2012 Public Policy AgendafArm b ureAu

PHOTO CREDITS: INSIDE COVER – Two Bales by Dustin Mielke, OKFB; TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cotton Boll, Cultivating and Calf by Dustin Mielke, OKFB; Kahuku Farms by Mike Danna, LAFB; Ag t-shirt by Ken Kashian, ILFB;

PAGE 5 – Farm Scene by Dustin Mielke, OKFB; PAGE 7 – Peppers and Grape Harvest by CAFB; Tomatoes by ALFA; Cowboy by Matt Hargreaves, UTFB; PAGE 8 – Boys with Pigs by Joe Murphy, IAFB;

PAGE 9 – Feeding Time by Cheryl Durheim, VAFB; PAGE 18 – Congressional Hearing by Leah Willger, AFBF; PAGE 19 – Farm Family by Dustin Mielke, OKFB; PAGE 25 – McCormick Straw Bales by Ken Kashian, ILFB;

PAGE 26 – American Farm by Ken Kashian, ILFB

10 Definition of “Waters of the u.S.”

12

14

6

estate & Capital GainsTaxes

Pesticide Permits

Immigrationreform

8 Youth employment regulations

4 2012 farm bill

16 Animal Health 20

22

rural School funding

Trade with russia

24 farm facts

18 regulatory reform

Contents

Our standing as the most influential grassroots farm organization in the world is based

on the fact that by working together, we produce results–each and every year. We have a

responsibility, even an obligation, as an organization with great political and policy

influence, to weigh in and help find solutions to the problems facing American agricul-

ture and our nation as a whole.

Both obstacles and opportunities await us as we work with the 112th Congress, the

Obama administration and federal regulators this year.

Despite the challenges on the horizon, Farm Bureau’s grassroots approach to policy

development will set us apart from others as we seek to make our voices heard in Wash-

ington. It is all of your voices together that will make a difference.

A thorough grounding in the policies outlined in the pages of the public policy agenda

that you hold in your hand will help you speak out with confidence and advocate for

Farm Bureau policies during the 112th Congress. These AFBF priority issues were

established shortly after our 2012 Annual Meeting.

We hope you will refer to these pages often as you work with members of Congress. I also

encourage you to turn to Farm Bureau’s capable and professional public policy experts

listed within. They work for you. Please call them, e-mail them and turn to them often as

you work on Farm Bureau issues.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to Farm Bureau.

Sincerely,

Bob Stallman, President

OOur standing as the most influential grassroots farm organization in the world is based

on the fact that by working together, we produce results–each and every year.

President’s message

2012 farm bill

4

TfFor the producers of most farm commodities, federal programs and

crop insurance provide farmers and their lenders some confidence that their

farm can survive and recover from a calamity.

THE FARM BILL MUST BE REAUTHORIZED OR extended in 2012. The agriculture industry is currently a star in our economy. Agricultural exports are at a record high and support more than 1 million jobs. Producers’ debt-to-asset ratios are low, and net cash income set a record in 2011. BUT, while things are good now, we cannot afford to lose a viable safety net. We have seen bull markets in agricultural commodities before, and as history shows, bull markets are almost always followed by bear markets as farmers around the world respond to higher prices with expanded production. Farm bills should be written for bad times rather than good.

Farm programs have been critical because farmers and ranchers cannot control the outcome of every harvest. All businesses deal with some amount of risk, but variables are usually greater for agriculture. Farmers invest their economic future in the next crop without knowing if the weather, energy costs, pest infestation, market prices and countless other perils will result in a profit or loss. For the producers (and their lenders) of most farm commodities, federal farm programs and crop insurance provide some confidence that they can survive and recover from a calamity.

The next farm bill should continue to provide a multi-faceted safety net. A combination of marketing loans, a good crop insurance program and a catastrophic revenue loss program would provide a balanced safety

net. We should avoid adopting any safety net program that only works well for one or two commodities. Doing so would make “leveling the playing field” for all commodities virtually impossible and encourage producers to take production signals from government programs rather than from the marketplace.

Farm bill programs should not attempt to guarantee a profit, but instead protect producers from catastrophic occurrences while minimizing the potential to affect individual production decisions. The safety net should be structured to allow producers to purchase insurance products to protect risk. In addition, the programs must comply with U.S. commitments under World Trade Organization agreements.

Farming always has been and will continue to be risky. The new safety net should kick in when there are catastrophic revenue losses. Therefore, the emphasis of our federal programs should be on the type of extreme losses that can threaten a farm’s viability or survival. Some have proposed that the new safety net cover shallow losses instead of deep losses. This leaves farmers vulnerable when they most need protection – during catastrophic events. A deep-loss program is consistent with the core philosophy of federal farm programs: that a safety net should be available to help farmers in times of high risks rather than with just the typical agronomic and economic ups and downs of farming.

The producer is responsible for the first 15% or from 85% - 100% of revenue losses.

Crop insurance covers losses between 70% - 85% of expected revenue.

70% of the county average revenue for the crops is provided free to producers.

Actual revenue of the operation is 50% of expected revenue.

Catastrophic Loss Revenue Program

You

Crop Insurance

Free Area Crop Insurance

Actual Revenue

100%

85%

70%

50%

6

Immigration reform

IIN 1986, CONGRESS ENACTED LEGISLATION making significant changes to the nation’s immigration policies. At the time, proponents felt they had reformed the agricultural guest worker program (H-2A) so it would meet the needs of growers at a time when hired labor had grown to represent fully one-third of the 3 million workers hired by the sector. That same law, however, put growers in a Catch-22: they were breaking the law if they hired an unauthorized worker, but they were also breaking the law if they asked too many questions about a worker’s legal status.

Unfortunately, we are now living with the consequences of the 1986 Immigration Act. The reforms touted as a solution have been a much-publicized failure. H-2A now supplies farmers and ranchers a mere 5 to 7 percent of their labor needs. Some agricultural producers, such as those in the dairy sector, are prohibited from the using the program outright. Lax border enforcement for too many years created a large loophole for workers seeking a better life. Threatening producers with legal liability for questioning workers’ documents has made growers particularly vulnerable to document fraud. As a result of these manifest failings in the law, the agricultural sector today depends on many qualified, experienced, hard-working individuals who lack work authorization and legal status. With approval by the Supreme Court for states to mandate E-Verify, we have witnessed disturbing results in states like Alabama

and Georgia, where growers have experienced severe worker shortages and crop losses as a result. Even in Washington State, which does not have E-Verify, worker shortages prompted some growers to hire prisoners to help get in the crops. Now, some members of the U.S. Congress are advocating federal legislation to require all employers to use E-Verify. For agriculture, the outcome is a near certainty: requiring E-Verify without providing growers an effective worker program would be devastating. Workers currently helping to sustain the sector should be eligible for participation in such a program.

These two problems must be addressed in any immigration reform legislation considered by Congress. There must be an effective provision for existing workers so that their legal status is rectified, and their continued employment in agriculture is assured. Also, we must enact an agricultural worker program for the 21st century. Farm Bureau supports establishment of a new agricultural visa that is portable, is available to sectors of agriculture with workers engaged in year-round employment and permits existing workers to participate in the program. Further, because the Department of Labor has demonstrated its hostility to the H-2A program (as well as other guest worker programs), Farm Bureau supports having the Department of Agriculture administer H-2A, as well as a new portable-visa program for agriculture.

Agricultural Labor:

fFor agriculture, the outcome is a near certainty: requiring E-Verify without

providing growers an effective worker program would be devastating.

8

UUNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA), Congress has recognized that farmers and ranchers are more than just employers: their way of life is something rooted in the land and tradition. Perhaps uniquely, they raise their children to respect and appreciate that way of life, passing on a gift they received from their own parents and grandparents. That is why there has always been an outright exemption in federal law for children working for their parents on the farm or ranch.

For decades the FLSA has not interfered with families as farms have been passed down from generation to generation, with the family homestead the gathering point for different generations and extended members of the family – grandchildren, nieces and nephews, and cousins. Many farmers today got their first taste of hard work and reward working for their parents, uncles or grandparents. It’s a lesson they never forgot, and it embodies values they want to pass on to their own children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, under regulations lately proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL), all that may be a thing of the past.

In September 2010, DOL proposed sweeping changes to how the federal government would regulate farms and ranches under the FLSA. These changes could prevent grandchildren, nieces and nephews, and others from returning to the farm and helping sustain it. The DOL proposal also would restrict farmers and ranchers from

hiring youth in rural communities to help out with normal chores. Read literally, DOL wants to stop any youth under the age of 16 from herding cows on horseback; working with other livestock; working in the hayloft; harvesting fruit if it entails being higher than 6 feet on a ladder; and using any powered equipment, including driving tractors, or doing such simple things as using a battery-powered drill or screwdriver. It also is contemplating a rule that would effectively ban youth under the age of 16 from harvesting fruits, berries and vegetables if it gets too warm.

Farm Bureau strongly opposes the proposed DOL regulations as overly broad and inconsistent with history and congressional intent. Farm Bureau supports appropriate restrictions and standards, including outright bans, on jobs that are not appropriate or pose too much risk for youth. But Farm Bureau believes the FLSA has never been interpreted to prevent extended family from working on the family farm when it is owned jointly or severally as an LLC, partnership, Subchapter S Corporation or other form of business arrangement. Farm Bureau believes DOL should not prevent youth under the age of 16 from doing normal, non-hazardous chores that do not entail excessive risk. Farm Bureau supports retention of the existing student learner exemptions and opposes a hazardous occupation order that prevents youth from being able to harvest fruits and vegetables.

Youth employment regulationsAgricultural Labor:

mMany farmers today got their first taste of hard work and reward working for their

parents, uncles or grandparents. It’s a lesson they never forgot, and it embodies

values they want to pass on to their own children and grandchildren.

10

“Waters of the u.S.”

TTHE SUCCESS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) since its enactment in 1972 has been founded on the partnership between the federal government and the states, a partnership that limits federal regulatory power to “navigable waters” rather than all waters. This limit preserves state primacy in determining the water quality goals and implementation measures for the navigable waters within a state’s borders, and reserves regulation of “nonpoint” sources – such as agriculture – to the states. This system effectively grants states the ability to evaluate land use and economic growth decisions, weigh them against environmental concerns, and establish policy that balances these sometimes competing priorities.

Navigable Waters. Two Supreme Court decisions over the past decade have reaffirmed that the term “navigable waters” under the CWA does not extend to all waters. Legislation to overturn those decisions has not been considered by Congress, despite the feverish efforts of environmental activists, for two reasons. First, there is bipartisan support for the structure and goals of the CWA, and members do not want to see the Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) intrude on traditional state prerogatives relating to land use planning and economic growth. Second, the legislation aggressively pushed by environmental groups would allow EPA to use the CWA to regulate activities even on dry land. Such an overreach goes well beyond anything contemplated by the framers of the 1972 law.

Unfortunately, EPA appears to be attempting to do by regulation what Congress has not authorized it to do in legislation. Such a shift in policy would mean that EPA could regulate any or all waters found within a state, no matter how small or seemingly unconnected to a federal interest. A boundless approach such as this would give the federal government new authority over many traditionally state and local decisions. This extremely broad view of the scope of federal authority would encompass many natural landscape features not readily recognizable as “waters” and thwart any rational limits established by Congress or the Supreme Court.

Expanding the federal regulatory footprint of the entire CWA in this manner will blur the distinction between regulating water and land use, erect barriers to economic activity, and have significant economic implications across the nation’s entire economy.

What Congress should do: Tell EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) that only Congress can expand CWA jurisdiction, and Congress’s decision to forgo usurping local authority cannot be overturned by a federal agency.

As these maps demonstrate, by extending federal authority over areas that rarely have water, EPA and the Corps are expanding their authority over huge areas of land and will be able to control the use of that land.

Definition of

WWhat Congress should do: Tell EPA and the Corps that only Congress can expand

CWA jurisdiction, and Congress’ decision to forgo usurping local authority cannot be

overturned by a federal agency.

Perennial, Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams

Ephemeral features only during and for a short duration after precipitation events in a typical year. The vast blue line expansion represents a “water” that would potentially fall within the scope of federal jurisdiction under EPA and the Corps proposed policies. Where will farmers be able to farm under EPA’s proposal?

Source: The Water Advocacy Coalition

Perennial and Intermittent Streams

The area included is 6 miles x 8 miles; 48 square miles; 30,720 acres; approximately 47 miles perennial (year-round flow) and 96 miles intermittent (seasonal flow) streams. Under the current federal regulatory footprint, most of the perennial streams and some, but not all, of the intermittent streams would be jurisdictional.

Northern Kentucky, Near the Southern Suburbs of Cincinnati

12

estate and Capital Gains Taxes

AAMERICA VALUES FAMILY-OWNED FARMS AND ranches because of the locally-grown food, fiber and fuel they produce, the contribution that agriculture makes to job creation and the economy, and the open space protected by farming and ranching. Yet, our nation’s tax policy is in direct conflict with the desire to preserve and protect our nation’s 2 million plus family-owned farms and ranches. No tax matters are more pressing than the prompt passage of legislation to provide permanent estate tax relief and reduce capital gains tax rates.

Estate Taxes: The estate tax applies after the death of the farm or ranch owner and when the value of the property exceeds the estate tax exemption. The total cost of the estate tax not only comes from the cost of the tax, but also from the cost of estate tax planning.

The value of family-owned farms and ranches is usually tied to illiquid assets, such as land, buildings and equipment, which can force the family to sell these assets in order to pay for the tax. Eighty-five percent of farm and ranch assets are land-based, leaving producers few options when it comes to generating cash to pay the estate tax. Recent increases in agricultural land values, on average 25 percent from 2010 to 2011, have greatly expanded the number of farms and ranches that now top the estate tax exemption.

In order to keep farm or ranch businesses operating after the death of the owner, families must plan for the estate tax. The planning costs associated with this tax are not only a drain on business resources, but also take money away from the day-to-day operations and investment in the business. However, even with planning, uncertain tax law combined with changing land values and family situations make it impossible to guarantee that a well-thought-out estate plan will protect a family farm or ranch from estate taxes.

Capital Gains Taxes: Capital gains taxes apply when farm or ranch land and buildings are transferred to a new or expanding farmer or rancher while the owner is still alive. This occurs most often when a farmer or rancher wants to expand his or her farm or ranch to take in a son or daughter, or when a retiring farmer or rancher sells his business to a beginning farmer or rancher.

Starting or expanding a farm or ranch requires a large investment because of the capital-intensive nature of the business. Land and buildings typically account for 76 percent of a farmer’s or rancher’s assets. The added acquisition cost associated with covering the tax can increase the cost of starting or expanding a farm or ranch. The cost impact also increases the likelihood that farm and ranch land will be sold outside of agriculture to commercial uses that are willing to pay more for the asset.

IIn order to keep farm or ranch businesses operating after the death of the owner,

families must plan for the estate tax. The planning costs associated with this tax

are not only a drain on business resources, but also take money away from the

day-to-day operations and investment in the business.

“Everything on our farm stopped. Every improvement project was put on hold, and the downsizing of the farm eliminated the opportunity for some of the younger family members to join the family business.”

Sarah Wilson on the impact of her family being forced to sell one-fourth of their farm to pay the estate tax.

[Taken from FBNews, May 31, 2010, Vol. 89, No. 11.]

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

South Upper Plains Plains Midwest

Percentage Change for U.S. Land Values by Geographical Location

Source: AFBF Economics Department

14

CWA Pesticide Permits

AAS A RESULT OF A FEDERAL COURT RULING, SOME farmers and ranchers may now be faced with additional regulations to apply pesticides under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Farmers and ranchers have always understood that when applying pesticides, “the label is the law of the land.” The product label and the application of agricultural pesticides have always been regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In 2009, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an unprecedented ruling that threatens to impose burdensome, costly and unnecessary regulations on farms and ranches. Specifically, the ruling declared that the use of a pesticide, even in compliance with FIFRA, may constitute a “discharge of a pollutant” under the CWA if the pesticide is applied into, over or near waters of the U.S. and, thus, would require a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Farm Bureau petitioned the Supreme Court to review this decision, but the Court declined. As a result, on October 31, 2011, EPA implemented its pesticide general permit for the six states where it administers the program. Forty-four other states have issued, or will soon issue, their versions of EPA’s permit. EPA’s pesticide general permit intends to cover applications of pesticides registered for aquatic use and applied to water or forest canopies, into or over flowing or seasonal waters, and conveyances to those waters.

In 2011, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 872, which would overturn the 6th Circuit decision, and passed the bill by a wide, bipartisan margin. Environmental groups opposed to H.R. 872 make no secret of their intent to continue citizen suits until all pesticide applications are required to have a permit if there is even a chance that the pesticide could come in contact with any water, either flowing water or seasonal drainage ditches, that could be a conveyance to a water of the U.S. Nothing in the CWA or the general permit protects farmers or terrestrial applicators against citizen suits for not obtaining a permit. This establishes an uncertain liability for farmers and ranchers, as well as users applying pesticides to golf courses, public utility rights of way, and private homes and businesses.

Farmers and ranchers need to understand their state’s specific permit requirements and their own liabilities. Generally speaking, applying pesticides in, over or near waters of the U.S. without an NPDES permit will be vulnerable to possible CWA enforcement. If there is no EPA or state general permit offering coverage for agricultural pesticide use, farmers facing enforcement (by government or citizen lawsuits) may have no choice but to immediately stop pesticide use to protect themselves from liability and substantial CWA enforcement penalties. Farm Bureau believes that Congress should clarify that federal CWA permits are not necessary to apply crop protection products and will continue to urge Congress to enact legislation to do that.

DDespite the use of modern crop protection products, 20 percent to 40 percent of

potential food production is still lost every year to pests. An adequate, reliable

food supply cannot be guaranteed without the use of crop protection products.

16

Protecting Animal Health

FFARMERS AND RANCHERS USE ANTIBIOTICS carefully, judiciously and according to label instructions to treat, prevent and control disease in their flocks and herds. These products are critically important to animal welfare and food safety.

Agriculture has a primary interest in ensuring that all animal health products, including antibiotics, continue to be safe and effective. In order to raise healthy animals, farmers and ranchers need tools to keep animals healthy – including medicines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Restricting access to these important tools will jeopardize animal health and compromise farmers’ and ranchers’ ability to contribute to public health through food safety.

Antibiotic resistance in humans is a substantial and growing problem in the healthcare community. The development of bacterial resistance to certain antibiotics poses a serious public health threat.

However, it is important to note that antibiotic use in animals has not been scientifically linked to increases in human antibiotic resistance. In more than 40 years of antibiotics being used in animals, a public health threat has not arisen, and recent government data shows the potential that one might occur is declining. Bacteria survival through food processing/handling is

decreasing, food-borne illness is down, development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals is stable and resistant food-borne bacteria in humans is declining. In fact, recent research indicates that using antibiotics to keep animals healthy reduces the incidence of food-borne pathogens in meat.

Given current data on the risk assessment of livestock antibiotics, Farm Bureau opposes restricting the use of antibiotics. It is important that decision-makers review demonstrated scientific evidence of the risks and benefits of potential future actions. Farm Bureau has serious concerns about the effects of removing important antibiotics and classes of antibiotics from the market, handicapping veterinarians and livestock and poultry producers in their efforts to maintain animal health and protect the nation’s food supply. Further limiting or eliminating animal antibiotic use for livestock will have negative economic and animal health consequences.

Specifically, Farm Bureau opposes legislation pending in Congress that would remove from the market specific antibiotics and classes of antibiotics that are important for use in animals. Farm Bureau is also concerned about FDA’s efforts to further restrict antibiotics without scientific justification through the Veterinary Feed Directive, Guidance 209, and other regulatory actions.

AAgriculture has a primary interest in ensuring that all animal health products, including

antibiotics, continue to be safe and effective. In order to raise healthy animals, farmers

and ranchers need tools to keep animals healthy – including medicines that have been

approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

18

regulatory reform

MMUCH OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE AND controversy in Washington, D.C. has centered around taxes, federal spending and the growth of the federal debt. But along with spending, the regulatory agenda of the federal government seems to get longer every year. One witness testifying before the House Judiciary Committee estimated that federal regulations cost the U.S. economy $1.75 trillion each year. And the end is not in sight. The current regulatory agenda of the federal government includes more than 200 major rules. A major rule is a regulation which, by definition, will have at least a $100 million annual impact on the economy.

Farmers and ranchers increasingly feel the impact of federal regulation of their operations. Some of the most important regulations they now face include:

■■ A proposal by the Department of Labor to revise regulations on youth employment in agriculture, which could affect family farms across the country.

■■ An ongoing regulatory proceeding at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would vastly increase the agency’s jurisdiction over water and even some activities on land that have never been regulated by the federal government.

■■ A new regulation by EPA requiring Clean Water Act permits for pesticide applications that are already regulated and authorized by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

■■ New regulations from EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

■■ A pending regulation proposed by EPA requiring operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to disclose detailed information about their operations.

Most regulatory proceedings are conducted under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. That law was enacted in 1946 – long before EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and myriad federal agencies even existed – and has never been substantively revised. With more and more federal regulations affecting the livelihood of farmers and ranchers, it is vitally important that promulgated regulations are based on sound science, reflect congressional intent, reflect input from affected stakeholders and provide taxpayers the greatest benefit for the least cost.

Farm Bureau supports legislation that would update and modernize the federal regulatory process. H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, would make important improvements in the 65-year-old Administrative Procedure Act, primarily through increased transparency and greater public participation.

Specifically Farm Bureau supports legislation that would:■■ Require agencies to lay out in detail data supporting

their actions at an earlier stage in the regulatory process for rules having a large economic impact;

W

With federal regulations affecting the livelihood of farmers and ranchers, it is vitally

important that regulations promulgated are based on sound science, reflect

congressional intent, reflect input from affected stakeholders and provide taxpayers

the greatest benefit for the least cost.

■■ Institute on-the-record hearings for the most costly

rules and give interested parties an opportunity to challenge agency data in such proceedings. In instances in which hearings are held, more strict legal review will be available;

■■ Require an agency to consider a rule’s impact on jobs and the economy and require an agency to

demonstrate why it did not select a less costly alternative; and

■■ Prevent agency manipulation of the regulatory process by instituting stricter guidelines on the use of agency guidance and use of interim final regulations.

Cost of Major New RegulationsIn Billions of 2009 Dollars, by Fiscal Year

$-51981 1985 19951990 2000 2005 2010

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30$26.5

$14.7

$20

$15.4

Independentagencies

Sources Figures for 1981-2009 U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2010 figures Heritage Foundation calculations based on reports from individual agencies..

20

rural education

FFARM BUREAU BELIEVES STRONG RURAL schools are vital to enhancing the lives of rural Americans and building strong and prosperous rural communities. Rural schools and rural communities will benefit from a change in the formula used to distribute funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:The formula used to distribute federal education dollars to state and local school districts under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act discriminates against rural and small-town school districts, as well as moderate-sized urban districts. Title I provides $14.5 billion in federal funding to school districts. These funds help school districts meet the educational needs of financially disadvantaged students and are intended to help those with the highest concentrations of poverty. Instead, the formula systematically redirects funds to larger, wealthier districts where needy students make up a smaller percentage of the student body.

To determine a school district’s need, the current Title I formula counts eligible students in a school district based on two alternative systems:

■■ The percentage of disadvantaged students (percentage weighting), or

■■ The total number of disadvantaged students (number weighting).

The number weighting system benefits large or countywide school districts with low poverty rates but large numbers of students. Rural and small-town school districts, with smaller student populations, rely on percentage weighting. Because Title I is a shared pool, any funding gain by one school district causes a funding loss to another district. Under the current formula, Title I funding is directed away from small, rural schools to large school districts even though they have a smaller percentage of disadvantaged students.

Farm Bureau supports changing the distribution of Title I funds by gradually reducing the number weighting system. This will allow Title I funds to be distributed in a manner that treats all students equally and is fair across all school districts.

rRural schools and rural communities will benefit from a change in the formula used

to distribute funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and

reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act.

Number of Districts

Receiving Title I Funding

Total Number of

Title I Students

Total Funding

Gained (Lost)

Funding Gain (Loss)

Per Title I Student

School Districts Gaining 553 4,196,879 $459,578,900 $109.50

School Districts Losing 10,761 4,324,185 ($408,232,400) ($94.41)

School Districts with No Change 693 362,101 $0.00 $0.00

Source: Rural School and Community Trust, March 26, 2010

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act: Farm Bureau supports reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act to preserve the economies of more than 780 rural counties and school districts in 41 states.

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act payments provide a stable source of funding for rural schools, police, roads, libraries and other critical county services. These payments provide the funds necessary to educate rural school children by providing resources for smaller classrooms, high-quality teachers and books, computers and supplies.

Title I Funding: School Year 2008-2009

22

Trade relations for russia

RRUSSIA JOINED THE WORLD TRADE Organization (WTO) on December 15, 2011. Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for Russia must be granted by Congress in order to guarantee U.S. access to the market opening and legal commitments that are part of Russia’s WTO accession agreement. PNTR makes permanent the trade status the U.S. has extended to Russia on an annual basis.

Russia PNTR is a critical step toward ensuring that the United States benefits from Russia’s WTO accession and remains competitive in that market.

Russia’s membership in the WTO will provide significant commercial opportunities for U.S. agriculture.

U.S. farmers and ranchers will have more certain and predictable market access as a result of Russia’s commitment not to raise tariffs on any products above the negotiated rates and to apply non-tariff measures in a uniform and transparent manner.

In particular, Russia has committed to applying the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), limiting its ability to impose arbitrary measures that have impeded trade in the past.

Russia’s compliance with its obligations, including those on tariffs and non-tariff measures, will be enforceable through the use of WTO dispute settlement.

Congressional approval of PNTR for Russia will result in improved market access for U.S. agriculture.

Product Value (Thousands USD)

Beef 191,822

Pork 166,944

Pork, Frozen 159,496

Poultry 148,761

Beef, Frozen 148,371

Chicken, Frozen 146,424

Horticulture 126,097

Processed Foods 68,432

Nuts 65,264

Soybean & Products 38,098

United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service,

WTO Agricultural Total, Total U.S. Exports to Russia

Top 10 U.S. Agricultural Exports to RussiaJan.-Sept. 2011

Beef: The United States will have access to 11,000 tons of a global Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) for fresh/chilled beef and a U.S. country specific TRQ of 60,000 tons for frozen beef. Both TRQs have an in-quota tariff of 15 percent. In addition to access under these TRQs, the United States will be able to export high-quality beef outside of the TRQ at a 15 percent tariff rate.

Poultry: Russia will maintain a 250,000-ton TRQ for chicken halves and leg quarters with an in-quota tariff rate of 25 percent and separate TRQ access for commercially important turkey products.

Permanent Normal

uU.S. farmers and ranchers will have more certain and predictable market access

as a result of Russia’s commitment not to raise tariffs on any products above the

negotiated rates and to apply non-tariff measures in a uniform and transparent

manner.

Pork: Russia has agreed to a TRQ of 400,000 tons for fresh/chilled/frozen pork and a separate TRQ of 30,000 tons for pork trimmings. Both TRQs will have zero in-quota rates. As of January 1, 2020, Russia will adopt a tariff-only regime for pork with a bound duty of 25 percent, and Russia will apply this duty to all imports, including from countries exporting under Russia’s tariff preference program.

Passage of PNTR is also necessary to guarantee enforcement of key commitments by Russia for the agriculture sector.

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Russia has established the legal framework necessary to comply fully with the SPS Agreement. In addition,

Russia has undertaken commitments on how it will comply with the SPS Agreement and its other commitments affecting trade in agricultural products. These commitments will provide U.S. exporters of meat, poultry and other agricultural products with an enforceable set of disciplines against trade restrictions that are not based on science and a risk assessment. Russia has also agreed to strong rules on harmonizing SPS measures applied in Russia with international standards.

Domestic SupportRussia committed to bind its aggregate measure of support at $9 billion for 2012 and 2013, with a gradual phase-down to $4.4 billion by 2018, a level below current spending.

farm facts about American Agriculture25

mMore than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce)

produce, process and sell the nation’s food and fiber.

■■ In 2008, farmers produced 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs (labor, seeds, feed, fertilizer, etc.) compared with 1950.

■■ Farmers and ranchers receive only 16 cents out of every dollar spent on food at home and away from home. The rest goes for costs beyond the farm gate: wages and materials for production, processing, marketing, transportation and distribution. In 1980, farmers and ranchers received 31 cents.

■■ More than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) produce, process and sell the nation’s food and fiber.

■■ Technology is increasingly used on today’s farms and ranches. USDA statistics show that 57 percent of U.S. farms have Internet access. A survey of young farmers and ranchers shows that 92 percent use a computer and 46 percent use the Internet for social media (Web 2.0).

■■ Renewable fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel made from corn, soybeans and other crops, are beneficial to the environment and promote energy security.

■■ U.S. farm programs typically cost each American just pennies per meal and account for less than one-half of 1 percent of the total U.S. budget.

■■ According to a 2011 survey conducted on behalf of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, 79 percent of consumers say that producing healthy choices for all consumers is very important for farmers and ranchers to consider when planning farming and ranching practices. The survey also revealed that consumers think about food constantly yet know very little about how food is brought to the dinner table.

■■ Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of young farmers and ranchers consider communicating with consumers a formal part of their jobs, according to a recent survey.

Source: AFBF Food & Farm Facts.

X26

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Executive Director, Public Policy

() -

Deputy Executive Director, International and Agriculture Policy Team

() -68

dalemoore

araol

Director, Environment & Energy Policy Team

() -

al leel

Director, Tax & Rural Development Policy Team

() -

Farm Bureau is the unified national voice of agriculture, working

through its grassroots organizations to enhance and strengthen the

lives of rural Americans and to build strong, prosperous agricultural

communities.

mar mal

27

xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Director, Legislative Services Team

() -

Director, Congressional Relations

() -

ell ldlm

Director, Regulatory Relations

() -84

ev rard

Senior Director, Congressional Relations

() -

r rae

Senior Director, Regulatory Relations

() -

do arr

ara maeo

adre almle

Director, Rural Affairs

() -

Director, Congressional Relations

() -86

Director, Congressional Relations

() -

ler emeer

Public Policy Department

edra eller

Director, Congressional Relations

() -69

r are

Senior Director, Congressional Relations

() -

Senior Director, Congressional Relations

() -5

mar a aer

davd almoe

600 Maryland Ave. S.W.Suite 1000WWashington, DC 20024

Notes: _____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

American Farm Bureau Federation® 600 Maryland Ave. S.W.Suite 1000WWashington, DC 20024 (202) 406-3600 www.fb.org