The National Grange recently wrote to Congress with concerns about H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom
Preservation Act, currently being debated by the Energy and Commerce Telecom Subcommittee. The bill arbitrarily tries to define the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities of various participants and stakeholders who already have or may already provide high-speed access to the Internet. The National Grange believes that deployment and consistent access to broadband for all Americans, especially rural Americans, is a more pressing policy objective.

The National Grange believes that broadband Internet regulatory proposals such as H.R. 5353, which are based on the unproven assumptions of the social and economic value of preemptive “network neutrality” principles, are grossly premature. Without universal access to broadband, the perspectives, observations, and experiences that rural consumers eventually will have with this technology will be left out of the debate. Section 2 of the legislation, which directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct national broadband summits to solicit input from various public and stakeholder groups to “…access competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice related to broadband internet access services”, is notable for its complete exclusion of specific references to solicit views from agriculture and rural organizations that represent farmers, rural small businesses, and residents in rural communities that are underserved by broadband connections.

In addition, H.R. 5353 shows further insensitivity to the plight of underserved rural communities when it directs the FCC to “…seek and utilize broadband technology to encourage input from and communication with the people of the United States through the Internet in a manner that will maximize the ability of such people to participate in such proceedings.”

The National Grange believes that broadband services, consumer protection and consumer choice should be available to urban, suburban, and rural consumers. To instigate a true national dialogue on defining the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities of all the various participants and stakeholders who will utilize the Internet in the decades to come, the first national priority must be to deploy and provide consistent access to broadband for all Americans, especially those living in rural areas of the country.

The National Grange Legislative Director Leroy Watson testified before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce opposing any government plans to develop an animal disease research facility including live strains of virulent diseases on the U. S. Mainland. Currently, research on virulent Foreign Animal Diseases (FADs) including live strains of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) are performed at Plumb Island Animal Disease Center, located on an isolated island off the United States eastern shoreline away from existing concentrations of commercial livestock.

“We believe that the economic risks of a potential outbreak of FMD to family farmers and ranchers across the nation with commercial livestock operations will far outweigh the advantages the Government has put forth to justify their proposals to bring this critical and sensitive research back to the mainland and away from the isolated island research facility where it has been successfully conducted for more than fifty years,” Watson stated. While there are many possible scenarios for the outbreak of animal diseases that would pose a significant economic risk to family farmers and ranchers as well as to their surrounding rural communities and their natural environments, few come close to the nightmare of an outbreak of FMD which would dramatically impact many aspects of American life.

There is no known cure for FMD once it has been contracted. Once the disease was loose on the mainland U.S., it could require mass slaughter and disposal of potentially tens of millions of individual carcasses of domestic and wild animals to control the outbreak. It would undoubtedly disrupt the domestic and international sale of meat and meat products throughout the nation for months or even years. “We believe the ancillary costs to general commerce, outdoor recreation, and impacts on future investments in the livestock sector by family farmers and ranchers would exceed the conservative USDA estimate of $60 billion in direct costs by several fold,” Watson stated.

To illustrate his concerns, Watson told Sub-committee members about recent Great Britain experiences where two outbreaks of FMD have been attributed to release from bio-research facilities working with FMD. A 2001 outbreak caused at least $16 billion in damages, devastated the rural economy, and nearly caused the government to fall. “The experiences in Great Britain lead us to conclude that conducting federal research on dangerous animal diseases on the U.S. mainland is a risk we do not have to take,” Watson said.

Even if an outbreak never occurs, the National Grange is concerned that a mainland facility would become an inviting target for espionage and terrorist or criminal attacks aimed at breaching the physical and procedural barrier built into the facility and getting these pathogens out of the laboratory to eventually be released into the environment. “Our concern is that a facility located on the mainland would attract an extremely broad universe of potential terrorist or criminal organizations to use an attack on the facility to advance their goals,” Watson stated.

The National Grange believes that geographic isolation at the Plum Island Research facility remains a prudent, cost effective means of adding additional security to the facility and the vicinity. Watson concluded, “National Grange strongly believes that the selection process for a research facility of this nature has under appreciated the need for geographic isolation of a facility like this as a prudent, reasonable, and cost effective security measure that will assure our nation a world class bio and agro research facility and assure that this facility will not pose accidental or incidental risk to rural communities in which potentially tens of thousands of family farmers and ranchers live.”

Our proud nation was built on the bedrock of farming. In fact, it’s tough to open a history book without finding a forefather whose roots are not connected to the soil.

For more than 140 years, the National Grange has represented the interests of the men and women of the country’s breadbasket who have fed our citizens and literally provided the fuel for the nation’s economic engine. The Grange was instrumental in securing rural free delivery mail, as well as rural electrification, rural telephone service, and the ‘farm-to-market” transportation infrastructure that is the envy of the world. But even with all these successes, the question now becomes, will farming remain the backbone of our country?

Most Americans below the age of 50 are two, going on three generations removed from the farm. There is a growing disconnect between producers and end consumers. Today’s customers demand convenience, safety, affordability, clean energy, and even specialized production practices from our farms, and they are willing to look overseas if necessary to get these features.

While consumers may still long for the iconic notion of the American farmer, this tug on their heart strings is no match for the tug on their purse strings, their social conscience, and their desire to reduce what President Bush has called our “...addiction to oil”.

That is why U.S. producers have worked harder and smarter in recent years to gain an edge on their global competitors to meet the needs of their customers. This unrelenting drive for efficiency and efficacy has led to new seed varieties, better equipment, environmental improvements, and more sophisticated delivery mechanisms. But there is still one critical area where the U.S. farmer is trailing the competition: broadband access.

A series of recent studies show rural America is being left behind in high-speed Internet access—an essential tool for all modern-day business men and women. This situation is making it more difficult to recruit some of the best and the brightest of the younger generation, including many of our own children who were raised on farms, to take on the challenges of production agriculture as a fulfilling and lifelong career. The time when young farmers would sacrifice lifestyle amenities in exchange for a life on the farm is fast drawing to a close. Today’s young farmers are “MTV farmers”, and they expect access to all of the basic infrastructure that the rest of our society enjoys such as education, health care, public safety and most importantly advanced telecommunications.

The problem is so dire in farm country that Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer made this issue a centerpiece for one of his first policy speeches.

“I believe now our challenge is finding the best strategy for making sure that broadband reaches deeply into our rural areas as does the telephone, electric service of today,” he said. “Otherwise, the great economic opportunities and the growth that the new merging of energy and agriculture is providing won’t be fully realized.”

Unfortunately, bringing broadband to all corners of our country is not an easy chore. It will take much more than speeches and good intentions to accomplish.

Broadband deployment must be done on a communityby-community basis; there is no one-size-fits-all solution or mandate. The most effective federal programs will be those that support the needs of each community with grants and loans for infrastructure, research, and education.

Fortunately, there is a movement in Washington, D.C. to kick-start such programs, and best of all, these programs could help kick-start our ailing economy. For farm country, this movement is coming none too soon. More than half of all farmers in the U.S. today are over the age of 55. A startling 35 percent of all farmers are over the age of 65. We need the support that a national policy of ubiquitous broadband deployment can provide in order to attract the next generation of family farmers and ranchers who will faithfully nurture and sustain our nation’s productive natural resources and meet the high expectations of U.S. consumers for quality, affordability, safety, and social conscience in our agricultural production.

Right now, the process is at a crossroads, and the decisions made by our elected officials will determine whether that path leads to prosperity and ensures that America’s farming heritage will continue for centuries to come.

As I’m sure our forefathers would agree, the best way to honor our past is by investing in our future.

The 2008 Connecticut General Assembly session is now history. Working closely with other organizations, the Connecticut State Grange was able to get several important bills passed.

Our major accomplishment was passage of the Face of Connecticut bill. This bill creates a fund for local and regional open space programs, farmland conservation and stewardship, affordable housing, revitalization of urban parks, historic preservation, and clean up of contaminated properties. It encourages both the preservation of Connecticut’s rural lands and the redevelopment of their decaying industrial areas, thus reducing the demand for industrial sprawl. At first glance, these programs appear
to be quite diverse, but they all contribute to preserving the heritage and the quality of life in Connecticut. The Face of Connecticut bill provides for a parallel program to the State’s existing farmland preservation program, which will concentrate on smaller farms that are important locally. While there are no funds to start up this new program, the authorization is in place, an important first step in getting any new program up and running.

Another important bill was passed to help the dairy farmers by promoting the use of milk and milk products. Like the Face of Connecticut bill, no money was appropriated for this milk promotion, but we at least have the legislation in place when the funds are available.

The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) announced the launch of its “Ag Tag” spring kick-off campaign with the goal to have 1500 plates reserved by August. If the target goal is made, the agriculture specialty license plate will take its place alongside sixteen other plates currently offered by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV). Proceeds from the plates will go to the Massachusetts Agriculture Trust Fund in support of innovative programs to further the sustainability and vibrancy of the agricultural community. The “Ag Tag” recently received a mini make-over that features the new tagline “Go Locally Grown!” The change was made to better capture the exponential interest in buy local initiatives throughout the state. MDAR is currently updating its brochures and website information and is planning an aggressive campaign this summer to work with commodity groups and local farmers’ markets to promote the plate. “The Ag Tag is a moving bill board seen by thousands of drivers every day. It’s an excellent way to positively brand the Massachusetts agricultural community,” said Commissioner Doug Petersen.

Legislation has been introduced in the Ohio General Assembly that would make changes to the law governing Agricultural Aecurity Areas (ASAs). The bill emphasizes the voluntary nature of ASAs as a tool for agricultural preservation and local planning. The bill clarifies existing legislation, provides additional opportunities for adjacent landowners to join an existing ASA, streamlines the application for approval process, and provides a more orderly transfer of an ASA agreement to a new purchaser.

The Governor and the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) have balanced the concerns of dairy farmers, distributors, and consumers in crafting an emergency rule that addresses both sides of a product labeling dispute over dairy growth hormone, or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), part of the growing debate over food quality and commercial food production. Executive Order 2008-038, which allows “rbST-free” milk labels while at the same time questioning their relevance, follows a pivotal meeting of the state advisory committee in December that framed the debate around the real vs. unreal dangers of rbST, also known as rbGH or the Monsanto trade name Posilac. Labels on posilac-free products will read “This milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST,” or contain a “substantially equivalent claim.” Labels must also include the following or substantially equivalent claim: “The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and nonsupplemented cows.”