot pep-
pergrass habitat continues to get worse
across Idaho. Otter, who filed his suit to
challenge Interior Secretary Salazar un-
der the Administrative Procedures Act
on Nov. 16, said the listing could affect
Idaho ranchers for generations.
fbnews.org
approved the board as a consti-
tutional amendment by a nearly
2-to-1 margin. The board will set
standards for livestock and poul-
try care that take into account
food safety, local availability and
affordability of food and farm
management practices for animal
well-being. Family farmers, con-
sumers, veterinarians and local
humane advocates will be among
the panel’s 13 members.
Ohio lawmakers in the House
and Senate have passed legisla-
tion to authorize the board and
Gov. Ted Strickland is expected
to sign the measure soon.
However, HSUS has signaled it
has no intention of letting the
board move ahead as Ohio voters
intended. Less than three months
after passage of the Ohio Farm
Bureau-supported ballot, the Hu-
mane Society of the United States
announced plans to put a mea-
sure on this year’s ballot through
which the animal activist group
could dictate the standards the
board is charged with setting, ac-
cording to OFB.
“The board hasn’t been ap-
pointed and the first discussions
on what standards Ohioans find
acceptable haven’t been held,”
said Jack Fisher, OFB executive
vice president. “And yet, the Hu-
mane Society of the United States
is saying, in effect, Ohioans got
it wrong.”
HSUS is in the process of col-
lecting the 420,000 valid voter
signatures it needs by the end of
June to place the measure on the
general election ballot.
Ohio Farm Bureau launches
‘I am Farm Bureau’ contest
Farmer? Gardener? Foodie? Wine
Enthusiast? How are you Farm Bureau?
Ohio Farm Bureau wants to know.
The organization recently invited OFB
members to tell their story in the “I am
Farm Bureau” contest. The contest is an
opportunity for members to showcase
who they are, what they do and how di-
verse Farm Bureau really is. Contestants
are asked to submit one to three photos
depicting how they are Farm Bureau.
Action shots could include entrants
tending a garden, shopping at a local
farmers market, preparing a favorite
meal, caring for livestock or any other
aspect of life as a Farm Bureau member.
Along with photos, competitors need
to complete four statements describing
what they do, their link to agriculture,
what they’re passionate about and
what they’re known for. Prizes include
pre-paid Nationwide Bank® Visa® gift
cards, as well as a chance to be featured
in a Farm Bureau commercial. The entry
deadline is May 31, 2010. For more
information, go to ofbf.org.
|7
In Missouri, farmers and ranch-
ers say HSUS’ push to place a
measure on the November bal-
lot to regulate puppy mills is a
ruse to help the activist organi-
zation strengthen its position
against livestock agriculture.
“But don’t be fooled; HSUS has
an agenda that goes far beyond
dogs,” Dan Cassidy, Missouri
Farm Bureau (MFB) chief admin-
istrative officer, wrote in a col-
umn. “A review of their Web
site is enough for a meat eater to
run for the freezer. They oppose
forms of hunting and have tar-
geted animal agriculture in sev-
eral other states.”
Cassidy urged people to con-
sider HSUS’ real motives the next
time they’re asked to sign a peti-
tion for puppies. “This is more
about raising money and getting
a paw in the door,” he said.
HSUS’ efforts will be one of the
many issues addressed by the
newly formed Missourians for
Animal Care, of which MFB is a
member.
Dogs, cats and other compan-
ion animals are the focus of an
animal care bill being considered
by the Wisconsin Legislature.
Farmers in the state support the
bill’s goal of preventing animal
cruelty, but warn that it could
cause unintended consequences
for livestock producers.
The measure would change the
state’s definition of “cruel” to
mean “causing or failing to pre-
vent unnecessary and excessive
pain and suffering or unjustifi-
able injury or death.” The inclu-
Part-time farmers in crosshairs
of proposed bay regulations
Last fall, the Environmental Protection
Agency announced a new initiative to
get tough on cleaning up the Chesa-
peake Bay, including proposed regula-
tions on water quality that would reach
all the way down to the small, part-time
farmer, cautioned the Virginia Farm Bu-
reau. Not only are the proposals imprac-
tical and expensive but they also have
the potential to force part-time cattle
producers out of business. “What they’re
looking at is somebody else making the
decision for them whether they farm or
not, because the expense of complying
with these regulations could be much
higher than any cash income they’d get
from their livestock,” said David Cole-
man, an Amelia County cattleman. Cattle
and calves represent the second-largest
commodity in Virginia agriculture,
generating almost $400 million in cash
receipts in 2008. Most of those animals
graze on small farms in Central, Northern
and Southwest Virginia and are raised by
part-time farmers who also work off the
farm.
State FB Links
sion of the phrase “or failing to
prevent” could be problematic
for livestock owners who care for
their animals 365 days a year but
cannot guarantee an animal
won’t become injured due to no
fault of the owner.
“When needed, the farmer may
call a veterinarian to care for in-
jured animals. At other times, a
veterinarian may not be called
because the farmer wishes to see
if the animal will heal on its
own,” Paul Zimmerman, Wis-
consin Farm Bureau executive
director of public affairs, told
members of the Assembly Com-
mittee on Criminal Justice in
late February. “Sometimes live-
stock market prices make it not
economically viable to treat cer-
tain injured animals. To further
complicate this situation many
injured animals are not viable
for slaughter due to increased
standards to insure a safe food
supply. So farmers are put in the
position, do they see if the in-
jured animal can recover on its
own or do they put it to death.”
WFB also noted that while in-
stances of animal cruelty in the
state were cited as the reason
the bill was needed, it mirrors
legislative efforts by animal
rights groups in other Midwest-
ern states.
Newsmakers
Utah Farm Bureau has named A.J.
Ferguson as vice president of farm
safety. Ferguson has served as
UFB director of farm safety for nine
years. He is completing a Bachelor
of Science degree in technology
management at Utah Valley Uni-
versity. In addition, Tiffiny Monson
has joined the staff as programs as-
sistant. Monson receive a Bachelor
of Science in health science from
Brigham Young University-Idaho.
Dan Smaldone is the new direc-
tor of public relations at Ken-
tucky Farm Bureau. Smaldone’s
previous experience includes
more than eight years in the
media and public relations office
of the Kentucky State Fair Board,
nearly six of those as manager of
the media department. He is a
graduate of Bellarmine University.
Mississippi Farm Bureau has hired
Billy Brake as legal research
coordinator in the public policy
department. A graduate of the
University of Mississippi School
of Law, Brake was previously em-
ployed as an associate attorney
with Redfern Law Firm.
Joseph Gergela, executive direc-
tor of the Long Island (N.Y.) Farm
Bureau, has been appointed to
the U.S. Department of State’s
Advisory Committee on Inter-
national Economic Policy. The
committee advises the State
Department on a broad range
of international economic policy
issues, including economic sanc-
tions and free trade agreements.
 fbnews.org April 5, 2010
Grassroots 8|

Residents fired up about proposed biomass facilities

The biomass industry got a big boost ear-
lier this year when the Obama administra-
tion announced a new program designed to
spur the expansion of dedicated non-food
crops for renewable energy and biofuels pro-
duction. In announcing the program, Agri-
culture Secretary Tom Vilsack touted the
benefits biomass production facilities would
provide rural America, chief among them the
many jobs that would be created as the plants
go up and online and the clean-burning ener-
gy they’ll provide for thousands of residents.
But in communities in Wisconsin, Mas-
sachusetts and Florida, where a number
of biomass power plants have been pro-
posed, power plant developers have re-
ceived anything but a warm welcome.
Biomass power is carbon-neutral electric-
ity generated from renewable organic waste
including scrap lumber, forest debris and
agricultural harvest waste. Biomass power
uses these natural materials to generate
clean, renewable electricity, while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
At a gathering last month of about 150
people in Rothschild, Wisc., a village of
5,000, resident Paul Schwantes said he and
his neighbors do not want to be We Ener-
gies’ “guinea pigs.”
“This is a call to action,” Schwantes told
the meeting attendees. “Tell them you do
not want this project in our backyard.”
We Energies, a subsidiary of Wisconsin
Energy Corp., wants to build Wisconsin’s
first biomass plant on the grounds of the
Domtar paper mill. The plant would help
the company fulfill a requirement that
10 percent of the state’s electricity come
from renewable sources by 2015.
Opponents of the project say the plant will
produce pollution that causes asthma and
other lung problems. However, We Energy
contends it will bring down the rate of emis-
sions from Domtar’s 644 annual tons to 457
tons per year.
We Energies has applied to the state Public
Service Commission for authorization to
build the plant. A decision is expected by the
end of the year, according to We Energies’
Brian Manthey.
In Massachusetts, vocal biomass opponents
have compelled the state to put on hold all
consideration of new biomass power for par-
ticipation in the state’s renewable portfolio
standard program until a third-party study to
determine woody biomass’ sustainability and
carbon neutrality is completed.
Still, four biomass plants are being planned
in Massachusetts and several coal plants in-
tend to change over to biomass, according to
Peter Bos, a partner of Russell Biomass, which
has proposed a 50-megawatt plant for the
western part of the state.
In addition, Massachusetts’ anti-biomass or-
ganizers are gathering signatures to qualify a
ballot question to limit carbon dioxide emis-
sions from biomass and waste to energy in-
cinerators to 250 pounds per megawatt hour.
Eric Kingsley, vice president of Innovative Na-
tural Resource Solutions, said that emissions
level is unattainable.
Gadsden County, Fla., residents say they’re
worried about the noise and traffic problems
a proposed plant could generate.
The plant will get regular daily deliveries of
fuel. Given that the site is located within a
mile of an elementary school, the increased
traffic of large trucks has prompted fears
about safety.
The facility will be built by Adage, a joint
venture between Areva, a French company,
and Duke Energy, one of the largest electric
power firms in the U.S. Adage officials say
the plant will generate more than 700 new
jobs, including 24 high-wage positions at
the plant and more than $4 million annu-
ally in new local and state tax revenue.
Although local agriculturalists have shown
a keen interest in the project, as one orna-
mental plant producer pointed out, the facil-
ity could drive up the price of pine bark, a
primary medium he uses for potted plants.
“My biggest concern is that we are using
the same raw material,” said George Hack-
ney, a Gadsden County Farm Bureau direc-
tor. “What will it do to the price of that
raw material? They can raise their utility
rates. We don’t necessarily have the ability
to do that.”
Michael Dooner, a forester in the county
and a Florida Farm Bureau state director,
focused on the positives the project offers,
including new jobs, an increase in the tax
base and direct returns for tree farmers.
“A wood-burning plant like this would
obviously spur additional competition for
our commodity and benefits in the long run,
with higher prices and a stable market.”
Adage officials have filed an air emissions
permit application with the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection. They
also said they plan to seek property tax
abatements from both the city and county.
This article includes reporting from G.B.
Crawford, assistant editor of Florida Farm
Bureau’s FloridAgriculture.

Senate climate change bill possible by June

Continued from page 1
cated to boosting renewable fuels
and promoting nuclear power
and offshore oil and gas drill-
ing. However, a number of their
colleagues from coastal states
such as Florida, New Jersey and
Maryland have already raised a
red flag signaling they would not
support a bill that would open
their coastal waters to drilling.
For Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-
Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-
Maine), it’s Kerry, Graham and
Lieberman’s carbon trading ap-
proach that’s a problem. The pair
is offering an alternative they call
Sign up for ‘Boot Camp’ “cap-and-dividend.” Under their
bill, carbon emissions allowances
would be auctioned off to fossil
fuel industries with most of the
revenue going back to consumers
to help defray higher energy costs.
Cantwell and Collins said their
proposal is as likely to pass the
Senate as the Kerry-Graham-
Lieberman bill, which Kerry said
will be released after Congress
returns from its two-week recess
the week of April 12. Lieberman
said the bill will likely be consid-
ered in June, after the Senate de-
bates financial regulatory reform.
“There are obviously still many
unknowns, including exactly
what the bill will look like and
what it will cost farmers, ranchers
and all Americans,” Krause said.

Farm Bureau women again this year have the opportunity to take high-level train-
ing in dealing with the news media, presentation skills, social media, seeking elected
office and public speaking at the Farm Bureau Women’s Communications Boot
Camp, July 27-30, in Washington, D.C. Far from “basic training,” the Boot Camp is an
Corner Post
intensive training session that provides women with the skills needed to communi- Why Farmers Farm
cate for agriculture and Farm Bureau.
In a recent online poll farmers were asked:
Up to fifteen women will be selected and put through the paces to improve their
“What do you like most about farming?”
communication skills and enhance their ability to tell agriculture’s story on diverse
topics ranging from animal care to the environment and taxes to trade. “To be a leader,
you can have the best ideas in the world but if you can’t com-
municate them you can’t get anywhere,” AFBF President Bob
Stallman told last year’s participants.
55% — Indpendence
The Boot Camp is open to all Farm Bu-
21% — Growing Things
reau women, not just Women’s Leadership
9% — Machinery & tools
Committee members. Applications must
5% — Nature
be signed by a state Farm Bureau staff
4% — Other
member and postmarked or e-mailed no
3% — Livestock
later than May 3, 2010. The participants
will be notified of their selection by June
3% — Financial rewards
1. Applications are available on the AFBF
Web site, www.fb.org, under “Programs” and
“Women’s Leadership Committee.” Source: Successful Farming’s Agriculture Online