LD-2 Disclosure Form

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page

1. Registrant Name Organization/Lobbying Firm Self Employed Individual

Oregon Farm Bureau Federation

2. Address

Address1

1320 Capitol Street, NE

Address2

Suit 200

City

Salem

State

Zip Code

97301

Country

USA

3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2)

City

State

Zip Code

Country

4a. Contact Name		b. Telephone Number	c. E-mail
Mr.	DAVID DILLON	5033991701	dave@oregonfb.org

5. Senate ID#

400263203-12

7. Client Name	Self	Check if client is a state or local government or instrumentality
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation

6. House ID#

400040000

LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.

Supported national legislation regarding GMO food labeling, specifically, S. 2609. Supported all legislation concepts that included the follwoing tenants:

Defending an efficient, science-based regulatory process - Since 1986, the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology has successfully governed how the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) work together to regulate new biotech products. In recent years, however, the process has become unpredictable and the timeline for reviewing new products has increased dramatically due to overlapping regulatory responsibilities, a lack of inter-agency coordination, the looming threat of activist lawsuits that drain agency resources and efforts to introduce socioeconomic criteria into regulatory decisions.

Improving coexistence and protecting property rights - Coexistence refers to the concurrent use of diverse cropping methods, including organic, conventional and modern biotechnology. Coexistence is most effective when it facilitates farmers ability to choose a particular cropping method, along with the associated responsibility and production practices needed to maintain crop integrity, without conflicting with property rights of other farmers. Efforts to educate farmers about effective stewardship and good neighborly communication can help to strengthen coexistence. However, some groups have advocated for establishing heavy-handed coexistence policies that would impose costly requirements for farmers of biotech crops, such as mandatory stewardship practices and the creation of indemnity funds to compensate non-biotech farmers for the unintended presence of biotech material. These policy proposals contradict the traditional principles of value-added and identity-preserved agriculture, and go beyond what is justified by science to regulate the use of biotechnology and influence markets based on commercial concerns.

Opposing mandatory labeling - FDAs longstanding policy on biotech food labeling states: FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. The worlds top credible scientific authorities-including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, the American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association-have all concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients pose no more risk than any other food. Still, there are significant efforts to require labeling of foods with biotech ingredients, regardless of scientific evidence. Each year, anti-biotechnology groups attempt to pass mandatory labeling
laws in several states through statute or referendum. Mandatory labels would mislead consumers about the safety of biotechnology, erode the credibility of FDA and discourage consumer acceptance of new, beneficial technologies. Farm Bureau has opposed mandatory labeling efforts at the federal and state levels.

Promoting harmonization of international standards - Improving global market access and reducing trade disruptions can have enormous economic benefits for U.S. agricultural exports. Reducing asynchrony in the scientific standards, timeline and data requirements that different countries use to regulate products can improve market access.

Supported efforts the House Agriculture Committee held two days of hearings this week on the challenges and potential benefits of small-scale agriculture and local food production. Hearing testimony and questions focused on the opportunities and challenges in direct marketing from the farm perspective and the benefits of incentive programs that promote fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income households.
OFB also supports concepts to seek to broaden the political base of support for farm programs.

Worked and solicited comments regarding Environmental Protection Agency Certification Rule due in January 2016. File formal comments on January 22, 2016. Under the EPA proposal, increased requirement would be imposed on state agencies implementing the program, as well as certified private applicators, commercial applicators and non-certified applicators applying pesticides under the superivision of a certified applicator.

Lobbyied and solicitied member comment on HJ 59 which provided for congressional disapproval of the WOTUS rule under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act.

Also lobbyied Senate EPW for inclusion of S. 1500, the Bipartisan Sportsman Act which would amend FIFRA and CWA by stating that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syustem permits are not required when pesticides are applied in conformance with FIFRA.

U.S. SENATE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

Lobbyied congressional delegation to suppport repeal of EPA WOTUS rule.

Supported H.J. Resolution 59 provides for congressional disapproval of the WOTUS rule under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have finalized a rule that will significantly expand the definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The final rule is even broader than the proposed rule in number of areas. This regulation expands federal authority beyond the limits approved by Congress and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court; the impact on farmers and ranchers will be devastating. Oregon's farmers and ranchers are seeking to require EPA to withdraw this regulation and propose a new rule that reflects not only the limitations imposed by both Congress and the Supreme Court but the views offered after formal consultation with states.

Also lobbyied Senate EPW for inclusion of S. 1500, the Bipartisan Sportsman Act which would amend FIFRA and CWA by stating that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syustem permits are not required when pesticides are applied in conformance with FIFRA.

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

Continued to support the Trans Pacific Partnership and urged its vote in Congress. Estimates that annual net farm income will increase by $4.4 billion, driven by an increase of direct U.S. agricultural exports of $5.3 billion per year upon full implementation of the TPP agreement as compared to a scenario in which the U.S. fails to pass the agreement while the remaining member countries proceed apace.
It is estimated that increased marketing opportunities for U.S. farmers and ranchers will add more than 40,100 jobs to the U.S. economy. Eliminating tariffs and other barriers on United States agricultural products going into TPP countries, the agreement will increase trade for a range of U.S. agricultural products, including beef, pork, fruits and nuts, vegetables, soybeans, poultry, dairy, rice, cotton and processed food products.
Failure to Lead: It is critical to remember that the TPP is a multi-lateral agreement intended to create high quality rules and market access across its 12 members. However, outside of TPP, other member countries would - and indeed are - already negotiating and implementing bilateral agreements without waiting for the United States to complete action. While legally TPP would only go into full effect if the United States ratifies the agreement, other countries will move forward with their trade capabilities regardless of whether or not the United States decides to ratify the agreement. U.S. failure to enact TPP will not see our trade situation stay the same, but will lead to declining net exports and market share in important markets
The TPP agreement is expected to increase cash receipts and net exports from Oregon by $163.2 million and $105.5 million per year respectively. It is estimated that the increased marketing opportunities for Oregons farmers and ranchers will add nearly 800 jobs to the Oregon economy. Eliminating tariffs and other trade barriers on Oregons agricultural exports to TPP-parter countries will increase trade for a range of Oregon agricultural products, including fruits and nuts, vegetables, beef and processed food and fish. Export sales make an important contribution to Oregons farm economy, which had total cash receipts of $5.2 billion in 2014.

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

Legislative concepts for FSMA at the state level as well as federal grant opportunities regarding funding and implementation.

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

On July 1, 2016 an amendment to the International Maritime Organization's Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention will go into effect requiring all shippers (importers and exporters) to certify and submit the Verified Gross Mass (VGM) - the combined weight of the cargo and the container - to the steamship line and terminal operator in advance of loading the container aboard a vessel.

This is a dramatic change from current shipping practices. Currently, the shipper is responsible to accurately report the weight of its cargo. The shipper does not own, control, or maintain the containers which are owned/leased by the carriers.

The amendment was created as a response to claims that there have been incidents of damage caused by overweight containers, although the International Maritime Organization's SOLAS committee did not reference any instance where a ship had been damaged or sunk exclusively due to overweight under reported containers. Now shippers, steamship lines, terminal operators, and governments are scrambling to create best practices and implementation guidance for this new rule.

AgTC members constitute the majority of US agriculture and forest products exporters and thus the majority of US ocean exports. We believe that unless thoughtfully considered, by individuals with intimate familiarity with the export supply chain process, this rule will create major turmoil at the marine terminals and a very significant impediment to US exports. This rule was never submitted to Congress, no committee or subcommittee of Congress ever reviewed it. It was not reviewed or approved by a Federal agency, nor published in the Federal Register. There has been no input from the shipping community.

Concerns of US agriculture and forest products exporters on the implementation of the SOLAS Container Weight Documentation Amendment are as follows (detailed on pages 5-7):

1.Causes significant competitive disadvantage to US exporters

2.Shipper knows weight of cargo. Shipper does not know container weight. The rule imposes on shipper liability to certify equipment which is owned/leased/controlled by the carrier.

3.Tare Weights printed on the back of the container typically not accurate

4.Does not account for container or weight variance

5.The unique US supply chain means that the SOLAS documentation requirements will disrupt the flow of cargo through the ports

6.No means currently exist to facilitate essential Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data

7.Cost of implementation imposes significant new costs on all participants in US export supply chain

Options recommended to protect US exporter competitiveness, while meeting the intent of the rule (detailed on pages 7-8):

1.Federal Maritime Commission and Coast Guard to convene Working Group of all stakeholders.

2.Exporter shall only be responsible for certifying and submitting the weight of the cargo it puts into the supply chain. Steamship lines shall be responsible for submitting the weight of their containers.

3.Weight variance of +/- 5% (per the UK model) to be included for cargo weight, recognizing natural changes typical for agriculture and forest products during transit.

4.A list of accepted container weights shall be published, which the shipper can add to the cargo weight for the certification required by this rule. (For example, a 20 foot dry container would be assigned a weight, a 40 foot refrigerated container would be assigned a weight, and so on, to cover all typical container sizes.)

5.The US shall not implement this rule until the top 15 trading partners, as measured by ocean container volumes, of the United States have implemented it.

6.Coast Guard shall provide a means to receive public comment, and delay enforcement until such input is collected, all stakeholders agree on best practices for VGM implementation, and the Coast Guard is satisfied that US commerce will not be detrimentally impacted.

7.Congressional inquiry into the International Maritime Organization process, the means by which the United States can be bound, and how this rule was adopted without US exporter or importer notice or input, or consideration of impact on US economy.

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

For more than a century, the President of the United States has had the power to unilaterally designate federal lands as a National Monument without the consent of Congress, local governments or affected citizens. National Monument designations, under the Antiquities Act of 1906, are meant to ensure the proper care and management of historic landmarks and other objects of historic or scientific interest. The Act also states that the monuments shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects.

In recent decades, presidents from both parties have used the power of the Act to designate hundreds of thousands of acres, and in some cases millions of acres at a time. This scale of designation goes far beyond the executive authority that had Congress originally intended. Such abuse restricts or even prohibits economic opportunity and removes decision making from the states and private citizens. These designations have affected water rights, grazing rights and access to state and private lands.

Use of the Antiquities Act for large tract designation does not provide reasonable notice to the public, and has gone well beyond Congress original intent to designate the smallest portion of land needed to protect certain objects of genuine historic and scientific interest. Because there is no requirement to determine what the impact of the designation would be on communities and the local economy, these executive actions can lead, and in fact have led, to devastating reductions in economic activity and the loss of jobs in resource-dependent communities.

While many monuments have been quite small, several presidents have established large monuments. Examples of large monuments include Katmai, established in 1918 with 1.1 million acres; Glacier Bay, created in 1925 with 1.4 million acres; most of the Alaska monuments proclaimed in 1978, the largest being Wrangell-St. Elias, with nearly 11 million acres; and Grand Staircase-Escalante, established in 1996 with 1.7 million acres. During the Bush administration, several large marine monuments were designated, namely the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, with approximately 89 million acres; the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, with 60.9 million acres; the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, with 55.6 million acres; and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, with 8.6 million acres.

During the Obama administration, several large designations have been made and the Administration is currently considering a 2.5 million acre designation of the Owyhee Canyonlands.
Since 1906, 145 national monuments have been designated for federal protection. 105 are managed by the National Park Service, 23 by the Bureau of Land Management, 10 by the USDA Forest Service, 7 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 1 by NOAA Fisheries.

OFB adamantly opposes the executive branch to discontinue designation of any national monument under the Antiquities Act until the proposal is first vetted and approved by Congress, landowners and local governments affected by these decisions.

Irrigators throughout the Deschutes basin in central Oregon are in the midst of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) lawsuit that may jeopardize the availability of water for irrigation as soon as the 2016 crop year. In 2014, the Oregon spotted frog was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Earlier this winter, despite over a decade of collaborative efforts to conserve water and preserve habitat, two environmental groups sued North Unit Irrigation District, Central Oregon Irrigation District and Tumalo Irrigation District-along with the Bureau of Reclamation-alleging that the operations of irrigation reservoirs in the upper Deschutes is harming the frog. The lawsuits may reach federal court soon and there is a real risk that a court mandated injunction could prevent irrigation districts from delivering water to farms this spring. An outcome that limits access to irrigation water would compound two years of drought and would be devastating for many farms, as well as local agriculture businesses and the workforce.

Asked public officials to support a collaborative solution to water conservation in the Deschutes basin and oppose the spotted frog lawsuits. Explained the lawsuits are undermining some of the most significant multi-stakeholder efforts to conserve water and preserve habitat in Oregon. The consensus-based and scientifically-sound efforts underway offer the best solution for improving the ecology of the Deschutes basin while protecting the viability of agriculture and the livelihoods of family farms in the region.

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

Monitoring Consumer Drone Safety Act and HR 4441 with specific regard to drones. Congressional discussion on drones seems to be steadily increasing. Also monitoring impending FAA drone regulations which continue and present challenges and benefits to the agriculture community continue.

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed.

23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client

26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client

28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization

First Name	Last Name	Suffix	Covered Official Position (if applicable)	New
Gail	Greenman
Gail	Greenman
Gail	Greenman

First Name	Last Name	Suffix	Covered Official Position (if applicable)	New
Gail	Greenman
Gail	Greenman

First Name	Last Name	Suffix	Covered Official Position (if applicable)	New
Gail	Greenman

First Name	Last Name	Suffix	Covered Official Position (if applicable)	New
Gail	Greenman

First Name	Last Name	Suffix	Covered Official Position (if applicable)	New
Gail	Greenman