On the recordJune 20, 2013
I stand in strong opposition to this amendment. One particular troubling issue is the predefinition of ``actively engaged in farming.'' My good colleague should know that this will alter, fundamentally, the normal operations on a farm. Take two quick examples, a brother and a sister. The sister runs the tractors, plants the crops, harvests the crops; the brother, on the other hand, does all the bookkeeping, files tax returns, works with FSA, arranges the loans at the bank. He would no longer be actively engaged in farming. That makes no sense whatsoever. The broader spread one, though, is the generational shift in farming operations. As parents and grandparents age, they take less of a physical role in farming operations and hand that off to the younger generation--the folks that my good colleague was speaking to. This redefinition would say that as they age out and quit doing the actual physical labor, and yet their wisdom and knowledge and vast experience has added to the success of those farming operations, they would no longer be considered actively engaged in farming and would be excluded from the program itself. This is wrongheaded. It adds additional regulatory burdens on family farms across this country in an unnecessary manner and doesn't get to what my good colleague is trying to get to. I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote ``no'' on the Fortenberry amendment.
