PROGRESSIVE AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION

RR 2, BOX 165, MESHOPPEN, PA 18630

PH: 570-833-5776 FX: 570-833-5992

May 3, 2010

SHOULDN’T ALL DAIRY FARMERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD?

First of all, I want to make one thing very clear. I definitely believe that all dairy farmers have a God-given right to have their own opinions regarding any new dairy policy that will affect their dairy operations. However, I feel that these same dairy farmers must examine all current dairy policies that are being proposed by various groups, including the Progressive Agriculture Organization (Pro Ag) and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), if they are to be properly informed about the situation that has put their dairy farms at risk and if they want to have real choices in determining viable solutions to this dairy crisis.

Dairy farmers are well into the second full year of depressed farm milk prices with no relief in sight. Pro Ag and NFFC have long supported reforming the current federal pricing system, called "Federal Order Reform," that was voted into existence by the major dairy cooperatives in 2000, because it does not include-- and never has-- the dairy farmers’ cost to produce raw milk. For that reason, both Pro Ag and NFFC have endorsed a dairy proposal that will finally return fairness to the federal minimum pricing formula for raw milk.

This new dairy proposal that Pro Ag and NFFC are supporting is "The Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009." This proposal was first introduced by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr., (D-PA) in 2007. The Bill, often referred to as the Specter-Casey Bill, had to be re-introduced in the present Congress. The Bill still carries the name "The Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009" and now is identified as S-1645.

Without any reservations, I feel that this proposal has received considerable exposure across the United States. Nearly 2,000 dairy farmers and agri-businessmen have had this Dairy Bill explained to them by Pro Ag at several different public meetings. At every one of these meetings, a vote was taken regarding "The Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009." The results of the votes taken at each of the meetings indicated near unanimous support for S-1645.

NFFC has sponsored several press teleconferences regarding this Dairy Bill. Additionally, several dairy farmers have been interviewed by various members of the press, including television and radio, and these dairy farmers have strongly supported this Bill. Many dairy farmers have also written editorial letters in support of S-1645. In many instances, individual dairy farmers in different regions of the country have personally promoted S-1645 to their elected officials and to their dairy cooperatives and farm organizations.

Furthermore, many members of Congress have been made aware of S-1645.

Yet, in spite of all of this exposure, "The Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009" was not able to get by the "Palace Guard" including at the recent US House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture hearing held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on April 20^th.

The obvious theme of this hearing became apparent to me very quickly: "Let’s get rid of the Dairy Price Support Program and force some sort of insurance program on dairy farmers." There was nothing mentioned about dairy farmers’ receiving a fair price to cover their cost of production.

Also mentioned by some of the presenters was, "Let’s produce more milk protein concentrate in the United States."

Even more obvious was the fact that no one testified in favor of a cost of production formula for dairy farmers or a realistic supply management program. Also, no one from the northern part of the state was among those who testified.

Before we get accused of "crying the blues" because we were not allowed to testify at the hearing, let’s summarize a few things. I personally inquired about testifying at the hearing as soon as word started circulating around the milk shed regarding the hearing. Over three weeks before the hearing, I made 6 to 8 calls to the appropriate personnel about having either myself or someone else testify regarding the need for a new pricing formula based on the dairy farmers’ cost of production plus a workable and reasonable supply management program. Finally, exactly one day before the hearing, I received a call saying that it was "too late" to add any more presenters. This call came three weeks after our initial inquiry! Unbelievable!

To add insult to injury, one Congressman at the hearing had previously told me, "I cannot understand why anyone would be against the Specter-Casey Bill."

Another Congressman at the hearing had told me "I like the Specter-Casey Bill, but I have to get Chairman (Collin) Peterson on board."

One of the Congressmen had told me a few months ago, "You people who are supporting the Specter-Casey Bill deserve a hearing on the Bill."

So the question is why was there not a broader scope of testimony presented at the Harrisburg Ag Committee hearing? Why was the hearing so short?

The President of the Pennsylvania Farmers Union (PFU) told me the Sunday before the hearing that his organization was never informed about the hearing.

I just do not believe that the majority of dairy farmers want more insurance programs crammed down their throats. It appears to be obvious that some insurance agencies are anticipating some real business developing if the proposed insurance schemes become reality.

This is America and everyone who testified at the hearing has the right to his opinion, but the travesty of justice is that the dairy farmers and the organizations who support cost of production for dairy farmers were not allowed to testify in the public forum.

In spite of the fact that we were excluded, we did attend the hearing to personally submit our testimony to the staff members of the House Agriculture Committee along with testimony submitted by dairy farmer Gerald Carlin from Meshoppen, Pennsylvania. However, sadly, the general public will never know about our testimony.

On behalf of all the dairy farmers and their support businesses and the rural communities who desperately need a reform of the federal raw milk pricing formula that includes the dairy farmers’ cost of production, I vehemently protest the Harrisburg dairy hearing. It is our position that the hearing should have been longer to allow adequate time for other dairy farmers and organizations to express their views about the plight of the dairy farmers.

Certainly a hearing of such magnitude that was billed as being of such critical importance for the future of all of our dairy farmers is never in the best interest of all dairy farmers if conducted in such a controlled and exclusive manner.

Pro Ag can be reached at 570-833-5776 or by e-mail at