Farm Bill News ([log in to unmask]) Posted: 06/11/2001
==============================================
TESTIMONY OF JEFF NELSON
DUCKS UNLIMITED, Inc.
REPRESENTING THE VIEWS OF THE
American Fisheries Society
Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization
Bass Anglers Sportsman's Society
Boone and Crockett Club
Buckmasters American Deer Foundation
California Waterfowl Association
Campfire Club of America
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Conservation Force
Dallas Safari Club
Delta Waterfowl Foundation
Ducks Unlimited
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Izaak Walton League of America
Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The Mule Deer Foundation
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Trappers Association
National Wild Turkey Federation
The Nature Conservancy
North American Waterfowl Federation
Orion - The Hunter's Institute
Pheasants Forever
Pope and Young Club
Quail Unlimited
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Safari Club International
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute
The Ruffed Grouse Society
Trout Unlimited
Whitetails Unlimited
Wildlife Forever
Wildlife Habitat Council
The Wildlife Society
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America
Wildlife Management Institute
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCERNING:
THE CONSERVATION TITLE OF THE 2002 FARM BILL
June 6, 2001
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Jeff Nelson. I am the
Director of Operations for Ducks Unlimited, Inc.'s (DU) Great Plains
Regional Office in Bismarck, North Dakota. I am a professional biologist
with training in wetland and waterfowl ecology. I have worked for DU since
1982 in both Canada and the U.S., initially as a research biologist and
eventually as Chief Biologist for our U.S. organization. I currently lead
a regional staff of about 70 professionals working in eight north-central
states including Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota,
Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota.
Ducks Unlimited was founded in 1937 by concerned and farsighted sportsmen
and conservationists. It has grown from a handful of people to an
organization of over 1,000,000 supporters who now make up the largest
wetlands and waterfowl conservation organization in the world. DU has
conserved more than 9.9 million acres of wildlife habitat in the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. DU prides itself on its work with private landowners
and our ability to assist and advise farmers, ranchers, and foresters on
how they can meet their economic goals with their lands while providing
high quality habitat for the wildlife that depend on their land for
survival.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of Ducks
Unlimited, but to also present the views of a broad coalition of
conservation organizations regarding provisions of U.S. agriculture policy.
This coalition consists of 37 groups with a combined membership of nearly
10 million. These organizations represent a diverse spectrum of interests
that have come together in support of continuing a strong conservation
tradition in U.S. agriculture policy. Some of the groups I represent today
include The Nature Conservancy, The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation,
Pheasants Forever, The National Rifle Association, and The Wildlife
Management Institute. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, which represents all 50 state agencies responsible for management
of fish and wildlife resources in this country, supports the testimony of
the coalition and will be providing their own perspective on agriculture
conservation programs in separate testimony. Collectively, our members and
supporters represent a sizable cross-section of our nation's citizenry.
You will find a list of these supporting organizations on the title page of
this testimony.
AGRICULTURE IS THE KEY TO THE STATE OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
The future of wildlife in this country is inseparably tied to actions
undertaken on private lands. Agriculture is by far the dominant use on
these lands with about 50% of the United States or 900 million acres
managed as cropland, pastureland, or rangeland. Federal agricultural
programs and policies have an enormous influence on the condition of the
nation's air, soil, water, plant, wildlife, and other natural resources.
In recognition of this fact, the U.S. Congress incorporated strong
conservation titles in the 1985 Farm Bill and has continued this approach
in each of the two successive Farm Bills.
Over the past two decades, conservation programs have played an integral
role in the economic vitality and general well being of this nation's
farmers, ranchers, and foresters. In addition, they have improved
conservation on private lands by enhancing and protecting wildlife and
their habitat. The increased role and importance of conservation in
agriculture and its role in private lands stewardship has given way to
dialogue that while contentious at times, has led to consensus and
partnerships among government and private interests including commodity
groups, individual producers, livestock organizations, and the conservation
community. Voluntary, incentive-based conservation provisions included in
national agriculture policy have provided the framework for "win-win"
solutions on the farm and across the rural and urban landscape. Our
organizations are united in their belief that this Congress will strongly
support continued commitment of our federal resources to Farm Bill
conservation provisions.
I would like to provide you with our areas of focus followed by brief
descriptions of the specific Farm Bill conservation programs and why our
coalition considers them absolutely critical to the conservation of our
nation's natural resources.
· Expand enrollment of the Wetlands Reserve Program to accommodate
enrollment of 250,000 acres per year through the duration of the Farm Bill.
· Expand the enrollment caps of the Conservation Reserve Program to its
original 1985 level of 45 million acres.
· Expand the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program to authorize the
expenditures of $100 million annually.
· Establish a Grasslands Reserve Program to authorize up to 1 million acres
for enrollment.
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) was established by Congress as a
conservation title in the 1990 Farm Bill and reauthorized in 1996. The
1996 cap for WRP was set at 975,000 acres nationwide. When it became
apparent that this program was very popular among agriculture producers and
landowners, and that the cap would be achieved in federal FY '01, Congress
increased the authorization for WRP by 100,000 acres. The new cap of
1,075,000 acres will be reached during the current year. Popularity of the
program remains very high with hundreds of qualified applications submitted
across the nation that cannot be accepted without continuation and
expansion of WRP.
WRP provides farmers with financial incentives to remove marginal lands
from crop production. These lands have proven to be unsuitable for crop
production because of the frequency and duration of flooding or soil
saturation. The program also helps landowners restore and protect wetlands
on their property and to develop land use plans that ensure sustainability
and potential economic return over time. WRP provides an alternative for
those lands that have proven to be difficult to farm as well as saving
taxpayers money due to repeated disasters payments. These restored
wetlands help reduce flooding on more productive agriculture lands and in
urban areas. They also improve water quality and provide habitat for a
diversity of plant and animal life.
Lands enrolled in WRP are protected by either perpetual or 30-year
easements or by 10-year technical assistance agreements. Perpetual
easements are by far the most popular choice among landowners with 78%
percent of agreements falling in this category, 16% 30 year easements and
6% cost share. WRP also covers all or a portion of the restoration costs
for lands accepted into the program. If the easement is perpetual, 100 %
of the restoration costs are covered. For 30-year easements and 10-year
agreements, that coverage is 75% and 50%, respectively. In all cases,
landowners retain title of the land and control access and use in
accordance with easement provisions.
WRP projects are on the ground in 49 states except for Alaska. Benefits
from this program are evident along streams, lakes, bays, and estuaries
throughout the country. In addition to the economic benefits for
landowners, a myriad of wildlife species, several of them threatened or
endangered, have gained improved habitat and are responding in a positive
manner. The people who value wildlife and open space, whether they are
hunters, anglers, bird watchers or just outdoor enthusiasts, also are
obvious beneficiaries of WRP.
The Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) offers a prime example of the
benefits of WRP to landowners and to the public at large. The MAV was once
a vast bottomland hardwood forest covering some 24 million acres in
portions of the states of Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The soil in this region is some of
the most fertile in the world, and for more than a century, flood control
and drainage projects aimed towards expanding the agriculture base,
dominated the landscape for obvious reasons. These projects resulted in
80% of this vast forest being converted to crop production and today less
than 5 million acres, of the original 24 million acres, remain, mostly in
fragments scattered throughout the MAV. Many of these acres converted to
cropland are still subjected to flooding on a frequency and duration that
render them very marginal at best for farming. But these lands can produce
high quality forests and associated products such as wood fiber, wildlife
habitat and recreation. The MAV is the most important wintering area in
the world for mallard ducks. Many other species of waterfowl use this
region during the fall and winter and some species such as wood ducks and
hooded mergansers nest and raise young there. The MAV also is a major
migration corridor and nesting area for dozens of neo-tropical songbirds as
well as being the year-around home for many species of resident wildlife.
These are the very lands that WRP has been so successful in enrolling, to
the benefit of farmers and conservation throughout the nation. Quite
often, WRP projects are in close proximity of National Wildlife Refuges,
National Forests, State Wildlife Areas, or other public lands that in
combination, provide important and diverse wildlife habitats.
WRP has been a platform for public/private partnerships throughout the
country. For example, Ducks Unlimited has agreements with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 25 states whereby we assist with
wetland restoration to help farmers, and private landowners meet the
requirements of WRP and to fulfill the needs and desires of participating
landowners. Other examples of these types of arrangements can be found in
many states.
RECOMMENDATION: Expand the enrollment cap for WRP to accommodate
enrollment of 250,000 acres per year through the duration of the Farm Bill.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP)
No program in history has done more for broad scale conservation of habitat
on farmland while offering producers a significant and stable source of
income than the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). When CRP was
originally established, Congress authorized an enrollment of up to 45
million acres. That ceiling was later reduced to 36.4 million acres, all
of which is now enrolled, outside of a limited number of acres reserved for
the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Buffer Strips, and a 500,000
acre program passed late in the 106th Congress that affects 6 states in the
northern great plains region. Obviously, CRP has been very popular with
landowners across the country and especially in the vast heartland where
the production of commodities dominates the farm economy. With depressed
commodity prices being the recent norm, CRP has offered a welcome option to
farmers for stable income from some of their most marginal cropland. In
fact it has been a critical element for many as they manage their way
through these stressful times.
CRP provides habitat for many species of wildlife across the country, but
it has been especially important where cropland had replaced grassland.
When left undisturbed these grasslands furnish extremely desirable nesting
habitat for a host of grassland species and have allowed several species of
waterfowl to rebound to record levels following the return of precipitation
to the northern prairies in 1993. Grassland birds, one of the fastest
declining groups of birds in the country, have also responded positively to
the habitat afforded by CRP. Scientists are certain that current U.S. farm
bill conservation policy is responsible because ducks and other grassland
birds continue to do relatively poorly in Canada where CRP and other
similar measures are lacking.
Depressed commodity prices are forcing farmers to diversify and rethink the
design of their operations. Some have decided to diversify into
grassland-based agriculture and are using CRP to help make the transition.
As evidence of this, hundreds of farmers in the Dakotas have restored
formerly drained wetlands within their CRP tracts in view of plans for a
conversion to grassland-based agriculture and, in some cases, to provide
for wetland wildlife. Others are using CRP to stabilize their financial
situation and to pay off debt.
By reauthorizing CRP back to its original 45 million acres in the next Farm
Bill, farmers will again have the option to enroll their most marginal
cropland in a voluntary, incentive-based program that will help generate
stable income while reducing acres under production. At the same time, the
U.S. taxpayer will benefit from cleaner water and less dredging because CRP
helps to control excessive soil erosion into our waterways and prevents
damaging wind erosion through best management practices such as no-till
cropping. Recovering wildlife populations will be maintained on existing
tracts and additional benefits will accrue in new lands enrolled.
Increasingly, abundant wildlife is helping to diversify income sources for
farmers who are responding to strong demand for fee hunting opportunities
by operating commercial hunting businesses. As previously mentioned,
pheasant hunting in South Dakota is now an 80 million dollar a year
industry, an opportunity driven largely by the response of these birds to
an abundance of CRP. Clearly CRP will continue to help the agricultural
sector of our economy diversify and stabilize while providing many benefits
to society beyond those realized directly at the farm-gate.
Payments from CRP can help farmers refinance existing debts, help pay for
farm mortgages, and during very lean times, help cover living expenses.
CRP payments are dependable sources of income during times of drought and
poor crop production, and conversely, during periods of good production but
low market prices. Dedicating some of our most marginal farmland to
conservation through these programs provides a logical compliment to
commodity related programs such as loan deficiency payments, crop
insurance, and emergency farm support payments that stem from economic
difficulties faced by the agricultural community.
Contrary to what some people believe, CRP has not contributed significantly
to the decline of rural economy. Trends toward larger farms began early in
the 20th century and are evident even in Canada where CRP has never
existed. Slim profit margins make for larger farms. More active cropland
exists today in North Dakota, a state with an abundance of CRP, than did
prior to 1985 when CRP was first authorized. Annually fallowed cropland
has declined, leaving soil in better shape and the impact of soil erosion
much reduced. We believe that CRP contributes to the financial stability
of small operations and allows families to maintain ownership of their
land. It is a very popular program with landowners, a sure-fire testament
to its importance in today's farm towns. Simply put, enrollment and the
tremendous benefits that come from the program are now limited by the
acreage cap. In summary, investing in conservation programs like CRP
through the Farm Bill makes sound economic and business sense, as well as
providing the American public with excellent natural resource benefits.
RECOMMENDATION: Reauthorize CRP and restore the enrollment caps to the
program's original 1985-1995 level of 45 million acres.
WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was one of a set of
conservation provisions added to the amended 1985 Food Security Act of
1996. WHIP was developed to assist landowners with habitat restoration and
management activities, specifically targeting fish and wildlife, including
threatened and endangered species. Within the framework of state,
regional, and national habitat priorities, WHIP funds were allocated to
states based on plans developed by NRCS State Conservationists in
consultation with state technical committees. With the $50 million
originally authorized for WHIP in the 1996 FAIR Act, 8,455 projects were
funded which provided for 1.3 million acres of habitat. These projects
benefited a wide range of fish and wildlife species, from the economically
and culturally important species such as northern bobwhite quail and
Atlantic salmon to threatened and endangered species such as the Karner
blue butterfly and Indiana bat. The $50 million for WHIP was exhausted in
1999, but the program has been funded at $12.5 million for FY 01. While
extremely popular, WHIP turns away the majority of applicants because of a
lack of adequate funding. Mr. Chairman, your state is a good example of
this. In 1999, Oklahoma was one of the top 5 states in the country with
428 WHIP applicants. Only 74 of those were funded.
WHIP's popularity with landowners and conservation partners is based on its
targeted fish and wildlife benefits and because it addresses important
management needs on lands that are not eligible for cost-share under other
USDA conservation programs.
RECOMMENDATION: Increase WHIP funding to $100 million/year.
GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
Most grasslands in the heartland of the U.S., running from Texas to the
Canadian border, have been converted to cropland since the 1800s. Nearly
all of the tall-grass prairie has been converted to row-crop agriculture
and now produces some of the best corn and bean crops in the world. The
mid-grass and short-grass prairies, further west, are becoming increasingly
fragmented, but still provide a critical basis for our nation's livestock
industry. The ranchers who steward these lands do so mostly on their own.
Once plowing begins, these lands have traditionally supported the
production of small grains in a crop/fallow system of cultivation. More
recently, these areas are being converted increasingly to the production of
new varieties of soybeans and other crops that are more drought-tolerant.
Once broken, native prairie can only be restored to its former productivity
and use after many years of intensive management needing both technical and
financial assistance.
Remnant grasslands provide for an abundance of wildlife habitat,
particularly for several rapidly declining species of grassland nesting
birds. In North Dakota alone, over 70% of native grasslands have been
lost. These grasslands are important to waterfowl and critical to
declining songbirds and shorebirds such as Sprague's Popit, Bairds Sparrow,
and McCown's Longspur. More than 300 migratory bird species rely on the
prairies, 170 species for breeding and nesting habitat and another 130 for
feeding and resting during spring and autumn migrations. Many other
wildlife depend on the prairies, including 25 mammals, 8 reptiles, 4
amphibians, and more than 55 species of butterflies. The prairies also
support over 400 grass and forb species, many of which might be the basis
for crops or medical cures of the future. Native prairie is comprised of
hundreds of species of plants supporting a multitude of unique species.
Many of these plant species could have agronomic or economic value as new
cultivars of grain and other crops are developed by future generations.
Once plowed, this assemblage of species is nearly impossible to completely
restore.
The soils supporting most remnant grasslands are generally unproductive and
are often subject to high rates of erosion. Ranchers have expressed a
great deal of interest in obtaining assurance that these lands remain in
well-managed grassland as the basis for a vibrant ranching economy. At
the same time, ranchers too are suffering from a prolonged downturn in the
agricultural economy. In the Dakotas, several hundred ranchers have opted
to sell the right to cultivate these lands to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in an effort to secure the grassland base while generating income
for debt retirement, additional land acquisition, or other purposes. But
that program is small and limited to a relatively few ranchers. Hundreds
more wait in line to have their ranches assessed for enrollment in that
program.
The next Farm Bill should include funding for ranchers who desire to sell
permanent or 30-year easements against the cultivation of grassland. This
would provide an additional source of capital to that sector, which has
traditionally been left out of farm programs. At the same time, it would
prevent more marginal land from being converted to cropland while helping
to secure what is left of our native grasslands and their associated
wildlife.
Conversion of native grasslands for agricultural commodity production has
progressed unabated for decades. Even after the passage of "Sodbuster"
regulations in the Food Security Act of 1985, agricultural producers can
and do continue to convert native, highly-erodible-lands, subject to
securing a conservation plan that requires sufficient "residue" to remain
on converted lands each fall. For example, USDA estimates that between
1982 and 1997, over 1.4 million acres of rangeland was converted in a major
portion of the Northern Great Plains. Although most of these lands are
marginal in value for agricultural production, they are in most cases
highly valuable and necessary habitat for a large variety of wildlife as
well as the ranching industry. Long-term protection and restoration of
native grasslands will serve to not only limit the conversion of marginal
lands for development and agricultural production, it will also serve to
maintain livestock ranching traditions well into the future.
Rangeland Trends in portions of the Northern Great Plains (1,000 of Acres)
Area
1982
1987
1992
1997
Total Loss
1982-1997
West River SD
16,977.3
16,728.8
16,520.9
16,403.6
573.7
West River ND
5,282.0
5,127.8
5,134.5
5,097.9
184.1
Eastern Montana
20,948.6
20,701.6
20,605.8
20,468.9
479.7
Eastern Wyoming
10,415.7
10,365.8
10,259.0
10,245.6
170.1
Totals
53,623.6
52,924.0
52,520.2
52,216.0
1,407.6
Source: USDA Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), National Summary 1982-1997
Key components of a Grassland Reserve Program should contain the following:
· Enrollment in the program of up to 1 million acres.
· Methods of enrollment include permanent or 30-year easements, or the
maximum duration allowed by state law, similar to the Wetland Reserve
Program.
· Eligible lands include native grassland or land that is located in an
area that has been historically dominated by native grassland and has
potential to serve as habitat for animal or plant populations of
significant ecological value if the land is restored to native grassland,
as well as lands incidental to otherwise eligible lands.
· Landowners must agree to retire any cropland base and allotment history
for the land acquired under easement for the duration of the easement.
· Landowners may continue to graze the land in a manner that is consistent
with maintaining the viability of native grass species indigenous to that
locality. They may also conduct haying, mowing, or seed production, except
that such uses are not permitted until the end of the primary nesting
season for birds in the local area, or July 15.
· Easements prohibit the production of any agricultural commodity that
requires breaking of the soil surface, and any activity that disturbs the
surface of the land, such as plowing or disking.
· Provide up to 75% cost share for restoration of easement lands.
· Easement payments are made in the amount equal to
o (A) In the case of permanent easement, the fair market value of the land
less the grazing value of the land encumbered by the easement; and
o (B) In the case of a 30-year easement or an easement for the maximum
duration allowed under applicable state law, 30 percent of the fair market
value of the land less the grazing value of the land for the period that
the land is encumbered by the easement.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish a Grassland Reserve Program of 1 million acres
to help conserve native grasslands and the ranching lifestyle.
CONSERVATION IS GOOD FOR THE AGRICULTURE ECONOMY
While Farm Bill conservation provisions are conserving millions of acres of
critical wildlife and natural resource habitat, it is equally important to
highlight the programs' roles in providing an economic safety net for
thousands of small family farmers. With commodity prices falling to
historic levels, the payments associated with Farm Bill conservation such
as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP) help farmers refinance existing debts, pay for farm mortgages, and
during very lean times, cover living expenses. CRP payments are dependable
sources of income during times of drought and poor crop production, and
conversely, during periods of good production but low market prices. And
because program acreages are withdrawn from crop production, farmer
participation in these programs also helps mitigate taxpayer liabilities
for federal payments of commodity price supports, crop insurance, and
emergency farm support payments during extremely poor crop production
periods.
Some have described CRP and WRP lands as "idle lands", however, the reality
is that CRP and WRP are very much "working" lands for their production of
renewable wildlife populations, development of natural vegetation
communities, and for their conservation of soil and water resources. For
many producers, CRP allows them to manage their lands for wildlife and
develop alternative sources of income beyond farming. For example,
pheasant hunting in South Dakota is now an 80 million dollar a year
industry, thanks in large measure to CRP. Nationwide, USDA estimates that
CRP provides $2 billion annually in wildlife benefits. We have excellent
data on how CRP is responsible for sizable population increases in
waterfowl and other migratory birds. Migratory birds generate billions of
dollars of economic impact and provide enjoyment for millions of Americans
throughout the U.S.. When examining the natural resource ledger, USDA
found that, on an annual basis, CRP also provided air, soil, and water
quality benefits of $1.1 billion. In summary, investing in Farm Bill
conservation clearly makes good economic and business sense.
CONCLUSION
We are here today to pledge our support to you and this Congress as you
establish agriculture policy at the outset of the 21st century. We urge
you to continue and expand an agriculture policy approach that has proven
successful in achieving recent conservation gains along with providing
economic benefits for family farmers. Farm policy that includes wetland
and grassland protection features (i.e., Swampbuster, Sodbuster) in
combination with voluntary incentive programs such as the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and the
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) has proven to be highly effective. To add to
these successes, we also strongly endorse the establishment of a USDA
Grassland Reserve Program.
Many issues that farm policy must address deal with current and immediate
needs. Producers must be able to survive, and hopefully prosper, while
they work to provide food, fiber and shelter so important to our quality of
life. However, conservation of soil, water, wildlife and other natural
resources requires a long-term strategic view. The Subcommittee on
Conservation has the special challenge to incorporate the long-term vision
of adequate open space, an abundance of clean water and habitat for other
creatures, with the need to ensure a sound financial base for agriculture.
By supporting conservation along with the other titles of the Farm Bill,
you will be leading the effort to convince your colleagues in Congress that
a comprehensive approach to national agricultural policy is the best way to
address the expectation of farmers, ranchers, foresters and all taxpayers.
No one will refute that during the past century our populace has shifted
strongly towards urbanization. In many ways, this shift has benefited our
citizens. But, this incredible gathering of people in the cities and
suburbs is annually threatening tens of thousands of acres of our national
open land base with intensive development. Moreover, the appreciation for
land stewardship and natural resources shared by conservation groups and
agricultural producers is being lost with increasing urbanization. The
mutual desire and demonstrated need to maintain an adequate and
well-managed rural land base provides another patch of common ground and
even makes it imperative for agricultural producers and wildlife
enthusiasts to convene together as conservationists.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments as you deliberate the
role and future of conservation titles in agriculture policy. I hope we
have made a strong case that maintaining and expanding the scope of several
proven conservation programs that are integral to a successful and balanced
farm policy. The long-term health of our country and its citizens depends
upon merging agriculture and conservation together in decision-making
processes. We can lead the world in agriculture production while we
maintain and improve our environment at the same time. The road to
successfully achieving those goals starts with this subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present our view of the
importance of Farm Bill conservation programs. Please do not hesitate to
call upon us for any reason regarding these important issues. I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
----------
###
Mark Ritchie, President
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Ave. South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 U.S.A.
=====================
How to Use this Mailing List
=====================
You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
farmbillnews mailing list.
To unsubscribe, please send an email to [log in to unmask] In the body of
the message type:
unsubscribe farmbillnews
<b>To Subscribe, please send an email to [log in to unmask] In the body of
the message type:
subscribe farmbillnews</b>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]