The Farm Bill

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,009
Likes
552
Points
413
[h=1]Farm Bill Stalls in House – Pheaseants Forever Efforts Turn to Senate[/h] Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 24, 2018 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson
Pheasants-forever-600x380.jpg
“The Habitat Organization” stands committed to helping shape a strong conservation title in the 2018 Farm BillU.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- On Friday May 18, the U.S. House of Representatives hit a major hurdle when its version of the 2018 Farm Bill, known officially as the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), failed by a margin of 198/213.
“Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever members appreciate the efforts of Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (TX) and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (MN) to produce a House Farm Bill,” said Howard K. Vincent, President and CEO of the conservation organizations. “We want to thank both parties’ willingness to work with us, and to provide us a seat at the table. We saw H.R. 2 as a strong starting point and we remain committed to finalizing the Farm Bill before the current bill expires in September 2018.”
Getting this bill to the House floor wasn’t the only challenge. Along the way, “The Habitat Organization” asked members and partners to voice opposition to a last-minute amendment by Congressman Mike Rogers (AL) that would have capped the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) at 24 million acres. Our voices were heard. Countless calls were made, emails sent and meetings conducted last week by PF/QF members, employees and partners who were deeply troubled by this amendment. As a result, Rogers withdrew his amendment on the House floor. Thank you to everyone who made a call or otherwise took action. You impacted the outcome!
“The Farm Bill is not dead. In fact, the House may try to bring it to the floor again in June. In the meantime, our attention turns to the Senate,” said Dave Nomsen, Vice President of Governmental Affairs for Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever. “It is now the Senate’s turn to develop their version of a Farm Bill that will work for all, including those with a passion for conservation. As in the House, our challenge is to grow CRP beyond the current limitations of the 24-million-acre cap.”
That means the action will now happen in the Senate Agriculture Committee, which will consider its version of the Farm Bill in early- to mid-June. “We are encouraged that Senators John Thune (SD) and Amy Klobuchar (MN) have offered bipartisan marker bill S. 909, which will expand and improve CRP,” said Nomsen.
S. 909 would expand and improve CRP by: reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2023; increasing the annual acreage cap to 30 million acres; revising the formula for determining state target acreage enrollments; and modifying policies regarding grazing and harvesting cover on CRP lands.
Another important bill is S. 2243, the Voluntary Public Access Improvement Act of 2017 introduced by Senators Steve Daines (MT) and Michael Bennet (CO) that would provide funding for VPA-HIP (Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program), which is essential for providing walk-in access in many of the pheasant and quail states. There are several other key programs and components of the conservation title that benefit wildlife, along with reducing soil erosion and improving water quality. PF/QF has outlined those items in our Farm Bill priorities document that can be found here.
“As the Senate conversation heats up in June, we’re asking our members, partners and supporters to stay engaged with our website and social media channels,” added Nomsen. “The future of high-quality wildlife habitat and hunter access may very well rest upon the fingertips and voices of an engaged army of bird hunting conservationists. Stay tuned.”
 


gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
S. 909 would expand and improve CRP by: reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2023; increasing the annual acreage cap to 30 million acres; revising the formula for determining state target acreage enrollments; and modifying policies regarding grazing and harvesting cover on CRP lands.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/909/text


From what I can tell, they are pushing to restrict haying or grazing from what has historically occurred.

What most people do not realize is that in ND the different types of contracts CRP was enrolled under,many of the acres did not allow ANY haying or grazing. CRP enrolled under a CP 23 designation was never allowed to be hayed or grazed.

The simple fact that most do not realize here in ND even under drought designations and emergency haying and grazing designations, less than half of CRP acres were impacted by grazing or haying.

So one needs to know the Paul Harvey Rest of the Story in what contracts even allow grazing to occur currently under new CRP provisions.

PF has had a long standing history of working against haying or grazing of CRP.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/CRP.pdf

The simple fact is if sportsmen want CRP they need to rein in these "sportsmen" orgs that contributed to why CRP acres disappeared which is in part the lawsuits they filed to restrict managed or CFU designations of haying or grazing on CRP.

Those in need of hay or grazing lands during drought situations are not very receptive to willdlife orgs filing law suits when they already have over half of the acres in a CRP program not able to be hayed or grazed or required to be left.
 
Last edited:

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,777
Likes
112
Points
258
CRP cap should be raised. There is demand for more acres. NRCS wont even accept applications at this point because its impossible to get in.

I agree, that CRP shouldnt be idled and thats a huge sticking point with landowners. It can be done in a way which benefits all wildlife, natural resources as well.

Going on a limb here, might want to preemptively move this one to dumpster fire......
 
Last edited:

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
CRP cap should be raised. There is demand for more acres. NRCS wont even accept applications at this point because its impossible to get in.

I agree, that CRP shouldnt be idled and thats a huge sticking point with landowners. It can be done in a way which benefits all wildlife, natural resources as well.

Going on a limb here, might want to preemptively move this one to dumpster fire......

If people simply debate the CRP issue without personal BS why would it be necessary? How about we give it a try this go?
 

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,476
Likes
1,485
Points
553
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
Those in need of hay or grazing lands during drought situations are not very receptive to willdlife orgs filing law suits when they already have over half of the acres in a CRP program not able to be hayed or grazed or required to be left.

In general, one tends to only file lawsuits when they think the law, or is this case, the terms of the contract, are on their side.

Farmers and ranchers, much like myself, can't sign a contract and then wish to hay CRP lands unless it's in the terms of the CRP contract. Are you saying PF and other groups are suing to change existing contracts?

Because if so, I won't stand behind their actions. That's horse-crap behavior, by anyone. But if PF and others are suing because farmers and ranchers are trying to do something not allowed by their CRP contracts, I surely can't blame them for not wanting to turn a blind eye to that. They are "pheasant" oriented, after all and early cutting of CRP would be very detrimental to their survival.
 


gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
It has been shown that managed rotational haying and grazing of CRP does benefit wildlife yet orgs like PF seem to be wanting to limit the ability to grant CFU designations that follow these rotational managed grazing guidelines.

So how do we change PF agendas they are pushing in the Farm Bills?

- - - Updated - - -

In general, one tends to only file lawsuits when they think the law, or is this case, the terms of the contract, are on their side.

Farmers and ranchers, much like myself, can't sign a contract and then wish to hay CRP lands unless it's in the terms of the CRP contract. Are you saying PF and other groups are suing to change existing contracts?

Because if so, I won't stand behind their actions. That's horse-crap behavior, by anyone. But if PF and others are suing because farmers and ranchers are trying to do something not allowed by their CRP contracts, I surely can't blame them for not wanting to turn a blind eye to that. They are "pheasant" oriented, after all and early cutting of CRP would be very detrimental to their survival.

The NWF did file a lawsuit to change the terms of managed haying and grazing on these CRP lands. I have shared links to this action several times before. The managed rotational haying and grazing terms were changed from once every three years to once every 5 years and in some cases once every 10 years or in extreme cases not at all.

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/353646-.pdf

The "settlement" reached as a result of this lawsuit was addressed in the 2014 Farm bill absolving states of compliance with the settlement terms however producers still must comply under ongoing contracts.

The "settlement" reached as a result of this lawsuit was addressed in the 2014 Farm bill absolving states of

CRP contracts also allow CFU (critical feed use" designations during drought years. Other lawsuits were aimed at changing the stipulations and abilities of the govt to implement that option by claiming NEPA studies all ready established were not extensive enough or followed to NWFs satisfaction and additional ones needed to be preformed. .

http://www.fccnn.com/news/1354069-conflict-over-conservation

Orgs like Delta Waterfowl have been more proactive in working WITH NRCS and farm orgs to find solutions outside the courts.

- - - Updated - - -

In general, one tends to only file lawsuits when they think the law, or is this case, the terms of the contract, are on their side.

That used to be the case but with the creation of the Equal Access to Justice Act orgs like NWF and Center for Bilogical Diversity and many others have found that the tax payers pay for lawsuits meant to implement their agendas.

http://www.freerangereport.com/inde...-is-an-open-door-to-environmentalist-tyranny/

Another opption

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jleg
 
Last edited:

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,009
Likes
552
Points
413
The current 2018 Farm Bill is being dubbed the Agricultural and Nutrition Act. It failed but they'll get it amended to smooze everyone. Many groups, agencies, orgs are excited about all the money that usually gets handed out. I'm very disappointed with the Republican Party. They actually are increasing the give away.

ND Game and Fish is an affiliate of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. They have lobbyists getting in on the feeding frenzy lobbying for more of your tax dollar. Below is their summary of events before the farm bill failed:

https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/9615/2363/6419/The_AFWA_Strategist_Spring-2018.pdf

The AFWA Strategist
The 2018 Farm Bill Is Here! – If everything goes as planned then as you read this the members of the House of Representatives, their staff, and the House Committee on Agriculture are busy preparing and reviewing amendments to its 2018 Farm Bill, which was expected to be introduced on April 12. A full committee mark-up of the bill is expected to begin the week of April 16, and floor time for passage of the bill is expected to occur in May.

Hearing in the House of Representatives for Two AFWA Legislative Priorities-
On February 15, the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on five bills, two of which were the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (HR 4647) and the Modernizing the Pittman Robertson Fund for Tomorrow’s Needs Act of 2017 (HR 2591). These are two of AFWA’s highest legislative priorities. Testifying on both bills was Mr. Bob Ziehmer, Senior Director of Conservation for Bass Pro Shops. We continue to garner additional cosponsor support for both; HR 2591 has 27 cosponsors and HR 4647 has 45.


FY2018 Appropriations Omnibus Includes Great Accomplishments
Congress enacted a bipartisan omnibus appropriations bill to fund the federal government through FY2018. It is the result of a tremendous amount of work by our community and others to advance several key legislative and funding priorities. Thank you to all of our partners for helping to enact these great provisions. Here are a few highlights of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.

• $1.595 billion for the USFWS, which is $75 million more than the FY17 enacted level, with $53 million to address the maintenance backlog at wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries.

• $425 million for the LWCF, which is $25 million more than enacted for FY17.

• $40 million for the NAWCA, which is $1.85 million more than enacted for FY17.

• $1 million increase for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants in the FY18 omnibus.

• $5.93 billion for the USFS, a $360 million (6.5%) increase over the FY17 enacted level.

• $1.148 billion for the USGS, which is $63 million more than the FY17 enacted level.

• $5.9 billion for NOAA, a $234 million increase - the majority for the National Weather Service, but some increases for NOAA Fisheries Programs such as monitoring.

• $3.2 billion for the NPS, a $255 million increase.

• $874 million for USDA Conservation Operations, a $9.6 million increase.

• A comprehensive wildfire funding fix and bipartisan forest management language.

• Permanent reauthorization of the Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation Act.

• Support for increasing access to public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.

• No Farm Bill Title II reductions in conservation program spending (first time in a decade).

• Establishment of the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation at USDA.

• Significant limitations by Congress on reorganization proposals at DOI and EPA.

How do government agencies lobby and get limitations placed on Congress so that Congress cannot reorganize (throttle)their sister organizations? This is one of those tail wagging the dog.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
11). Haying and Grazing Limits: Unless and until FSA undertakes and completes one ormore additiotal NEPA analyses identified in paragraph 2 below, managed haying and grazing oflands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program wil be allowed under the terms set forthbelow in the nineteen states, or parts of such states, specified below on any new CRP contractsentered into after the date of this agreement. For this purose, "new contracts" include reenrollmentbut shall not include an extension of an existing contract in which managed hayingand grazing has been approved prior to the date this Agreement is signed by all paries.

2) Optional NEP A Analysis: The scope of any additional NEP A analysis referred to inparagraph 1 on proposed changes in PNS restrictions or haying and grazing frequencies may beregional or more local, such as state-wide, county-wide, or multi-state or multi-county. SuchNEP A analysis undertaken pursuant to this Settlement Agreement wil include the impact ofmanaged haying and grazing on:A) CRP plant stand vigor and diversity;B) habitat of the principal grassland bird and other wildlife species;C) wildlife, water, 'erosion, air quality, and socio-economic factors.In addition, such analysis will consider a managed haying and grazing alternativethat seeks to optimize the wildlife benefits of that activity, consistent with meeting soilCase 2:04-cv-02169-TSZ Document 57 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 5 of 10. .conservàtion and water quality objectives of the CRP. FSA agrees to solicit the views of theu.s. Fish and Wildlife Service arid the Natural Resources Conservation Service on suchalternative.).

B) Managed haying will be limited to no more than once every 1 0 years in thefollowing states: Washington (east of the Cascade Mountain Range), Oregon (east of theCascade Mountain Range), Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, California, Coloradoand Nevada. Managed haying may be permitted on 50 percent of each field or contiguousfields, once in five years


The FSA was following existing requirements, the NWF sued to force ADDITIONAL stipulations to be followed. These changes as you can see were to be focused PRIMARILY to "optimize" wildlife benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

How do government agencies lobby and get limitations placed on Congress so that Congress cannot reorganize (throttle)their sister organizations? This is one of those tail wagging the dog.


https://pacificlegal.org/plf-to-supr...ver-gave-them/
 
Last edited:

wstnodak

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Posts
221
Likes
16
Points
125
If people simply debate the CRP issue without personal BS why would it be necessary? How about we give it a try this go?

It will never work gabe with you in the conversation because you only see one side of the fence. I agree with ndlongshot....send it to the dumpster fire to die vollmer.
 


Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,009
Likes
552
Points
413
Dumpster Fire?????

These are real numbers for agency programs that our government is spending. Most people are interested, unless they made the cut for Jay Leno's jaywalking program.

ndlongshot said,
CRP cap should be raised. There is demand for more acres.
NRCS wont even accept applications at this point because its impossible to get in.

I agree, that CRP shouldnt be idled and thats a huge sticking point with landowners. It can be done in a way which benefits all wildlife, natural resources as well.

Going on a limb here, might want to preemptively move this one to dumpster fire...…

Who is demanding that?
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
If you take the taxpayer dollar expect tax payer input.
Those tax payer inputs should be through their elected representatives should they not?

Non profit orgs such as PF are not elected by tax payers. In my opinion any conservative that believes in limited govt as our Founders intended should be concerned with these federal agencies and their surrogates (tail) wagging the dog (Congress) when they are trying to EXPAND govt

An interesting article outlining why there is a problem with these Federal agencies.

https://pacificlegal.org/plf-to-supr...ver-gave-them/

- - - Updated - - -

MAY 30, 2018
PLF to Supreme Court: courts shouldn’t look the other way when federal agencies seize power Congress never gave them

BY JONATHAN WOODATTORNEY

The fundamental principles of our constitution are that government power must be divided up, rather than concentrated, and those who exercise it must be accountable to the people. That’s why the founding fathers divided power between the federal and state governments and further distributed federal power among three independent branches. They saw all too clearly that the concentration of too much power in too few hands is the greatest threat to individual liberty.

giphy.gif

We’ve strayed a long way from that ideal. Today, countless federal agencies have consolidated legislative, executive, and judicial powers and are not accountable to the people. Bureaucrats, and not our elected representatives in Congress, make most of the laws that govern us. They have a free hand to enforce the laws they write and can even change those laws through creative interpretation. And they largely do this outside of the courts, relying instead on administrative law judges that agencies themselves select.
The writers of the Constitution would have thought this development impossible. They assumed each branch of government would jealously guard its power from encroachment by any other branch. Instead, Congress and the courts have willingly ceded their responsibilities to federal agencies.
The chief culprit undermining the Constitution’s separation of powers is Chevron deference, a doctrine invented by the courts to avoid scrutinizing agency decisions. According to it, courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute unless the court finds it patently unreasonable (which they are wont to do). When Chevron deference applies, agencies win nearly 80% of cases, compared to 38% when courts don’t put a thumb on the scale in the government’s favor.
Chevron deference is doubly harmful: it discourages courts from properly scrutinizing agency actions and makes it harder for Congress to limit their power in the first place. If the meaning of a statute is principally determined by the bureaucrat rather than a neutral judge, it’s a pretty safe bet that she’ll maximize her power and minimize restraints regardless of what Congress actually wanted.
This week, PLF filed a petition in the Supreme Court urging it to push back against the latest expansion of this dangerous deference doctrine. According to the Ninth Circuit, courts should defer whenever an agency claims some power unless Congress has expressly forbidden it. In other words, agencies are no longer limited to the power Congress chooses to give them but can freely assert any power not expressly negated in a statute.

Sea-otter-morro-bay_13.jpg
Photo courtesy of Michael L. BairdCalifornia Sea Urchin Commission v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerns the establishment of an otter population in Southern California. In the 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service feared that the species’ limited range made it vulnerable to extinction from a single catastrophe, like an oil spill. So it asked Congress for permission to create a new population to protect against this risk. Concerned about impacts to the surrounding fishery and the fishermen who depend on it, Congress granted the authority but imposed several mandatory strings to minimize those impacts. For example, it forbade the agency from criminally prosecuting anyone who accidentally got too near an otter in the fishery, a key protection allowing fishermen to continue their work.
Although the new population initially struggled, today, is is healthy and growing. The U.S. Geological Survey, which is responsible for monitoring the otter’s status, credits the Southern California population’s impressive growth rate with pushing the species over its recovery goal for the first time.
‘The sea otters at San Nicolas Island continue to thrive, and some may eventually emigrate to and colonize other Channel Islands in southern California[.]” – USGS biologist Brian Hatfield.

Even as one federal agency celebrates this population’s role in recovering the species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently declared it a failure to justify ignoring the strings Congress imposed on the population’s creation. According to the agency, it can have it’s cake and eat it too: a healthy and growing otter population has been established in Southern California but none of the conditions that Congress imposed on its creation apply any longer. So much for the compromise struck by Congress!
The Ninth Circuit upheld this patently unfair result, even as it conceded that nothing in the statute could be read to authorize the Service to ignore the mandatory requirements Congress imposed. According to the Ninth Circuit, the statute “does not speak to the issue of termination at all.” Because “the statute is silent,” the Ninth Circuit concluded, it must defer to the agency on whether it has this power.
This reasoning turns administrative law on its head. If administrative agencies can constitutionally exercise any government power, they must derive it from an express grant from Congress. They can’t seize it based on Congress’ mere failure to anticipate the agency’s actions and preemptively object. Every other court to consider the question has correctly held that agency power must have some basis in a statute; if a statute is silent, that means Congress has not given the agency power.
The Supreme Court should use this case to begin the work of limiting the damage of Chevron deference. This case demonstrates how difficult it would be for Congress to limit agency power under the Ninth Circuit’s theory. In allowing the Service to establish the otter population, Congress was clear about the conditions imposed. According to the statute, the Service “must” issue a regulation that “shall include” the mandatory fishery protections and, for good measure, the Service “shall implement” those protections. If that’s not enough to foreclose the agency’s power, it’s hard to see how Congress could effectively hem the agency in.
Too much power has been concentrated in federal agencies for too long. It’s time for the Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution and give power back to Congress where it belongs.


Note the court listed in this article.......coincidentally it is the same court the NWF sued to stop haying and grazing of CRP in as well.

An interesting article outlining why there is a problem with these Federal agencies.

https://dspace.library.colostate.ed...6/SPEC_WLJ_v87_n40.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

USDA’s efforts to lessen highfeed prices met with a roadblocklast week in the form of a temporaryrestraining order (TRO)granted by the federal 9th CircuitCourt of Appeals. A coalition ofconservation groups led by theNational Wildlife Federation(NWF) filed suit against USDA andthe Farm Service Agency (FSA) tohalt the opening of ConservationReserve Program (CRP) acreage tohaying and grazing this year afterthe primary nesting season ends
 


Retired Educator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
3,226
Likes
183
Points
273
Location
North Dakota
I'm no expert but if I remember correctly, the CRP program was designed as a way to take marginal land out of production to lessen the supply of some grains. That would then, theoretically, increase the price of wheat (using ND as an example). Increasing the price of wheat would then lessen the need for price support by the federal government.

I don't think CRP was ever intended to provide hay, cover for wildlife, etc. But, surprise, surprise, CRP turned out to be ideal habitat for wildlife. Plus the cash flow of CRP was pretty good, many times paying more than what a farmer could get for cash-rent.. For a few farmers it provided a pretty good retirement. 60 years old, crop prices are low, government will pay me more to plant grass than I can get by renting it out to another farmer. Hell of a good retirement if it worked for some of them.

Then we get some dry years and cattlemen see all that grass just growing, doing nothing other than providing some cover for wildlife. why can't we use it for hay? Then when the contracts are expiring some commodity prices are much higher so it makes more sense to plant a crop than grass. Pheasant population as well as deer drops and it's the farmers fault. All the farmer did from the beginning was try to make a profit, just like all businessmen.

Perhaps if the federal government worked on just a farm bill that dealt with farm issues we would get more done. Too often, what starts out as something worthwhile ends up with so many riders attached no one can even identify the original purpose of the bill.

Too many conservation groups start as a member driven organization, funded by member dues. Then they started going after government dollars. Case in point for me - DU, I was a member of DU for many years. Then they decided to have a initiated measure in ND to use some oil tax dollars. Widely defeated as it should have been in my mind. Since that time, I, a long time former member, have not received one call, letter, or any form or contact asking me as a member to support their programs. - That doesn't bother me but what happened to DU's original fundraising being member driven?

Now I've begun to ramble but the point is, let's keep in mind why we support conservations groups. For me it's not to collect more of my tax dollars.
 

NDSportsman

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Posts
3,248
Likes
386
Points
313
Location
East Central ND
The problem with anything that starts out as a good idea ends up with both sides trying to screw the system. CRP was a good idea to idle highly erodible lands and reduce excess grain supplies. Then landowners started putting in all lands whether highly erodible or not, then they wanted to hay or graze it every year, etc. While the other side wanted to mettle with it for opposite reasons and took it to the extreme the other way. Pretty much like everything else in life when people are involved.

That said I'd rather my tax dollars subsidize CRP then ethanol.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 166
  • This month: 136
  • This month: 121
  • This month: 110
  • This month: 105
  • This month: 87
  • This month: 84
  • This month: 79
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 76
Top Bottom